1931-05-20

[Stage Direction]
The Clerk of the house laid upon the table the fifteenth report of the clerk of petitions, stating that he had examined the following petition presented on the 10th instant, and finds that the time for receiving petitions for private bills under standing order 92 having expired, it should not be received:
Of the government of the province of Quebec: praying for the passing of an act to authorize it to construct a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Dorion.
M. C. N. DORION (Quebec-Mont-morency) propose:
Mr. C.-N. Dorion (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation): That the petition of the government of the province of Quebec praying for the passing of an act to authorize it to construct a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the Island of Orleans and the shore of Beauprd as well as the report of the clerk of petitions be referred to the select committee on standing orders and that standing order No. 92 in relation thereto, be suspended.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on railways, canals 'and telegraph lines.- Mr. Harris.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma) moved the first reading of Bill No. 48 (from the Senate), respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: The purpose of this bill is to confirm an arrangement between the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, the Algoma Central Terminals,

Limited, the holders of the first mortgage bonds of both of these companies, and the Lake Superior Corporation which guaranteed payment of the bonds. A previous arrangement between the same parties was confirmed by the Dominion parliament in 1916, and the present scheme requires similar approval in order to make it operative.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the right hon. the Prime Minister, received the departmental report of the investigation regarding Beauharnods which he mentioned at the special session as having been undertaken by him?
2.	If such a report has been received, will he table it?
3.	Have plans for remedial works of the Beauharnois development been filed and approved by the government?
4.	Are the plans under which the Beauharnois development is now being proceeded with the same plans which were approved by order in council, P.C. 422, dated May 8, 1929?
5.	If the present plans are not the same as above approved, have they been approved, and if so, how and when?
6.	If any change has been made in these plans, what are the changes and why were such changes made?
7.	Has the program of construction provided for in condition No. 12 of the order in council No. P.C. 422 of March 8, 1929, been submitted and approved by the minister?
8.	If so submitted and approved, will the government table a copy?
9.	If not submitted and approved, when will the government require its submission?
10.	Have the engineer or engineers referred to in condition No. 14 of the said order in council been appointed by the government, if so, when and what are their names, what are their duties in respect to: (a) the canal; (b) works to be constructed in the St. Lawrence river ?
11.	Why were fixed spans permitted as set out in condition No. 10 of said order in council if. the canal is to be used for navigation purposes ?
12.	(a) Has the province of Quebec executed and the Dominion government accepted the agreement referred to in condition No. 24; (b) if this agreement has been executed and accepted, will the government table a copy?
13.	(a) Have the plan and detailed construction provided for in condition No. 11 of said order in council been submitted and approved of by the minister; (b) if so approved, will the government table a copy?
14.	Will the government procure from the Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited (a Dominion company) and table the list of shareholders of said corporation?

Questions


Mr. BENNETT:: Perhaps in view of the reference that is to be made in regard to this matter, these two questions may be dropped, for the papers such as are available and producible will be available before the select committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the hon. member in whose name the questions are put, perhaps we had better allow them to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I did not notice the hon. member was absent.
Questions stand.


CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Has the government appointed a commissioner to hear appeals from revocations of certificates of naturalization by the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	If so, what is the name of the appointee and his qualifications?
3.	What emoluments will be paid to the new commissioner?
4.	How many cases are pending?
5.	Has he heard any yet, and if so, how many ?
Mr. CAHAiN:
1.	A commissioner to hear appeals from revocations of certificates of naturalization has not been appointed; the revocation of naturalization certificates is made by the governor in council. A commissioner has been appointed to investigate revocations of naturalization certificates which have been referred to him by the Secretary of State and, on his report, the Secretary of State will take action.
2.	James Gamble Wallace, judge of the county court of the county of Oxford, province of Ontario.
3.	The commissioner will be paid his actual living, transportation and secretarial expenses while acting as commissioner.
4.	224.
5.	One hundred and sixty-seven eases have already been heard.


HON. E. N. RHODES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How long did Hon. E. N. Rhodes act as Speaker of the House of Commons?
2.	What was the total sum of money received by him during his term of office: (a) as member of the House of Commons; (b) Speaker: (e) all other contingent expenses, allowances, servants' salaries, cost and maintenance of automobiles, chauffeur's salary, telephone and telegraph charges, printing, etc.?
3.	Did the Hon. Mr. Rhodes rent a house from the Department of Public Works, and if so, what rent did he pay?
4.	What amount was spent by the Department of Public Works for the repairs of said residence?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1. The Hon. E. N. Rhodes acted as Speaker of the House of Commons for 5 years, 1
month and 18 days-noon, January 18, 1917- noon, March 8, 1922.
2.
(a)	Indemnity	$20,500	00(b)	Speaker's salary	
23,938	16(c)	Contingent expenses	
2,147	22
Allowance in lieu of residence. 15,710 48
Servants' salaries	 6,884	00
Cost of maintenance of auto
(taxis)	 1,988	50
Chauffeur's salary	 nil
Telephone and telegraph charges 199 91 Printing, etc	 nil
Total	$71,368 27
3.	(a) Yes; (b) $1,000 per annum and water rates from June 1, 1919, to June 1, 1923, and $2,000 per annum and water rates from. June 1, 1923, to June 1, 1925.
4.	$7,489.49.


SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Who are the members of the committee of the Privy Council on scientific and industrial
research?
2.	Who are the members of the cabinet who are members of the treasury board?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Subcommittee of the Privy Council on scientific and industrial research: the Minister of Trade and Commerce, chairman; the Minister of the Interior and Mines; the Minister of Agriculture; the Minister of Labour; the Minister of Pensions and National Health; the Minister of National Defence; and the Minister of Finance.
2.	Members of the treasury board: The Right Honourable the Minister of Finance and Receiver General; the Honourable Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Justioe; the Honourable H. H. Stevens, Minister of Trade and Commerce ; the Honourable R. J. Manion, Minister of Railways and Canals; the Honourable E. B. Ryckman, Minister of National Revenue; the Honourable Alfred Duranleau, Minister of Marine.
Questions


COST OP TRANSFERS IN PERMANENT FORCES
Mr. ROSS:: How much has been paid for the transfer of officers and other ranks in: (a) permanent military force in Canada; (b) permanent naval force in Canada; (c) permanent air force in Canada, for the fiscal years 1929-1930 and 19301931?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: (a) Permanent military force in Canada, 1929-1930: 846,090.98; 1930-1931: $41,310.47; (b) Permanent naval force in Canada, 19291930: $6,253.73; 1930-1931: $14,049.38; (c) Permanent air force in Canada, 1929-1930: $16,869.83; 1930-1931: $20,870.26.


Mr. GORDON:: 


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Beau-harnois, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town ?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each
case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in
each case?
5.	Wliat was the municipal contribution in each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended anu paid by the federal government to each municipality in each ease?
7.	What amounts were granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?
Answers	of the	Department of	Labour	
	(As at	May 14, 1931)		
Dominion	Provincial	MunicipalMunicipalities	Amount	Contribution	Contribution	ContributionBeauharnois Ville	$12,000	$ 3.000	8 3,000	$ 6,000St. Louis de Gonzague	2,000	500	500	1,000St. Thimothee Village	1,200	300	300	600Salaberry de Valleyfield City.	60,000	15,000	15,000	30,0002.	See reply to No. 1.3.	See reply to No. 1.4.	See reply to No. 1.5.	See reply to No. 1.6.	No payments made by t'he Dominion to the above municipalities in respect of public works.7.	No grants are made for direct relief. On accounts submitted by Valleyfield for direct relief the Dominion has paid $169.97.


MEGUASHA, QUE.,-DALHOUSIE, N.B., INTERPROVINCIAL FERRY
Mr. MAROIL:: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the interprovincial ferry between Meguasha, Quebec. and Dalhousie. New Brunswick, if so, to whom and what is the amount of the subsidy?
2.	Hid Adeline Bernard, the contractor of the service, offer to renew his contract, and at what price?
3.	By whom was Bernard recommended to the department?
4.	If a contract has been awarded to another party, who recommended him, who is he, 'what is the subsidy and for how long is the contract?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, $3,000 per annum.
3.	The Hon. Charles Marcil, M.P., recommended Mr. Bernard for this service in 1930. No recommendation was received in regard to Mr. Bernard's tender for 1931.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


TAXABLE AND TAX-FREE LOANS
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	What	are	the	various	loans	made by
Canada and not subject to income taxation?
2.	What	are	the	various	loans	made by
Canada and which are subject to income taxation?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1. (Tax-free in Canada)-
Loan
5 per cent War loan 1916-31. 5-J per cent Victory loan 1918. 5 iper cent Bond loan 1915-35 5 per cent War loan 1917-37. 5i per cent Victory 'oan 1917.
Date of maturity Oct. 1, 1931 Nov. 1, 1933 Aug. 1, 1935 Mar. 1, 1937 Dec. 1, 1937
Amount $ 52,929,600 446,659.950 874,000 90.166,900 236,299,800

Questions
2.	(Taxable in Canada)-
Loan
54 per cent Renewal loan 1922	
4	per cent Two year treasury notes.. ..
per cent Loan of 1884	
54 per cent Victory loan 1919.. .. ,. .. 44 per cent Loan of 1926-36	
3	per cent Loans of 1888, 1892 and 1894.
34 per cent C.P.R. loan	
44 per cent Refunding loan 1925	
5	per cent Refunding loan 1923	
44 per cent Refunding loan 1924	
44 per cent Refunding loan 1926	
24 per cent Loan of 1897	
34 per cent Loan of 1930-50	
5 per cent Loan of 1942-52	
4	per cent Loan of 1940-60	
4 per cent Loan of 1930-60


LA MALBAIE, QUE., DEMONSTRATION STATION
[Stage Direction]
On the question:
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that the experimental station conducted by the federal Department of Agriculture, located at La Malbaie, district of Riviere Mailloux, under the supervision of Mr. Rene Villeneuve, has been moved to another location?
2.	If so, why was this change made?
3.	Had complaints been made against Mr. Rene Villeneuve regarding the way this station was being conducted, and if so, what was the nature of said complaints, and by whom were they made?
4.	Who replaced Mr. Villeneuve as superintendent of said experimental station?
5.	By whom was he recommended?
6.	What is the salary of the superintendent of the said experimental station?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: With reference to this
question, it would appear to have been answered on Monday last. The answer was that there was no experimental station in that district. My question was put in French and it asked for information regarding a demonstration farm which is different from an experimental farm. I find that in the English version of the orders of the day the wording is "experimental station." This must be an error on the part of the person who makes out the orders of the day. I would ask that in the English version the word "experimental" be struck out and the word "demonstration" be inserted, and I shall expect to receive an answer from the minister at an early date.
Question stands.
Date of	maturity	Amount	Nov.	1,	1932	S 73,323,150	00Dec.	1,	1932	40,000.000	00June	1,	1934	23.467,206	27Nov.	1,	1934	511.910,650	00Feb.	1,	1936	40,000,000	00July	1,	1938	37,271,230	16July	1,	1938	15,056,006	66Sept.	1,	1940	75.000.000	00Oct.	15,	1943	147,000,100	00Oct.	15,	1944	50,000,000	00Feb.	1,	1946	45.000.000	00Oct.	1,	1947	4.888,185	64July	1,	1950	137,058,841	00May	1,	1952	100,000.000	00Oct.	1,	1960	93,926,666	66Oct.	1,	1960	100,000.000	00SI,493,902.036	39


BRANDON EXPERIMENTAL FARM-TEAMSTERS' WAGES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What wages are being paid to teamsters employed on the experimental farm at Brandon?
2.	H as there been any recent reduction in wages ?
3.	If so. how much?
4.	Do these wages conform to the fair wage schedule?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Twenty-five cents per hour, for the hours worked.
2.	Yes.
3.	Five cents per hour.
4.	The above wages conform as nearly as possible to the average rate of pay for farm labourers in the Brandon district.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. DO RIO N:: 1.	Is the government printing bureau considered an open shop?
2.	Is the government aware that only printers who are members of the International Typographical Union may be employed at the government printing bureau?
3.	Is the government aware that only printers who are members of the International Typographical Union are called upon to work overtime?
4.	Is the government aware that Mr. P. M. Draper, director of the Government Printing Bureau, is president of the Ottawa branch of the International Typographical Union?
5.	Is the government aware that the International Typographical Union has caused considerable annoyance to several printing companies throughout Canada, during the past year ?
Questions

6.	Does the present situation at the government printing bureau, as regards the International Union, exist with the consent of the King's Printer?
7.	Does the government intend to allow the present conditions to continue?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	All civil servants and printing trades employees are appointed by the Civil Service Commission and the question of open or closed shop does not, so far as the government is aware, arise.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	The King's Printer reports that no representations have reached him respecting "the present situation at the government printing bureau, as regards the International union."
7.	The government is not aware of any labour conditions at present existing in the printing bureau which require investigation or radical change.


FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INSPECTORS
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What are the names of the fruit inspectors for Canada ?
2.	What is the date of their appointment and the salary received by each of them?
3.	Are they permanent?	-
4.	Are special studies required for this work?
5.	Is it the intention of the department to increase the number of these inspectors?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1, 2 and 3. See attached list.
4.	Qualifications required for the position of fruit and vegetable inspector include education equivalent to high school graduation; at least live years of experience in the growing, picking, packing, and marketing of fruits and vegetables; thorough knowledge of the Root Vegetables Act, and of the Fruit Act.
5.	Not for administrative purposes, but where necessary to provide the service for requested inspections which are made on the 'basis of approximate cost.



[Stage Direction]
Permanent
Name
Alcorn, A. S	
Andrews, R. P...
Bain, T. H	
Brooks, Chris____
Clarke, R. G. L..
Coell, W. J	
Craig, C. M	
Fellows, H. S....
Fletcher, A. McL
Gabel, F. L	
Halpenny, R. E.. Henderson, A. E. Henderson, J. D.
Jackson, C	
LeCain, G. A	
Marshall, H	
McNiven, J	
Paige, E	
Potts, W. S	
Reid, D	
Robinson, R. E..
Sangster, W. J___
Scott, H	
Shaw, C. E	
Smith, C. D	
Snow, C. H	
Steele, F. H	
Scevens, Geo	
Thomson, H. L...
Waddle, R. R_____
Whyte, B. M	
Address	Date First Appointment	Salary per yearBerwick, N.S	Nov. 22, 1911	% 2,220Edmonton, Alta	Mar. 15, 1923	1,920Vancouver, B.C	Sept. 1, 1917	2,220Winnipeg, Man	Sept. 10, 1915	2,220Vancouver, B.C	Sept. 10, 1912	2,520Vancouver, B.C	Aug. 2, 1926	1,920Toronto, Ont	Sept. 22, 1924	2,220Halifax, N.S	Oct. 2, 1922	2,100Nelson, B.C	Sept. 1, 1912	2,220Toronto, Ont	July 18, 1912	2,520Regina, Sask	Aug. 13, 1925	1.860Kelowna, B.C	Aug. 21, 1924	1,920Calgary, Alta	July 4, 1921	2,220Montreal, Que	April 23, 1928	1,920Round Hill, N.S	Sept. 9, 1919	2,100Quebec, P.Q	Aug. 14, 1928	1,680Toronto, Ont	Sept. 12, 1928	1,680Montreal, Que	July 2, 1929	1,620Julv 23, 1917	2,220Montreal, Que	May 26i 1930	1,620Dec. 9, 1919	2,520Falmouth, N.S	Sept. 9, 1919	2,100Leamington, Ont	Oct. 20, 1924	2,220(1 harlotteto wn, N .B	Oct. 20, 1926	2,040Perth, N.B	Nov. 8, 1922	2,160Ottawa, Ont	Sept. 9, 1912	2,220Winnipeg, Man	Aug. 1, 1912	2,520Winnipeg, Man	Sept. 17, 1929	1,620Ottawa, Ont	Nov. 29, 1923	2.100St. Thomas, Ont	July 15, 1912	2,220Vernon, B.C	Aug. 1, 1919	2,220
[Stage Direction]
Returns Tabled
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INSPECTORS- Concluded Seasonal
Name	Address	Date first appointment	Salary per year
		Sept. 13, 1915 June 14, 1927	Per month $ 185
			145
Fox, W. P			Aug. 1, 1917 Aug. 10, 1925 July 17, 1924 Oct. 4, 1926	175
			145
			175
			140
Marshall, S. B			Sept. 16, 1920 Oct. 23, 1924	175
			145
			
Temporary
		Aug. 1, 1928 April 11, 1931 Sept. 27, 1930	135
			135
			135
			
Note.-Men employed on a per diem basis, for incidental services, are not included in above list.

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works paid Air. David Wafer, of Fleurant Point, Quebec, for land taken from him for the building of the wharf at that place, and the access thereto?
2.	If so. what was the amount paid, and to whom was the cheque sent?
3.	On what date was the cheque issued, and has it been returned to the department as having been paid?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $200; (b) Yves Gosselin, agent of the Minister of Justice for delivery to Mr. Wafer upon completion of title.
3.	(a) February 5, 1931;	(b) Yes, paid
cheque is now on file in Department of Finance.


PORT HOOD ISLAND WHARF
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Has there been a request from the fishermen's federation of that district for a public wharf at Port Hood island?
2.	Have the department's engineers made a report on this, and, if so, is their report favourable to the project?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes.


MR. MALCOLM HUSKINS
Mr. RALSTON:: 1. What position did Malcolm Huskins hold on the patrol boat Ellsworth in connection with the customs service in Nova Scotia?
2.	Have the services of this official been dispensed with, and, if so, as of what date?
3.	What notice, or pay in lieu of notice, was given to this official?
4.	What was the reason for his dismissal?
5.	Did anyone from outside the department make representations to the minister or any of his officials for the dismissal of this official, if so, by whom were such recommendations made and what were the grounds of such representations?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Mate.
2.	Yes. 8th May, 1931.
3.	No notice, or pay in lieu of notice.
4.	That he was not a capable and efficient man for the position.
5.	No.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	How much of the $20,000,000 voted during the special session to relieve unemployment has now been expended?
2.	How much remains unexpended?
3.	How much was spent by the various provinces directly?
4.	How much was spent by the organized municipalities in the various provinces taken collectively?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to call the attention of the Prime
Unopposed Motions for Papers

Minister to a request which I made yesterday regarding the production of returns to parliament. I have in my hand a return comprising fifty-two pages, which I must hand back to the clerk of the house. My request yesterday was that arrangements might be made in the departments by which a duplicate could be made of these returns at the time the original is being made, and the duplicate could be given to the member of the house who had moved for the return. It would save lots of trouble, would entail no additional labour, and would be a great convenience to members of the house. The same thing is done with questions now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as my inquiries go, I am satisfied that this has never been done before, and it does involve an amount of extra labour. Whether a new departure is to be made now depends entirely upon the view of those who have to be responsible for the doing of it, I suppose. I shall look further into the matter and advise the hon. gentleman, but why this sudden departure should be made now-


Mr. POWER:: Because it is better business, and we know that this government wants that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These returns come from many different departments, and if an extra copy is to be made it would have to be filed either with the clerk or with the keeper of these records, because equal facilities should be offered to all who desire to see the returns. I have frequently desired to see a return myself which was in the hands of someone else at the moment. If two copies of the return are to be made, then, of course, they should be available to all members of the house who wish to see them, rather than the extra copy being given to the member immediately concerned. If it is desirable to make an extra copy and the rules are altered to that effect, I suppose it can be done, but not for the purpose of giving the mover for the return the extra copy, because all members are interested in the return, and it would have to be made available to all. It well may be that one copy is not sufficient. We will look into the question and see whether we cannot make two, so that there will be two copies available for the use of the house.


Charles Marcil: As I said, the practice of making a duplicate 'has been followed in regard to questions on the order paper. The answers are given in duplicate, and one copy is given to the member who put the question. I think the same practice might be followed with returns.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of these returns are not made for weeks after the house rises. Hast year I recall one very long return comprising several hundred pages. We were working steadily on it, but it was not filed in the proper office until after the house had risen.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Sir EUGENE FISET (for Mr. Bouchard):: For a copy of all telephone and telegraph accounts, by months, in the Trent canal office at the city of Peterborough, during the years 1930 and 1931.



TRENT CANAL-WATER LEVELS

Eugène Fiset: For a copy of all letters and other communications and documents, passing between the Department of Railways and Canals and all lumber companies and lumbermen in the county of Peterborough, during the years 192S to 1931. inclusive, in respect to the water levels in the Trent canal system, and all correspondence between officials of the Department of Railways and Canals and the said companies and officers of the said companies.



ROBERT WHITESIDE CORRESPONDENCE

Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence and other communications addressed to the Prime Minister of. Canada from Robert 'Whiteside, Saskatchewan, or any of the officers of the Union of Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities concerning the alleged surplus remaining at the conclusion of the operations of the board of grain supervisors for the years 1917 and 1918, and subsequently deposited in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the letters have been used during the debate that took place with respect to this matter. I have looked through the correspondence, and so far as I could find, there were only two letters written. Mr. Whiteside wrote a letter to me and I sent a reply based on the information that I had received. I believe that both letters have been read during the progress of the debate that took place.


Mr. VALLANCE:: If the night hon. gentleman will pardon me, the letters that were read were those passing between Mr. Whiteside and Sir George Foster.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The information that I gave is the information that I received from the department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked for certain information in connection with the proposed construction of an interprovincial bridge between New Brunswick and Quebec at or near Crosspoint and Campbellton. I find that on February 27, 1928, the Department of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick forwarded a certified copy of an order in council of that province undertaking to contribute one-third of the cost of this bridge on condition that the province of Quebec make a similar contribution and the Dominion of Canada a like contribution. No communication has been reecived from the province of Quebec to the effect that it approves of the proposed undertaking, and no further action has been taken by the Public Works Department. The estimated cost of the bridge is $1,300,000; that is not for a railway bridge, but purely a traffic bridge.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING APPEARANCE ON ORDER PAPER OP UNNECESSARY IRRELEVANT AND OBJECTIONABLE QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: On a matter of ' privilege, may I direct Your Honour's attention to a question which appears in yesterday's votes and proceedings under Notices of Motions and Questions, as follows:
Mr. Lafleche-On Thursday next-inquiry of ministry-
1.	On what date was Mr. Edward Tobin appointed senator?
2.	Did he possess the required financial qualification at the time of his nomination?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to make an inquiry in this matter?
4.	What division does he represent?
5.	Does he possess the necessary education?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say,
Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Mr. Tobin at the time of his appointment to the Senate had been a member of this House of Commons for something like thirty years, during which time he not only earned but enjoyed the respect of hon. members on all sides of the house. I know that at the time of his appointment to the Senate there were expressions from the other side of the house quite as appreciative towards him as many of those that came from his own side. I submit that a question such as the one I have read should not be permitted to appear in the votes and proceedings or to appear upon any
order paper of this house. In the first place, it constitutes a reflection upon a member of parliament, a most offensive and uncalled-for reflection. In the second place, as Your Honour knows, each house is the custodian of its own rights and privileges and dignities, and if questions are to be asked with respect to any hon. member of the Senate, it is in the Senate chamber and by members of that body that the question should be asked. I feel quite sure that Your Honour's attention could never have been directed to this question, for I am certain that had such been the case you would not have permitted the question to appear.
While on this subject, may I say that looking over many of the questions, it would almost seem that a not inconsiderable number owe their origin to some personal vendetta rather than to a desire to secure information in the public interest. I suppose there is no way to control the questions that may be asked, and certainly I for one would not wish to see the rights of any hon. member of this house restricted or circumscribed in the matter of securing ample information on any question; but, after all, the House of Commons is a body of representative gentlemen, I hope, and there must be something in the nature of amenities between the different sides of the house which it would be well to observe with respect to matters of this kind. If I may make a respectful suggestion, it would be that Your Honour, as the presiding officer of the house, take occasion to have the Clerk of the House confer with Your Honour in regard to questions that seem on the face of them to be of a questionable character, and at least have them withheld until there has been opportunity for some consultation with respect to them. I hope Your Honour will rule immediately that this particular question should not appear upon any order paper of this house, first on the score that it concerns an hon. member of the Senate and secondly because it is of a most offensive character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with
the remarks of the leader of the opposition. What he has said applies perhaps with equal force to both sides of the house. The present instance is not a case of the pot doing more than calling the kettle black. The other day my attention was directed to a question, but the question was on the order paper and any possible injury resulting from its appearance thereon had already ensued. If I so desired there are two questions at least to



Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
which I might refer which would be better left off the order paper. The point is, however:	Who is to determine how a question
is to be kept off the order paper? The hon. member files his question and in the ordinary course of routine the clerk places it on the order paper. As I understand the procedure, the Speaker does not or need not see it until the following day, when he has the opportunity of seeing it in the votes and proceedings Which it is his duty to sign.
The particular question in the votes and proceedings to which my right hon. friend opposite has just referred is one that need not be discussed at all, for the simple reason that this house has no jurisdiction in the matter. Had the question appeared on the order paper I would have answered it at once by directing the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact that this was a matter affecting the Senate and with which the Senate alone could deal. However unless the Speaker had given permission I could not strike the question off the order paper once it had been placed thereon. I wholly agree with the right hon. gentleman that a question which affects another branch of parliament and which clearly is not a proper question to be asked in this house should not appear on the order paper. I think that point is fairly clear. As to the other aspect of the question, namely whether or not good taste and other considerations which should weigh dictated the asking of it, I am afraid that the clerk has no option, that he could not say that the question should not appear on the order paper.


Charles Gavan Power: The Prime Minister has,
though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister does not see the questions until after they are placed on the order paper.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He has enough to do.


Charles Gavan Power: He has a duty as leader
of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister has
no duty with respect to the order paper until it is before the house; then he has. I think my hon. friend is not quite fair when he says there is a responsibility upon the Prime Minister before the questions appear on the order paper and the order paper is before him.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to matters
which do appear on the order paper he then has a responsibility, and a very great one.


Charles Gavan Power: I withdraw that remark,
Mr. Speaker; I quite agree that the Prime Minister has nothing to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
would be the first to say, as I would have said when leader of the opposition, that after all, the order paper is the sheet anchor of the opposition. The Prime Minister has no more to do with making up the order paper than any other hon. member of the house. If he had it would be a very sad day for representative institutions. I put it that way because I felt my remark would be appreciated by my hon. friends opposite. I felt perfectly certain they would realize there are so many questions that offend against the judgment of the Prime Minister that the order paper would be bereft of many indications of the contentions that hon. members sometimes make. At any rate the obligation of the Prime Minister begins the minute the order paper is before the house at the opening of the sitting. He must see to it on behalf of the house, and not on behalf of any one party, that it does not offend against the traditions of the house, the amenities of debate or the decencies of life. I think my hon. friends will not say that in any instance have they seen any indication on my part that the order paper of this house should not be of the character I have indicated. I have not had long experience-only a few months, but at least I have a great regard for the traditions of parliament; sometimes my friends say I have entirely too much regard for them. At any rate I assure the house that as long as I am in power I shall endeavour not to be an unworthy successor of those who have preceded me concerning the regard the house should have through the Prime Minister for maintaining the traditions of the house as reflected in the order paper. I cannot, however, undertake any responsibility antecedent to questions appearing on the order paper; when they do appear I shall endeavour to discharge my duties to the best of my ability.
I wholly agree that the question to which attention has been directed should be stricken from the records of the house. I do not know how it is to be done, once it has been placed thereon, unless the Clerk of the House arbitrarily but properly takes the view that the question concerns another chamber over which this house has no jurisdiction and with respect to Which its rights to criticize can arise only by proper parliamentary action and in the manner prescribed by constitutional procedure.

Imperial Conference


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to
thank the Prime Minister for his remarks. It is a great satisfaction as well as a pleasure to know that we are in entire agreement on a m'atter of this kind. I agree that the responsibilities of the Prime Minister should not be added to, but might I mention to him with respect to this matter of questions that there is a procedure which I think the clerk legitimately might adopt, and a procedure which would be appreciated by all hon. members of the house. When a question comes before the clerk which obviously from its nature is certain to occasion comment because of its offensive personal character he might bring it to the attention of one or other of the leaders or of the Speaker so that His Honour might confer with the hon. member asking the question before it is placed in printed form on the records of the house. On one occasion quite recently the clerk directed my attention to a question asked by an hon. member on this side of the house with respect to an hon. member on the opposite side and asked me if I thought the question as asked .would serve any useful purpose or if it was a desirable or proper question. I asked him to allow the question to stand a minute or two and I would communicate with the hon. member in whose name the question was to appear. As soon as I spoke to him the matter ended. The question had been placed under his name, having been handed in as many of the questions are. To my mind a practice of that nature would avert many unnecessary offensive and irrelevant questions.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question referred to does not appear in the votes and proceedings of the house as of yesterday as signed by the Speaker. It appears in a list of notices of motions and questions upon which action will be taken at a future date. As hon. members know, the course has been as a matter of routine, to hand the questions to the clerk of the house, and I have known of instances such as that described by the right hon. the leader of the opposition when the nature of a question has caught the attention of the clerk; suggestion having been made to the hon. member offering the question that it was not a proper one, it has thereby been prevented from appearing on the orders of the day. I shall see to it, whatever the procedure may be, that the question referred to, and which I quite agree with the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition should never have appeared on the record, shall not appear on the orders of the day.
22110-114J



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question which was yesterday asked in the British House of Commons and in reply to which the Secretary of State for Dominion affairs said the arrangements were in the hands of the Canadian government. Have all the dominions signified that they would attend the coming economic conference in Ottawa, and if so will they be represented by ministers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I reply subject to my
memory being defective because I had no notice of the question. The position, as 1 recollect at the moment, is that all the countries affected have tentatively agreed to the meeting being held in August this year, but since then events in Australia and New Zealand, as indicated by despatches received from the Prime Ministers of those overseas dominions, indicate the possibility of a general election in each country, and it may be that that will cause some little difficulty. The matter is now under negotiation in view of the information received during the last ten days from Australia and New Zealand.
As to the representation, that matter has not been determined so far as this government is advised by the governments affected, except that the two dominions in the southern seas indicated that each had hoped to have a very strong delegation, and were greatly disturbed by the present political situation. I think that is as fair an answer as I can give at the moment, but as soon as anything definite is settled having regard to the disturbed political situation to which I have referred, I will advise the house.



SUPPLY-GRAIN RATES AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett for committee of supply and thfe proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Reid.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was speaking of the grievances of the farmers of British Columbia by reason of the fact that we in that province have to pay twice as much for the hauling of grain to Vancouver
Grain Hates-Mr. Reid

as have people living in countries like Spain and Japan. I had come to that part of my address where I *fras pointing out that it certainly was unfair and unjust that we should be called upon to pay such high rates, and that this discrimination was acting as a barrier to the progress and welfare of the farmers of British Columbia. To-day our producers of eggs in that province are getting less than 10 cents a dozen, which is the lowest price that has been received in 40 years. The situation is becoming so serious that it is practically impossible for the poultry men and others in British Columbia to carry on. We have to bring in our grain from the prairies, and the high domestic rates are tending in large measure to force our farmers [DOT]off their holdings. My grievance is that not only are these excessively high freight rates bringing about this very serious condition of affairs, but that no action has been taken on the petitions that have been filed on behalf of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan against a decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners in the matter. This application has been before the board since September of last year, that is, eight months have passed without that appeal having been heard, and the delay is causing British Columbia heavy financial loss.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Was not the appeal heard?
Mr. PJ5ID:	Not since September of last
year; that is my information. Two very important things are required to help stabilize the poultry and dairying industries of British Columbia; greater markets abroad and cheaper grain at home. Cheaper grain would result from reducing our domestic freight rates to substantially the same level as the export freight rates.
If the export freight rates on grain from the prairies to countries like China and Japan, which grain is carried through British Columbia, are fair and equitable, then the rates on domestic grain to British Columbia are certainly excessive. On the other hand, if the rates for export are too low, and the railways are losing money on the traffic, why should British Columbia be called upon to carry the whole burden? Why should the burden be placed on grain and food destined for domestic purposes in that province? The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) not very long ago said, that due to present traffic and other conditions it was a bad time to discuss the lowering of freight rates. Well, I say to the hon. minister that if the freight rates are not

adjusted so far as British Columbia is concerned, the volume of business is certainly going to be less than it is at present; and I believe it is good policy to encourage the volume of business to British Columbia by lowering these rates.
I am now going to move the following amendment, seconded by Mr. Donnelly:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Whereas on September 30, 1930, petitions in appeal from a decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners were filed by the representatives of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, praying for a hearing and decision on the claims therein set forth for a reduction of the domestic freight rates in effect within these provinces, and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the hon. gentleman
give the date of the decision of the board?


Thomas Reid: No, I was giving the date of
the appeal of the provinces to the privy council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of the
decision?


Thomas Reid: August 27, 1926-I am giving
the date from memory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was the appeal
heard by the privy council?


Thomas Reid: In 1929. Then a further appeal was made on September 30, 1930. It is the further appeal I am speaking of now.
Whereas the delay in rendering such decision has brought about a condition of confusion and instability which has seriously affected the poultry and dairying industries of British Columbia as well as certain important interests in the other provinces. [DOT]
This house is of the opinion that an early date should forthwith be fixed for a hearing of the said petition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, last evening I greatly
sympathized with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid); this afternoon my sympathy is not quite so great. Last evening he was speaking for himself and the people of British Columbia; to-day he is endeavouring to speak for a party. Yesterday his amendment was an amendment which he had himself prepared; to-day it is the amendment of the Liberal party-the opposition. If he was greatly interested in this matter, if he was as sincere as he would have us believe, he would not seek to destroy this government for the purpose of asserting his position. If his motion carries, this government resigns; that is his interest in this question. I wonder if he knows just what the facts are, I wonder if he realizes that the

Grain Rates-Mr. Bennett
judgment he is discussing is the judgment which was delivered by the Board of Railway Commissioners in 1926? In accordance with the promise made in this house by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the Board of Railway Commissioners, being seized of the facts under the reference, heard evidence and gave judgment. That judgment was delivered in 1926; that is the reason I asked the hon. member for New Westminster as to the date of the judgment. The judgment having been delivered, an appeal was taken to the former government, which he now supports and whose mouthpiece he is in connection with this amendment, in his desire to assist British Columbia poultry growers, which appeal was heard in 1929. This hon. gentleman now asserts that there has been a delay, when the former government which he supported and which is now in opposition heard the appeal in 1929, before the general election. Although they had weeks in which to give judgment, no judgment was given; the Privy Council, as then constituted, vanished after the election of July 28, 1930.
That is the position, Mr. Speaker. Now the hon. gentleman seeks to destroy this administration with an amendment on going into supply, as a vote of want of confidence, because he says that since September, 1960, this government has not had an opportunity to hear this appeal. Because in a time of great economic distress and of great difficulties for governments; because with the Prime Minister and several members of the administration away during the months of October, November and December, this government has not been able to hear that appeal-which could not be heard while parliament was in session-this hon. gentleman asks that this government be destroyed. Is that fairness? Is that his sense of justice? Is that his sense of what you might call elementary fair play? Doubtless there were good reasons which members of the late administration will advance as to why they were not able to hear that appeal from the time the judgment was delivered in 1926 until 1929. I think I can give reasonably sound reasons why this government has not been able to hear that appeal. I may say for the information of the hon. gentleman that twice we had, amongst ourselves, tentatively concluded that we might be able to hear the appeal on a given date, but the pressure of other matters made that impossible. With the burden of government which is being carried at this moment; with falling railway revenues; with conditions as they are, we are now told that because between September,
1930, and to-day, with the session of parliament beginning on March 12, and with the Imperial conference and all the problems with which this government has to deal before us, this appeal was not heard, the house is of the opinion that an early date should be forthwith fixed for the hearing of the petition. That would have been quite all right, but if the amendment passes this government goes out.


Ernest Lapointe: That would be a calamity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many Canadians who would think so, and I may say there are many Canadians who formerly supported the government of the right hon. gentleman who would think so also. Their numbers are increasing every day, for when they hear members of a former administration going to and fro saying they are so grateful that they have not these responsibilities, and how glad they are that they have not to carry this load, the people of the country know perfectly well their inability to carry it. If the people had not known that hon. gentlemen opposite might have been in power still.
That is the position with respect to the matter. I said last evening I had some sympathy with the hon. gentleman. Thirty years ago the problem which he has discussed in this house was a problem to which I gave some little attention. I always found it difficult to understand, as a new settler in western Canada, why it cost more money to bring freight to Calgary than to Vancouver, from eastern Canada. I always found it difficult to understand just on what basis the rate structure of the country was fixed, but I took the trouble to investigate the matter. The classic case in this connection is the Spokane case, which ultimately went to the supreme court of the United States. It is a very interesting study in the whole question of freight rate structures and of terminal rates, as distinguished from intervening local rates on freight. The position is this, that by universal practice in railway rate structures you have first a cheaper through rate to terminals than you 'have to intervening points on a mileage basis, and although railway legislation of most countries provides that there should be no discrimination, nevertheless the application of the general rate per mile on the distance covered by the cars laden with the freight is held not to be applicable where you have water competition at a terminal point.


Mr. NEILL:: And water competition only.
Mr. ^BENNETT: Permit me to amplify it in my own way. I am sure I am indebted
Grain Rates-Mr. Bennett

to my hon. friend, but I will have to proceed in my own way. Water competition is the factor that determines that terminal rate. So far have the courts gone in upholding that principle that it was held that freight rates to St. Louis were to some extent regulated in the United States by water carriage to points on the Pacific slope. Vancouver is a harbour, and is situated on the ocean. Therefore the water rate factor enters into the question of the Vancouver terminal rate, altogether apart from the factor of what you might call terminal rates. That is the determining factor in reality; the water rate and all that is involved in it really determines the terminal rate in this case.
That is the first point. The next point is this: There has grown up in the commercial world the application of the principle of export trade being carried on a free trade basis. I suppose hon. members who have followed the tariff with care will realize that from time to time items are introduced that permit of drawbacks with respect to commodities produced in the country for export. That is what is called the application of the free trade rule in export trade, so that all countries are on a parity with respect to export trade. Germany carried that principle to a very great length during the years immediately preceding the war. In England the same principle prevails with respect to tariff items affecting goods that were destined for export. In the United States of course it has been applied during all these years, as it is unnecessary for me to say to this house, and we have applied it in this country as well. So you have these two factors which determine the question of the rate charged by railways for the transportation of freights of various classifications between points in Canada to Vancouver. There are other factors which are of minor consideration, which I will not mention at the moment, because I would be only endeavouring to discuss in this house a matter which I think should be discussed before the tribunal created for that purpose.
Those principles were recognized in the judgments of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and may I point out to my hon. friend that in his zealous and enthusiastic support of his proposition perhaps he has overlooked the fact that this parliament is hardly the tribunal to deal with this matter. Yesterday he was asking parliament, or the government, having a majority in parliament, forthwith to direct the railways to carry freight at a price named, that is, without giving the rate but at what might be called the export rate or the through bill of lading rate for export. To-day he does not do that; he

only asks that there shall be further consideration by the privy council. Now let us analyse what is the position. This parliament has created a court of record known as the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. This is not a voluntary tribunal nor an association; it is a court of record, provided by statute in the exercise of our powers over matters of that kind. That is a court which has been established in the same way as the Supreme Court of Canada is established, or the exchequer court. It is presided over by a chief commissioner, with associate judges or commissioners, just as the Supreme Court of Canada has a chief justice and associate judges. That court has complete control and authority over all questions relating to the operation of railways, including the charges to be made for the handling of traffic. The word "traffic" of course is defined as meaning both the carriage of passengers and of inanimate freight. That tribunal having been created, we have endeavoured to the best of our ability to ensure it from interference by parliament. Why? Because parliament is composed of partisans. Whether we like it or not, we are all partisans and it is extremely difficult for any of us-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not very much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it is so pleasing
to hear that there are non-partisans on the other side. They will not long remain so. May I point out, however, that it is because we are partisans that the very earnest endeavour has been made to ensure that we shall not sit as judges. The very problems to which my hon. friend has directed attention are problems for judicial determination; and the judicial determination of these problems depends first of all upon the evidence submitted, and, secondly, upon a due and proper appreciation of the relation of that evidence to the relief sought. You seek relief; the evidence is adduced, and the relation of that evidence to the relief sought must determine the judgment given by the board. The board, or the court-because it is a court-gives judgment. That judgment does not support the views which have been put forward by those who are interested- my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) for example. There is a right of appeal to the governor in council-that is to say, a right of appeal to the partisans. There are those who think that this right of appeal should not exist. The reason it exists is probably that it is a remnant of the old power which, before the court was created, rested entirely in the governor in council. The administration of railway matters, freight

Grain Rates-Mr. Bennett
tariffs and everything connected therewith, was all in the hands of the governor in council, the partisan tribunal. Now, the privy council is a court in this instance, and to that court an appeal was made. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice sat, if my memory serves me, in that court when it heard the appeal. The appeal was heard by the late government. It was heard in its entirety, and that council reserved judgment.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say to my right
hon. friend that I heard only part of the appeal. The first argument proceeded while I was away at the Dominions conference on legislation in London. I heard only a small part of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ex-Minister of
Justice reminds me that he did not sit through the whole argument, which lasted a considerable time-there were adjournments. One of the members of this house, before he became a member, was present at that argument, and counsel engaged were eminent members of our profession. What happened? Judgment was reserved. But in the meantime an election was held and the court vanished. That means a new hearing, because while the personnel of the court is gone, the appeal still exists. It means, I say, a complete new hearing, for it cannot be taken up where it was left off.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The testimony is there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking about
the appeal, and I say that it means a reopening of the matter in its entirety before council.
I just put it again to this house, and I put it to my hon. friend: Does he not think that the amendment he has proposed has served its purpose and should be withdrawn? Does he think it is fair to any body of men- suppose he were one of them-
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver). Will the Prime Minister give us the assurance that, so far as he is concerned, he will expedite the proposed hearing as much as possible after the close of the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that; I think it is a highly proper question and, indeed, it was not necessary to ask it. On two occasions the government was of the opinion that it should fix a future date on which the matter could be heard; but considerations of moment came up that made it impossible to fix a date. It is the intention of the government, however, to hear that appeal just as early as it is possible to do so, consistently
with the duties of the administration while parliament is in session. We cannot hear it while parliament is in session. It is true we heard an appeal the other day. Why? Because the Board of Railway Commissioners was appealed to on a question which affected the interests of a city with respect to level crossings in certain areas. That matter had been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, who had decided that there was no question of law to be considered, whereupon appeal was made to the privy council. They asked that the matter might be remitted back to the board with a view' to having that body hear the evidence on a point with respect to which they said they had not been afforded the opportunity which they would have liked. The privy council limited their right to that one particular. It was admitted by counsel that there was no question of law involved, but it was felt there v'as a question respecting the equitable administration of the act. An opportunity was therefore given to have the matter considered.
I may say to the house that this government will not-unless it is a case in which a palpable error has been made that requires only an ' insignificant exercise of power-undertake to deal with these highly technical matters. I do not regard the Privy Council, either as at present constituted or as it has been in the past, as fitted by training to determine these questions. There is a body of men appointed for that purpose, trained men who have their experts to assist them. And if it is clear or reasonable from the appeal-one cannot anticipate the judgment -that the matter should be reconsidered, that, of course, will be done. It requires no direction or order of the house to bring that about. But I should be unfair to the government and to the country if I were to go further than to say that the matter is one of very considerable importance to the Dominion. And it is of more than considerable importance to those directly affected. My hon. friend must always bear in mind, however, as I learned so long ago myself, that it is easy to put one side of a case without sometimes thinking of the other side. I am sure he will learn, as most of us have done, that before the tribunal equal opportunity is afforded all, and the testimony is sifted with a view to determining the action to be taken in the light of the facts which are elicited from witnesses under oath, as occasion may necessitate. Thereupon judgment is given, based upon a due and proper appreciation of the facts and their implica-
Grain Rates-Mr. Bennett

tions. And this will be done with respect to the matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred.
I assure this chamber-it is a commonplace-that no government desires that there should be occasioned, in the transportation of commodities, delays greater than the Canadian people should bear. On the other hand, no government desires that this service rendered by the transportation companies should be provided at a loss. Now, between these two principles there must be a medium, and that medium determines the freight rate, that is to say, a fair compensation for the service rendered. It is difficult sometimes to arrive at that rate. I wonder whether hon. members realize just what the effects of modem conditions have been upon the revenues of transportation companies, of buses, and of mechanical transportation of all kinds. When later on the house has to consider the relation of these facts to our own properties, it will have perhaps a clearer appreciation of all that is involved in the work of preparing, understanding, appreciating, sifting and analyzing testimony to determine properly the problem to which the attention of the house has been directed.


Mr. EULER:: Merely with a view to expediting the matter, would it be possible for the present privy council to accept in a measure the evidence and arguments which were presented to the former privy council? I realize that further evidence might be desirable because of changing conditions, but would it not be possible for the present privy council to take advantage of the work that has already been done?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not any doubt that any privy council that hears this must take advantage of the work that has been done, but whether or not, in the light of present-day conditions, the matter could be then decided without further reference to testimony, and arguments or representations of council, I cannot antecedently determine.


William Daum Euler: I realize there are changed conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It is now five years since the judgment of the board.


William Daum Euler: I am referring to the hearing before the privy council in 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Clearly the answer to that is in the negative. The personnel having disappeared, the body continuing, the new personnel must hear the arguments unless they are submitted in writing.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: A
different court and probably different advocates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will recall the decision of the English courts that the death of a judge necessitates a trial de novo. There may be an agreement between the parties affected as to a method to pursue whereby part of the representations previously made might be considered.


William Daum Euler: It is all a matter of record.


Mr.   LESLEY@: I just want to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to an opinion which was given by the former deputy minister of justice, Mr. Newcombe, to the effect that in these appeals the privy council exercises administrative rather than judicial functions. I happened to come across it at page 124 of Beauchesne, and I thought it was pertinent to the question of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am much obliged to the hon. member for Hants-Kings. I am well aware that the distinction between administrative and judicial with respect to appeals to the privy council from the Board of Railway Commissioners or other bodies, is not very clearly defined. There is a distinction, perhaps philosophic, but nevertheless the privy council are quasi-judicial if they are wholly administrative, and if they are administrative they are partly judicial. They could merely as a matter of administration decide to refer a matter back for rehearing; but if they undertake to adjudicate upon the merits of the application, their position would be judicial. That is the distinction between the judicial and the administrative function. If merely as a matter of administration they say: We will send this back for-further hearing and evidence, that is clearly an administrative power. If on the other hand, they say: Call your witnesses; we will hear this case de novo, or hear further testimony in addition to the written record, as the council might if they so desired, then clearly, before they arrived at a judgment, their function would be judicial.


Mr. VENIOT:: Would that be about the
practice in an appeal of that kind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is competent under
modern practice to receive additional evidence in the Court of Appeals. Even in the House of Lords itself testimony is sometimes given before the final hearing. One of the most noteworthy cases in that regard is

Grain Rates-Mr. Mackenzie
one that originated with respect to a Nova Scotia ship. That however, is not a matter of importance.
I have endeavoured to put the case before the house as fairly as possible. I am not in any sense passing upon the merits of the controversy; that is not my business at the moment. All I know about it would be merely what I read in the newspapers, without having any opportunity to familiarize myself with it, and if I were familiar with it, I am speaking only in the absence of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) who is in Quebec to-day. If I did familiarize myself with it, I would then be endeavouring to pass judgment while one party to the proceedings had not been heard. By the terms of his motion my hon. friend is asking one party, the government, to vote that it is advisable that an early date should forthwith be fixed for a hearing, and knowing that we have a majority and have no intention of giving up office at present, he must realize we shall have to vote that it is not desirable so to do. Therefore this means that he does not want the appeal to be early heard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very
much the central portion of the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He commenced his lecture on an unfortunate note in seeking to impute motives to my good friend the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who has brought this important question to the attention of parliament. On the contrary I submit that the hon. member for New Westminster has performed a public service to his own constituency, to his own province of British Columbia and to the Dominion of Canada by bringing this important question at this time to the attention of parliament. The Prime Minister in the course of his remarks said that parliament is not the tribunal to which this matter should be directed. I suggest to him that the Privy Council of Canada is the court of last resort so far as the people of Canada are concerned in all matters affecting freight rates, and the only opportunity we have to get the privy council to take action in these matters is to bring them to the notice of the privy council who sit opposite to us as ministers of the crown.
He said also that the late administration was somewhat dilatory in that it heard the appeal in 1929 and hand not rendered judgment up to the time it went to the country in July, 1930. I would suggest to him in that regard that we who are bringing this
matter to the attention of the house are not in the slightest degree concerned with the alleged dilatoriness or slackness of the former administration. We are here; our duty, our purpose is to see that the present administration takes action immediately or as soon as possible in regard to a final hearing and determination in respect to this matter and all other matters arising out of the circumstances to which reference has been made. Since the hearing in 1929 before the then privy council, the late administration, economic conditions in the Fraser valley have undergone a tremendously marked change, and I want to remind the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who knows the situation as well as I do, that to-day the removal of this differential between the export rate and the domestic rate is a matter of life and death to the poultry raisers in the Fraser valley, British Columbia. The situation is this, that you can export to-day to Kobe, Japan, or portions of China, our cheap grain, so that hens may be raised there and their eggs imported to undersell our eggs in the United Kingdom. The grain produced by the prairie provinces is permitted, by the present iniquitous structure of freight rates, to be sent to oriental countries, giving them an entry into a .$50,000,000 market so far as the egg importation business into the United Kingdom is concerned. This is done under the aegis and commendation of an administration that was ushered into office last July after preaching about the benefits of the home market.
The Prime Minister seemed to be very much perturbed because my hon. friend, in carrying out his duty, moved an amendment which the Prime Minister appeared to think imperilled the life of this precious administration. He knows full well, sitting in the seats of the mighty across the floor, that no amendment moved from this side of the house can at the present time endanger the life of that administration which he leads so splendidly. But we desire to bring this matter to the attention of the house in the only manner at our disposal, and so far as I am concerned, having received the promise of the Prime Minister that this matter, which is a question of life and death to the poultry raisers of British Columbia, will be brought to the attention of the government for hearing and decision as early as possible after the session, I am satisfied to have my colleague withdraw the amendment that has so terribly perturbed my right hon. friend at this time.
The difference between the 20-cent rate and the 41i-cent rate cannot be defended.
Grain Rales-Mr. Neill

We on this side of the house appreciate equally with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister the difficulties confronting our two great railway transportation systems at the present time. We know they are faced with falling revenues and a time of depression, a depression that is accentuated by the hopeless policies of the administration opposite. But while we appreciate the difficulties confronting our two great railway transportation systems, we are also acutely aware of the difficulties of the men who are struggling to live from one year's end to the other in the Fraser valley and other portions of British Columbia, and in other parts of the Dominion as well. There must be a middle course. Justice to the railway's, yes; but justice to our people in British Columbia also.
In conclusion, while I appreciate the constructive portion of the address of the right hon. Prime Minister I deprecate very much his opening and closing remarks. I thank him for the promise of an early hearing of the freight rate situation, and I am sure that with this promise my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) will feel that he has achieved his purpose and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: While possessing neither the rugged persistence of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) nor the facile eloquence of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) I should like to say a few words on this motion, and I propose to adhere rigidly to the amendment because I wish to say something on the main motion after this is disposed of. Although he seldom agrees with me, I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to some extent in his criticism of the amendment. My conception of an appropriate amendment would have been one somewhat similar to that he referred to, which would have been of a general character and would not have hesitated to allocate the blame for the delay equally between the past government and the present one.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister makes a great point of this being a motion of want of confidence. He is well aware that no matter in how mild terms the amendment had been framed, it would have been to all intents and purposes, under our rules, a motion of want of confidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; that is what
I said.


Alan Webster Neill: Then it mattered very little
whether the hon. member made it a straight party question calling for a straight party

vote, or one dealing with the issue at large. The Prime Minister is also aware that owing to his assured majority it is only a mere matter of detail whether or not this is a motion of want of confidence. He is also aware that there is practically no other way of bringing a matter of this kind before parliament. There is probably many a man here who regrets that equally with myself, not only with respect to this question but other questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is ample opportunity for discussion in committee of supply- on the estimates of the railway board, for instance.


Alan Webster Neill: It makes very little difference whether we discuss it on going into committee on the railway estimates or on the agriculture estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that there is ample opportunity when the house is in committee.


Alan Webster Neill: That is so, of course, according to the precise rule, but we all know that if we want to get any serious attention to a matter we have to bring it up on a motion for going into supply, not on some particular item of the estimates when the discussion is strictly confined by the chairman, and properly so, to the item before the committee. A discussion in committee of supply has not the same effect and does not give you the same scope. To some extent I regret that this is a motion of want of confidence, but on the other hand I can recall that my hon. friends opposite made no complaint when I voted against the late government on a similar amendment a couple of years ago, and for the same reason, that I saw no other way of emphasizing the importance of the matter than by pushing it to a conclusion on a vote of want of confidence.
The question before us is an old one

I have under my hand a record of six occasions on which I have brought it up in the house- beginning with 1923 and the last occasion being ten days ago. I do not propose to inflict upon the house a rehash of my remarks on those occasions, but I should like to quote a greater authority perhaps than myself, Bulletin No. 80 published by McGill university, dealing with the hog export trade says:
There is one modification in connection with the present discussion which we unhesitatingly endorse. And it is this: That freight rates on grain and feed for domestic consumption should be as favourable as those on grain and feed for export.
A more favourable rate on export than on domestic grain amounts to a bonus on exports to that extent.

Grain Rates-Mr. Neill
I might also mention the question of mill feeds, bran and shorts, which I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take into his consideration. Our laws compel bran and shorts to be sold pure in Canada, but not outside Canada. The consequence is that adulterated shorts, with the low export rate, can be landed in Denmark at much lower rates than the pure shorts can be delivered in British Columbia, with the result that Denmark can compete with us in the bacon trade. The law should be altered so that adulterated shorts should not be allowed to be sold in either the domestic or export trade.
On a previous occasion, in 1928, I think, I dealt with this matter, and I referred to what I called the desperate condition of the poultry industry in British Columbia; I did not think it could possibly be any worse than it was then. I cited the case of one man with five thousand birds, who said:
Last month I shipped over 10.000 eggs, and I only received over the cost of the month's feed bill $14.20, for a month's work every day, including Sundays, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
On the same occasion I made allusion to the fact that the products of the hen alone- not the poultry-brought in a gross revenue per year of something like 880,000.000. Hon. gentlemen will hardly credit that. Conditions have grown, I am sorry to say, much worse. I wish to quote a couple of short extracts from letters that I have received recently. One is from a gentleman who adheres strongly to the party in office, so this cannot be called an ex parte statement. He is a practical farmer, with 500 birds laying well, with 70 per cent extras, that is, high-class eggs. Here is his record for the. last four months from January to April. His feed bill, bought at best prices through a cooperative, for January was 880.10, and what did he got from the egg pool that month? He got $0.20 over his feed bill. In February he got 25 cents over his feed bill. In March he went behind $14.60. In April things looked up and he made a gross profit of $3.75. His total feed bill for the four months was $346.50, and he took in $342.10, so he only lost $4.40 on his four months' operations, and of course, all his work, seven days a week, as well as rent, depreciation, insurance, upkeep of buildings and all the other expenses. Then that man is expected to go to church on Sunday and sing a hymn, one line of which goes like this:	"Peace on earth, good will towards
men."


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would have happened had we not increased the duty on eggs nine cents a dozen last fall? He would have lost his farm.


Mr. HANBURY:: He has lost it now, or it is on the way.


Alan Webster Neill: He is living on his capital.


Mr. STENCE:: He is not the only one.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like you to take notice, Mr. Speaker, that the expression that this man is living on his capital has caused some amusement among hon. members on the opposite side of the house. If I may be permitted I shall quote a letter from another man. It is as follows:
Lower freight rates are the only hope I can see for the industry in this province and this includes the dairymen and swine breeders as well. If you need any figures on the poultry production costs, or the cost of producing eggs I would be glad to supply you. I enclose some quotations on feed showing how the present freight rates are as great as the cost of feed, f.o.b. Edmonton.
Enclosed are some price lists from a wholesale house in Edmonton. It shows that the ordinary stuff needed for chickens, Nos. 4 and 5 wheat, runs from $12.50 down to $9 for stuff which would be suitable for pig feed. The freight rate for that material is $10.80 per ton. In some cases the freight rate is actually more than the price of the feed. In addition to that $4 has to be allowed for sacking and grinding. That makes a total of $14.80, or about $3 a ton more than the original cost of the grain. No wonder the hon. members from the prairies are also kicking about the prices to them.
There is another aspect to which I wish to direct the attention of hon. members which I do not think has been mentioned before in this debate. On a previous occasion when I spoke in the house I set out the difference between the export and domestic freight rates; I figured the difference to be $3.80 a ton. Previous to that it had been $3.20 and now it is $4.10. For the sake of argument let us assume that it is right that the export rate should be higher than the domestic rate. In my opinion that is not right. Let us suppose that that would be a proper condition, and let us consider that since the year 1922 there have been two reductions in the export rate and no reduction in the domestic rate so that at the present time the spread is nearly double what it was previously. If the first spread could be justified certainly the last two could not be. At this time I wish to quote from the Province, a well known paper in the west.
Meanwhile, feeders, instead of using surplus wheat and barley from the Canadian prairies in their barns, are using Argentina or
1S0U
Grain Rates-Mr. Neill

American corn or imported prepared feeds of one sort or another. If the government of Canada desires to aid the prairie farmer in his distress-and there appears to be no doubt it does-*


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says that?


Alan Webster Neill: The Province. The quotation
continues:
-it can aid him by making it possible for him to find a home market for that part of Ills crop which he cannot send abroad.
Of course it will help equally the consumer in British Columbia and in the eastern provinces as well. I fully agree with the remarks of the Prime Minister concerning the difficulty of a political partisan body-because that is what the Privy Council of Canada is -dealing with a matter of this kind. However that is at present the only means of redress we have. I suggest that the matter '*should be referred not to the privy council but to the supreme court, which is not a partisan body and which has more time, opportunity, facilities and experience in weighing evidence properly in a matter of that kind than has the privy council. The supreme court could not be accused of being partisan in its views. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am wrong in saying so, but I think if these men would take the law into their own hands and break it, the matter would be brought more rapidly to a head than by any other means. If five hundred of the poultry men in the vicinity of my friend from New Westminster, under the guidance of their local cooperative association, were to buy a carload of feed from the prairies, and when it arrived if they were to pay the agent at the little station the export rate and then open the car and each *take a sack away from the car and decline to pay any more for it,-well they could not all be put in gaol.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that they are not permitted to break the seal or to open a car until they have paid the freight rates. '


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that they take the law into their own hands and break the seal after they have paid what they think would be a proper rate. Such action would bring the matter to a head and to the attention of the various courts of Canada. Five hundred men could not readily be put in gaol, and as I say their action would bring the matter to an immediate head. Such action would bring the matter before the public and receive its sympathy and attention. If such action were not considered practicable I would advise the cooperative association to sue the railway

company for the return of moneys. Such action could ultimately reach the Supreme Court of Canada. I think if any groups of fair size of any political party were determined to block the estimates to be considered in the house they would receive some satisfaction. However, at this time four or five men could not so block the estimates, because a few years ago, through the adoption of the forty-minute rule, we abandoned our right of free speech and sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. May I add that we did not get the pottage. At that time four or five determined men could have got some action. A man who would take such an attitude might be termed a bolshevik; it would be said that his action was absurd. Yet minorities have some rights under our laws. I wonder what advance would have been made on the Irish question in the old country if Irish members had not resorted to methods of obstruction. We would now be spending half our time listening to divorce bills had it not been for the action of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). At the time his action may have been deemed a nuisance-it was a nuisance-but he got results. At last, as in the case of the importunate widow, we said, "Oh, fix the thing, for the sake of getting rid of it." That is the way the law was established. If a comparatively small number of men in this house said: "We are not going to vote money to carry on the business of Canada until we see more immediate prospect of action," they would get it. We do not expect the government to do the thing in a dlay. Before a promise of definite action however there should be no money voted. It would be wonderful to see how such a group of men would gain strength. Not only the little party itself but other people who are not in the party would say, "What is the trouble?" Eventually they would say, "It is right; why do you not deal with it?" Public sentiment would be aroused. The public would say, "These people are right; why do you not give them justice?"
I would like to mention one other point. Two or three hon. members from the prairies have been talking about two or three million dollars about which they are asking the government. They want to know whether or not the government has this money up its sleeve. Apparently the money was received from the sale of wheat in the years 1919 and 1920. There seems to be some doubt about it. They are talking about it, and they want it. Perhaps some day the British Columbia farmers will say, "We want a repayment of

Grain Rates-Mr. Barber
the money which has been taken from us illegally since this rate has been put into effect. On two occasions the export rate was lowered, but the domestic rate has not been lowered at all." We will be coming forward asking for a long overlooked redress. I am not referring especially to the present government. As I said the last time I spoke on it, the late government stalled on this question and the present government are stalling on it. That is the exact situation. Why do they do it? Is it because they do not wish to antagonize the railway interests, or what is it? I ask the question and leave it to anyone who can to answer it.
Most of the propositions which are brought forward in this house asking for reform or for the promulgation of certain policies are made with the idea and the contention that they will produce improved conditions throughout certain parts of the country. The matter at present under discussion however may be viewed from two angles. First, it is a matter of simple, common barefaced justice, and it has the further angle or inducement that it would prevent a whole industry from being wiped out. Hon. members can go along the roads through parts of British Columbia and see house after house standing empty. This man used to grow chickens; this man tried to make a living raising pigs, but he could not compete with Denmark, and so on. The acceptance of this amendment would prevent the wiping out of these industries. As I say it is a matter of equal justice to all. There seem to be double-barrelled reasons why the government should take action immediately. I would have liked to see the Prime Minister a little more emphatic in his decision that at an early date he would settle the matter. His suggestion seemed to be more in the way of sending the matter back to the railway board. However the railway board has already dealt fully with the matter and turned it down. If we could get a more emphatic assurance from the government I would be heartily in accord with the suggestion that the amendment be withdrawn.
Mr. HARRY J. BARBER (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, representing a district perhaps more affected than any other in the province of British Columbia by the high domestic freight rates now prevailing, to which reference has been made this afternoon, I cannot let the opportunity pass without making a few remarks.
I agree with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that up to the close of the house last night I was very much in sympathy with the hon. member for New Westminster
(Mr. Reid), but when to-day he presented his amendment and injected party politics into the case I found myself unable to vote for the amendment. I repeat, I was quite in sympathy with- the hon. gentleman yesterday for he put up a good case and covered the ground thoroughly. He said that we have been somewhat negligent in bringing [DOT]this matter to the notice of the House of Commons in years gone by. I would remind him that it has been brought forward every session for the last five years to my knowledge.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Mr. BARBER:: In this connection I give
great credit to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). He is in a little different position from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) because he has taken an independent stand. It was amusing to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) rise in his place and with great indignation condemn the government for the serious condition of these industries in British Columbia. We had an election there last summer just the same as you had down here, and on that occasion hon. members should have heard the hon. member and others during the course of the campaign. To assist them they had the present right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). When he arrived in British Columbia his political friends and advisers told him, "Now, you will have to make some announcement with regard, to the freight rates question. The discriminatory character of the domestic freight rates is a very important issue here, and the election or defeat of a number of your supporters in this province will depend upon your announcement." The right hon. gentleman appeared in my constituency and also in other parts of the Fraser valley and made an announcement. I want the house to bear in mind that when he did so he was speaking as a member of the privy council before whom the question of these domestic rates was then sub judice. On a platform in the city of Chilliwack he said in effect: "This question of freight rates, I want to tell you ladies and gentlemen, we are working up to a successful decision, a decision that will be favourable to you. Now, I cannot go any further than that."


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that after the
hearing?


Harry James Barber: A decision had not been
given. It has not been given yet.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was after the
argument.
Grain Rates-Mr. Barber


Harry James Barber: Yes, after the argument
had been heard. On that platform in Chilliwack he spoke along these lines:	"Now,
send down this gentleman"-my opponent; I am going to say something about him later-"send him down and I am sure we can fix this matter up satisfactorily to you people." Mr. Speaker, please bear in mind that this was not the first time that the right hon. gentleman had made that statement. He came out to the coast in 1925 and visited Vancouver. This question of discriminatory domestic freight rates was then an issue; it has always been an issue in British Columbia-It is a very important matter to us and it was brought to his attention. In 1925 he said in effect: " The government that I represent fully realizes the seriousness of this condition, and we will proceed at once to fix it up." He came back in 1926 and again referred to the freight rates to this effect: "This is, we know, a very serious problem and one that must be adjusted immediately, and I promise you people that the Liberal party will get busy immediately after the election and will adjust this to the satisfaction of you people." But in spite of those promises in 1925 and 1926 nothing was done, and yet he comes back in 1930 with the same old story. Now, my friend from New Westminster brings down an amendment which involves a vote of want of confidence in a government that has not been in power more than nine months. Well, even if the government was a Liberal government, and I was in opposition, I do not think I would feel justified in supporting such a want of confidence motion. I do not believe that any member on this side of the house would do so. But I think the hon. member for New Westminster, being a fair-minded man, would not hesitate to vote want of confidence in the preceding government before whom this question was under consideration for nine years. During all that time they did nothing, they made not one cent reduction in the domestic freight rates. What happened? The hon. member for Vancouver Centre mentioned the name of the man who ran against me. I may say-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did
not.


Harry James Barber: Well, he called him by his first name.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No,
I did not.


Harry James Barber: Then I take it back. Perhaps it was the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury). The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, as the house is aware,

for a short time occupied a position in the government of British Columbia. When this freight rates question was before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and before the privy council, it was brought to the attention of the Liberal government then in power at Ottawa that we had a Liberal government in power at Victoria under the leadership of the Hon. John Oliver-a particular friend, I believe, of the hon. member for New Westminster. What happened? They employed a legal gentleman to come down to Ottawa and present the case not only to the railway commission but to the privy council. Of course, the Liberal government in British Columbia thought that a Liberal lawj'er would appeal to the right hon. gentleman w'ho then occupied the position of Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The provincial government of which my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre was a member, employed this lawj'er.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
not correct.


Harry James Barber: You were later.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
correct.


Harry James Barber: I believe the hon. member was never reelected after appointment to the position.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
always elected.


Peter John Veniot: Stick to the facts.


Harry James Barber: That is a fact. That
Liberal lawyer came to my riding and distributed copies of a newspaper from one end of the constituency to the other with the statement "I have worked for you for years and years for nothing; therefore I expect you will send me down as your representative." Immediately I got in touch with Victoria and received a copy of his account and found that the former Liberal government of the province had paid him $168,000 for his services extending over a period of less than six years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
remark that I hope my hon. friend does not give the impression that he is referring to me.


Harry James Barber: No, no, I am referring
to your party in Victoria and to your party here as having some bearing on the case. The point I am making is that for nine years while we had the Liberal party in power here and the Liberal party in power in British Columbia, and a well-paid Liberal

Grain Rates-Mr. Veniot
lawyer was sent to Ottawa to appear before the privy council, not one cent reduction was made in the domestic freight rates that bear so heavily on British Columbia. Yet notwithstanding that long delay, this hon. gentleman from New Westminster now moves an amendment involving a vote of want of confidence in this government that has been in office only nine months, and his reason for moving the amendment is that in nine months-not nine years-the present government should have adjusted the matter I think this is unfair. As to the problem faring us, I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Al'bemi (Mr. Neill) and with the case as presented by the hon. member for New Westminster that the matter is serious, but I feel sure from the statement of the Prime Minister to-day and from statements which have been made by the Minister [DOT] of Agriculture that this matter will receive serious consideration at the hands of the government. I believe they understand the conditions which exist in our province and the problems facing us, and I am sure they will make every effort to solve it. As I said before, if this resolution had been left as it was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and brought in as it should have been brought in, I should have been only too glad to second the motion, but we find again the same old game, the injecting of politics into this question. That has been done by a few Liberals in British Columbia in every election, and this question made a political football. I will say, however, that the producers, the dairymen, the poultrymen and the . boards of trade of that province do not want this question thrown into the political arena. I think as citizens of that province, as business men, farmers and poultrymen we are all of one opinion.


Thomas Reid: Would the hon. member be in favour of getting a favourable decision right now, in view of the conditions which exist at present?


Harry James Barber: I am in favour of the privy council giving a decision at the earliest possible moment; I do not know whether that decision will be favourable or unfavourable. I know it took the government supported by my hon. friend a long time to deal with the question; it went over for a year, and there was no decision. It was Still under consideration when the election was held.
In conclusion let me repeat that I would have supported the original motion, for the purpose of educating some of the hon, members of this house and some of the people in
eastern Canada in one of the many problems faced by the people of British Columbia. In that province we have problems which are perhaps peculiar to us, and this is one of them. I think that would have been ' the proper way to bring up this matter, instead of using it as a weapon with which to attempt to destroy a government which has been in power only nine months, and which has not had time to consider the matter.


Peter John Veniot: I do not desire to take up much of the time of the house on this matter, and perhaps I would not have spoken at all had it not been that this matter affects the maritime provinces just as much as it affects the province of British Columbia. The domestic freight rate from west to east, from Winnipeg to the maritime provinces, is such that we in that section of the Dominion cannot take advantage of the opportunity to purchase wheat in order to develop the flour milling industry in the maritime provinces. If British Columbia has proper and reasonable grounds on which to ask for a lowering of the domestic rate in comparison with the export rate, we in the maritime provinces feel that we have an equal claim.
I should like to ask the government, in considering this matter, not to consider the application of British Columbia alone but to consider domestic rates generally throughout the Dominion of Canada. Now, when the price of wheat is so low, if we in the maritimes could take advantage of reduced domestic rates in order to purchase that wheat in large quantities, we would have established in the province of New Brunswick no less than two large flour mills to-day. I may say for the information of the house that in 1896 the provincial government of the day subsidized improved roller process mills for the manufacture of flour, intending thereby to encourage the growing of wheat in the province of New Brunswick. Quite a number of mills were established under that subsidy, but it was discovered that we could not raise wheat, owing to our climatic conditions, in sufficient quantities to warrant these subsidies 'being maintained. Lately a movement has been started in the maritime provinces for the establishment of one or two large flour mills in the city of St. John, but it has been found that the domestic rate on wheat from Winnipeg to the maritimes is so high that this wheat cannot be brought from the west. If a reasonable domestic rate could be given, the western farmers would find in the maritimes an increased market for their wheat andi
Grain Rates-Mr. Veniot

for their coarse grains as well. In that way both the western and the eastern provinces would benefit, and it is 'for this reason I am interested in the question now before the house, in the hope that the government may take our case into consideration. I know that without an appeal from the maritime provinces against a decision of the railway commission the privy council cannot deal directly with the maritimes, but in dealing with this whole question of domestic rates from Winnipeg to the coast I hope at the same time the privy council will direct the railway commission to deal with domestic rates from west to east, from Winnipeg to St. John and Halifax.
While I am on this question, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the date cm which the appeal was heard by the privy council. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) stated that this matter has been standing for nine years, and that the Liberal government was dilatory in dealing with the matter. The decision of the railway commission was given in 1926. The appeal from that decision to the privy council was made in 1929.


Mr. STEVENS:: Was it not the hearing'that was held in 1929? I think the appeal was lodged some time prior to that.


Peter John Veniot: The hearing was held in 1929. The appeal may have been lodged some time previous to that, but if hon. gentlemen will look up the records they will find that while one province was ready to proceed, another province was not ready, and in order to bring them together a date was fixed some time in September or October, 1929. Even that hearing was postponed at the request of some of the provinces, and the hearing did not actually take place until late in January, 1930. Parliament met on February 7, 1930, and during that session the former government had no time to deal with the appeal, so that no decision was given. If the reason, therefore, given by the right hon. Prime Minister this afternoon for the inaction of the present government since September is good, that reason has equal force in regard to the action of the former government. The former government did not hear the last presentation on the appeal until late in January, 1930, and it was not their fault. They were not to blame.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word with respect to this want of confidence motion. It was surprising to me that the Prime Minister should find fault with any one on this side of the house for moving a motion that might have the effect of a want of confidence in the government of the day.

The hon. member who has moved the amendment or motion, as the case may be, is a new member of the house. He is not supposed to know, perhaps as fully as old members of the house do, what the effect of such a motion might be. Yet in face of that, instead of being generous to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the Prime Minister, to use a rather common expression, jumped down his throat. He reprimanded the hon. gentleman for bringing forward a motion that might entail the defeat of the present government. I was surprised, I say, that the right hon. gentleman should take that attitude, because in all the years I have been in parliament I have never known anyone to move more frequently- motions of want of confidence in an existing government than did the present Prime Minister when he was in opposition. If the hon. member for New Westminster proposed a motion which amounted to a want of confidence in the government, he was only following in the footsteps of the present Prime Minister; and when he does so the Prime Minister no doubt considers that the hon. gentleman is taking a safe course. The Prime Minister, I presume, feels that the hon. member is following the proper path when he follows his own example.


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. member knew what he was doing, then.


Peter John Veniot: Well, even if he did know what he was doing, had he not a right to do it?


George Reginald Geary: Certainly.


Peter John Veniot: Then why reprimand him? Why impute motives to the hon. gentleman and say that he proposed the motion merely in order to place the government of the day in a trying position? Surely, with the majority which the Prime Minister has at his back to-day, he need fear no vote of want of confidence in this house. I knew he has a majority that will stand behind him through thick and thin no matter what he does so far as policies are concerned. I feel, therefore, that the hon. member for New Westminster should not have been taken to task by the Prime Minister. But it is not the first time that the Prime Minister has found pleasure in doing this, because it seems to be delightful to him to take to task new members on this side of the house. We old members who are used to the ways of the right hon. gentleman do not feel at all offended when he takes us to task. Indeed, we rather take it as a compliment when we are lectured by one who to-day stands up and blames us

Grain Rates-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
for doing the very things which he did when he occupied the position of leader of the opposition-things which he did quite frequently and evidently with considerable gusto.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I am not particularly interested in what may have taken place in the past concerning this important matter; what I am interested in is what is likely to take place in the future Conditions have changed materially since the appeals and representations that were made in days gone by, so. that in my opinion it is essential that this important question should be reviewed again.
I congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) upon having brought this matter to the attention of the house. I wish particularly to congratulate him on the able manner in which he has presented the subject, and I would go so far as to congratulate him on the excellent burr he had on the letter R.
The seriousness of the situation with regard to our domestic freight rates has been brought home to us very forcibly during the past few months, particularly as it affects our coarse grains in western Canada. The reduction in the price of grains has emphasized in no uncertain way the present cost of freight rates. When the prices of grain were higher and our grain was moving more freely into export, we were not concerned with the freight question to the degree that we are to-day, so far as our feed grains, particularly western barley, are concerned. But now that tariffs have been imposed against our grain going into those countries that import grain, we find
the situation quite different, and it is for that reason that we are obliged to view the whole subject from a slightly different angle.
If I understand correctly the policy of the Conservative party, it is Canada first. We 'farmers in the west have feed grain for sale, and the live stock and poultry producers in both eastern and western Canada want this grain. Now, if the Conservative party are consistent and desire to carry out their policy of Canada first, I should thinik that this is one of the matters that would receive their very earnest consideration, and that early action would be taken in the matter. The hon. member for New Westminster has discussed the matter particularly from the point of view of the poultry producers of British Columbia and also as it affects the live stock feeders. I desire to discuss it from the point of view of the producers in western Canada, [DOT]and, as well, of the feeders in the east.
The question of domestic freight rates is of special interest to the province of Manitoba. Manitoba is one of the oldest of the three western provinces and, as one might 'naturally expect, the fertility of its soil i3 somewhat impaired. We are therefore obliged to turn more towards the production of coarse 'grains, particularly barley. The significance of the situation, so far as Manitoba is concerned, lies in the fact that practically half the barley grown in the three western provinces is grown in that province. Consequently this question is of far-reaching importance to us.
I shall read a statement showing the differential in freight cost in shipping barley from the producing sections to Fort William and Calgary:
Differential in Freight Cost in Shipping Barley from the Producing Sections to Fort William and
to Calgary
Barley is now available for shipment at Souris, Man.
Distance from Souris to Fort
William	
569-7miles at freight cost	
17c. per cwt. or 8 16c. per bus. barleyDistance from Souris to Calgary	
680'5 miles at freight cost	
381c. per cwt. or 18'48c. per bus. barley
Extra miles Souris to Calgary 110-8 Extra cost Souris to Calgary.. 211c. per cwt. or 10-32c. per bus. barley
Barley available in normal years at Areola, Sask.
Distance from Areola to Fort
William	
671-8 miles at freight cost	
18c. per cwt or 8-64c. per bus. barleyDistance from Areola to Calgary	
578-4 miles at freight cost	
36c. per cwt. or 17-28c. per bus. barley
Less miles Areola to Calgary. 93-4 Extra cost Areola to Calgary. 18c. per cwt. or 8-64c. per bus. barley


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who has made this motion. Freight rates are always a matter of interest in western Canada. In fact, there is no set of farmers in the
[Mr. W. G. Weir.)
world who are so much interested in freight rates as the farmers of western Canada. Geographically we are situated in the middle of a continent, and the result is that on any produce we have to sell we have to pay a long freight haul to get it to the markets of the world, and on anything we buy, no matter whether we buy it in eastern Canada or elsewhere, we have to pay a long freight haul. If we want to buy lumber, we have to pay a long freight haul from the Pacific coast. If we want to buy fruit, we have to pay a long freight haul from the Pacific coast. On everything that we consume in western Canada, whether manufactured or raw products, we have to pay a long freight haul before we can get it, and on anything that we produce we have to pay a long freight haul before we can get it to the markets of the world. Naturally, therefore, Mr. Speaker, no other people in the world are so interested in rates as the farmers and people of western Canada.
Speaking in this house the other day cn the question of wheat, I pointed out that it costs the farmer of western Canada from 15 to 20 cents a bushel more than any other farmer to get his wheat on the markets of the world. We have a long freight haul to put our wheat on the markets of the world which costs from 30 to 35 cents a bushel, whereas the Argentine, Russia and Australia can put their wheat on the markets of the world at a cost of from 15 to 20 cents a bushel. So there is always in their favour, on account of their having water haul instead of rail haul, an advantage of from 15 to 20 cents a bushel.
Freight rates have always been a burden. Therefore we appreciated very much the action that was taken some years ago when the Crowsnest pass rate was granted. It is onljr in the present year practically, when we have such a quantity of feed and coarse grains that we are not able to get a price for, that we have realized that our local domestic rates are too high as compared with our export rates. As has been pointed out in this debate, we find that in shipping for export, we can ship our barley and coarse grains via Vancouver to Shanghai for a far less rate than we can ship them to Vancouver. We find that the people of Vancouver can practically go to Shanghai and buy Canadian barley there and ship it back to Vancouver, and in the end get it as cheap as if they bought it direct from the prairies. This does not seem right because we are asking the people of British Columbia to produce

Grain Rates-Mr. Donnelly
eggs and poultry, and yet we are sending our coarse grains over to China and Japan to be used by the farmers there in producing poultry and eggs which will compete with the products of our own people. We are giving the farmers of China and Japan cheaper feed than our own people in British Columbia. That surely is not the Canada-first policy. I say that the Canada-first policy is a good policy when not carried to extremes, but I say that in all cases we should help our own Canadians just as much as outsiders, and if we are going to give the people of China and Japan our coarse grains and other products cheaper than we give them to our own people in British Columbia I say that we are not using our own people right.
Again, with regard to grain coming to eastern Canada, we have been told here this afternoon that we are laying our barley down in Hamburg, Copenhagen and other European ports cheaper than in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. We have been told that we are sending our barley and oats and feed wheat to people over there in Europe to feed their hogs and cattle, which are then sold in England in competition with our own hogs and cattle, cheaper than we are sending them to eastern Canada. Surely that is not a Canada first policy. Canadians should get their feeds just as cheap as the people over in Copenhagen and Hamburg and other European ports. In western Canada at the present time we have all kinds of barley and rye and feed oats and feed wheat in storage, and we cannot sell it. Let me give a few illustrations. A man, R. Christie, of Grenfell, had a carload of rye which he shipped to Fort William. When it got there he had a freight bill of $18.35 to pay. So he gave the rye away, and had to pay S18.35 besides to get somebody to take it. Here is another case. C. Bohn of Broadview, had three carloads of rye in the elevator ready to ship. He was preparing to ship when the elevator man said, "I won't ship that out; you have a carload of your good wheat; go to the bank and draw money on that to pay your freight." He went up to the bank and tried to draw money, but the bank would not advance any, and the result was that he had to take the rye back home again or give it away. These are conditions which exist in the west in regard to feed, showing how plentiful and cheap it really, is. In the prairie provinces a certain amount of barley and feed has been sold. Our governments out there pay half the freight rates to different parts. I myself sold some grain which was shipped from one section of Saskatchewan to another half the freight being paid by our local government. In that way we were able to get rid of some of our wheat. In the same way, if the domestic freight rates were cheaper in Saskatchewan the farmers in the western provinces would be able to ship their feed from one part to another, and produce hogs to sell on the markets of the world.
When I was in' the west in the month of December I had presented to me another startling illustration concerning freight rates. At that time No. 1 northern wheat, the best in the world, was selling on the street for 30 cents a bushel. Imagine, No. 1 northern wheat at 30 cents a bushel, half a cant a pound. On the very same day I went down to the premises of one of the milling companies,- the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, to be exact,-and I found that they asked $15 a ton for bran, or three-quarters of a cent a pound. We are paying $15 a ton for bran and selling No. 1 northern wheat for $10 a ton. In other words it required a ton and a half of the best wheat to buy a ton of bran. The same statement applies to flour. In western Canada we grow the wheat, and yet our flour is as highly priced as it is in other parts of the Dominion. Flour in the province of Saskatchewan, where the wheat is grown, is more highly priced than it is in most other parts of Canada or the British Isles. The reason is that no matter where the flour is milled the price is based on Fort William. The price operates just as though the wheat were shipped to Fort William, milled there and the flour shipped back under local freight rates to the province of Saskatchewan. The local freight rates are so high that in Saskatchewan we pay more for our flour than does any other part of Canada. The same is true with regard to bran. That is why I say it required a ton and a half of No. 1 northern wheat to buy a ton of bran.
I wish to refer to only one more point. The excuse may be put forward that a change in the rates will cost the railways too much money, and that at the present time the railways are not making any money. The statement is made that the railways are from day to day losing money and that a reduction in rates would result not in giving them more business, but in financial embarrassment. The suggestion is made that the rates should be increased rather than decreased. I say that if the rates were reduced the business of the railroads would increase and they would do more business. If their rates were reduced more men would be employed. Under the present rates the cost of rights-of-way are just the same, the costs of facilities are just the same, their cars are in their

Grain Rales-Mr. Nicholson
yards and should be in use. If the rates were reduced they would be in use. The coarse grain from western Canada would find its way into eastern Canada. For the last few years we have been importing from Argentina and the United States somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000,000 or 15,000,000 bushels of corn to feed the cattle of this country. If thait is so we should put a duty on corn. The freight rates on coarse grains should be reduced so that they may be brought east, at a cheaper rate and be placed in competition with the corn from the Argentine. True some stock raisers say that animals cannot be properly finished without the use of corn. Some people believe that, and I do not think we should reject their views and say that they must do without com. I say however that we should place our barley and coarse grains in eastern Canada at low or moderate rates so that we could compete in price with those of Argentina and the United States, thereby preventing corn from coming into this country. Why should com be brought from the Argentine, thereby helping the Argentine farmers, while our own barley is left to rot out on the prairies? I trust the government will consider the matter of rates, and have it referred to a committee so that before very long some remedial action may be taken for the benefit of the western farmers as well as the feeders in eastern Canada.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: The question of freight rates which has been raised in the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is one of very great importance. At this time I would like to direct a few remarks to some of the statements which have been made with regard to the general question of freight rates, and particularly in relation to the observations of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Donnelly). It has been said that the export freight rate on wheat from western Canada is the highest in the world. It may be true that it costs more to send wheat from western Canada to the European markets than to send it from the Argentine republic, Australia or some country where carriage by water is a predominating factor. However, if hon. members would compare the freight rates from western Canada to the markets ,of the world with the freight rates from the United States over the same distances I think they would learn that Canadian freight rates are as advantageous as those of the United States, if indeed they are not more so. The chief point is as to

whether the domestic and export rates shall 'be equalized. The point arises as to whether the people in British Columbia, for instance, would be prepared to have their export and long haul rates equalized with domestic rates all over Canada thereby bringing the Whole freight structure up to the point where the percentage of cost of moving a carload of similar product in any part of Canada would be equalized on a mileage basis. That virtually is what is asked for. Let me put this question: Would the wheat producer in western Canada be in favour of having export rates applied on wheat from western Canada to Fort William, Vancouver, Quebec, Montreal, St. John, New Brunswick or any other exporting point on the same basis as domestic rates for the same character of product to the people all over Canada? On the other hand would producers of lumber, apples and canned products in British Columbia be prepared to defend a freight structure which would cost them on a mileage basis as much to ship a carload of lumber, a carload of apples, a carload of canned salmon or a carload of eggs from Vancouver to Montreal as it would cost an Ontario farmer or lumberman on the same mileage basis to ship his product to the same market. For the information of hon. gentlemen and in no controversial spirit whatsoever I can tell them this, that you can ship a carload of lumber from a (mill in Vancouver to Montreal cheaper than you can ship the same commodity from a northern Ontario mill to the same market; you can ship a carload of apples 100 miles into the Montreal market for less money than you can ship a carload of apples 25 toiles in Ontario to the same market.


Alan Webster Neill: Lumber has an alternative
water haul.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is an alternative water haul. But the same thing applies to Toronto, Buffalo, North Tonawanda, or any other large distributing centre in the east; it is the question of the long haul and the short haul. The cost of shipping feed into Ontario has been discussed. It costs more to ship a carload of mill feed, coarse grains, from Fort William 500 miles to some distributing point in Ontario than it costs to ship wheat from Calgary to St. John, New Brunswick, for export. Would anyone suggest that you bring the export rates up to a basis that would make it possible for the railways to earn a revenue upon which they can live, and have them predicated upon the domestic rates?

Grain Rates-Mr. Nicholson


Thomas Reid: But we are asking that the
domestic rates east be on the same basis as the rates west to Port Arthur and Fort William.


George Brecken Nicholson: The export rate is a
low rate on. every commodity, but we have to bear in mind that we must provide a rate structure that will make it possible for the railways to earn sufficient revenue to pay their operating costs. I am not disputing the difficulties we are under in view of the adverse rates, not at all. But the whole point comes back to this:	Can we ask the
railway commission to create a rate structure that will equalize all rates in Canada without affecting export business? I do not think we can. There may be eases such as my hon. friend has cited this afternoon where some injustice exists, but when we discuss the matter of equalized freight rates throughout the country we are going in the face of what has been clamoured for, particularly by western Canada as long as I can remember anything in regard to freight rates, and that is a cheap rate for the long haul exportable product. My hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) who has just taken his seat referred to the fact that there were products in western Canada that you could not ship into any market where they could be sold at a price that would give back the cost of the freight haul. There are many, many cases of that character in all parts of Ontario. Let me cite just one that I happen to know something about myself. There are 20,000,000 laths in the lumber yards of firms with which I am associated, and there is a market for those laths in New York. It will cost 50 cents a thousand more to ship those laths from the point of production to New York than they can be sold for when they arrive there. That is due to the depressed condition in business of that character all over the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Water competition.


George Brecken Nicholson: No, not at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is due to the tariff.


George Brecken Nicholson: No, it is not due to
the tariff either. There is not any tariff applying. We ship the produce free, and if the exporter in the United States could ship it across here it would come in free. The trouble is due to the low value of the product and the cost of haulage. In fact there is virtually no value in the product after the freight is paid. These things apply in a hundred different ways. For example, take the long haul and the preferential freight rate. It will cost a farmer in the Ottawa
Valley more to ship me a carload of potatoes for one of my lumber camps than it will cost the farmer in New Brunswick to ship a carload of potatoes to the same place. If someone suggested that we equalize those rates as between the Ontario and New Brunswick farmers, I am afraid the maritimers in this house would raise the same cry as has been raised in western Canada. Everybody sympathizes with the situation we are in, but when you approach the question of a rate structure based on equalized rates, and say you are going to have the same comparative rate between Alberta and Vancouver as between Alberta and Hong Kong, I am very much afraid you are defeating the very object you are endeavouring to attain in creating an export market for the goods that we produce so largely in this country, and that we must export.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are we to assume then that export freight rates are not profitable?


George Brecken Nicholson: If the matter was
analyzed from A to Z, it would be found that the railways could not live on export rates; for instance, they could not live on the rates on export wheat from western Canada to the European markets.


Milton Neil Campbell: There is plenty of
evidence to the contrary on the Crowsnest pass grain rates.


George Brecken Nicholson: In the course of that discussion if must be borne in mind that you leave out of the picture entirely the whole capital cost behind the construction of the railways, the maintenance of their equipment and everything else that goes with it- absolutely inescapable charges. If you distributed the export business in grain alone over twelve months of the year, instead of the short period during which grain has to be hauled, you could reduce the rolling stock of all the railways in Canada 50 per cent.
Mr. fl AN BURY: That is true in British Columbia where we have a twelve month period.


George Brecken Nicholson: Why is it true? Because this equipment is idle eight months out of the twelve.


Wilfred Hanbury: Not in British Columbia.


Edward Joseph Garland: Good
heavens! that is not true.


George Brecken Nicholson: Excuse me, it is true.
Grain Rates-Mr. Nicholson


Edward Joseph Garland: But my
hon. friend can take the actual statistics of the railroads and find that the haulage of wheat continues fairly steadily throughout the year with the exception of the winter months.


George Brecken Nicholson: It continues, yes, to some degree; but will my hon. friend suggest that ihe statement is not correct, that the period of the year when the heavy wheat traffic prevails is September, October, November and December?


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite correct.


George Brecken Nicholson: And if that traffic was equally distributed over the whole twelve months, I repeat my statement-and I know it to be correct-50 per cent of the rolling stock that has been brought into being in this country for the purpose of carrying that freight would never have been required to be purchased.


Alan Webster Neill: But the domestic business is more all-the-year-round than the export; therefore it should get a lower rate.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is perfectly true; if you lower the domestic rate and increase the export rate, and so make it possible for the railways to live, all well and good; but you cannot reduce both sets of rates.


Mr. MUNN:: If my hon. friend will come to Vancouver he will find that they have seed grain moving every day of the year for export. Our contention is they should reduce the domestic rate and get the resultant increased tonnage.


George Brecken Nicholson: And increase the export rate?


Albert Edward Munn: No.


George Brecken Nicholson: Will my hon. friend take the balance sheets of the Canadian National Railways for the last ten years and find out how much money they made on these rates?
Mr. NEILL; They paid 10 per cent.


George Brecken Nicholson: The Canadian National Railways?


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, the Canadian National Railways.


Albert Edward Munn: If the domestic rate was reduced the increased volume would mean cheaper haulage.


George Brecken Nicholson: No.


Albert Edward Munn: It happened when the differential was cut 50 per cent.	'


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. gentleman can make a speech for himself later.


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not propose to take up the time of the house very much longer in connection with this matter. I merely rose to point out what was prevailing all over this country. I would point out that if people in the west or in the far east, who are constantly referring to these things, are anxious to have an equalization of freight rates, domestic and export, they should study the problem with some degree of thoroughness before making any suggestion of that kind. I am afraid it would be the people in the west who would suffer to a very great degree.


Mr. BROWN:: Is not my hon. friend overlooking the fact that the chief contention has been that grain is not moving at all under the existing rates?


George Brecken Nicholson: That is perfectly true; lumber is not moving either, and there are hundreds of commodities which are not moving under the existing rates. Do we suggest that we are going to load the whole thing on the railroads and ask them to carry goods for nothing? That is virtually what it would amount to. As an hon. member suggests, where would they carry those goods? This matter should be left with the railway commission.


Thomas Reid: We have left it with the railway commission too long.


George Brecken Nicholson: I say to my hon. friend, do not urge too strongly an equalization of short and long haul rates, because it will be the people at the extremities of this country who will suffer most from any such equalization.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up very much of the time of the house, but no hon. member from Alberta has had a chance to say anything as yet in regard to this resolution. I want to assure the hon. member who brought up the matter that he has almost the unanimous support of the people of Alberta in demanding a lower domestic freight rate on grain. Sometimes in my district we have low grade grain which we would like to ship to the poultry-, men of British Columbia, but we cannot do so because of the high freight rate. I have under my hand a letter from the assistant chief traffic officer of the Board of Railway Commissioners, under date of May 2, 1929, in which he says that the rate for export from our station to Vancouver and New West-

Grain Rates-Mr. Coote
minster is 20 cents per hundred pounds, but that the rate on grain for domestic consumption to the same points is 42 cents per hundred pounds or more than double the export rate. The rate to Victoria is 45 cents per hundred pounds, considerably more than double the rate for export.
Just in reply to the remarks of the last speaker may I say that we believe the increased traffic under a lower freight rate on domestic grain would make up for any loss which might be sustained in moving the quantity now being handled at a lower rate. I do not think there is much doubt about that, and we might all receive the benefits of such a reduction. In order to show the house that the farmers of Alberta are solidly behind the people of British Columiba in their efforts to secure a reduction on the rate on domestic grain, I should like to quote a resolution which was passed at the last annual meeting of the United Farmers of Alberta. I think resolutions similar to this have been passed by this organization annually for the past eight or nine years. The resolution reads:
Whereas the freight rate on wheat for domestic use in British Columbia is one hundred per cent higher than the rate on wheat for export:
Be it resolved that we ask the federal government to lower the rate on domestic wheat to the same level as for export wheat.
I should like also to read a resolution passed at a general meeting of the wheat pools of western Canada, held in Winnipeg on March 13:
Whereas, the Canadian surplus of feed grains is increasing year by year due to increased production and the difficulties faced by the Canadian live stock industry; and
Whereas, millions of bushels of Argentine and American corn are imported each year into Canada for feed purposes; and
Whereas, the logical outlet Of large quantities of the surplus feed grains from western Canada lies in the live stock industry of the Dominion: and
Whereas, the domestic market for feed grains is the only sure market in these difficult times; and
"Whereas, there is very marked disparity between domestic and export freight rates on feed grains to the extent that western Canadian barley, for example, has been laid down in such European ports as Hamburg, Bremen, Antwerp, Rotterdam. Copenhagen and Liverpool at from six to thirteen cents per bushel cheaper than the same grain could be supplied to feeders of live stock in the maritimes of Canada;
Be it therefore resolved, that this interprovincial conference, representative of the pool grain marketing agencies in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, go on record as strongly urging the necessity for a thorough investigation into this disparity in domestic and export freight rates on -western grain, both east and west, with a view to bringing about
an equalization of such rates; and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the governments of Canada and of all the provinces, the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, and also to each member of the House of Commons.
I believe that resolution expresses very clearly and very fairly the opinion of the grain growers of western Canada in regard to this matter. I had intended to quote some of the actual rates in effect between different points, but that has been so well covered by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) that I will not bother to do so at this time. However, I do wish to say that I think it is time the government of Canada took some action-because we cannot get action from the railway commission-to see that the egg producers of Japan and the bacon producers of Denmark do not secure Canadian grain for less than is paid by Canadian producers of these same commodities.


George Brecken Nicholson: Would my hon. friend suggest that we should abolish the railway commission and make the whole question of freight rates in this country a political question?


George Gibson Coote: No, I will not go that far
at present, but I never could understand some of the .judgments of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Just here I should like to say a word of appreciation of the work of Hon. Air. Oliver, a former member of that board. I should like to quote very briefly from the dissenting judgment rendered by Mr. Oliver in connection with this very matter under discussion. He said:
The all-rail export rate Fort William to Montreal is 34J cents per 100 pounds. The domestic rate is 37i cents which is three cents over the export rate. The rail distance Fort William to Montreal is somewhat more than one-half greater than that between Calgary and Vancouver. There would not appear to be any reason why the difference between export and domestic rates on grain of export standards from prairie points to Vancouver should be greater than that between domestic and export rates on the longer haul, Fort William to Montreal.
If the domestic rate on grain coming east *is only three cents per bushel more than the 'export rate, why should it be more than double on grain going west? That is what 'we cannot understand. The judgment pro-[DOT]ceeds:
Although a domestic rate three cents per 100 pounds over the export rate from prairie points to Vancouver would be the same difference between domestic and export rates as now prevails on the all-rail grain movement from Fort William to Montreal, it would not put the respective populations of Vancouver and Montreal in the same relative positions as to cost of their domestic supplies, because central
Grain Rates-Mr. Coote

Canada generally, including Montreal, in fact gets the bulk of its domestic supply by rail and water at the export rate.
Then Mr. Oliver goes on to deal with the question of damaged grain:
Damaged grain is not as suitable feed for live stock as sound grain, but if it can be secured at a sufficiently lower price, it answers the purpose fairly well and will be used accordingly. The present domestic rate of 41J cents per 100 pounds practically excludes such grain from use by the poultry and dairy farmers of the coast region and compels them either to pay the full price for grain of export quality, with the 41J cent transportation cost added, or to buy corn imported by ship from the Argentine. Either way the country suffers an economic loss and their difficulties in carrying on their operations are materially increased.
I commend that paragraph to the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). It explains the case fairly well, and indicates why the domestic rate should be lowered. Then again:	[DOT]
The feed value of low grade or damaged grain is not sufficient to allow the British Columbia consumer to pay a price that will enable the producer to haul to the railway station and pay the present domestic rail rate as well, in competition with corn from the Argentine, delivered by ship in Vancouver. The railroad therefore altogether loses the haul on this grain, while the producer loses the selling value of the grain and the British Columbia poultry and dairy farmer pays his money for a foreign supply. . . . The transportation of grain of these lower grades at export rates would not by any means place the consuming population of British Columbia in the same favourable position in regard to their domestic food and feed supply as that at present enjoyed by the people of central Canada, but it would be in that direction and would be of substantial advantage to the prairie producer and to the railway as well.
I should like to quote the last two sentences of his judgment. He recommends:
That the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways be notified that rates on grain and flour for domestic use shall not be more than 3 cents per 100 pounds higher from prairie points to Vancouver than the rates from the same points on grain and flour for export.
He does not suggest the same rates, but he does suggest that the same rate might apply 'on low grade grain.
Provided that the rate on grain below export quality, that is, wheat of a quality below the grade of No. 4 northern, and other grains below the grade of No. 3 C.W. (Canada Western) shall not exceed the export rate.
I am quite unable to understand why the other commissioners should, not have agreed *with the judgment given by Mr. Oliver. It 'seems to me to have been reasonable. I would simply say in closing that I hope the government will take such action as may be necessary to adjust this situation. Certainly it

should be remedied, and in my -opinion such 'action would be as fine a part of the Canada First policy as this government could possibly take.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: I want to endorse what has been said in regard to this question. I am in sympathy with the suggestion that something should be done in connection with this domestic rate problem. The time is ripe for it, and now that the matter has been submitted to the Prime Minister I am sure something will ibe done. I trust it will not be a football for years to come but that we shall get results.
On motion of Mr. Willis the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 21, 1931