1932-03-07

UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as we do not reach the orders of the day until late in the day, if at all to-day, there is a matter which I would like to mention to the Prime Minister on the order for motions which is of importance at the moment, and which may not have occurred to him.
There appears to be an obvious necessity for the voting of money for unemployment relief, and particularly for supplying seed grain and other forms of farm relief to those who are in need in the west. What I wish to say to my right hon. friend is that if he will bring into the house a supply bill asking for the amount that he may regard as necessary and wish to have for this month, so far as the opposition is concerned we will be prepared to do what we can to facilitate its passage rapidly through the house. We recognize that it is a week since the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act lapsed and that my right hon. friend will certainly be coming to parliament for some moneys, for this purpose. If a supply bill is brought in at any time to provide what may be necessary for the balance of this present fiscal year, so far as the opposition is concerned we shall be prepared to agree to any suspension of the rules which will allow the bill to go through this house with as little in the way of criticism or delay as possible.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I assure the right hon. gentleman that I appreciate his observations, but the government has not overlooked the fact that it is necessary to provide money for seed and feed.
Excise Act

But it is not its direct responsibility; that rests with the provinces. Our duty is to confer with them as to their financial position and give them such assistance as we may. That will be found stated in the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of last session. Believing as we do that a national emergency exists that demands our giving that assistance it is proposed to proceed with order No. 13 to-morrow, notice having been placed on the order paper some time before the 26th of February, but obviously the title as it now appears would be improper because the first of March has passed; but the sense of the measure proposed is to extend the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act to the first of May, 1932, and not to proceed by way of a supply bill for reasons that I shall endeavour to explain to the house when we reach order No. 13 which I propose to take up as the first order of business to-morrow when government orders are called. I thank the right hon. gentleman for his offer of assistance so far as the dealing with this emergent situation is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like
to make clear to my right hon. friend that one reason I mention the matter immediately is that if it is proceeded with by means of a supply bill I believe there will be no question as to the rapidity with which the bill would pass, but if my right hon. friend has in mind proceeding with a bill such as the one passed at last session, which was intended to meet a situation while parliament was not in session, I may say that we on this side would have to take very strong exception to proceeding in that way.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRADETTE

[Stage Direction]
On the ordeT for motions:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: On a matter of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, in a letter which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday from James Hoey, Sr., Ottawa, it is stated in the first sentence of the last paragraph that the members of parliament received the sum of $4,000' for attending during the emergency session of the fall of 1930. After making inquiry I wish to state to the house that the members of parliament attending that session received only the sum of $375. I think that misstatement should be corrected.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The purpose of this bill is to make certain amendments to the act to bring it into conformity with the Geneva convention which was held last year. As hon. gentlemen will remember, the convention was laid before the house last week by the Prime Minister, and in order to conform with the conditions laid down in the convention these amendments to the act are necessary. They are few in number. One is in reference to the definition of drugs, to provide that it shall include "by synthetic process" as well as by natural process. Another amendment rather broadens the definition of opium. There are also two minor changes in addition to the amendments which are necessary to bring the act into conformity with the Geneva convention. One is to remove a misunderstanding with regard to the act which exists at the present time, and the other is to permit the use in small quantities of the drug cannabis sativa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Excise Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The proposed bill is one to amend the Excise Act in relation to its administration. I do not think there is any matter of principle proposed in the bill upon which there could be a divided opinion. I do not like to take up the time of the house in explaining these matters, all being unrelated to each other, but the bill will provide lor the definition of a provincial analyst; that the commissioner of excise may exercise administrative powers when these are delegated to him by the minister. At the present time it is doubtful whether the commissioner of excise has the right to revoke a licence for brewing beer. An amendment will provide that the minister shall not be required to sign all these revocations of licences for the privilege of brewing beer. The bill also provides that the penalties and forfeitures recovered under this act shall be the property of the crown. There is at present some doubt as to that, and the doubt will be removed. Then there is the right given to druggists as defined in the act to obtain alcohol for use in the manufacture, compounding or dispensing of medicine for pharmaceutical preparations. Provision is made for the trying of cases, and the necessity for this ajises from the fact that

Criminal Code
one province in particular, Prince Edward Island, has given to a tribunal certain legislative powers, which we wish to use. The proposed amendment the purpose of which I have outlined will make easy the trial of such cases.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to amend the criminal code (promoting changes).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The purpose of this bill is to attempt to clarify or remove some of the more objectionable subsections of section 98 of the criminal code. The first change is the insertion of the word "physical" before the word "force". According to the proposed amendment seizure of property can be made only after a search warrant has been issued, and such property may be confiscated only when the charges are proved. The burden of proof of innocence is removed from the accused. On a number of occasions the looseness of this wording has proven a difficulty, and for many years the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada has been protesting that this section should be altered. In 1920 a report was given to the congress concerning the present section. It was pointed out that upon one occasion a judge charging a jury had said:
Mr. Russell gave us his idea of a sympathetic strike. He said, "When a dispute originates between an employer and his employees, and when the labour organizations see that organization being beat, they come to their assistance by calling a strike to force their employers to bring force to bear upon the original disputants to make settlement." Force, force, force.
The report continues:
Any dictionary will show that "force" has a very wide meaning, covering influence, pressure and the like. If the statute meant physical force it would not go on to enumerate "violence" and "physical injury." It must therefore, have a different meaning from "violence" and "physical injury."
The proposed amendment would seek to clarify the subsection.
Then, subsection 2, to be repealed, reads as follows:
(2) Any property, real or personal, belonging or suspected to belong to an unlawful association, or held or suspected to be held by any person for or on behalf thereof may, without warrant, be seized or taken possession of by any person thereunto authorized by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and may thereupon be forfeited to His Majesty.
The amendments I am introducing to-day do not touch the question of unlawful assembly. The one to which I am now referring merely seeks to safeguard those who are not members of an unlawful assembly but may easily enough, be inconvenienced or suffer hardship through the sections as they now stand. Provision is made that a search may be carried out after a warrant has been issued, but that there should be a search without any warrant, and a seizure without any conviction does not seem to be in keeping with the best British traditions.
Then, there are one or two sections which have to be renumbered. Into a discussion of those sections I will not at this time enter.
Then, subsection 4 to be repealed is as follows:
(4) In any prosecution under this section, if it be proved that the person charged has
(a)	attended meetings of an unlawful association; or
(b)	spoken publicly in advocacy of an unlawful association; or
(c)	distributed literature of an unlawful
association by circulation through the post office mails of Canada, or otherwise,	_
it shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary that he is a member of such unlawful association.
It seems quite unfair that in this way the burden of proof should be placed upon the accused. Any chance passer-by might stop to listen to a speaker on a street corner and might find that the speaker to whom he had been listening belonged to some unlawful association. At the present time there is no safeguard. Then, a person may pass on a piece of literature he has obtained, which action, in itself, would be considered proof that such person belonged to an unlawful association. To an innocent man such legislation is most unfair. To prove innocence would be next to impossible because such an accused person would not be in a position to bring proof from any member of an existing unlawful association.
Subsection 6 is amended by striking out the words "or is about to be" and also by inserting the words "if the charges are proven" before the words "may be forfeited to His Majesty" at the end of the subsection. At the present time the subsection reads as follows:
(6) If any judge of any superior or county court, police and stipendiary magistrate, or any justice of the peace, is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that any contravention of this section has been or is about to be committed, he may issue a search warrant under his hand,
Criminal Code

authorizing any peace officer, police officer or constable with such assistance as he may require, to enter at any time any premises or place mentioned in the warrant, and to search such premises or place, and every person found therein, and to seize and carry away any books, periodicals, pamphlets, pictures, papers, circulars, cards, letters, writings, prints, handbills, posters, publications or documents which are found on or in such premises or place, or in the possession of any person therein at the time of such search, and the same, when so seized, may be carried away and may be forfeited to His Majesty.
It would seem only fair that we should not charge a man or allow him to be charged with some crime which a magistrate may conceive is about to be committed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that British tradition and practice relate only to crimes already committed. I do not think any magistrate, however clearheaded he may be, is in a position to say whether or not a crime is about to be committed. I would strike out that section. Further, I do not think a man should have his property confiscated until charges are proven. The insertion of the words "if the charges are proven" would take care of the difficulty I have mentioned.
Then subsection 9 provides merely for renumbering. I should like to read that subsection, because the next one to which I shall refer would not be understandable without first hearing subsection 9. It is as follows:
. Any person _wlio circulates or attempts to circulate or distribute any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind, as described in this section, by mailing the same or causing the same to be mailed or posted in any post office, letter box, or other mail receptacle in Canada, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
I am not now proposing that the clause I have just read should be changed-although I do think it should be changed. It is an integral part of the legislation concerning unlawful assemblies. A few days ago when I attempted to introduce an amendment regarding unlawful assemblies it was voted down, and I feel I would not be in harmony with the practices of this house if I were to introduce any matter the principle of which has already been decided upon. I do however urge the repeal of subsection 10, so that we may safeguard those who are not members of an unlawful assembly. It reads as follows:
Any person who imports into Canada from any other country, or attempts to import by or through any means whatsoever, any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper' circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind as described in this section, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is manifest that a man might very readily import a pamphlet from Great Britain and find that it came within the prohibited list described in the preceding subsection, in that it advocated force or was issued by an organization that under the previous sections was deemed an illegal organization. In that case the importer would be liable to a twenty-year penitentiary sentence. It is obviously absurd that such should be the case. In Great Britain there are no unlawful associations such as come within the scope of our Criminal Code. I might write a British publishing house, and they quite innocently might send me their literature, and on receiving that literature this subsection would render me liable to a twenty-year penitentiary term. The fact is that the word "force" is so loosely used in this act, and force has been so generally recognized as being justifiable on certain occasions, that there is a whole literature dealing with the use of force that might come under the ban. A recent writer in the Canadian Forum of Toronto has listed some of the books which would come within this section. He states:
To begin with there is a large and diverse group of works whose main object is to prove that in certain circumstances it is not only justifiable but a positive duty to use force to bring about a governmental change. The Spanish Jesuit, Mariana, devotes an entire chapter of his De Rege et Regis Institutione to a defence of tyrannicide. A whole host of Huguenot writers preach rebellion as a religious duty in such works as Duplessis-Mornay's Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, Beza's Rights of Magistrates over their Subjects, and the anonymous, Whether it is Lawful for the People and the Nobility to take up Arms. So does the Roman Catholic Rossaeus (probably the Bishop of Senlis) in The True Powder of a Christian State. Buchanan, a Scots Presbyterian, follows suit in his De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; Milton contributes to the list no less than four works justifying the rebellion against Charles I (the two Defences of the People of England, Eikonoklastes, and the Tenure of Kings and Magistrates), and Locke's Treatise of Civil Government is a defence of the "glorious revolution" of 1688. Any competent political scientist could no doubt produce at a moment's notice a similar "Index" twice as long; but this random selection is sufficiently formidable.
Then there are other writings, which, while not exclusively or mainly concerned with the advocacy or defence of force, do nevertheless incidentally counsel it or praise historical instances of it. The writer continues:
Chief among these, of course, is the Bible, notably in the account of the revolt against Jeroboam in I Kings. The British and Foreign Bible Society had better take steps at once to issue special expurgated editions for Canadians only. Otherwise it may wake up to find itself

Criminal Code
an unlawful association. The early Greek writer Theognis (accessible to the unlearned in an English translation by the Rev. J. Banks), according to the New English Dictionary, is guilty, like Mariana, of advocating tyrannicide. Macaulay's History of England is another attempt to justify the revolution of 1688. Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic and the Rev. J. N. Figgis' from Gerson to Grotius, contain glowing panegyrics on the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain. G. M. Trevelyan's England under the Stuarts traces all our liberties to the revolt against Charles I. A. W. Tilby's British North America, Sir George Trevelyan's American Revolutions, and George III and Charles Fox, Ramsay Muir's Short History of the British Commonwealth, Basil Williams' Life of Chatham, and the Cambridge History of the British Empire, are all so incautious as to praise the American revolution. Worst of all-'twas whispered in heaven, 'twas muttered in hell-the Ontario High School History of England (if my memory serves) quotes with gusto Chatham's "I rejoice that America has resisted." If these works fall victims to the new censorship, how many histories of the French revolution, the first Russian revolution of March, 1917, the Spanish revolution, and the Fascist march on Rome will escape?
When such a reputable journal calls attention to the serious dangers implicit in this section, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable that we should seek to safeguard the interests of the public at large. I ask also that subsection 11 be repealed. It reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of every person in the employment of His Majesty in respect of his government of Canada, either in the Post Office Department, or in any other department to seize and take possession of any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document, as mentioned in this section, upon discovery of the same in the post office mails of Canada or in or upon any station, wharf, yard, car, track, motor or other vehicle, steamboat or other vessel upon which the same may be found and when so seized and taken, without delay to transmit the same, together with the envelopes, coverings and wrappings attached thereto, to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This if thoroughly carried out would in effect turn all our post office and customs officials into a set of spies who would be constantly on the look out for some chance piece of literature of this class for confiscation, and our mails would never be safe. I would suggest that this is quite out of keeping with the very basis of our boasted British freedom.
I would point out again that this proposed amendment to section 98 does not touch the main principles embodied in that section. I should like to have seen the whole section repealed, but I am not at liberty to attempt such a repeal on this occasion. Under the circumstances the best I can do is to try to
introduce legislation which will at least safeguard the ordinary citizen who is not a member of any unlawful association against the dangers of this section, and ensure that to a certain extent our homes and liberties will be a little more secure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. WOODSWORTH moved that said bill be read the first time.
Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FRASER:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. STITT' (Nelson):	I was paired with
the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario, (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the first reading of the bill.


Mr.   SATTVE@: I was paired with the hon.
member for L'Assomiption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPENCER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Spankie). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRASSETT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What was the cost of the residence built for the warden of Dorchester penitentiary?
2.	What was the cost of the residence built for the deputy warden?
3.	What salary does the warden receive?
4.	What extra allowance does the warden receive?
5.	With how many cars is the warden provided for his personal use?
6.	What is the cost each of the houses now being built for the staff?
7.	What was the original cost, and what is the operating cost per month of the heating plant?
8.	What was the original cost, and what is the operating cost per month of the electric plant?
9.	What sums have been paid to Mr. T. Edwin Oulton or his wife for sand and gravel?
10.	Who owns the farm from which this sand and gravel is taken?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	$22,241.93.
2.	$22,241.93.
Note in re answers 1 and 2, as above:
The two houses were constructed at one and the same time, both being identical, and cost divided between the two on completion.
3.	$3,540 cash per annum.
4.	Perquisites valued at $840 per annum, which include house, light, heat, water and uniforms.

Questions
5.	One only for official business.
6.	5 new single houses completed at cost of $10,126.15 each:
1 double tenement completed; 2 double tenements completed outside only, and foundation built for another at total cost of $28,098.79, to date.
7.	Original cost of heating plant was included with shop buildings thirty-seven years ago and probably cost less than $5,000.
The system of central heating is adopted and the average cost for the last three months of winter was $1,787.39, including the heating of the whole prison and buildings attached thereto. In summer steam heat is only required for cooking.
8.	Cost of electric plant, $8,041.
Electric plant not operated since February,
1929. Current has since been purchased from New Brunswick Electric Power Commission under contract.
9.	$19,107.13, has been paid to Mrs. Oulton during a period of seven years.
10.	Manford Buck owns sand rights which are leased to Mrs. Oulton.


QUEBEC LEGISLATURE-RESOLUTION S
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did the Dominion government during the year 1930 receive any resolutions adopted by the legislature or legislative council of Quebec, if so, what are said resolutions?
2.	Did the government receive any such resolutions during the year 1931, if so, what are said resolutions?
3.	Has the government received any such resolutions since the beginning of the year 1932, if so, what are said resolutions?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


UPPER WHITE HEAD, N.S., &quot;WHARF
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Was a new wharf built at Upper White
Head, county of Guysboro, Nova Scotia, last year?	.
2.	If so, on whose recommendation was said wharf constructed ?
3.	How much did said wharf cost?
4.	Were tenders called for said wharf?
5.	If not, how much was paid by the government per lineal foot for logs and how much per foot for timber and plank?
6.	What was the name of the foreman?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes, under U. F. R. Act, 1931.
2.	Petitioned for by residents of large section of Guysborough county and recommended by district engineer.
3.	$11,945.85 including cost of a wharf shed.
4.	No.
5.	9" logs and piling up to 22'-13 cts. per lin. ft.
9" logs and piling up to 27'-15 cts. per lin. ft.
9" logs and piling up to 32'-15 cts. per lin. ft.
Heavy sawn timber-$40 per M.
Plank

$25 per M.
Ballast floor logs up to 17 ft. long-6 cts. per lin. ft.
Ballast floor logs 17 to 24 ft. long-8 cts. per lin. ft.
6.	David Duncan.


P. T. AHERN
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Mr. P. T. Ahern mentioned as secretary clerk at page L-4 of the last report of the Auditor General?
2.	Do the letters secretary mean that he has been acting as secretary to anyone?
3.	If so: (a) to whom; (b) for how long?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


SOLICITOR GENERAL-SECRETARIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many private secretaries, joint private secretaries, assistant private secretaries and secretary clerks have been working for the Solicitor General in Ottawa since August, 1930?
2.	What is the name of each one and when has each one of them been appointed?
3.	Did any one of said private secretaries, joint private secretaries, assistant private secretaries or secretary clerks accompany the Solicitor General to the disarmament conference this year?
4.	If so, how many?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	One private secretary, one joint secretary, one secretary clerk.
2.	Jules Landry, September 15, 1930; Miss M. M. Turcotte, August 19, 1930; P. T. Ahern, November 15, 1931.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


MINISTERS' CLERK-QUEBEC
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is there a clerk in the minister's office at Quebec?
2.	If so, "who is he?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	Who is the minister he works for?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	J. L. A. Tanguay, of Beauport.
3.	$1,860 per annum.
4.	He is at the disposal of all ministers.

Questions


BROCKVILLE-PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. SANDERSON:: 1.	What work was done in and about the Dominion public building at Brockville, Ontario, within the last year?
2.	What was the cost of the work?
3.	Who was the contractor for such work?
4.	Were tenders for the work advertised for, and, if so, when and where?
5.	If not advertised for, how were tenders called for and how was the contract awarded?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	New post office fittings, lock boxes, etc. Alterations to brickwork, carpentry, plastering, electric wiring and fixtures, terrazzo floor, and painting and decorating.
2.	Total cost including superintendence 88,110.85.
3.	For interior fittings, Canadian Office & School Furniture Co.; for lockboxes and plates, Rubenstein Bros.; for structural alterations and additional work, F. W. Clow; for additional electric wiring and fixtures, A. Louch.
4.	No.
5.	Tenders for interior fittings were invited from: Canadian Office & School Furniture Co.; Office Specialty Mfg. Company; Renfrew Wood Products; Interior Hardwood Company. For lock boxes, etc., from: Rubenstein Bros.; Office Specialty Mfg. Company; Robt. Mitchell Company. For structural alterations, painting, etc.: Tenders were invited by a local architect at Brockville; from local contractors. Three tenders were received. The lowest tender in each case was accepted.


GUELPH, ONT.-POST OFFICE
Mr. HEPBURN:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a post office in Guelph?
2.	Was anyone authorized to state on or about November 13, 1931, on behalf of the government that a new post office was to be built in Guelph to provide relief for unemployment, and that the closing date for the acceptance of tenders would be December 10, 1931?
3.	Was anyone authorized to state on behalf of the government that the actual cost of the post office aside from the value of the land would be from one hundred thousand to one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The advertisement for tenders was duly published and the closing date for receiving same was December 10, 1931.
3.	Twenty tenders were received running from $123,200 to $157,472 using mechanical equipment for excavation work, or $127,150 to $167,622 using hand labour, but no contract has yet been awarded. No one has been authorized to make any statement on behalf of the government in respect to this matter.


BAGOTVILLE, QUE., POSTMISTRESS, DISMISSAL
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mrs. Levesque, postmistress at Bagotville, Quebec, has been dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against her?
3.	What is the nature of said complaints?
4.	What is the name of the person who lodged the complaints?
5.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mrs. Levesque?
6.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
7.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mrs. Levesque?
8.	Who recommended said person?
9.	Did said person pass the required civil service examinations?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Political partisanship; (b) Advanced age of postmistress; (c) Inattention to duties; (d) Unsatisfactory location of post office.
4.	Neree Pouliot and petition signed by Odina Simard and nine others.
5.	Yes.
6.	Inquiry conducted by district superintendent, Quebec, into questions of management and location.
7.	Neree Pouliot.
8.	J. C. Gagne, Chicoutimi.
9.	Permanent selection not yet made. The usual procedure required by the Civil Service Commission will be followed in rating candidates for the vacancy.


MILLE VACHES, QUE., POSTMASTER, DISMISSAL
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Elmerie Bouliane, postmaster, at Mille Vaches, in the county of Saguenay, was dismissed?
2.	Is so, were complaints lodged against him?
3.	What was the nature of said complaints?
4.	What is the name of the person who made said complaints?
5.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Bouliane?
6.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
7.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Bouliane?
8.	Who recommended said person?
9.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Unsatisfactory service.
4.	Thomas Maher.
5.	Yes.
6.	Investigation made by district superintendent, Quebec.

Questions
7.	Jos. Tremblay (Thaddee).
8.	Thomas Maher.
9.	No. This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


ST. TITE-DES-CAPS-POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at St. Tite-des-Caps, in the county of Montmorency, who replaced Mr. Alfred Leclerc?
2.	Who recommended the new incumbent for said position?
3.	Were examinations held under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Ludger Leblond.
2.	Selected by Civil Service Commission.
3.	Usual Civil Service Commission procedure was followed.


JOSEPH LEO TREMBLAY
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Joseph Leo Tremblay, postmaster, in the parish of Mille-Vaches, in the county of Saguenay, was dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him?
3.	What is the nature of said complaints?
4.	What is the name of the person who made said complaints?
5.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Tremblay?
6.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
7.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Tremblay?
8.	Who recommended said person?
9.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations ?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Political partisanship.
4.	Thomas Maher.
5.	Yes.
6.	L. P. Cote.
7.	Vve. Wilfrid Tremblay-Martin.
8.	Thomas Maher.
9.	No. This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


POINTE LEBEL, SAGUENAY, POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Honore Chouinard, postmaster, at Pointe Lebel, in the county of Saguenay, has been dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him?
3.	What was the nature of said complaints?
4.	What is the name of the person who made said complaints?
5.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Chouinard?
6.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
7.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Chouinard?
8.	Who recommended said person?
9.	Did said person pass the required civil service examinations?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Political partisanship.
4.	Thomas Maher.
5.	Yes.
6.	L. P. Cote of Matane.
7.	Henri Granier.
8.	Thomas Maher.
9.	No. This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Did the government give notice that after March 31, 1932, the services of a certain number of temporary employees in the post office at Montreal, would not be required, or do they intend to give such notice?
2.	If so, how many temporary employees will be affected?
3.	Will the government take the necessary measures to assure maintenance of such employees and their families in case that their services are no more required?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Tentative notice was given to all temporary employees.
2.	It is impossible to state at present as inquiries have not yet been completed.
3.	It is presumed answer will be furnished by the government.


EXCHANGE SITUATION
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Did Samuel Sons and Company, Toronto, receive some $15,000 in gold, or any other amount, through the Receiver General's office in Toronto a few days after Great Britain went off the gold standard?
2.	If so, for what service?
3.	Did the Dominion Square Corporation of Montreal receive from the Department of Finance some $75,000 in gold, or any other amount, last September or October?
4.	If so, for what service?
5.	What other amounts, if any, were paid other Canadian firms in connection with the exchange situation?


Mr. RHODES:: Questions

3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Gold issued in redemption of Dominion of Canada notes from September 21 to October 19, 1931, the date of passing of order in council No. P.C. 2617, to public bodies, banks, firms and individuals-85,318,461.49.
As export licences were not required prior to October 19, the department has no record of the uses made of the gold so received.


DIRECTOR OF UNEMPLOYMENT, MONTREAL
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What are the duties of L. Gf. G. Gravel, 112 West St. James street, Montreal, as director of unemployment for the district of Montreal ?
2.	What are the powers of said Gravel, as director of unemployment for the district of Montreal ?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Attached is a memorandum containing the instruction given to Mr. L. G. Gravel on his appointment as assistant to the dominion director of unemployment relief for the district of Montreal.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Memorandum for Field Representatives of
Dominion Unemployment Relief Branch
Cooperation with provincial authorities
1.	Officials of the Dominion unemployment relief branch will cooperate with the provincial authorities to the end that the need of the unemployed is relieved.
Technical detail covering projects
2.	Technical details of construction of projects are under the control of provincial and municipal authorities, or, in .the case of federal projects, the appropriate department of the Dominion government.
Employment selection
3.	Duties should include protecting federal interests along the lines of seeing that those in need are given employment regardless of race, religion or political affiliation.
Employment service of Canada
4.	The employment service of Canada should be used wherever possible as medium for hiring labour.
Returned soldiers
5.	At least ten per cent of men employed should be returned soldiers if available.
Married men
6.	It is preferable that married men or single men with dependents be given preference on work where they reside.
Elimination of case not in need
7.	On investigation if it is found that men not in need are employed, or men are not properly employed according to regulations, such oases should be followed up with proper authorities with a view to correcting condition.

Hours
8.	The maximum day is eight hours, unless otherwise previously approved by the Minister of Labour.
Wages
9.	See that the wages as siet forth and authorized by the province or municipality are being paid and that clause 8 of general regulations, P.C. 2043, is respected.
Deductions for board
10.	See that deductions for board (or medical treatment in relief camps) is according to provincial regulations.
Transportation
11.	A memorandum is being sent you setting forth the arrangements for reduced transportation charges for workers going to relief work.
Percentage of labour to total cost of works
12.	Note clause 14 of dominion-province agreement, "of the amounts expended pursuant to provisions of clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10 hereof not less than forty per centum thereof shall be expended for labour unless a modification of this requirement is previously agreed to by the Minister of Labour".
Press comments
13.	Any articles -appearing in the local press adversely criticizing the administration of the unemployment relief should be investigated when practical with a view to establishing the accuracy, or otherwise, of such statements, and steps should be taken to rectify any failure to comply with regulations.
Complaints
14.	In taking action on complaints referred to you, effect an adjustment if possible.
Relief camp conditions
15.	If relief camps are not properly organized as to housing, board, sanitary conditions, etc., direct the attention of the proper authorities to the matter.
Correspondence
16.	Forward to this office copies of -all communications addressed by you -to provincial or municipal authorities. Address communications to "Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief, Department of Labour, Ottawa".
Direct relief
17.	See that only such relief be given as is specified in general regulations P.C. 2043 when said relief is being contributed .to from federal funds.
Lists of approved works
18.	Lists of works approved under the -agreement wdth province will be furnished to you. If you find any wrnrks being carried on to which it is proposed that the federal government -should contribute, other than those -appearing on the lists sent you, advise the Dominion unemployment relief -branch, Department of Labour, Ottawa.
General Instructions Staff
1.	No appointments can be made except by order in council.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
Supplies
2.	Requisition for supplies needed should be forwarded to this office.
Rent of premises
3.	No premises may be rented except on authorization from this office.
Provincial reports
4.	Statistics and expenditures reports are received at Ottawa from province. Specimens of forms used will be furnished to you. Assistant to director will be called upon to secure any special reports from provincial authorities when necessary.
Cost of administration
5.	No portion of provincial or municipal administration charges may be paid (see general regulations P.C. 2043, clause 13).
Expenses
6.	All expenses for travelling must be approved by assistant to director for province and all expenditures over $2 covered by voucher. In the case of hotel expenses the statement of account issued by hotel to be attached.
Weekly report of localities visited
7.	A weekly report is required showing' projects visited.
Correspondence
8.	Correspondence should be brief as possible.
Deductions
9.	Deductions from wages of workers are not allowed for any reason whatever, except in the case where the worker is engaged in camps at a specific rate of pay and a certain deduction is to be made for board. No amounts for taxes may be deducted from the workers' pay. Municipal authorities must pay the workers, in full, amount of wages due them for their work.


CIVIL SERVICE RETIRING FUNDS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the amount, to date, of the civil
service retiring fund?	_
2.	Does the government loan or utilize the said retiring fund?
3.	What percentage in interests is allowed on
this money?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.
Superannuation fund (act of
1924)	$33,798,174	37
Superannuation fund (act of
1893)	
2,080,980	14Retirement fund (act of 1898).	6,528,204	08
142,407,358 59
2.	As authorized by statutes, contributions are paid into consolidated revenue fund.
3.	Superannuation fund (act of 1924) four per cent; Retirement fund, five per cent.


PENSIONS FOR CABINET MINISTERS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Did the Canadian parliament enact legislation in 1905 to the effect of creating a pension
for cabinet ministers who were in office five years?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who have benefited, up to date?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes, by chap. 30, statutes of Canada,
1905,	repealed by chap. 40, statutes of Canada
1906.	__
2.	Payments were made in 1905-06 to the following: Hon. A. G. Blair, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir John Carling, Sir Adolphe Caron, Hon. John Costigan, Hon. Geo. E. Foster, Hon. John Haggart, Sir Hector Langevin, Hon. Clifford (Sifton, Hon. J. Israel Tarte, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is meant by Canada occupying a temporary seat at the meetings of the League of Nations?
2.	Are there additional advantages enjoyed in occupying a permanent seat at said meetings over those of a temporary seat?
3.	Are the expenses of the Canadian delegates included in the amount of $205,000 plus $80,000 for labour organization, which is supposed to be the contribution of Canada to the League of Nations for 1931?
4.	If not, what is the amount of the expenses incurred by the Canadian delegates to the League of Nations in 1931?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Neither Canada nor any other member of the league occupies a "temporary seat" at the meetings of the League of Nations, The reference may possibly be to the fact that the council of the league consists of five permanent and nine non-permanent members, and that from 1927 to 1930 Canada held one of these non-permanent seats.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	$16,060.63.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. J. V. Guay, telegraph operator at Sept-Iles on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, has been dismissed ?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him, and by whom?
3.	What was the nature of these complaints?
4.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Guay?
5.	If so, who was the commissioner who held the inquiry?
6.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Guay?
7.	Who recommended said person?
8.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations ?
S52	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns


JEAN BOUDREAULT
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Jean Boudreault, lighthouse keeper, at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, has been dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him, and by whom?
3.	What was the nature of these complaints?
4.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Boudreault?
5.	If so, who was the commissioner who held the inquiry?
6.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Boudreault?
7.	Who recommended said person?
8.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations ?


J. M. PIUZE
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. J. M. Piuze, telegraph operator, at St. Paul du Nord (Mille Vac-hes), in the county of Saguenay has been dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him, and by whom?
3.	What was the nature of these complaints?
4.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Piuze?
5.	If so, who was the commissioner who held the inquiry?
6.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Piuze?
7.	Who recommended said person?
8.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations ?
9.	Is it a fact that the telegraph office was removed from the centre of the village to Sault-au-Mouton, two miles further?
10.	If so, why?


J. A. HOULD
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. J. A. Hould, telegraph operator, at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, has been dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him, and by whom?
3.	If so, what was the nature of these complaints?
4.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Hould?
5.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
6.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Hould?
7.	Who recommended said person?
8.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations ?


FRANCIS GALLIENNE
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Francis Gallienne, superintendent of telegraph lines on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, has been dismissed?
2.	If so, were complaints lodged against him, and by whom?
3.	Wihat is the nature of these complaints?

4.	Was an inquiry held previous to the dismissal of Mr. Gillienne?
5.	If so, what is the name of the commissioner who held the inquiry?
6.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Gallienne?
7.	Who recommended said person?
8.	Did said person pass the civil service examinations?


GASPE POSTMASTERS
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed or resigned in the county of Gaspe, since August, 1930, up to the present date?
2.	In each case, what was the date of his dismissal or resignation, the name of the post office, the name of the postmaster, the reason for his dismissal and the name of his successor?


Mr. CAHAN:: Stands as order for return.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot see why a question of this sort should require an order for return. It is a very simple question. I am afraid the Secretary of State has an old list in his hand.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The information has to come from the Civil Service Commission and the Post Office Department. It covers a number of cases with the reasons for dismissals. I thought that was a proper subject for an order for return and I asked that it stand in that way.



DISMISSALS OP POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST-PERE:
1.	How many postmasters were dismissed between the dates of August 7, 1930, and February 1, 1932?
2.	What are the names of those dismissed, the reasons assigned for such dismissal, and the names of the post offices?


Mr. RALSTON:: '
For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expenditure authorized in the province of Nova Scotia for federal public works to be paid for under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of last session, showing: (a) the amount authorized, (b) the amount expended.


James Layton Ralston: For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expenditure for contribution to works being constructed or contributed to by the provincial or municipal authorities in the province of Nova Scotia under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of last session, showing: (a) the amount authorized; (b) the amount expended.


James Layton Ralston: For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expendi-

Motions for Papers
ture for direct relief in the province of Nova Scotia under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of last session, showing:	(a) the
amount authorized; (b) the amount expended.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stand.


James Layton Ralston: For a return showing the pay sheets of men employed on the breakwater on the south side of Cape Sable island, in connection with the expenditure of moneys during the last six months under the Unemployment Relief Act of last session.


James Layton Ralston: For a return showing the pay sheets and vouchers in connection with moneys spent in the last six months on the wharf on the west side of Port Dufferin, Halifax county.


James Layton Ralston: For a return showing the pay sheets in connection with the repairs of the breakwater at West Baccaro carried on during the year 1931.


James Layton Ralston: Will the Minister of Public Works allow Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to pass? The first one has reference only to pay sheets and nothing else; the next one has to do with pay sheets; the third one has to do with a return which, as I understand the matter, is not under the Unemployment Relief Act and therefore will not be the subject of the return which is coming down on March 15?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I have no objection to the motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of the pay sheets in connection with construction of a wharf at Barachois, Aboujagan river, county of Westmorland, New Brunswick, and [DOT] a return showing:	(a) the
names of the men employed, and their respective wages since the work was undertaken to date; (b) the quantity of stone and lumber purchased, from whom purchased and the prices paid for such material; (c) the amount expended to date; (d) to whom cheques were sent in payment of wages and material; (e) whether or not the expenditure was made under the Unemployment Relief Act; (f) whether or not the work was done under contract or by days' work.


Peter John Veniot: This is in the same category as those submitted by the hon. member for Shelbume-Yiarmouth. I would ask the minister if he would agree to let this go through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paragraph (e) covers the whole of it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion stood by arrangement on several former occasions.


Peter John Veniot: The only question that
would come up in the report to be submitted would be paragraph (e), "whether or not the expenditure was made under the Unemployment Relief Act." The rest does not come under the act, and I cannot see any objection to letting the motion pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. REID:: For a return showing the number of persons in the employ of the government in connection with the Commons chamber, the Senate chamber and parliament building generally, with the various salaries paid.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member does not specify any particular date, so perhaps this motion had better stand.
Motion stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. QUINN:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between the Department of Marine or any other department or any member of the government or any minister, deputy minister or any official of any department of government, and each of the following harbour commissions from January 1, 1929, to August 1, 1930, dealing with or concerning expenditures made previous to authority therefor, by order in council or for obligations incurred by such harbour commissions previous to such authority, namely: (a) Quebec; (b) St. John; (c) Montreal; (d) Sorel; (e) Halifax.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF FUND, QUEBEC

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters and other documents exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada or any other member of the government in August, September and October, 1931, and Messrs. Thomas Maher, Pierre Audet, Pierre Bertrand, Louis Francoeur, G. A. Lepine, F. J. Dinan, Ludger Bastien, J. A. Foley, G. A. Pelletier, J. S. N. Turcotte, A. Paradis, J. A. E. Cote, F. Proulx, Eug. F. Dussault, A. Rioux, J. C. N. Labrie, J. M. Bourassa, Eugene Bernard, Thomas Tremblay, Noel Belleau, L. Francoeur, L. Des-chenes, L. Levesque, G. Simard, J. G. L. Duguay, A. Dontigny, J. A. A. Drolet, T. Dufour, J. A. Lavergne, C. Belanger, J. A. Nadeau, J. B. Arsenault, Dr. J. L. 0. Corrineau, Raoul Poulin and E. B. Feeney, in connection with unemployment funds in the province of Quebec.



AGRICULTURE ESTIMATES

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a return showing: Total aggregate amount of money voted for agriculture in each fiscal
Motions for Papers

year during the years ending 31st of March, 1923, to the 31st of March, 1933, inclusive (exclusive of any sums voted under the provisions of the Agricultural Instruction Act).



SENIOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INSPECTOR, P.E.I.

Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, or other documents, exchanged between the government of Canada, any minister or department thereof, and the Civil Service Commission, or, between either of the foregoing and any other person or persons since July, 1930, relating to the position of senior fruit and vegetable inspector in Prince Edward Island, the dismissal of the senior fruit and vegetable inspector from this position and the appointment of a successor.



ROBERVAL, QUE.-WHARF AND BREAKWATER

Fizalam-William Perras: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with certain works, constructions and repairs to the wharf and breakwater at Roberval, Quebec, carried on during the months of July, August, and September, .1931, together with a copy of paylists and statements of moneys expended for the purchase of material and otherwise, and also showing the name of the superintendent of works.



ST. DAVID, LEVIS, QUE.-RURAL ROUTE NO. 1

Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence exchanged between the member for Levis and the Solicitor General or the said member and the Postmaster General, having reference to the cancellation of a mail contract on Rural Route No. 1, St. David, county of Levis, and the calling for new tenders in connection with the said rural route; together with copies of all tenders, prices, recommendations, submitted by any contractor who proposed undertaking the work of carrying the mail on the said Rural Route No. 1, St. David.



MR. J. V. GUAY

Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all reports, correspondence and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. J. V. Guay, telegraph operator, at Sept-Iles, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river; also a copy of all reports, correspondence and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931, in connection with charges made against said j. V. Guay, including the proof and the evidence of all the witnesses who were heard in said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



ST. PAUL DU NORD TELEGRAPH OPERATOR

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the 
dismissal of Mr. J. M. Piuae, telegraph operator, at St. Paul-du-Nord (Mdlle Vaches) in the county of Saguenay; also a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said J. M. Piuze, including the proof and the evidence of all the witnesses heard in said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



HAVRE ST. PIERRE TELEGRAPH OPERATOR

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of ail correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. J. A. Hould, telegraph operator, at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river; also a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said J. A. Hould, including proof and the evidence of all the witnesses heard in said inquiry and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



HAVRE ST. PIERRE LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Jean Boudreault, lighthouse keeper, at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the Sit. Lawrence river; also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against the said Jean Boudreault, including the proof and the evidence of all the witnesses heard in said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-SUPERINTENDENT OF TELEGRAPH LINES

Pierre-François Casgrain: For ia copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Francis Gallienne, superintendent of telegraph lines on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river; also for ;a copy of ail correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said Frances Gallienne, including the proof and the evidence of all the witnesses heard in said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE., POSTMISTRESS

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mrs. Levesque, postmistress, at Ragotville, Quebec; also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to ian inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said Mrs. Levesque, including the proof and the evidence of all the witnesses heard at said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.

Patricia District Representation



ST. TITE DES CAPS, QUE., POSTMASTER

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Alfred Leclerc, postmaster at St. Tite-des-Caps, in the county of Montmorency; also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said Alfred Leclerc, including the proof and evidence of all the witnesses heard in said inquiry and the decision arrived at by 'the commissioner who held the inquiry.



MILLE VACHES, QUE., POSTMASTER

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Elmerie Bouliame, postmaster, at Mille Vaches, in the county of Saguenay; also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said Elmerie Bouliane, including the proof and evidence of ial-1 witnesses in said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



RIVIERE EPERLAN, QUE., POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN;
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Leo Tremblay, postmaster, at Riviere Eperlan, parish of Mille Vaches, in the county of Saguenay; also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said Joseph Leo Tremblay, including the proof and evidence of all the witnesses heard in said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Homore Ghouinard, postmaster, at Poimte Lebel, in the county of Saguenay; also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to the inquiry held in 1931 in connection with charges made against said Honore Chouinard, including the proof and evidence of all the witnesses heard lart said inquiry, and the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held the inquiry.



PORT DANIEL EAST POST OFFICE INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCIL;
For a copy of the evidence and report of the commissioner of the investigation held by order of the Post Office Department in September, 1931, at Port Daniel East post office, county of Bonaventure, Quebec.

Mr. MARCIL:: For a oopy of the correspondence exchanged between the patrons of the Robdtadlle post office, county of Bomaventure, and the department, regarding that post office, during the year 1931.



LAPRAIRIE, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. DUPUIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, or other documents relating to the dismissal of Noel Fontaine, postmaster at Laprairie, county of Laprairie, Quebec, including full report of an inquiry into charges brought against him, with proof and evidence submitted thereto; also a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to the appointment of his successor.



NOVA SCOTIA RURAL MAIL CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacLEAN;
For a copy or list of all rural mail contracts put up for public tender since March 1, 1931, up to March 1, 1932, in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, showing amount paid under old tender and also amount paid under new tender in each aase.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HEPBURN;
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, ratings and other communications to or from the Minister of Public Works and any other minister, officials of the government or any member or official of the Civil Service Commission, or other person or persons, in any way relating ho the appointment of a caretaker for St. Thomas public building, since November 25, 1930.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: Whereas, citizens of Canada residing in the Patricia district in the province of Ontario, are deprived of the right to vote in any federal election, owing to the fact that the district of Patricia is not included in any federal electoral district;
And whereas, a federal general election may be held at any time.
Therefore be it resolved:	That necessary
steps be taken to immediately provide for the enfranchisement of the citizens of Canada residing in the Patricia district.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is short and concise in form, but in order that members of the house may know its significance, I shall make a short explanation thereof. In the Patricia district which lies directly north of the Kenora-Rainy River riding there are between five and six hundred
.	COMMONS
Patricia District Representation
citizens who have been disenfranchised. A large portion of this district is within the province of Ontario, but for some reason or another at the last redistribution it was not included in any electoral district. The reason for this action may have been that very few people were residing in the district, but since that time the development of the mining areas therein has advanced quite rapidly. At the Howey mine alone there are between five and six hundred people employed.
In 1929, prior to the provincial elections, the provincial government of Ontario extended the franchise to the people in this district, but up to the present time they have not been taken into any federal constituency. In May of 1930 the government introduced a bill to enfranchise these people, but the bill subsequently was withdrawn apparently for lack of information in connection with the territory. During the discussion on this bill my duties as minister of labour took me to Fort William where a labour dispute had arisen and I was not able to be present in the house to give the information which I am sure would have been appreciated. In the elections of 1930 between five and six hundred citizens were not permitted to vote.
At the last session I introduced a private bill but after some discussion the six months' hoist was moved and the bill did not advance any further. I leave it to the house to say whether or not it is fair and in the interests of democracy that between five and six hundred people should be unable to vote. My bill specified that this district should be added to the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River, and that may have been the reason why it was not permitted to advance further. The present resolution leaves it with the government to say in what electoral district this territory shall be included. I hope the house will see its way clear to adopt this resolution.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend to take up much of the time of the house in discussing this matter. The only reason I take upon myself the duty of answering on behalf of the government is that, like the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Heenan), I come from that particular section of the country. I have no quarrel with the statements made as to the need of these people having the vote. Through an error they were not granted the vote at the last elections, but it is the intention of the government that this right shall be given them before the next elections are held. A census has been taken and there will be a 
redistribution before the next elections, and I think under the circumstances it would be a duplication of work to pick out at this time and deal with one particular section. I think the house will agree that the wise course to follow is to allow this matter to stand until next year, when, in all probability, there will be a redistribution and this section of the country, along with others, can be given the necessary attention. That appears to me to be the reasonable attitude under the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister who has just spoken (Mr. Manion) whether he is in a position to give any guarantee that this government will last until after the next redistribution. I ask this quite seriously. I do not mean that any of us are anxious that the government should not have ample opportunity to redeem all its pledges, but there are always possibilities of a government disintegrating and going to pieces, and it would be a great pity if the people of this part were again left without an opportunity of voting should an election come before redistribution.


Robert James Manion: I cannot give a written
guarantee, but so far as one can foresee in the ordinary course of human affairs this government is going to last not merely until after the next redistribution but for a number of years thereafter. I can assure my hon. friend that there will be a redistribution and that this question regarding Patricia will be looked after. But I am afraid that my right hon. friend will be sorry if that is done because when the opportunity comes, the people there will likely vote as many of the people up there did last time against his party.


Peter Heenan: I am well satisfied that
the government has now taken the position that these people should no longer be disfranchised. It will be noted that in my few remarks I did not lay any blame on any government or party. I simply asked that these citizens be enfranchised. The Minister of Railways, however, I think rather qualified his statement that they would be enfranchised.
I think he could go further than he did and say that before another election takes place, whether a redistribution bill has been brought down or not, this territory will be taken care of.


Robert James Manion: I think I can easily go
that far, but I am quite sure that it will be attended to by redistribution.

Western Freight Rates


Peter Heenan: Then under those circumstances the government might accept the resolution.


Robert James Manion: I would rather that my
hon. friend withdrew it. He has accomplished what he had in mind.


Peter Heenan: All right. I ask leave to
withdraw my motion, Mr. Speaker, on that assurance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to withdraw his motion?
Motion withdrawn.



WESTERN FREIGHT RATES


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the domestic freight rate on grain and grain products moving from any point in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, to a point in any of the said provinces, or from one point to another point in any one of the said provinces, be substantially reduced.
He said: I do not propose to speak at any great length or possibly to take all the time allotted to me in presenting to the house arguments in favour of the resolution standing in my name. The resolution 'Calls for a substantial reduction in domestic freight rates. The question of freight rates has long been a vexatious one. Not only has it been frequently debated on the floor of this house but for a number of years back it has been debated by practically every organization of the farmers of western Canada and by boards of trade of the different cities of the west, and resolutions urging a reduction in freight rates have been forwarded to the government of the day and the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not think it would be wise or serve any useful purpose for me to present to the house a great volume of figures in support of my argument. Figures have been presented from time to time and have not availed very much. I think it would be better for me, Mr. Speaker, to make a plain statement of fact and use some commonsense argument in support of the resolution.
I do not attach any weight to the argument that this question should not be dealt with until the appeal from the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners has been decided. That decision should have been given by the late government as far back as January, 1930, but the government was more or less self-confident and felt secure in their position, and they left this question, together with many other important problems, on the
doorstep of the present government. The situation, however, is now such that it is due to the western farmers and producers that we should endeavour to settle this question now and do what is fair and right. Many arguments could be adduced which have previously been given, and probably the discussion which will take place on this resolution will be more or less of a rehash of some of the arguments of the past, but I think I can bring to the attention of the house one or two arguments in particular in favour of a substantial reduction in these freight rates, which have gained force within recent months.
I would refer to the fact that during the last session we placed a duty on corn. By so doing we shut out from the consumers in British Columbia the supply of that feed. It will be remembered that during the debate last year on the question of placing a duty on corn, figures were given by different members of the house, showing conclusively that as far as food values are concerned barley is equal if not superior to corn. The figures were given and the house was informed of experiments that had been carried on, all conclusively in favour of barley. In our three western provinces there is an annual increase in the production of barley. Manitoba is the largest producer of barley, but we in the province of Saskatchewan are now growing this grain because we can seed it late in the season, and the farmers are able to till their land in the spring and get a growth of the noxious weeds, and then destroy that growth and seed barley. We have had some excellent crop yields in that way. We should at least endeavour to have our coarse grains from the prairie provinces put on the market in British Columbia and the eastern provinces on a fair and equitable basis both to the producer and the consumer. Further, each year there is a greater demand in the provinces, for barley and coarse grains, so that shipments from one point to another within the province as well as inter-provincial shipments of these grains are increasing. Let me cite a case that we had this year in the southern part of the three prairie provinces. In the dried out areas of the province of Saskatchewan many farmers who are not dependent altogether upon the aid given by the government have to bring in feed grains from other parts of the province. I should add that many Saskatchewan farmers within the last few years have begun feeding cattle for the eastern and overseas markets, a practice we wish to encourage.
May I review the circumstances of one particular case in my own district. I refer to

Western Freight Bates

an industrious farmer who, through drought and the out worm, lost his first seeding but who decided in the first ten days of July to re-seed with oats. He was most fortunate in that several local showers passed over his farm, and as a result he had a splendid crop of oats which, unfortunately, were too late to mature. He left the crop until frost came, then put the binder in his fields and harvested about four or five hundred loads of sheaf grain. Having only fifteen horses on his farm, and in order to get a reasonable return from his sheaf feed, he visited the stock yards at Moose Jaw and there purchased 80 head of cattle which he is feeding this winter. To feed properly and to get the desired results he has found it necessary to ship in coarse grains and grain products to mix with his green feed. Already he has shipped in three cars, and certainly the freight rates figure greatly in his costs. I believe that more and more throughout the years we will find that the freight rates discriminate against the farmers. In my twenty years' experience in farming and handling grain there has not been one year when there have not been interprovincial carload shipments and shipments between points within the province.
While in the west there has been a gradual increase in grain production there undoubtedly has been an increase in diversified farming, a part of the agricultural industry which all hon. members wish to foster and encourage. While there has been a healthy increase in the production of grain and in diversified farming there has been an even greater increase, proportionately, in interprovincial shipments and shipments within the provinces. I think figures can be produced from the freight departments of the two great railway companies to prove the accuracy of my statement. There are two arguments in support of this reduction which to my mind are very important and have not yet been presented to the house. Referring particularly to diversified farming I would say that within recent years in western Canada some splendid stock farmers have developed. Some very fine pure bred herds have been established, and if any hon. members have not witnessed a stock parade at one of our class "A" fairs, such as those held at Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon and Edmonton, they have a treat in store for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Calgary.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about the class
"B" fairs?


Ernest Edward Perley: I was going
to mention that some very splendid parades have been held at class "B" fairs. One can see stock valued at hundreds of thousands

of dollars pass in review. Such an industry should be supported and we should endeavour to assist by a specific reduction in freight rates. These farmers have to import grains which they do not produce in their own district and more particularly products from grain such as bran aDd shorts.
One of the arguments in favour of the present rates was that they were maintained in order not to discriminate against shipments to certain points of delivery. In order not to discriminate against such points of delivery it has been found necessary to discriminate against the great majority of farmers but I think it is high time we gave sufficient consideration to the matter to see that no longer shall there be discrimination against those who are interested in a basic industry.
At the present time a rate known as the terminal rate provides for free haulage for a distance of one hundred miles between the points of Fort William and Winnipeg. Certainly such an arrangement does not allow for a fair or reasonable rate to points farther west. Certainly there is discrimination in favour of Winnipeg and other large distributing centres. Here again no useful purpose could be served by a continuation of the system now in use.
At the outset I said I did not think it necessary to give figures in support of my argument, but at this time may I put on record only a few. I am about to quote carload rates on grain and grain products in cents per hundred pound shipments from points within the province, both east and west. For the sake of convenience I am taking a point in the constituency I have the honour to represent in the province of Saskatchewan, namely Indian Head:
Carload rates on grain and grain products in cents per 100 pounds
Domestic Export rate	pate
From Indian Head, Sask., to Moose Jiaw, Sask.,
distance 90 miles	 14 cents	-
From Indian Head, Sask., to Swift Current, Siask.,
distance 200 miles		20 cents	-
From Indian Head, Sask., to Vancouver, B.C.,
distance 1,160 miles.. ..	52 J cents 27 cents
Hon. members will notice that there is a difference in the domestic and export rates between Indian Head and Vancouver of 25i cents. If the standard were changed from the 100 pound basis to the bushel basis, and the commodity changed to barley there would be a difference between domestic and export rates of 12 cents. From Moose Jaw to Vancouver, a distance of 1,060 miles the domestic rate is

Western Freight Rates
50i cents and the export rate 25 cents. Hon. members will note that there is a difference of two cents between domestic and export rates between Indian Head and Vancouver and Moose Jaw and Vancouver. The figures I have given would show clearly that if there were two cars of grain shipped from Indian Head west, one of which had been left at Moose Jaw for domestic consumption the rate would be 14 cents. If the second car was taken on to Vancouver and there used for domestic purposes, on a basis of the export rate per mile haulage they would take it from Indian Head to Moose Jaw for two cents. To my mind that is unreasonable and there could be no justification for such a rate.
Let us now consider shipments to points east. From Indian Head to Moosomin, a distance of 100 miles, the rate is 14i cents. If the car were taken on to Fort William, 620 miles farther, it would be taken that extra distance for 4J cents.	I cannot see
that such an arrangement is fair or equitable, because the producer within the province should be considered. Also from any point in Saskatchewan to Montreal there is only a three cent differential as between the domestic and the export rates. I have just quoted figures to show that the differential from any point in the province to Vancouver is twenty-five cents. Why there is this discrimination as between the east and west bound rates I cannot understand, and I do not think any satisfactory explanation has been offered. Similar figures could be produced with respect to shipments from Manitoba and Alberta. I might say that when the question of these discriminatory rates was before the railway commission the argument presented by the governments of the three prairie provinces in every case was to the effect that there should not be any differential. I might also mention the fact that when its decision on the case was handed down by the Board of Railway Commissioners-it was quoted last session by an hon. member when speaking to the freight rates question-the Hon. Frank Oliver, then a member of the commission, gave a dissenting judgment. It is not necessary for me to read it now; it will be found at page 1813 of Hansard of last session. Mr. Oliver was of the opinion that there should not be any differential at all, especially on coarse grains, low grade wheat and feed wheat.
The whole thing boils down to this, that on a basis of equal freight rates the price in Vancouver would be twenty per cent in favour of barley as against com; on the present
basis barley is adversely affected to the extent of fifty per cent. I am informed that last fall after the imposition of the duty on corn many of the poultrymen and dairymen in British Columbia tried our western barley for their stock and found it in every respect equal to corn, if not better. They are prepared to use our coarse grains, and with a proper adjustment of the freight rates there would be no difficulty in our finding a very good market for them in that province.
Prior to the consolidation of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk railways, we had a freight rate from the western provinces to Fort William of two cents less than the present rate. For example, from Indian Head to Fort William it was seventeen cents per hundred pounds, as against nineteen cents per hundred pounds now. That was owing largely to an agreement made between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern railway at the time when the provincial government guaranteed the bonds of the railway. The railways were able to haul domestic grain at a profit at that rate when there was only a single track line to Fort William, the freight cars were small, the engines were also small, and the rails were light. Surely to-day with double track lines, heavy rails, large capacity freight cars and powerful engines the railways ought to be able to haul domestic grain at a profit if the old rate were reestablished. At the present time it is very difficult to get a 1,000 bushel car, the railway agent wants you to load grain into a 1,200, 2,000 or 2,500 bushel capacity car. As for the engines, to-day they are so powerful they can haul from twenty to twenty-five more cars than in the old days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we could secure a fair and equitable adjustment of these rates I think it would be a very substantial benefit to all our producers of grain in western Canada; some three million people in the three prairie provinces who would be directly affected. The prosperity of Canada generally depends on the success of our great basic industry, agriculture, and, I repeat, those engaged in agriculture in the prairie provinces would be directly benefited by this proposed rate adjustment. And I am confident that the railways themselves would benefit if this adjustment were made. I think it is generally admitted that the railways make the greater part of their earnings on the haulage of export grain, and I think the movement of domestic grain should be on just as favourable a basis. Why should the railways charge so to speak a double rate and in some cases more for moving grain a hundred miles
Western Freight Rates

within a province than for hauling it seven hundred miles to a terminal? It is high time that this matter was given very serious consideration. I trust this resolution will meet with favour from this house, and that, being so endorsed it will be favourably considered by the government. If there are any obstacles in the way of action being taken due to judgments on appeals being still pending, I think such judgments should be delivered without further delay.
Mr. HARRY J. BARBER (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of British Columbia, it gives me great pleasure to second the motion of my hon. friend from the prairie provinces (Mr. Perley) having for its object a reduction of the domestic grain rates. This matter has been brought to the attention of the house almost every session for the last five years, and the facts have been placed before by hon. members so fully that I shall be very brief in my remarks.
As the last speaker (Mr. Perley) has said, some further arguments have been brought forward that might well be considered in dealing with the subject. Under present conditions we believe that a reduction in the domestic grain rates, particularly as applied from points in the prairie provinces to the province of British Columbia-to which I shall confine my remarks-might be in the interests not only of the producer and consumer, but also of the transportation companies. I am free to recall the speech made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) on the 10th of February last. He was referring to the problems his department had to face at that time, and one problem which was causing his department a great deal of worry was that of finding how we could influence the movement of trade so that there might be an easier and more equitable flow of goods from one part of the world to another and from one part of the country to another. Canada, with a population of ten million people, extends for some four thousand miles from coast to coast, and within our country we find that because of climatic and perhaps other conditions, in one section we can produce commodities to much better advantage than is the case in another section. This is so in the matter of grain, which is under discussion to-day. Perhaps in no part of the North American continent can grain be grown so successively as in the prairie provinces, and we in British Columbia are interested in grain from the standpoint of feed. As I say, under present conditions it might be good business to lower this rate,

and I have no doubt that by doing so we would increase the consumption and also increase the car haulage for domestic purposes.
I have in my hand, as perhaps other members have also, a letter from the Canadian Coal Committee. I was quite taken with the argument contained in the letter in regard to a request for a reduction in the freight rate on coal from 16.75 to 85 per ton. It is pointed out that this would work to the advantage of everyone concerned, and I think the same would apply to grain. They say that by this reduction the consumption of Canadian coal in the east would be increased, and that it would mean greater business to the transportation companies. With a revenue of, say, $10,000 per train of 2,000 tons, having in mind the thousands of cars rusting on sidings, the engines which are idle, the train crews seeking relief and the miners of Alberta who have to be clothed and fed, they say the fixing of a rate of $5 per ton would make possible such a movement that it would be a proper move to make from a national point of view, if only as a temporary measure. Further they say:
Ontario consumes over 4,000,000 tons of domestic fuel per season and if Alberta could only secure 25 per cent, or one million tons, it would mean 500 trains of coal, with a gross revenue to the railways of approximately $5,000,000, plus the benefit which would come from the expenditure of wages of the miners, train crews, teamsters, coal yard employees, and all those other people who would be directly or indirectly employed.
I think if we had time we could show that a reduction in grain rates would also greatly increase the business of the transportation companies. As I said before, the question of a reduction in domestic freight rates as applied to British Columbia is not new, and it is not necessary for me to go extensively into its history, but I wish to place before the house briefly where the matter stands at present as far as my province is concerned. A few years ago this question was referred to the railway commission, who heard the application in 1926 and gave judgment in 1927. An appeal was taken to the former government, which was heard in 1929. Although they had months to consider the question no judgment was given; the privy council as then constituted vanished after the election of 1930, and the new government came into power in September of that year. As rve understand it, this means a new hearing, because while the personnel of the court is gone the appeal still exists. Briefly, that is how the matter stands and we

Western Freight Rates
believe that if it had not been for present conditions not only in Canada but throughout the world, this matter would have received the serious consideration of the privy council much sooner.
The last speaker referred to the discrimination shown in export over domestic rates to British Columbia. Without question the domestic rate of 414 cents per hundred pounds from Calgary to Vancouver is excessive and discriminatory. It has been pointed out on more than one occasion that with an export rate of 20 cents, apart from the cost of sacking the grain, when our wheat reaches Yokohama and Hong Kong frequently it has paid no greater freight rate than we pay from prairie points to the Fraser valley and Vancouver island. The last speaker also referred to the all rail export rate from Fort William to Montreal, which is 344 cents per hundred pounds, while the domestic rate is 3 cents greater, or 374 cents. The distance from Fort William to Montreal is over one-half greater than the distance from Calgary to Vancouver, and there would not appear to be any reason for the difference between the export and domestic rate from prairie points to Vancouver. The differential on the haul from Fort William to Montreal, as I have pointed out, is 3 cents, while the differential on the haul from Calgary to Vancouver is 214 cents.
Unfortunately the same rate applies to the poorer grades of grain. As I have already said, under normal conditions the prairie provinces produce the highest quality of wheat, oats and barley, but from time to time a considerable proportion of the crop is damaged through exceptional seasonal conditions, and rendered unfit for export. The bulk of this damaged or low grade grain can be used for feed for cattle, hogs and poultry. Damaged grain, of course, is not as suitable for feed as sound grain, but if it can be secured at a sufficiently low price it answers the purpose fairly well. The present domestic rate of 414 cents per hundred pounds makes impossible the use of such grain by the poultry and dairy farmers of the Fraser valley, and compels them to either pay this added cost of 414 cents per hundred pounds or, as the last speaker said, buy imported corn.
My hon. friend also referred to the matter of barley. As hon. members will recall, last year a duty of 25 cents was placed on com in order to encourage the use of barley in the feeding of poultry. I made inquiries from some of the largest poultry plants, as well as from the milling people in my district. They assured me they had used considerably more
barley this year than they ever did before and they found it very satisfactory. We find at the same time large shipments of com came from South Africa free of duty under the British preferential.
If we are to carry out the principle that we established last session, of trying to encourage the poultrymen of British Columbia to use more barley, it is essential that we be in a position to lay barley down at a lower rate than at present if we expect to compete with imported corn. The whole question of transportation will no doubt come before the government and the house before long, and at that time it might be well to take into consideration the matter of rates under the question of cheaper transportation of products of this kind from one part of Canada to another.
It has been argued that the rate should be the same as the export rate. I do not know that the farmers of British Columbia are united on that. We would be satisfied with a small differential rate; if the differential on the westbound rate were reduced to the same level as that of the eastbound rate, that is, 3 cents, it would give relief to the poultry and dairy industry in British Columbia. It would give us a rate of 23 cents instead of 414 cents per hundred pounds. The retaining of the small differential would tend to establish a greater milling industry in the west. If this were done I believe it would be possible for the dairymen, and to a certain extent the poultrymen, to procure mill feeds at a lower rate than at present. The dairymen do not feed the whole grain; they depend almost altogether on mill products, such as bran, shorts and so forth.
I have tried to draw to the attention of the government, first, that lower rates on grain for domestic use would tend to relieve to a great extent the conditions prevailing in the poultry and dairy industries owing to the existing low market situation. Second, it would enable these men to produce at a lower cost and better to meet competition on the world market. Third, the lower rate would without doubt increase the consumption in British Columbia of the prairie grain, which would be beneficial to the producer on the prairie and at the same time, as I pointed out, give more business to the transportation companies. I have great pleasure in seconding the motion.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to me to support this resolution this afternoon. If my memory serves me aright, last session I made some mention of domestic freight rates, but I was
Western Freight Rates


Robert James Manion: I think the hon. member
said you could ship grain from the prairies to Denmark cheaper than to British Columbia.


William John Loucks: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Has the hon. member the
figures?


William John Loucks: No.


Robert James Manion: I am rather doubtful.


William John Loucks: If the minister will take
the figures already quoted, he will find the domestic rate from Alberta into British Columbia is just about double.


Robert James Manion: I agree with that one
point, but not with the rest.


William John Loucks: I was referring only to the domestic rate. We can ship grain to Great Britain, Denmark or Sweden at a rate cheaper than that for domestic shipments.


Robert James Manion: That is partly correct. I
have the figures here which show that the rate to Liverpool is a little higher than the domestic rate.


William John Loucks: I noticed a question was
asked the other day in connection with the shipment of Australian wheat to British Columbia, and it seems almost ridiculous that wheat can be shipped to Vancouver from Aus-

Western Freight Rates
tralia cheaper than it can be shipped from Alberta. The price of wheat is now about thirty and some odd cents a bushel, and it seems almost impossible to believe that Australia can be a competitor. I attribute this to the handicap of the domestic rate. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) mentioned a letter which he had received in connection with domestic rates, and no doubt many hon. members have been thus circularized.
Considerable rolling stock could be put to work if the domestic rate was brought into lme with the export rate. Every western farmer is concerned about this matter, and I think every hon. member from the west will endorse this suggestion. Millions of bushels of barley could be shipped from western Canada to British Columbia if these rates were adjusted and brought in line with the export rates. I have confidence something will be done. I know it is a matter for the railroads but to a certain extent this government is responsible in seeing that the rate is brought into line. I feel assured that this resolution will receive the endorsation of the house.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to rise in support of this resolution. I am sorry I was not prepared at the time the resolution standing in my name was called and I began to fear that this matter would not be discussed at this session as I was informed that my resolution could not be again placed on the order paper. I am glad however to join with hon. members opposite in support of the resolution.
It is not my purpose to cover the ground that was covered last year. At that time many figures were quoted, many figures have been quoted to-day, and it would be wearisome and a vain repetition to cover all the details. I intend to deal more particularly with the domestic freight rates appeal now before the governor in council, as I find there is considerable doubt in the minds of many persons regarding the matter. I hope to be able to clarify this situation. In all kindness I point out to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) that he did not give the true position of this appeal or the proper dates.
Before doing this, I should like to say that the poultry and dairying industry of British Columbia have reached a point where if something is not done and done real soon there will be no poultrymen or dairy men to provide traffic for the railroads. The following account of a meeting of poultrymen in British Columbia appeared in the Vancouver Province:
Many coast poultry farmers have given up the battle against high freight rates and other handicaps but the industry as a whole-
That is, the poultry industry.
-is still fighting for reduced charges on prairie feed despite the disheartening record of the past couple of years.
"Undoubtedly many producers are going out of business and the railway rates are one of the principle causes," said 6. P. Wallace, president of the Canadian Poultry Pool Limited, in commenting to-day on an appeal for the poultry-men made in the legislature by Captain MacGregor Macintosh.
The islands member said Japan can import grain at half the cost of British Columbia and charged the railways with building traffic at the expense of Canada's taxpayers.
To show the decline in the industry, Mr. Wallace pointed out that in 1929 British Columbia shipped 389 carloads of eggs to outside markets while in 1930 there was a twenty per cent fall to 310 cars, and in 1931 a thirty per cent fall to 221 cars.
"It is true that the cost of grain has decreased," he said, "but so has the price of eggs, while freight rates have remained unchanged. There is still a difference of about $4.30 a ton between the export and domestic rates to the coast."
It is startling to realize that our competitors in Japan and China can obtain their grain requirements from the grain fields of Alberta, good No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 grain as against the poorer grades which we have to feed, at a rate of about $7 per ton delivered-that is the Shanghai rate- as compared with $8.30 for Vancouver delivery. The article continues :
We think that we are entitled to the same rate as foreigners. We are trying to build up a valuable export trade here in British Columbia. We are making occasional shipments to Great Britain but we find that producers in England can buy Alberta wheat just as cheaply as we can while it costs us seven or eight cents a dozen to deliver the eggs in the old country. The point is that we have a specialized industry here in British Columbia with both our markets and feed sources great distances away. Montreal and other eastern Canadian cities are our main market while our feed comes from the prairies.
We believe we are entitled to special consideration. We do not expect the railroads to lower domestic rates in all parts of Canada but we think we are entitled to expect the same arrangement that has been put into effect in other parts of the dominion.
Since my arrival in Ottawa I have received many letters and telegrams citing the serious position of the poultrymen and dairymen. I will quote from one letter only, received from a man in my own constituency. He says:
Western Freight Rates


Mr. TURNBULL:: Is the hon. member
quite sure that the order of September 2 was confirmed? Is it not a fact that the board, being divided, provided that the whole matter should be reviewed and reheard as part of the general inquiry?


Thomas Reid: If the hon. member will just
let me complete what I am saying he will find that I am about to make a full explanation of the whole case. If 'the hon. member will be content to listen I will come to his point in a moment.
It is very important that the findings of the chief commissioner be given in regard to this matter, and I believe what I am about to read will state the whole case, so far as the province of British Columbia is concerned. The findings of the chief commissioner are as follows:
That following the approval of the said order in council P.C. 886-
That is where I think the whole appeal has been clouded. There have been so many appeals that one member will be quoting P.C. 886, and 'the other Board of Railway Commissioners general order PXT 420, which dealt specifically with only one part of the inquiry. The findings continue:
That following the approval of the said order in council P.C. 886 and the amendment of section 325 of the Railway Act in 1925, the Board of Railway Commissioners issued general order No. 420 on the 9th day of July, and then on appeal being made and heard they issued order No. 36769.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, there have been so many orders that one has difficulty following them and learning the truth from them. The finding continues:
That on the 2nd of September, 1925. the board, following the hearing in the city of

Western Freight Bates

Vancouver in the month of November, 1924, issued general order No. 36769, directing the railways to equalize the rates on grain and flour moving to Vancouver and Fort William for export, but omitted any reference to domestic rates.
Right through, I may say that practically all these appeals have been on export rates. The appeal by British Columbia, which was heard when the commissioner was in that province, was on domestic rates. They found that owing to P.C. 886 which was a general rates inquiry, until a decision was given regarding domestic rates they had no right to hear any evidence, because such a hearing should come under the purview of P.C. 886.
However to continue with .the findings of Hon. H. A. McKeown, may I read the following:	.
(a)	That order 36769

Which was an order authorizing them to equalize rates westward as well as eastward.
*-was made after a complete consideration of everything involved.
(b)	That the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has not complied with the said order, and its action cannot be justified.
That is, in disobeying the order-
That the application to rescind order 36769 should be dismissed.
They appealed the order after it was given, and the appeal was dismissed.
(d) That the operating cost is not any greater than tile cost incurred in Ontario, and not as great as the cost incurred in Quebec and New Brunswick.
_ (e) That the difference in cost of operation in the province of British Columbia and the prairie provinces is no greater, in fact not as great as the difference in the cost incurred in New Brunswick and Ontario, where no differential in the rates is made, and for that reason the application of a differential in British Columbia to compensate the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for higher operating cost was unjust.
ff) That the tolls charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the carriage of goods in, to, from or through British Columbia are discriminatory, and that the discrimination was unjust.
(g)	That the charging of a higher toll in British Columbia based on so-called mountain operation cost is a violation of the terms of union under which British Columbia entered confederation.
(h)	That the Canadian Pacific Railway Company having received large subsidies for the express purpose of overcoming the physical difficulties throughout its system, cannot now in justice be heard to urge these difficulties to uphold a discriminatory scale of rates which such subventions were given to overcome.
(i)	That the cost of operation on the Canadian National Railways is no greater in British Columbia than it is in the prairie provinces, and that there is no justification for a higher toll on the latter road for the carriage in, to,

from or through British Columbia than it charges for the same or similar service in the prairie provinces.
(k)	That the domestic rate of 37J cents per 100 pounds from Fort William to Montreal, and 55J cents per 100 pounds from Fort William to St. John, and 57 cents from Fort William to Halifax, is out of line with all rates in the territory east of Fort William, arid has never been questioned bj the consumer, flour miller and other consignee of eastern Canada,-
And this is the reason:
-for the reason that it is not a rate they are compelled to use, having available the rates of the lake carriers that serve the hulk of the population of Ontario and Quebec and practically all of the milling centres and distributing centres such as Port McNicol, Port Colborne, Windsor, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec city, where the rate of the lake carrier instead of being 37i cents to Montreal is between 10 and 11 cents. In addition to that western Canadian grain for feeding live stock, dairy stock and poultry is not used to anything like the same extent in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that it is in British Columbia. Had the eastern flour miller, the consumer and consignee been dependent upon the all-rail rate for prairie grain and flour, they would have made some effort to secure the reduction of that rale to bring it in line with other rates that exist throughout the territory.
(l)	That the all-rail rates covering the movement of domestic grain from Fort William to points in eastern Canada are paper rates, or rates under which nothing moves, and are not comparable with the rates from prairie points to Fort William or to Vancouver that carry all the traffic, and do not indicate anything as to the reasonableness of the rate to British Columbia or to Fort William. The fact that they are the only rates that the consignees and consumers of eastern Canada have not complained about, although they justify more complaint by their obvious high level and comparative unreasonableness than any other rates in eastern Canada, establishes beyond question that they are not rates under which any appreciable amount of traffic moves.
(n) That the cost per ton from Fort William-to Montreal on grain moving by the lake carriers for domestic consumption is 11 cents per 100 pounds, or $2 per ton. as compared with the cost from Calgary to Vancouver of $8.39 per ton.
Then, note this Mr. Speaker:
That the consumer of grain and flour in Vancouver, and the dairy farmer, live stock feeder and poultry man in the territory contiguous to Vancouver pays 372 per cent more than the consumer of grain and flour in Montreal, or the dairy farmer, live stock feeder or poultry man contiguous to Montreal has to pay in transportation for grain and flour produced in western Canada, although the distance from Fort William to Montreal is 997 miles, or 353 miles further than the distance from Calgary to Vancouver, which is 642 miles.
The whole matter of appeal is under a sort of cloud, and is not clear to most hon. members. Probably I should repeat the history Appeals were made by the provinces of British

Western Freight Rates
Columbia and Alberta against the decision made in the year 1922, a decision made on the export rate. The Board of Railway Commissioners heard the appeal on November 5, 1924, and when the appeal was made three commissioners were present. May I repeat that the appeal was upon the export rate, only. On September 2, 1925, the board issued an order reducing the rate on export grain. Appeal! was made against this order by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with whom was joined the Board of Trade of the city of Montreal. The first order which was issued on September 2, 1925, was confirmed, because when appeal was heard three commissioners agreed, and three disagreed. The three commissioners who agreed were those three who had heard the appeal; the three who disagreed were those who had only read the evidence, and were not present in person when the appeal by the province of British Columbia and others was placed before them and the information thereby made available. An order in council was passed on June 5, 1925-and it is in connection with this order in council that confusion has arisen. While one order had been given in the year 1924 and carried' on to the end of the year 1925, another order had been given instructing the Board of Railway Commissioners to go into the whole question generally of rates throughout the whole of Canada. Chief Commissioner McKeown has said that no directions were issued, when that order was given, to hear the appeal by the province of British Columbia. The chief commissioner is reported as follows:
In some quarters it has been suggested that the various applications made to the board under this investigation

P.C. 886, under date of June 5, 1925-
*-have given it the character of being simply an effort to reduce rates in different localities. Such applications are numerous and insistent, but we are acting under an order in council which has in view the establishment of a rate structure fair and reasonable and equal in its application throughout the country.
The chief commissioner adds that the order in council does not pertain to the establishment of a rate structure in any one locality. This decision was rendered on August 26, 1927, and I find that order number 448, a copy of which I have under my hand, took the whole rate structure throughout Canada into consideration and reviewed the export rate at that time, but gave no decision whatsoever on the domestic rate. I claimi that the appeal of the British Columbia government now before the governor in council is hardly sufficient in itself. I think the government should have taken into consideration general order 448 which was issued in August, 41761-555
1927. This did not specifically deal with British Columbia's case with respect to domestic freight rates. It is with a view to expediting this mater and to clarify it that I have gone into it at some length. I hope the government will see the difficulty as I see it, because if action on the appeal is delayed much longer I fear the poultry and dairymen will be faced with complete disaster.
Another serious aspect of the case is that at the present time we in British Columbia are debarred from appealing to the Board of Railway Commissioners. Last year the management of the British Columbia Egg Pool appealed to the railway commission. I have before me a copy of their case, and also a copy of the findings by the board. Of course, the pool asked that the domestic freight rate be just the same as the export freight rate. The commissioners were in doubt whether they could hear the appeal and delayed giving their decision until their return to Ottawa, when they notified the pool that as the matter was already before the board the appeal could not be heard. So not only are the poultry-men suffering from the high freight rates they have to pay for an inferior quality of feed, but they cannot even appeal to the railway commission on this point as long as this matter is before the governor in council. Some action is necessary, and I am in great hopes that the necessary steps will be taken. As I say, last session when I introduced the question action was promised by the Prime Minister. Personally I am disappointed that no decision along those lines has been given. If the governor in council cannot deal directly with the question I urge that the government refer it to the Board of Railway Commissioners again with specific instructions to hear the appeal of the British Columbia government and the poultrymen in the matter of the domestic freight rates.
Again I urge on the government the necessity of doing something before disaster overtakes the poultrymen and dairymen of British Columbia. If the government are not prepared to grant the required reduction at once, let them refer thei matter back to the Board of Railway Commissi oners. In 1930 the government of British Columbia engaged counsel, and that counsel is awaiting along with counsel for the poultry pool of British Columbia and other associations to go before a tribunal with their appeal. We feel we have justice on our side, and that we have every right to ask for and obtain the same treatment in this respect as has been accorded the other provinces. Across the line our competitors can ship their eggs from Seattle east cheaper than we can, and they can ship their wheat from points in

Western Freight Rates
Montana and elsewhere much cheaper than we can. Our competitors in Japan enjoy a similar advantage over us. They can buy our good grain and get it landed in Shanghai at 87 a ton, while we have to pay $8.30 a ton from Edmonton and other points. What chance shall we have to compete with these people so long as this discrimination against us continues?
I am glad to join with the hon. member for -Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and I am hopeful that as the motion has been introduced by one of the government supporters it will meet with more serious attention at the hands of the government than the appeal I made last session.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I certainly must support the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), Mr. Speaker, but as this is, I think, the eighth time that I have brought the matter up myself, or supported somebody else in doing it, I lend my support rather with that hope deferred which maketh the heart sick. The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Reid) said he had great hopes of action being taken at this session. Well, all I can say is that while I admire his optimism I do not share it. He buttresses his argument by the statement, "We have justice on our side." Yes, but it needs more than justice to get action in parliament.' It is needless for me to rehash or repeat the arguments in favour of the adoption of the principle we ask for as they have been so often stated, and as the facts have never been contradicted. While the resolution is drawn on general lines, what we in British 'Columbia want is a reduction of the local domestic freight rates to the point where they will be equal to the export freight rates.
There is one point that none of the previous speakers has touched on. There has been a continual fight over rates westward for, I suppose, fifteen years, and the Hon. John Oliver when premier of British 'Columbia was very prominent in the matter. On two occasions- the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) alluded to one of them-he was successful in getting a reduction on the export rate. In neither case, however, was there any corresponding or similar reduction made in the domestic rate. Twelve years ago there was a differential, but it was not nearly as large as it is now. Let us say that it was considered fair and reasonable at that time; since then the export rate has been substantially reduced twice, but the domestic rate has not been proportionately reduced, and my argument is that if the differential between the export and
[Mr. Reid.3
domestic rates was right twelve years ago it cannot possibly be right now because it has been twice increased since that time.
The hon. member for New Westminster told the house that the poultrymen would go bankrupt if something were not done. He might have gone further and said they are bankrupt now; they are selling out their stocks day by day and week by week. Possibly to-day the government will say what they said last year, that the Liberal government also neglected this matter. That is true, but the "et tu Brute" argument is not very strong; at least the Liberal government did hear the case even if they did not give a decision, though I agree they were far too long hearing it. At any rate, the present government fell heir to this question in August or September of 1930. The matter was brought up in this house last May, and the government pointed out that it had not been in office very long, and compared the short period in which they had not dealt with the matter with the several years that had lapsed before the Liberal government considered it. That was quite true, but it is not a good argument now, a year later. In dealing with this matter last year the Prime Minister called attention to the fact that many years ago parliament established a court known as the Board of Railway Commissioners, and he pointed out that it was just as much a court as the exchequer court or the supreme court of Canada, with all the rights, powers and opportunities to examine into these things. Of course he was right in that. Then he said:
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.
He went on to say that the court gave judgment in the matter of British Columbia freight rates, and that the judgment did not support the views put forward by those interested. Then he said:
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.
His reference to partisans, of course, has to do with the fact that the privy council, meaning the government, is not composed of men skilled in the intricacies of railway rates, and they are partisans in the sense that they are members of one political party. With that I quite agree, and I might just quote a sentence I spoke in reply:
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

Western Freight Rates
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 he accused of being partisan in its views.
Those were the views I expressed then, and that suggestion would entirely meet the objection raised by the Prime Minister, that taking an appeal to the privy council was really taking an appeal from a court to a partisan body. I quite agree with that view of the Prime Minister, and I do think the appeal should lie to the supreme court.
Then the question came up as to when some action might be expected on the appeal and last year the Prime Minister said:
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.
That was an indication that it could not be heard while parliament was in session. On February 11 of this year I asked when this appeal might be expected to be heard, and the Prime Minister said:
That appeal has not been heard by the present government and it is impossible to say when a date will be fixed for the hearing.
This does not look very hopeful for a hearing in the near future. The matter has dragged for a long time, and I am afraid there is little hope of a satisfactory result when it is heard. Referring to the same volume of Hansard, for May 20, 1931, I find the right hon. Prime Minister using these words:
I may say to the house that this government will notand this is very significant.

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.
He goes on later to say:
If it is clear or reasonable from the appeal [DOT]-one cannot anticipate the judgment-that the matter should be reconsidered that, of course, will be done.
So the Prime Minister said very clearly that he did not think the privy council was the body to deal with the matter, and that the most that might be expected would be to have the matter sent back for a rehearing. Possibly if we can get nothing better we will have to be satisfied with this; at least something will be accomplished. It may be that the railway board will have a better light on the matter, and recent events may have helped them change their mind. For instance, we have been importing wheat from Australia,
I prophesied that a couple of years ago and was laughed at, but it has happened. We are also importing corn from South Africa, and I do not think we have any reason to be proud of either of those things. If we so manage our railway rates that it pays to import wheat from Australia and corn from South Africa it would seem that we are negligent in our duties to the producer on the prairies and to the consumer in British Columbia.
The argument always put forth before the board of railway commissioners by the railways is that the export rate is not profitable, and therefore they cannot agree to make the domestic rate the same. That is a very poor argument; if it applies to the one case it should apply to the other also, but we find t.he railways always anxious to get export business, though they claim it is not profitable. It must be remembered that the cost of hauling wheat from the prairies to British Columbia is exactly the same whether the wheat is for export or for domestic use. It goes on the same train; it is only a matter of switching the cars. If the railways take that attitude they should wish for no traffic at all, but we do not find that; they are reaching out for all the export business they can get, but they should be careful lest they kill the goose that lays the golden egg. What will it profit them to keep up this high rate on domestic traffic if the consumer is driven to Australia or South Africa for his commodities? In one regard I am not sorry this has happened, because it may give the railway companies and also the board of railway commissioners the idea that it is not always profitable to try to squeeze more than the traffic will bear-and that is what it amounts to in this case.
The government have three choices in the matter, and I would join with other hon. members in asking them to follow at least one, because total inaction is not to be defended from any point of view. The government could change the act so that the appeal would not lie to the privy council but to the Supreme Court of Canada; that would release the government from an invidious position and would put the matter in the hands of those best qualified to deal with it. Another course they might follow would be to hear the appeal and give a decision one way or the other, or finally they might refer it back to the board of railway commissioners. So far
Western Freight Rates

as I am concerned I should like to see the matter, referred to the supreme court. Then there would be no undue delay and the question would be dealt with on its merits, with no suggestion of political influence or anything of that kind. I think this would be the most satisfactory position for the government or any government in the future to take. I join with those members on both sides of the house who have pressed this as being a very urgent matter in British Columbia. People who continually cry out about a certain question of injustice are apt to get looked upon as men with a perpetual grievance. But a matter is never settled until it is settled right and to my knowledge this has been going on not for five but for possibly eight years, and I think the time has come and, indeed, has long since passed when the matter should be brought to a decisive end. I hope the government will take action along one of the three lines I have indicated, but for any sake let us get some action of some kind.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, the question of domestic freight rates has come very closely home to us, particularly in the southern part of Manitoba, because this year we have found it necessary for various reasons to bring in from other points different kinds of feeds, coarse grains and roughage. We have found that freight rates for shipment even for short distances have been almost staggering. It is for that reason in particular that' I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of taking part in this debate.
One matter that was mentioned by some of the other speakers should be further emphasized owing to its effect on the whole dominion. Efforts have been made by our farmers' organizations to establish a systematic live stock marketing scheme for Canada. Western cattle have been taken to eastern feed lots and there kept coming along as export requirements needed them. When one looks over the cost of domestic freight rates, one realizes how difficult it is for eastern feeders to secure at anything like reasonable prices, western feed grain with which to finish the cattle. To my mind there is an opportunity to develop quite an industry for the live stock men of this country. In eastern Canada, if I understand the situation, there is usually an abundance of high class rough feed, which at times has to be supplemented by coarse grains from other parts of Canada. If we had a freight rate structure whereby these people could secure those coarse grains at a reasonable figure, one could imagine how !Mr. Neill.]
a very satisfactory industry could be built up in feeding western cattle near the seaboard on some of our eastern feed lots, thus making a profit for the men who are feeding them.
Looking back at the situation as it exists with us particularly in Manitoba and observing what was going on last fall in districts where feed was scarce, I may point out that the matter of truck service was quite a problem. I know of several men who purchased grain fifty, sixty or seventy-five miles away, and instead of bringing it in by train, they were hiring trucks to draw it in, simply because the domestic freight rate was prohibitive and they found it much more economical to bring the grain in by truck than to have it shipped in the ordinary way by rail. This is a graphic example of lost revenue for the railway companies. Had those rates been reasonable, the railways would undoubtedly have had the business. We in Manitoba will require a good deal of grain during the coming season. Most of it will be shipped in from northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta, but some of it will come from northern Manitoba where there is a surplus of feed grain. The strange thing is that in buying grain for feeding purposes, we ordinarily have it shipped to Winnipeg on the Fort William basis, pay the full Fort William freight on it to Winnipeg and then have it shipped out on local freight from Winnipeg to points in southern Manitoba. This seems a most ridiculous situation and one which should be remedied in the very near future.
Reference was made this afternoon to an effort to do something for the growers of coarse grain in western Canada by placing a duty on corn coming into this country. I think I said last year that in my judgment a reasonable domestic freight rate on barley would have been more effective and a much more reasonable proposition than placing a duty on corn. For the life of me I cannot see why we build up all these facilities for handling commodities in this country and then handicap them so that they cannot be used. A reasonable domestic rate on grain shipped from point to point within Manitoba would be more effective in this connection than placing a duty on corn.
I should like to take just a moment to point out to the house some of the extreme differences that present themselves in comparing the domestic with the export freight rate. The extreme is so great that it looks almost as if some error had been made in making up the freight rate structure.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Western Freight Rates
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: His Honour the Speaker will be absent for a short time and has asked me to take the chair. I ask the indulgence of the house.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker,
when the house rose at six o'clock I was about to discuss the differences between the export and domestic freight rates as applied to certain grain movements. On shipments from North Battleford to Vancouver the export rate on wheat is 14-4 cents per bushel while the domestic rate is 30 cents; in other words, the export rate is 15-6 cents per bushel less than the domestic. On oats from the same point the export rate is 8-1 cents per bushel and the domestic rate, 17 cents per bushel, a difference of 8-9 cents per bushel. Following this shipment through to Shanghai and allowing for all intervening charges such as handling and ocean freight, it works out that the poultry feeder in Shanghai can secure our feed wheat for 4-85 cents per bushel less than the poultry feeder in British Columbia, and he can secure our oats for nearly 2 cents per bushel less. On shipments of barley from Areola the export rate is 13-92 cents per bushel and the domestic rate, 25-68 cents, a difference in favour of the export rate of 11-76 cents per bushel. Carrying this shipment of barley through to Shanghai it will be found that the Chinese feeder can secure barley for 2-8 cents per bushel less than the feeder in British Columbia.
Going the other way and taking shipments of grain from the bay ports, it will be found that the export rate is 7-7 cents iper bushel on barley and the domestic rate 19-9 cents, an advantage in favour of the export shipper of 12-2 cents. After allowing for all charges such as elevator charges and ocean freight, this barley can be delivered to feeders of live stock in Liverpool at 6.85 cents per bushel cheaper than it can be delivered to feeders in St. John. That seems to be too much of a discrepancy.
Looking at the question from another angle we find that at to-day's price No. 4 C.W. barley is worth 38 cents per bushel at Fort William. The freight rate from Souris, Manitoba, to Fort William is 8-16 cents. The local price at Souris less the elevator charges is 31-84 cents per bushel, and it costs 34-5 cents per bushel in freight and other handling charges to place the grain in the hands of the feeder in the maritimes. The feeder in the maritimes has to pay 31 cents per bushel plus 34-5 cents per bushel in handling charges,
making a total of 65 cents per bushel for the barley for which the farmer at Souris receives only 31 cents per bushel.
Let us now consider feed wheat shipped from Areola, Saskatchewan. At to-day's prices this wheat is worth 45 cents per bushel; the freight to Fort William is 11 cents per bushel, making a value of the grain art Areola, less elevator and handling charges, 33 cents per bushel. The domestic rate to Vancouver is 25-6 cents per bushel, and the Vancouver poultry feeder has to pay 33-5 cents per bushel plus 25-6 cents for freight, a total of 59-1 cents per bushel for feed wheat for which the farmer at Areola receives 33 cents. We are trying to establish live stock and poultry industries in Canada and yet we oblige the producers to pay these excessive freight rates. For the life of me I cannot understand a policy which gives a greater advantage to the feeder of bacon hogs in Denmark than is given to the feeder in eastern Canada. Likewise, I cannot understand why an advantage should be given to the poultry raiser in China over and above that given to the poultry raiser in British Columbia.
A few days ago the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail), speaking on the resolution in connection with the bonus on wheat, said in effect that she would support the principle of paying a bonus .to the western farmer if it would keep him out of mixed farming. I should think it would be much more reasonable to adapt our freight rate structure so that an advantage could be given both ways. At the present time if the eastern farmer wants to buy our western feed grain he is obliged to pay more because of the domestic freight rate. If this rate was reduced by, say, five cents per bushel, it would mean that we could produce and deliver that barley at five cents per bushel less, and the advantage would work both ways.
Manitoba, which is one of the older grain producing provinces, is particularly interested in the domestic freight rate structure. On account of the invasion of weeds and the running out of land the farmer in Manitoba has been forced into the growing of coarse grains, and as time goes on he will be compelled to grow a still larger percentage of this class of feed. I think it is only fair to state that Manitoba did not secure the same proportion of the five cent bonus on wheat as did the other western provinces, and consequently we are more interested directly in the reduction of domestic freight rates. More live stock should be fattened in eastern Canada with western grain and the poultry producer of British Columbia should be given an op-
Western Freight Rates

portundty to produce more of the country's requirements. The climatic conditions alone are sufficient to justify that contention. If these men were given the opportunity of securing our western feed grains at a reasonable rate, I think it would work out to the advantage of all concerned, the railways included.
I cannot understand why we should have a domestic freight rate structure which leaves us in our present position. The poultry raiser in British Columbia has to pay 4.85 cents per bushel more for wheat than does the poultry producer in China; he has to pay 2.8 cents per bushel more for barley and 1.99 cent per bushel more for oats. On an average the European feeder can secure his grains from Canada at 6.85 cents per bushel less than the eastern Canada feeder. Surely this works an injustice and is something that should be rectified in the very near future.
I am very glad that this subject has again been brought to the attention of the house, and I hope that this time some definite action will be taken in respect to it. We are particularly interested in the matter at this time because of the very severe crop conditions which we have had in practically all the western provinces; consequently we do feel that we have an added right to ask for some sort of adjustment in this regard. I therefore have very much pleasure in supporting the resolution.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have listened most of the afternoon to the debate which has taken place on this question, and it has been a most interesting debate from every standpoint, a debate which I think showed moderation and fairness to a large extent, if not completely. Perhaps in a sense, though I do this with no controversial desire, I might except my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), because he seemed to think it very fair that the late government had done nothing for three years after the decision had been given in this case by the Board of Railway Commissioners, either to change that decision or to refer it back to the board, yet he seemed to think it most unfair that this government in less than one year and a half in power should not have settled the whole question. I think that this government has had very much more difficult and serious questions on its hands than had the late government during at least the last three years of its regime, and I think that the government of to-day has had a good deal of reason for being hesitant in undertaking more heavy responsibilities. I should like generally though 
to compliment all the speakers, particularly the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) who introduced the resolution, and members on both sides of the house by and large, because generally speaking they spoke in a very moderate tone and I believe from their own standpoint were speaking as fairly as any of us would desire them to do.
It seems to me that there were two questions involved in the discussion which followed the resolution. The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the domestic freight rate on grain and grain products moving from any point in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, to a point in any of the said provinces, or from one point to another point in any one of the said provinces, be substantially reduced.
I think the word "should" ought to have been placed in the resolution. At any rate it is a very general resolution, but my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi and the other members from British Columbia on both sides of the house who addressed themselves to the question were speaking largely from the British Columbia standpoint, and so I say that there were two distinct questions involved in the discussion. There was first the question as to the domestic and export rate on grain to British Columbia, and secondly there was the question of freight rates on grain in general throughout the four western provinces. They are two questions quite distinct, and it was not on the latter question that there was an appeal to the late government from the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The appeal was on the first question, that of domestic and export rates on grain to British Columbia.
May I say at the outset that I sympathize very sincerely with my hon. friends from all parts of the western provinces who were speaking on behalf of the grain growers of those sections, because no one realizes more keenly than the government the serious plight in which the grain growers of the west find themselves. We all realize that they have been very badly hit. The prices of their commodities have gone down to perhaps one-third of what they were a few years ago, and consequently a reduction of one cent a bushel in freight rates is of very great importance to them. On the other hand, the two great railways of this country, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, as everybody in this house knows, have also been very hard hit, and while I do not wish to be construed as opposing the resolution-because I do not feel that I am capable any more than this house in general is capable of passing

Western Freight Rates
judicially on the merits of the case-at the same time I feel it my duty as Minister of Railways to point out to the house some of the difficulties of the question. After all, as Minister of Railways I am speaking for the government, but on the other hand, the railways themselves have no representation in the house to express their side of the question, and I feel that in fairness to them I ought to give a few of the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, which the railways put forward on their side. In other words, I am pointing out that there are two sides to this question, and that probably the truth lies in between the two, as it usually does with most questions. Fairness demands, however, that I offer a few of the reasons given by the railways why they do not agree at once to what looks on the face of it to be a very fair demand.
Export rates not only on grain but on all commodities are usually lower in all countries than domestic rates. They are lower because of the advantage which they give to producers and traders in a country to compete with traders in other countries on what somebody has expressed as a free trade basis. They give them an opportunity to compete in outside markets. Our export rates on grain are lower than our domestic rates, but so are our export rates on practically all other commodities. I do not wish to take up time by quoting rates on too many commodities, but I have a statement under my hand of the export rates on very many commodities and in practically every case they are very much lower than the domestic rates. For example, the domestic rate on apples per 100 pounds in carload lots to Halifax is 58 cents, and the export rate is 39i cents; on automobiles the domestic rate is 119 as opposed to 74; copper, 77J as opposed to 55; iron and steel, 35 as opposed to 22; newsprint paper, 19i as opposed to 15; packing house products, 114 as opposed to 93. I pick those out at random merely to illustrate the point which the railways make, that the export rates are lower not only on grain but also on all commodities for the reasons I have just given.
Yet at the same time one feels a good deal of sympathy with the arguments that have been put forward by various speakers in the house this afternoon, because it does not on the face of it seem fair that the export rate on grain, for instance, from Edmonton to Vancouver is 20 cents and the rate from Vancouver to the orient 18i cents, making a total from Edmonton to the orient of 38i cents, whereas the domestic rate from Edmonton to Vancouver is 41i cents, or a difference
of 3 cents in favour of the orient. I agree that that does not seem reasonable. On the other hand, some speakers have pointed out that they could ship grain more cheaply, so far as rates are concerned, to Denmark and Great Britain than, for example, to Vancouver.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Or to Nova Scotia.


Robert James Manion: 
Thomas Reid: Are the rates which the minister has been quoting for one hundred pounds?


Robert James Manion: Yes, in all the rates I have quoted. While I sympathize with the view of many of the speakers here this afternoon, and while, on the face of it, it does seem foolish that one should be able to ship grain from Edmonton to the orient more cheaply than from Edmonton to Vancouver, at the same time the whole freight rate structure of our country is such a strange, complicated and confusing, patch-work quilt, if one may put it that way, that I do not like to put up myself as a judge. I say frankly that I do not think I, or any other hon. member of the house, after hearing the debate which has taken place, is capable of putting himself up as a judge without at least having the fairness to hear the other side of the question. Therefore I find it difficult to concede that the resolution should be accepted by the house, although I am not dealing at the moment with the disposition hon. members may make of it. At any rate the railways should have a right to present their side of the question.
I think various speakers to-day have given the history of freight rates. So far as British Columbia freight rates are concerned-and I am referring not to the larger issue, but to the domestic freight rates as opposed to export-as has been stated this afternoon the matter has been before the Board of Railway Commissioners, evidence was taken in the years 1926 and 1927, and on August 26, 1927, their decision was handed out. With the exception of Mr. Oliver, who gave a dissenting judgment, the judgment of the railway commissioners was that "no justification could be

Western Freight Rates

found for the reduction." I think six or seven commissioners listened to the discussion, and gave a decision with which only Mr. Oliver did not agree.
The same order which gave that decision imposed the Crowsnest rates to Vancouver. Previous to that time the export rates to Vancouver were from 23 cents in 1915 to '35 cents in 1920; by this order they were lowered to 20 cents. After the Board of Railway Commissioners gave their decision an appeal was made to the late government, and hearings were held before that government on October 15, 16 and 17 of 1929. While the election did pot take place until July of 1930, the late government gave no decision-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That is not correct.


Robert James Manion: If I am wrong I should like to be corrected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hearing was adjourned from September, 1929, at the request of the province, and was resumed in January, 1930. The House of Commons met on February 20 of that year.


Robert James Manion: At any rate, the late government did hear the case on October 15, 16 and 17. I have no record before me to the effect that the hearing was adjourned, but I do not question the remarks of my hon. friend. However if the government heard the case finally' in January, 1930, they had six or seven months in which to give their decision, and yet they' gave none. I merely point that out as an historical fact showing that no doubt the late government were in the same position as we are-simply somewhat confused about the merits of the case.
Since we came into power I have on many occasions had this case before me. I sympathize with the statements made by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house concerning what would appear to be an unfair condition whereby domestic rates are higher than export rates. I have discussed that question with the heads of the two great transcontinental railway companies in Canada, and have been in conference with men in their traffic departments. I remember on one occasion having an interview with Mr. Stephens of the Canadian Pacific Railway Traffic Department and Mr. Burnap of the Canadian National Railways Traffic Department. Those two gentlemen were in my office regarding this question for an hour or longer on one occasion, and at that time I took the attitude which has been taken by many hon. members to-day to the effect that they might well throw off something from the domestic 
rate, thereby bringing it into closer alignment with the export rate. I argued that they might build up traffic which does not to-day exist and thereby add business to the railway companies. That was my feeling at that time, and speaking personally I cannot say that I have changed my views. Their reply however was that the export rate is not a fair one. They said, "We did not agree to the export rate; it was imposed upon us by the Board of Railway Commissioners." They claimed that it was a losing rate, and that in any event they could make no money from it. Further they said, "If you wish to approximate these rates the fair thing to do would be to raise the export rate, thereby bringing it closer to the domestic rate, rather than to lower the domestic rate." That is their argument and their side of the question.
They viewed the matter from another angle which I shall now outline. They said, "Suppose we agree to your suggestion"-may I add that the discussion was informal-" Suppose we agree to your suggestion, the next move would be that all the prairie provinces would demand the same lowering of rates we might give to British Columbia. Then would come the maritime provinces who in turn would demand a lowering of their rates. The result would be that a change in the freight rates in one section would promote applications to the railways from the whole country to bring rates into alignment with the lowered scale permitted in one section." There is a great deal of truth in that contention, and I think the discussion I have outlined shows that the railway companies have some grounds for the stand they have taken.
At this time I shall endeavour to give you some of the arguments they put before me, not necessarily in discussion but also by letter and on various occasions when the matter was under consideration. They claimed, first, that any change would affect the whole freight rates structure. Secondly, they said that if we applied the export rate on grain to British Columbia in connection with the domestic grain shipped to that province, and applied the same rate to grain shipped throughout the western provinces, the railways would suffer to the extent of nearly $2,000,000. They said the actual cost to them in 1930 would have been $1,680,000. They take the position that as the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway are not in a good financial condition at the present time they should not be asked to carry any greater load. We who have been following the railroad situation know that their statement of conditions is the correct one.

Western Freight Rates
Further, they say that on the 20 cent export rate from Edmonton or Calgary, for instance, they are actually subsidizing export trade. They have figures to show that the railway companies are now subsidizing exports because they say on the 20 cent rate they are losing money. They pointed out to me that the Seattle export rate is from 31^ cents to 37-J cents as compared with the Canadian rate of 20 cents, the compared rates covering equal distances. In fact, they used those figures as an argument to show that they were giving much lower export rates than were given at Seattle, and that therefore they should be permitted to raise that rate.
They took the further stand-and I am attempting to give their arguments justly and fairly, not necessarily supporting them, because the house has a right to hear both sides of the question-that the Canadian rates on grain are the lowest in the world. They positively and absolutely make that statement, and have stated over and over again, and have presented evidence to prove-some of which I have in my hand-that in the United States the rates are higher for like distances.
For the information of hon. members I should like to review a few of the figures given to me to illustrate their point. From Brandon, Manitoba, to Fort William, a distance of 552 miles the export rate .per 100 pounds is 16 cents. From Boyle, North Dakota to Duluth, a distance of 553 miles, the rate is 27 cents. Hon. members will take note that the second rate I have given is nearly twice the amount of the first. From Oklahoma city to Galveston, a distance of 552 miles, the rate is 33 cents. Hon. members will note that the 33 cent rate is more than twice as much as the rate from Brandon to Fort William. Then from Routledge, Manitoba, to Fort William, a distance of 592 miles, the rate is 18 cents; from Elmdale, Kansas, to Chicago, a distance of 589 miles the rate is 33 cents. I ask hon. members to compare that with the 18 cents rate from Routledge to Fort William.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is the hon.
member quoting domestic rates?


Robert James Manion: No, these are export rates
which have been given to me.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister has been quoting export rates so far as Canada is concerned, but I should like to know if he is not quoting American domestic rates?


Robert James Manion: If the information before
me is not correct I have been misinformed and deceived. I can see no reason why they
should make their comparison on different bases. I have enough confidence in .the people who supplied me with this information to know they would not misinform me, when I am giving their arguments. The heading which appears on the sheet I have before me is as follows:	.
Statement in letter of January 9 attached; corrected in accordance with letter from Board of Railway Commissioners T. D. 14157, dated February 1, 1932.
I have had the information contained on this sheet checked by some of the officials in my department, and am informed by them that the comparisons are correct. I have no desire whatever to misinform the house. I should very much resent being supplied with information prepared on different bases.


John Vallance: I know the minister
wishes to be fair; I should like to ask him a question. Has the minister a comparison of domestic and export freight rates in the United States and Canada?


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I have that exact information. The broad general statement is made however that the export [DOT] rates in the United States are higher than they are in Canada. The exception is made that the export rates on the Atlantic coast are exactly in the same position as the export rates in Canada in that particular area. But on the west coast they claim the export Tates from Seattle are much higher than the export rates from Vancouver. A moment ago I gave the rates from Seattle as compared with those from Vancouver. On the Atlantic coast they claim-and I think rightly so; I remember the rates very well because I had occasion .to study them when dealing with the Halifax question-'the rates from the American Atlantic ports aTe on exactly the same basis as from St. John and Halifax. These are the comparisons for like distances on the same basis.


Charles A. Stewart: Those are internal rates. My hon. friend is quite correct about the Seattle rate.


Robert James Manion: They are both on exactly the same basis, whether internal or export.


Charles A. Stewart: No, the hon. minister is quoting export rates to Fort William.


Robert James Manion: No, the matter would be deceptive from their standpoint if I quoted the rates on two bases. From Billings, Montana, to Duluth, 899 miles, the rate is 391 cents per hundred pounds; from Herbert, Saskatchewan to Fort William, 899.8 miles, practically the

Western Freight Rates

same distance, the rate is 22 cents per hundred pounds, while from the same point to Vancouver, 993.4 miles, the rate is 24 cents per hundred pounds. From Billings, Montana, to Seattle, 1,012 miles, the rate is 33| cents per hundred pounds; from Uren, Saskatchewan, to Vancouver, 1,016.8 miles, the rate is 25 cents per hundred pounds. From Poplar, Montana, to Seattle, 1,094 miles the rate is 46 cents per hundred pounds; from Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan, to Vancouver, 1,093 miles, the rate is 26 cents per hundred pounds-hardly more than half. From Coutts, Alberta, to Fort William, 1,253.3 miles, the rate is 26 cents per hundred pounds. Those are the rates given to me, and I am putting them on record in justice to the railways, because I believe they have a right to show their side of the question.
Some time ago Sir Henry Thornton handed me another statement in relation to freight rates in general-it was prepared for him by the Bureau of Economics-in which he claims that from 1923 to 1930 inclusive if the freight rates in Canada were as high as the freight rates in the United States their earnings would have been greater by from fourteen and a half million dollars in 1926 to twenty-six and a half million dollars in the peak year, 1928.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that on grain alone?


Robert James Manion: Yes, on grain and grain products.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Have you any domestic rates on grain in the states of Montana and Dakota which you can compare with the domestic rates in Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Robert James Manion: No, I have not.


James J. Donnelly: That is what this question is.


Robert James Manion: No, it deals with two distinct questions-with the export rates from Vancouver, versus the domestic rates to Vancouver, and with rates in the western provinces on grain.


Mr. BROWN:: We can only have a fair comparison of freight rates in general if we know the domestic rates in the United States as well as the export rates.


Robert James Manion: I do not carry the whole rate structure in my pocket. I am not trying to make out a case against this resolution; I am simply stating the railways' side. I have no personal interest in the matter any more than have my hon. friends opposite.


Charles A. Stewart: The domestic rate is higher in Ihe United States.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) agrees that the domestic rate is higher in the United States than in Canada. That is what the railways claim in a general way, that all the domestic rates in the United States are higher than those in Canada. The figures I have given are the export rates on grain and grain products.


Thomas Reid: I have the domestic freight rates from points in Montana to the Pacific coast states and they are much higher than from points in Alberta to British Columbia.


Robert James Manion: That agrees exactly with what I said.


Thomas Reid: They are lower in the United States, I mean.


Robert James Manion: No, my hon. friend said higher a moment ago, and the railways take the stand that they are higher. My hon. friend had an opportunity to deal with the matter before six o'clock, and I do not wish to argue on something with respect to which I have not the statistics. My hon. friend may have an opportunity of putting his figures before the house later. I simply wish to state on behalf of the railways that at least before coming to a decision the house should have both sides of the question presented to it. The railways give the comparative per ton mile rate for grain and other commodities, and they show that the rates on grain are less than half the rates on other commodities. Of course, that takes in package freight and all that sort of thing. Perhaps it is not a point of any great importance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the railways claim that the rates are much lower in Canada than in the United States, and they feel that in view of their financial condition-and everybody here knows it to be somewhat serious-they should not be asked to absorb any greater loss than they are absorbing at the present time. May I point out, for example, that the Canadian National Railways for January and February have not been making their operating expenses. As they express it, they are "in the red," which is a very serious situation for any railway to be in. The other railway may not be in that condition, but it is also losing revenue heavily. The revenues of both roads have been going down very markedly this year even compared with last year. They claim, with some justification I think, that they should not be asked to take a further cut in freight rates without good cause. They point out that freight rates in the United States have not been lowered, but that on

Western Freight Rates
the contrary, recently the Interstate Commerce Commission granted increased rates on a number of commodities in an effort to put the railways of the United States in a better financial position.
There is one other point. An hon. member speaking to-day compared the export rate via British Columbia with the export rate from Fort William to Montreal and pointed out the differential was greater in the former case.
I do not question that at all. It must not be forgotten that the rate from Fort William to Montreal is kept down by water competition, and consequently is bound to be lower than the rate in a section where there is no water competition.
It does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, nor do I think it does to my hon. friends who have argued this question, that either the government or the parliament of Canada is a rate making body. We have not the facilities to deal with such a complicated question. Surely the House of Commons has fewer facilities than has the government, because one side of the question has been presented here to-day, and unless I had chosen to give some of the arguments of the railways which they have passed on to me-and I have given them without necessarily claiming that they should be accepted-there would have been only one side of the question before the house. The House of Commons is not a rate making body, neither do I think the government of Canada is a rate making body. I remember reading a speech by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), in which he pointed out that it was doubtful if there should be an appeal to the governor in council from judgments of the railway commission with respect to freight rates. I think there is sound justification for that position. The Board of Railway Commissioners is a judicial body created for the purpose of dealing with freight rates. On the whole I think the railway commission is an excellent body. It gives its full time to questions of freight rates, and, generally speaking, it should be able to give reasonable satisfaction to the various sections of the country with respect to the general rate structure.
In view of this, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, who so eloquently presented his motion to the house, and those on both sides who have so ably supported him, should realize that they have explained their case very thoroughly to the government and that the government is seized of its importance. I think I can say to the house that within a reasonable time the appeal will be disposed of by the government in some way that at least will be fair with regard to the merits of the case. I can assure not only the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but also the other hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house, who have taken a strong attitude on this question, that the government will give deep consideration to the matter, and I believe that as far as the government is concerned the question will be disposed of in the near future.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house, without regard to where they sit, will commend the statement just made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). Apart from the somewhat remarkable and indelicate subtlety with which the resolution of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was supplanted on the order paper by the resolution now under consideration, I think this debate has been carried on quite free from political considerations. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and also my good friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) upon the way in which they conducted this debate; with regard to the contribution of my hon. friend from Fraser Valley this afternoon, it was in very marked and I might even say remarkable contrast to his contribution last year during a somewhat similar debate in this house.
I wish to correct just one observation made by the Minister of Railways, in regard to the progress of negotiations under the late administration. The hon. member for Fraser Valley very properly said this afternoon that this or a similar resolution has been debated for five or six years in this house, and my hon. friend from Comox-AIberni (Mr. Neill) has made some very comprehensive contributions to the discussion. I think, sir, all members of this house should congratulate my hon. friend from New Westminster upon the remarkably exhaustive and comprehensive contribution he made, not only this afternoon but a year ago as well; he made a complete analysis of the situation.
As my hon. friend the Minister of Railways said quite properly, there are two considerations which should be analysed in discussing this matter. In the first place there is a marked *and a proper grievance on the part of the dairymen and the poultry raisers, speaking particularly of British Columbia, because of the differential between the export and the domestic rates. I think the Minister of Railways is quite correct in stating that in the main domestic rates are higher in the United- States than they are in the Dominion of Canada, but
Western Freight Rates

I believe my hon. friend will find that the differential between the domestic rate and the export rate is not as great in the United States. That is the specific complaint in British Columbia, that the differential between 20 cents and 41J cents is far too great. A government such as we have to-day, with its Canada first policy-I am not taiking politically, but rather in regard to the foundations of a tariff structure-surely should condemn a policy which makes it possible to export Canadian grain to China and Japan, permitting them to enter the $50,000,000 British market and sell their eggs at lower prices than the Canadian poultrymen. It seems to me there is something wrong.
I quite agree that there are two sides to this question; there is the larger, national side to it, and I am not unmindful of the fact that to-day in this country there is a large body of opinion holding the view that it is necessary, in order to maintain the vitality and the permanence of o,ur railways, that there should be a general increase in freight rates all over the country. I am somewhat affrighted lest the deliberations now under way in Canada in regard to our railway structure and our railway financial condition may imperil even the Crowsnest pass agreement, which has given great relief and opened up many avenues of progress to western Canada. In the. main, sir, considering the present financial stringency and economic depression in every province of Canada, I think we may be exceedingly fortunate if we are able to maintain the freight rate structure on its present basis, remembering the tremendous railway problem confronting us as a nation. At the same time, if there is to be a general increase in freight rates in order to keep our railways in existence, I do not know that the Canadian people would object so very much, but I do think that every intelligent opinion is properly directed against inequality as between one section and another with regard to the freight rate structure. For a number of years our people in British Columbia, have felt this differential very keenly; as I said last year, it is a matter of life and death to the poultry raisers and the dairymen of the Fraser valley, so we on this side appreciate the very fair and conciliatory attitude of the Minister of Railways this evening.
May I further point out to my hon. friend that the decision given in August, 1927, by the Board of Railway Commissioners, on the application made in 1926, was not submitted to the previous administration until September, 1929. In that appeal were joined together the provinces of British Columbia, 
Alberta and Saskatchewan, and at the request of the provinces the appeal was postponed until January of 1930. The session of that year, as those who were here will recall, opened on February 7, so the very consideration adduced by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister during the debate a year ago, that the government could not be expected to hear the appeal while parliament was in session, applied with equal force during the session of 1930. Immediately after that we had an appeal to the country, with all the tumult and turmoil of a general election. So I do not think, sir, any undue blame can be attached to the old administration for being dilatory in hearing this appeal.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, I addressed a request to the Prime Minister, which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for New Westminster. My request was for an assurance that after the session was terminated this appeal would be heard without undue delay. That assurance was given and will be found at page 1795 of Hansard for last year. Tonight my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has repeated that assurance, and with that assurance I suppose the house must rest content. I think hon. gentlemen opposite will find us on this side fair minded in supporting action along this line. There are two great issues to be considered; there is the question of assisting a wonderful body of people, some of the finest citizens in Canada, and there is also the larger national issue which is now under review by a great quasi-judicial tribunal, so while we are awaiting their decision perhaps this particular question is not possible of immediate solution,


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to make clear to the
hon. gentleman that discussions did take place with the representatives of the provinces having in view the fixing of a date for the hearing of the appeal, but a combination of circumstances, all of which I have never been able fully to understand, made it impossible to fix a date satisfactory to all. Recently we again instituted some inquiries, but I cannot explain it further than that. I do not know just what discussion did take place with the representatives of the various provinces, but at any rate the action we took did not result in a hearing being held.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate, until I had the pleasure of listening to the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). When I occupied a seat on the other side of the house two or

Western Freight Rates
three years ago I directed the attention of the house to this question, and my attitude has not been altered in the slightest degree by the fact that I now occupy a seat on this side.
What I want to point out to the house is how the unfairness of the freight rate structure as regards the movement of flour and meal from the western provinces to the maritimes affects us in the maritime provinces. The minister was good enough to say that the domestic rate to Halifax on flour and meal was 57 cents per hundred pounds while the export rate was 354 cents per hundred pounds. That is equivalent to a difference of practically 43 cents a barrel as against the maritime provinces and in favour of the export trade. In fact, we are bonusing our competitors in Europe at the rate of about 43 cents a barrel on flour and meal. In the maritime provinces we consume annually over a million barrels of flour and meal, so that we are overtaxed annually on freight rates nearly $450,000. That has been going on for some considerable time. The railways say that unless they meet that rate the business will go to New York. I should like to point out that the whole Atlantic freight structure is a matter of negotiation between the several shipping companies engaged in the transatlantic trade, and if our friends who aTe putting boats on from Halifax wished to make an arrangement so far as the Atlantic traffic is concerned, they could do so. Why they have not done so, I do not know, but they are not likely to do so as long as the railways of this country are prepared to give them the export freight rates they have been giving them in the past.
That is a condition of affairs which I think the whole house will admit is grossly unfair so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, and while I am a member of the house, I shall not remain silent in regard to the matter. In effect we are bonusing our competitors in Germany and other parts of the continent engaged in the production of iron and steel to the extent of over 40 cents
From Radnor, Alberta, to Vancouver	
From Kalispell. Montana, to Seattle	
From Indus, Alberta, to Vancouver	
From Missoula, Montana, to Seattle	
From Ernfolk. Saskatchewan, to Vancouver
From Laurel, Montana, to Seattle	
From Chaplin, Saskatchewan, to Vancouver
From Billings, Montana, to Seattle	
From Pasqua. Saskatchewan, to Vancouver. From Judith Gap, Montana, to Seattle.. .
a barrel on an essential article of food for our own work people, our coal miners and steel workers. Surely there is some way in which this matter can be rectified, and until that is done, while I am sympathetic, so far as our two railways are concerned, I shall tell the minister that the existing rate structure constitutes a grievance against which we must protest. It is unfair, unnecessary and uncalled for, and I hope the minister will take the matter into serious consideration and see that it is rectified within a reasonable time. I know that he is sympathetic, and I rely on his giving as soon as possible his best consideration to the grievance we complain of.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I too feel compelled to support the resolution so ably presented to the house by the hon. member for QuAppelle (Mr. Perley) and supported by hon. members on both sides. The debate has very clearly demonstrated three facts: first, that the farmers are very anxious to sell their grain to the poultry raisers and dairymen of British Columbia; second, that the dairymen and poultry raisers of that province are very anxious to buy that grain, and, third, that the cost of transportation from the prairie provinces to British Columbia is altogether too high, the domestic rate being exorbitant as compared with the rate for export.
It seems as though it must be hard indeed to justify a rate of $8 a ton from the prairie provinces to Vancouver when the rate to Japan is only $7 per ton. I shall say only a few words; I rise simply to support the resolution and at the same time to supplement information given by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) with regard to the domestic rate across the border on grain going west.
I have before me the British Columbia Cooperator for the month of November, 1931, and I notice it gives the rates from points in the United States to the west coast and from comparable points on our side of the line also to the Pacific coast. These rates are as follows:
Domestic Miles	Cents
	 608	41
	 607	30
	 659	41J
	 656	27
	 1,000	50
	 996	374
	 1,012	50
	 1,012	38
	 1,074	504
	 1,088	374
8S0
Western Freight Rates

From these figures it will be noted that the rate on the other side of the line is about three-quarters of the rate on this side. I have an idea that if the rates were reduced on this side so as to make the domestic rate comparable with the export rate, a great benefit would ensue not only to the poultry raisers and dairymen of British Columbia, and the farmers of the prairie provinces, but also, because of increased haulage, to the railways themselves.


Franklin White Turnbull: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree to a very large extent with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) when he says that in general rate making is a question for the Board of Railway Commissioners. Whether we get the best results from them or not, the fact is that in the main parliament has entrusted to their hands the question of rate making. On August 26, 1927, they came to a conclusion with regard to a portion if not all of this particular resolution, from which decision the three western provinces and the United Farmers of British Columbia, whose headquarters are in the Fraser river valley, have appealed. That appeal has not been brought on for hearing since the present government took office, and if the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) will dig into the facts with regard to the delay in the hearing,
I think he will find that the federal government is not very much to blame with regard to the matter. The hearing before the previous government took place in part in the fall of 1929. The final argument before the previous government was not in the latter part of January, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) stated. Of course he wanted to get fairly close to the time when the session met. To be exact, the final argument took place on the 16th and 17th of January, 1930. No decision, however, was reached.
While I say I am in agreement to quite an extent with the contention that rate making should be in the hands of 'the Board of Railway Commissioners, nevertheless parliament has two functions. It has a legislative function whereby it can, if it so desires pass legislation which ties the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That was done in the session of 1925 with respect to the question of the Crowsnest rates on grain and flour moving eastward, and by order in council P.C. 886 it was directed that freight rates eastward and westward should be equalized. That was why the export rate to Vancouver was reduced to 20 cents. But while parliament has a legislative function, it has also an educative

function. Surely parliament should at least lead public opinion. Public opinion is to some extent moulded by the debates which take place in this house, and public opinion has an effect upon railways.
I listened with much interest to the figures given this afternoon by the Minister of Railways and Canals, but I confess that I have not as much confidence in figures supplied by the railway companies as I once had. At one time it was stated on no less an authority than Sir Henry Thornton that wheat could be shipped by barge from the Canadian National Railways terminal on the western coast to Victoria for not more than 88 per carload. Application was made to the Board of Railway Commissioners that the Canadian Pacific Railway be ordered to provide a rate from Victoria to Vancouver, and this company, through the use of the amazing experts it has to figure out costs, succeeded in proving to the commission that it could not be done for less than $30 per car. I think something like that must have occurred when they figured out the domestic rate from Edmonton to the coast at 41 cents, and claimed that that was the lowest possible rate which could be maintained.
The poultry and cattle industries on the lower Vancouver mainland and on Vancouver island are very important. The pouitryman in British Columbia must compete with the pouitryman in the Montreal district. During a hearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners on various points, one of -the railway commissioners stated that the consumer of grain and fl-our in Vancouver, and the dairy farmer, -the live stock feeder and the poultry-man in the territory contiguous to Vancouver, pay 372 per cent more than the consumer of grain and flour in Montreal, or the dairy farmer, the live stock feeder and the poultry-man in the territory contiguous to Montreal, in transportation costs on grain and flour produced in western Canada. The distance from Fort William to Montreal is 997 miles while the distance from Calgary to Vancouver is only 642. The western pouitryman is therefore under a considerable handicap as compared with his Montreal competitor, and possibly something should be done. However, if the reduction of this rate is going to cause a tremendous loss to -the railroads; if it means *that either the railroad -companies -or the poultrymen on the lower Vancouver mainland will have -to go under, I would prefer to save the railroads.
The arguments now being used against this reduction were used in 1927, 1928 and 1929 when the railroads were able to obtain plenty

Western Freight Rates
of freight. To-day transportation conditions are not as good, but if they improved the railroads would still use the same arguments. It is worthy of note that when the railroads chose to reduce their passenger rate between Ottawa and Montreal they increased vastly the traffic between those two cities. The traffic was there but it was not moving because the transportation cost was too high, but when the fare was reduced to a very marked extent the railroads were able to obtain many passengers and make more money than they had made at the higher rate. The consumer in British Columbia is obtaining his wheat and flour from Australia rather than from Alberta, in my opinion because the freight rates between Alberta and British Columbia are prohibitive. If the railroads could see their way clear to lower these rates to some extent they would induce traffic to move which would be much more advantageous than no traffic at all. The railroads might begin to make a little money instead of not making any. They have idle rolling stock, they have idle engines, they have idle men; the overhead still goes on but there is no traffic in grain and flour because the rate is prohibitive. If their costs are figured on the same basis as when the rolling stock was busy, they might have an argument, but I submit they would be much better off to be using their rolling stock than to allow it to stand idle and rust on the tracks. Other businesses find that it pays to keep their plants moving even if they make little or no profit.
If grain could move from the prairies to Vancouver and to Vancouver island there is no question that the live stock and poultry industries would be built up much more rapidly than is now the case. By giving these industries a chance to live the railroads would increase their traffic and as they increased their traffic they would increase their profits.
There is another point to be considered in connection with this reduction. This resolution asks that the domestic rate be substantially reduced while, if I remember aright, the resolution moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was of a different nature. This resolution covers more ground and is different in character. The hon. member's resolution suggested that the export and domestic rates on grain moving from the prairies to the coast should be the same, but that request is contrary to the desire of the three western provinces and the United Farmers of British Columbia. There is a reason for that. The export rate on wheat does not apply to wheat exported through Vancouver or Victoria to the United States; any wheat travelling through these points to
Seattle has to pay the domestic rate. If the domestic rate is made to equal the export rate it is feared that our hard wheat would then move to Seattle to be milled, exactly as it is moving to Buffalo. The result would be that the by-products from such milling would be available for American stock and not for the feeding of stock on Vancouver island and on the Vancouver lower mainland. We would then be assisting in building up competition in the United States against our own producers. Without our hard wheat the United States could not make a flour to compete with Canadian flour, yet we supply them at Buffalo with our wheat to enable them to make flour to undersell our flour on the markets of the world. We do not want a repetition of that on the Pacific coast, and for that reason the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and the United Farmers of British Columbia, in the case they have laid before the governor in council, have asked that the domestic and export rates be not necessarily the same but be brought closer together, taking into consideration the desirability of maintaining the advantage of milling in Canada as against milling in the United States. There is a difference of opinion as to what the differential should be, but I do not think it is more than ten cents in any case. It is felt that if the domestic rate was reduced to 30 cents that differential would be ample to ensure the milling of our flour either at the coast or on the prairie provinces.
My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was a little astray with regard to what happened as to the first decision on domestic freight rates. That decision was afterwards rescinded. On September 2, 1925, there was a general order-in the middle of the election, one of my colleagues suggests-made by either two or three of the members of the Board of Railway Commissioners, equalizing freight rates east and west and equalizing, to some extent, the domestic and export rates; but in the meantime, after this had been referred to the board, only a part of whom had heard the application, another general order had been made by the government, this famous P.C. 886 in which a general inquiry into freight rates was ordered. Now as soon as the decision of September 2, 1925, was arrived at after a hearing by a part of the board, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company applied to the complete board to rescind the order, and on the application to rescind, as my hon. friend from New Westminster said, three members of the board were in favour of rescinding and three in favour of the order. But the application to rescind did not fail, as my hon. friend said, and the order of Septem-

Western Freight Rates

ber 2, 1925, was not confirmed, as my hon. friend said, but the six commissioners agreed that the matter would be reviewed again as a part of the general freight rate inquiry. That is what happened at that particular time.
When the general freight rate inquiry came on the decision was arrived at in the autumn of 1927. The united board dismissed the application to make the domestic rate the same as the export rate and left it at 41 cents per one hundred. It was from that decision that the present appeal was taken and is before the government at the present time.
There is one particular in which a lower rate would be of very great advantage to the northern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular-probably to southern Alberta more than to southern Saskatchewan and not so much to southern Alberta as to the northern part-and that is with regard to the movement westward of low grade grains, below contract grades. Owing to weather conditions the' north is likely to have a greater share of off-grade grains than the south, and the market for these grades, especially since mixing with the higher grades has been abolished, has become a difficult proposition. If there was some way of providing a special rate so that the low grade grains could be carried back and forth through the provinces and from northern Alberta to Vancouver and Vancouver island, it would be a great relief to the farmers of northern Alberta in particular, and to the feeders of grain in the southern part of British Columbia.
In connection with the rates on grain there is this to be observed. The present so-called Crowsnest rates on grain and flour are now statutory. They were statutory for many years as a matter of agreement between the railway and the crown, confirmed by statute, and maintained until suspended in 1919. That suspension was lifted in 1925, but instead of restoring the Crowsnest rates in toto the act, being chapter 52 of the statutes of 1925, gave the board the power to fix rates and enforce a reasonable I'ate structure. That abrogated the Crowsnest pass agreement and the Crowsnest pass rates. The Crowsnest pass agreement covered some twelve different articles, and by that act of 1925, while we did succeed in getting the Crowsnest pass rates on grain and flour established as maximum rates on those two commodities, we lost the benefit of the Crowsnest pass agreement on every one of the ten other commodities covered in the agreement. If my hon. friends opposite would examine the effect of that on the price of farm machinery and the price of lumber in western Canada, they would be doing a much better service to their constituents than by

trying to make out that reductions in the tariff in farm machinery have reduced the price, because the price of farm machinery was never reduced by the Liberal government during all the years between 1921 and 1930. In fact the price of farm machinery was higher in Canada the day they went out of office than the day they came in, in spite of the fact that the tariff was reduced and in spite of the fact that the whole sales tax was taken off -and maybe because of that fact rather than in spite of it.
I might remind the members of the house, Mr. Speaker, that the west has not entirely forgotten that they have lost the benefit of the Crowsnest pass agreement on everything but grain and flour, and some day when times are a little better and the railways, under the direction and guidance of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, become more prosperous than they are at the present moment, we are coming back to the board to see what we can do in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: While on the Crowsnest
pass agreement, will my hon. friend permit me to remind him that while the Crowsnest pass rate was lost on some commodities, at the same time it was made to apply to all stations on all lines, whereas previously it applied to only a very few stations?


John Livingstone Brown: Every Conservative in the
house opposed the restoration of the Crowsnest pass agreement.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That was
part of the bargain with the Progressives in 1925. That is why you are over there.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friends will not take the debate out of my hands, I will agree with my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) that the maximum rates were applied to all the railways while the railways had contended that they applied only to the railways in existence at the time of the agreement.


James Layton Ralston: And applied at all points.


Franklin White Turnbull: And at all points. Between 1903 and 1919, not one bushel of grain travelled on Crowsnest pass rates but at three cents a hundred less than Crowsnest pass rates. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) said two cents. Perhaps he will allow me to say that the rate to-day from Winnipeg to Fort William is 14 cents per hundred, and from 1903 to 1919, the rate was 11 cents.


James Layton Ralston: All the harder on the
mari times.

Western Freight Rates


Franklin White Turnbull: That may be all the
harder on the toaritimes. That was by reason of the legislation passed by my hon. friends in 1925. Some day we are coming back for that three cents per hundred as well.
The west is under particular difficulties in regard to freight rates, particularly my own part of the country. I have watched the freight rate structure for some years, and rightly or wrongly I have come to the conclusion that there is an underlying principle with regard to the fixing of freight rates. The principle I saw established in regard to freight rates was the principle first established by the railways themselves, and confirmed more or less by the Board of Railway Commissioners as applied to the rates in force when the board was appointed. As I see it, the idea of the railways was to move the farm products of western Canada into eastern markets at as low a rate as they reasonably could, and as a result the freight rates on farm products travelling eastward were lower than the freight rates on farm products travelling westward. I do not know how that affected the maritime provinces. On the other hand, the rates westward on manufactured goods and building materials were lower than the rates eastward, and to-day manufactured goods can still be shipped westward more cheaply than eastward, which is a great handicap to the development of the manufacturing industry in western Canada. On those principles the railway rates were established. Then when my hon. friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) attempted to establish a port at Vancouver and have an elevator built at Vancouver harbour, which my hon. friends for many years called "Stevens' folly," the fight began to get a freight rate which would make it possible to move the grain westward to Vancouver. That is where the fight for an equalization of freight rates westward began. That fight has continued down to the present day with some success, but perhaps not with success as complete as it might have been. We have still the mountain- differential to fight with; there is the difference of 15 per cent. I think the Board of Railway Commissioners have found that freight can be moved west as cheaply as it can be moved east. There are still more than 120 miles to pay for which do not exist between Calgary and Vancouver owing to the longer haul between Edmonton and Vancouver. All these years, since there has been a harbour at Vancouver, the battle has been on to secure an equalization of freight rates westward. It has been conducted mostly in the interests of the elevator companies and 41761-56 i
the farmers who sold wheat to elevator companies for export. The result of the battle has been that export rates from time to time have been reduced by the railway commissioners, either under direction of parliament, or without direction of that body. However, the domestic movement was comparatively small, and while the export movement was reduced the domestic remained stationary at the old high level which was established before the Board of Railway Commissioners came into being. That to my mind is the reason-and I am speaking more in argument than from figures-why there is such a spread between export and domestic rates from Alberta to the Pacific coast. While that may be a matter for the Board of Railway Commissioners to decide, the fact is that that body has made a decision, and has decided against any reduction in domestic freight rates west. So that if the governor in council, when this matter comes before them, decide to refer it back to the Board of Railway Commissioners, they will be faced with the necessity of sending it back with some direction, because since the board has already decided against the western provinces there is very little use sending it back to them to make a further decision unless some direction is given that they decide more favourably than they did the last time.
There seems to be evidence to show that it is in the interests of the country that such action be taken. After all there have been occasions in days gone by when parliament exercised that right, when they found it in the interests of the people generally to lay down a policy for the Board of Railway Commissioners to follow; because after all parliament is supreme. It could direct by statute that the Board of Railway Commissioners follow certain principles. If parliament chose to say to the Board of Railway Commissioners that in the opinion of hon. members assembled, domestic freight rates are too high, and that in the interests of the Dominion of Canada and of the railways that rate could be reduced, although I am not an experienced parliamentarian, my own poor opinion would be that parliament would be justified in laying down such legislation. I am not saying such a right is one which should be exercised on all occasions; it should be exercised only with the greatest hesitation and the greatest care, because after all, the striking of freight rates is a very intricate problem. It is a matter to be settled not by a court of 245 persons, but rather, as the Minister of Railways has said, by a very much smaller court which could have the advantage of hearing both sides of the question.
Western Freight Rates

For the life of me I cannot understand why the domestic freight rate cannot be lowered to the advantage of both the railway companies and the industries in the Fraser valley to which my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is so partial. In addition the industries on Vancouver island, to which he has not made reference, would benefit, as would the farmers in the prairie provinces. I am told that every week about 300 empty railroad cars are carried from the mainland to Vancouver island, and that in those cars products of Vancouver island are brought back to the mainland. I cannot see why the railroads would be under any great expense if they were to put wheat in those cars; it could be taken to Vancouver Maud with very little added cost. If such traffic were encouraged it would become extensive enough so that the cars might be taken over full instead of empty. It seems to me that if the matter is properly put before the railway companies-as I hope it will be-in the course of time, with public opinion behind us, we may reach a solution satisfactory to all concerned.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this discussion, until I heard the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). First of all may I deal with the statements made by the hon. member for Regina to the effect that the resolution now under discussion proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is entirely different from that proposed by my good friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid). May I be permitted to read the resolution as presented by the hon. member for New Westminster:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the freight rates on grain and grain products destined to points in British Columbia from the prairie provinces of Canada be carried by the railways at the same rate as grain and grain products for export to other countries.
May I say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, however, that I am really more pleased to support his motion. What does it say?
That, in the opinion of this house, the domestic freight rate on grain and grain products moving from any point in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, to a point in any of the said provinces, or from one point to another point in any one of the said provinces, be substantially reduced.
I think those of us who are farming in any of the four western provinces will receive greater benefit from the resolution presented by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle than from the one presented by the hon. member for

New Westminster. Under that resolution it would be possible for a farmer in the northern part of Saskatchewan to ship low grade wheat, or any wheat for that matter, to the southern part of the province, and receive the export rate thereon. I am all for it.
The Minister of Railways made comparisons of the rates on other commodities moving in Canada, both for domestic and export purposes. I took down the figures, and although I did not manage to get his facts concerning all commodities, I did get the information concerning the transportation of apples both for domestic and export use. He said that apples for domestic purposes carried a freight rate of 58 cents, and for export 39 cents. I should like to point out to the minister that there is only about 19 cents difference between the export and domestic rates. However, in a distance of 1,015.3 miles from North Battleford to Vancouver the rate for export is 24 cents per 100 pounds, or 14.40 cents per bushel on wheat. For domestic purposes the rate is 50 cents per 100 pounds or over 100 per cent more for domestic than for export.


Robert James Manion: What is the export rate?


John Vallance: Twenty-four cents per 100 pounds, and the domestic is 50 cents, a difference of more than 100 per cent. Therefore the figures placed on Hansard to-night by the minister will make the farmers in the three prairie provinces, if I know them at all, just that much more anxious to put up a barrage to see if this wrong cannot be righted.


Robert James Manion: I gave the figures only to show that there was a difference in the export rates on other goods as well as on wheat. I was not defending the situation.


John Vallance: Yes, I understand that. I am merely showing the difference between the export and the domestic rates. The other day we had a spectacle-and I use the word advisedly-of a cargo of wheat, 250 tons, coming from Australia to Vancouver which was not permitted to land because of disease. If it is possible for Australia to ship wheat to Vancouver and sell it to the poultrymen of that province cheaper than it can be secured from Alberta or Saskatchewan, I think it is time something was done. It was good feed wheat, outside of the disease which prevented it from entering.
Might we not look forward to a discussion of interimperial and preferential trade at the forthcoming Imperial economic conference? Would it not be possible for Australia, India or any other portion of the empire to ship

Western Freight Rates
wheat into Vancouver harbour cheaper than it can be secured from the prairie provinces, until these rates are rectified?
I have risen, Mr. Speaker, merely to point out these facts. I have before me a statement of the differences between the export and domestic rates on many commodities, but I think if you go through the schedules you will find that nowhere is there such a disparity as that which exists on the rate on feeds that we export to Vancouver.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution has been presented in such detail and with such a wealth of argument by the mover and those who have spoken in his support as to render it unnecessary for me to deal with it other than briefly. It is, however, I think extremely desirable that someone from the province of Alberta should at least express an opinion, and a very decided opinion, as representing the sentiments of that province.
As has been stated by other speakers, this matter in its present or a somewhat similar form has been before the house for some eight or ten years. During all that time this grievance, as we term it, has existed, not always in the same proportions as now, but still it has existed, and I believe that almost every session during that period although it has been very fully discussed nothing has been done. In a word, the situation has remained unchanged.
As I have intimated, it is not my purpose to go into the subject fully, but it does appear to'me that we are in a very anomalous position at the present time. Under our national policies as a parliament and as a government we are doing what we can to encourage not international and foreign trade only, but to develop domestic and interprovincial trade to the greatest possible degree. I am fully in favour of developing to the maximum trade between the component parts of Canada. There are no two parts of the Dominion that offer greater opportunities for an interchange that will be mutually beneficial than do the province of British Columbia on the one hand and the prairie provinces on the other. I have always felt that my own province in particular, Alberta, and the province of British Columbia are complementary and supplementary one to the other to a very marked degree, and that they should to a far greater extent than has been the case during the past years go forward side by side working together in their mutual interest. In this case it is a very great pleasure to me, as it has been to many others in the house, to find a subject upon which we may agree so fully and an end towards which we can work in such complete harmony.
The situation has been laid before the house, a situation under which thousands of fanners within the British Columbia valleys, where the climate and soil are admirably adapted to the most intensive forms of poultry raising, dairy farming and other kindred forms of agriculture,, find themselves completely handicapped through the fact that although grown only a few hundred miles away the products of the great grain fields of the prairie provinces are almost inaccessible to them, that they are shut out from the use of those products by a wall greater far as barrier than distance, by a wall more exclusive than oceans and continents, by a wall erected in a wholly arbitrary fashion-a wall of excessive freight rates. On the other hand, the farmers of the prairie provinces, looking westward as their shortest and cheapest route to the markets of Europe and to the great and developing trade in the orient which they visualize as their most hopeful market in the future, are also looking closer home across those mountain barriers beyond which they see thousands of potential and would-be	customers-customers anxious to
purchase their grain products and to exchange their own in return.
This is a situation which I think should not be beyond the intelligence and ability of this house and this government to rectify. It has been stated by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion)-and in a general way I am in agreement with him-that by reason of the characteristics of their make-up neither the house nor the government is the best possible court for deciding a question so technical in its nature as that of freight rates. But on the other hand I conceive that this parliament must be responsible at least for one thing-for the laying down of national policies, and that within the lines of those policies all commissions of a technical character must function. I submit that parliament itself cannot delegate to any other body, especially a body that is not responsible directly to the people, the right to determine what policies shall be followed-policies for which parliament itself must be responsible. As I see it, we confer upon the railway commission power, not to lay down policies for this country, but within the limits set by parliament to look after the details of which the minister spoke. And when we deal with matters of internal trade, matters which must affect intimately the wellbeing and livelihood of the people of two or more provinces, then we enter a field which is too large to be left wholly to the railway commission or to any other body which we may constitute.
Western Freight Rates

Possibly it is true that the right of appeal to the privy council from decisions of the railway commission should not continue, that such appeals should be heard by the supreme court, the exchequer court or some other tribunal. But so long as the present law continues in force that responsibility rests on the government, and until the law is abrogated that responsibility cannot be evaded by the government. I am not going into the question now as to whether undue delay has taken place on the part of this government or its predecessors. I do suggest, however, that sufficient time has elapsed and that now we may well look to the government for action of one kind or another. Whether it be in the form of a reference back to the railway commission with instructions as to the lines within which they should work and the goal towards which they should strive, or in the direction of designating some other and perhaps more suitable body to do this work, in any case let us put an end to this period of suspense and indicate to the farmers and the other citizens of the provinces interested that within a reasonable time this disability shall as far as possible be removed, and those necessary goods shall go on backward and forward at the least possible cost.
It has been argued, and perhaps with some truth, that the Canadian Pacific Railway faces certain definite geographical handicaps, that it has a heavy mountain grade and that it cannot be reasonably expected to haul tonnage over the mountains at anything like a prairie rate. It might also be said, and has been said, it would be totally unfair to use the comparatively low and easy grade of the Canadian National railways as a weapon with which to coerce the other system. But, Mr. Speaker, let us go back a few years, comparatively speaking, and what do we find? We find that the Canadian Pacific Railway, being first in the field, had ample opportunity and a perfect right to have chosen that low grade had it so desired, but at that time those directing the Canadian Pacific Railway did not see, nor could very many men foretell, the tremendous movement of freight westward which might develop. So, not foreseeing that great movement, their actions would indicate that they naturally expected the factor to which they must look for their greatest profit to be the passenger traffic and, by providing a scenic route over and through our beautiful mountains, they exepected to attract a great tourist traffic and provide themselves with ample profit. Possibly they were quite justified in figuring it in that way, but is it right that the citizens of these
(Mr. Speakman.]
provinces should be compelled forever to pay scenic freight rates because, forsooth, thirty or forty years ago the Canadian Pacific built a scenic railway in order to attract tourist traffic? Is it right that we should be forever debarred from the advantages which would naturally accrue from the easy grades which the Canadian National railway now follows? It has been proved and demonstrated, so amply and so frequently as to require no repetition, that following the line of the Canadian National railway westward we find grades that compare favourably with those found in the movement eastward, so the mountain differential is a fantasy, a mere dream, a figment of the imagination, with no actuality in fact. There is no such thing as a mountain grade or a mountain range when going through the Yellowhead pass. Most of us have travelled over that road and we have seen for ourselves. We have seen the number of freight cars a locomotive will haul both east and west, and perhaps it is not necessary to assure you, Mr. Speaker, or to indicate to any hon. member of the house, that the power used to haul a train of cars from the prairies to Fort William is sufficient to haul at least an equal tonnage through the mountain passes.
Under those circumstances, and in view of the fact that our present policies encourage the development of domestic and interprovincial rather than international trade, to a greater degree than ever before it is imperative that we should take action in this matter and make it possible for that interprovincial trade to proceed. It does seem to me that a curious paradox exists. By means of subsidies and tariffs and every possible policy within the grasp of the government of this country we have done our best to encourage this trade as between provinces, and the paradox is that we should longer tolerate a freight rate structure which is indefensible under any circumstances-indeed which no one has endeavoured to defend, except to say that it is necessary to find from some source profits which are not obtained elsewhere. So it is that we compel those who wish to ship their grain within the country to pay for a loss which has been sustained on another part of the system. That is the only argument I have heard, and that argument cannot be sustained morally or logically.
In view of these facts I repeat that this house should indicate its desire to have something done. I was glad to hear the sympathetic expressions which emanated from the Minister of Railways, and I think we should indicate to the railway commission that, leav-

Western Freight Rates
ing to them the settlement of those matters of detail which are within their province, public policy and public necessity alike demand that this matter should be reconsidered in the light of the greatest good to the greatest number, in the light of justice and common sense, and that this curious, archaic anomaly of freight rates should not longer exist. The Minister of Railways said he could discover no specific basis upon which our freight rate structure was built; to a layman like myself, and I may be pardoned for saying in some degree like himself, it is a confused patchwork of rates apparently based on some factor with which we are not acquainted; thrown together, complicated and so complex in its nature that we cannot properly comprehend it. That may be true, Mr. Speaker, but we can comprehend this particular item; we can see here something which should not exist, and therefore I repeat that parliament and the government should indicate very clearly to those charged with the immediate responsibility that this state of affairs must not continue, that they must so arrange our rates that they shall no longer act as an effective barrier against natural interprovincial trade and the proper future development of the western provinces.


John Livingstone Brown: I had not intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker; I felt that my colleague from Macdonald (Mr. Weir) had well presented the case for Manitoba. I felt also that the discussion had been carried on at a very high level, with no indication of any party bias, and it was not until the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) made his speech and showed that he could not forego the opportunity, as he thought, to make a little cheap political capital, that I thought I should have a word to say.
The hon. member for Regina sought to make a point by urging that those on this side of the house should have remembered that certain things were omitted from the Crowsnest pass agreement when it was restored, instead of giving our attention to reductions in tariff. Perhaps I might briefly review the facts in that regard, and I think I will state those facts in such a way that no person will dispute them.
As the 'hon. member pointed out, that agreement was suspended in 1919, and the suspension lapsed on July 8, 1922. For the three years following that, the whole matter was in a somewhat unsettled condition, being discussed by the Board of Railway Commissioners and the courts. I need not go into that. But in the session of 1925 the government of the day brought in a resolution restoring in part
the Crowsnest pass agreement. If that were the whole story, we might even claim that half a loaf was better than no bread. If the Conservatives of that day had had their way, we would not have had even half a loaf, for during all the discussion from 1921 onward the whole force of the Conservative party in this parliament was arrayed against the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates. No person will dispute that statement, for Hansard will show it. But I say, when we make that statement we have not told the whole story. The agreement was only partly restored. The contention had been raised that the agreement applied only to that part of the Canadian Pacific railway which was in existence when the original agreement was made. So, when this bill was brought down in 1925 by the government of the day, it is true it abrogated the rates on goods moving west, but it made it clear that the rates on grain and grain products applied not only to that portion of the Canadian Pacific railway which was in existence when the agreement was originally made, but to the whole Canadian Pacific system and to the Canadian National system as well. I can understand now the kind of argument that the hon. member for Regina gives to his electors when he goes through his constituency.
Mr. W. A. BEYNON (Moose Jaw); Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I cannot allow to go unchallenged the statement made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).


John Livingstone Brown: I can prove every word of it.


Mr. BEYNON:: Well, the Votes and Proceedings will bear out something very different. If the hon. member will take the trouble to refer to the Votes and Proceedings of that date, he will find there a different story entirely. He says that the government of that day brought in a measure restoring in part the Crowsnest pass agreement. It was not necessary for the then government to bring in a bill to restore that agreement; all the government had to do was to sit still and let the agreement go back into force. The hon. member for Lisgar knows that. He ought to know, if he does not, that a committee was appointed, at the instance of the government, to consider the matter. That committee consisted of Conservatives, Liberals and Progressives, the Liberals having more on it than either of the other parties in the house, and the Progressives being the next largest group. In that committee a resolution was proposed to allow the Crowsnest pass agreement to go back into force in its entirety. The committee was equally divided on the resolution
Western Freight Rates

and the Liberal chairman gave his casting vote that the agreement should not go back into effect in its entirety. That is borne out by the Votes and Proceedings and everyone in the house is aware of the fact. Yet the Liberals will go throughout the country telling the people: We restored the Crowsnest pass agreement. It did not need any restoration at all; all the then government had to do was to sit still and let it go back into force.
The matter of freight rates is very intricate, and when a layman who has no knowledge of railroading attempts to deal with it, he is naturally going to be met with the statement that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." There is a good deal of justification for that statement as regards the question of dealing with freight rates. Therefore I do not propose to deal with the scientific side of freight rates or to question the arguments put forward by the railway companies, as I do not feel I am in a position to do so. But in connection with freight rates I wish to point out some things that I think might be considered.
We are told in this world to accept things as facts when in reality they are only theories. To illustrate what I mean, when the steam engine was first proposed as a motive power for transportation, the people of England appointed a commission to inquire into the feasibility of using steam on railways for transportation purposes. That commission consisted of very able men, and hon. members might be astonished to know that its report read something like this: that steam as a motive power in transportation might be of some value particularly in the matter of transporting freight, but for anyone to suggest that the travelling public would trust themselves in a railway carriage drawn by a steam locomotive at the ridiculous rate of fifteen miles an hour, was absurd; such a thing would never take place. How far astray that theory was, time has amply proven.
There is another illustration that is perhaps even a little more in point. There was a time when it was believed that penny postage was the most absurd thing in the world. Why, the idea of carrying a letter for two cents was unthinkable! But when penny postage was introduced the volume of mail handled increased at such a rate that after all the post office returns were better at the two cent rate than they had been at the ridiculously high rates formerly charged. When you start to apply that principle to the question of freight rates, in order to be fair to the railways and to everybody else you must acknowledge that another factor enters into the question: that is, that we are living

in a country some four thousand miles in extent and a great deal of it very sparsely populated. The question naturally arises: Even if those rates were reduced very materially, is it possible to develop sufficient business? Is sufficient business there, or can it be brought there to make those rates pay? The railways tell us that they have investigated this matter and that their experts tell them it is impossible to make those rates pay; that the business is not there, nor can it be developed. But again I say to the railways: that is, after all, a matter of theory, because it has never been tried. The only way to demonstrate whether, on a reduction of freight rates, sufficient business will develop to make the railways pay on those reduced rates, is to make the experiment. Until that is done we are acting entirely on a basis of theory. I am not prepared even to say that my opinion is that the railways could be made to pay better on that very much reduced rate, but it would be a very useful experiment, and if it should work out, it would be like the penny postage, a great blessing to humanity. We must not presume simply because this theory has stood for so many years that it is a fact. After all it is only a theory.
The question arises as to why the government is not dealing with this. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), who is always very clear and moderate in his statements, has suggested that it is time the government did something. This appeal, however, was brought by the provinces and I do not think they are at the present time very anxious to have it heard. That perhaps is the reason why the government has been unable to get them together. They may not have stated frankly the reason, but I think they do not consider this an opportune time to have the appeal heard. How the government is going to bring the appeal on unless the provinces come forward with their case is something I do not know. The Prime Minister (Mr Bennett) stated that a date was set, but that the provinces stated they were not ready to go on; consequently the appeal was not heard. As the hon. member for Regina has said, unless the government is prepared to give some direction or offer some suggestion there is little advantage to be gained simply by hearing the appeal and sending it back to the railway commission to be retried. That body decided on the evidence placed before it and without a specific direction no doubt would decide again in the same manner.
I think everyone agrees that the railways are in a very difficult position, and it is well

Western Freight Rates
known that the people of this country are carrying a great burden in that connection. Any government which attempts to deal with this situation as far as the western provinces are concerned is faced with a very serious problem. I doubt very much if there are many people who, after having this question explained, would be prepared to suggest to the government that it adopt a definite course one way or another. It will be said, of course, that the people are looking to the government for a lead, but I think they can rest assured that the government will take definite steps in this respect. That the rates are entirely out of line would seem evident from the fact that goods can be shipped from Calgary to the orient at a lower rate than they can be shipped to Vancouver.
If I had any objection to the resolution it would be that it does not go far enough. The people in British Columbia grow some splendid fruit which is needed badly in the western provinces. There are occasions when we in the western provinces are hungry for fruit which is rotting in the orchards of British Columbia. Perhaps the railroads will take it into their heads to try the experiment which they have made in the passenger rates between Montreal and Ottawa. However, there is this difficulty: you cannot develop freight over night; it would take some little time and the railroads might get weary of well doing before the results of the reduction in rates would be felt. That the railroads are facing a serious problem I think is apparent to every hon. member in this house. The one encouraging feature of this debate is the fact that hon. members on both sides have recognized the necessity of protecting the railroads to the extent of allowing them to charge a fair rate in order that they may keep going and serve the people of this great country.
I am heartily in favour of the resolution, but I would like to see it go a little further so that we could get the products of British Columbia into the prairie provinces. I am not an expert in freight rates and I am not prepared to say what should be done, but I certainly would like to see an experiment made to test the old theory that a reduction in rates will not produce a sufficient increase in business to justify its being put into effect.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with
considerable interest to the suggestions offered by various hon. members .this afternoon and evening with respect to the differential which should apply in the freight rates through the mountains. May I express some regret that
the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has extended his resolution to take in the movement of freight within the prairie provinces themselves. One of the difficulties which we experienced as a government was in having an inquiry which had been submitted to the railway commission enlarged in scope when it appeared before us for consideration or on appeal. I think to take one step at a time would be to make progress in the right direction Let us first get settled the question of the differential between the export and domestic rates on grain to British Columbia.
I sympathize somewhat with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). His is an old grievance one which is comparable with the trouble we are having in Alberta with respect to the rates to British Columbia. I do not see the necessity-nor has this ever been asked, except by resolution-for making the domestic and the export rates comparable, but there should be some paring down of the domestic rates on grain to bring them more in line with the export rates.
I do not intend to traverse the whole field, but may I say that in my opinion parliament is totally unfitted to deal with a matter of this kind. We may express an opinion, but we have not the time or the opportunity to obtain full information with respect to all aspects of the question. May I carry that point a little further and say that despite the fact that it has had an opportunity of hearing both sides of the question discussed, despite the fact that new matter has been interjected into the discussion, the government must find itself in a very difficult position in coming 'to a decision upon a question as involved as this. I have had the privilege of listening to two or three appeals from the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I am firmly convinced that the government should not be a court of appeal. A question of this kind should be submitted either to the supreme court or to the exchequer court. Coming to a conclusion in connection with freight rates is most difficult; both sides of the question are advanced so strongly, precedents have to be considered, and then there is a possibility of that happening which has happened to-day-a continued extension and widening out of the circle of the application until you finally reach the stage where you do not feel like taking the responsibility of a decision. There must be considered the possibility of jeopardizing the interests of the railroads, one of which is a national undertaking, and of necessity entitled to some protection from the government.
Western Freight Rates

It is very difficult, therefore, for a government to come to a decision upon a question so involved as that of freight rates. I think I am safe in stating that during the time the Liberal party was in office we followed the practice of returning these questions to the railway commission for consideration. Something of that kind could be done with this matter. The commissioners could be instructed to give consideration to the question of the differential between the export and domestic rates on grain going to British Columbia, and I am not unmindful of the fact that perhaps something might be done to solve the problem facing the maritime provinces.
These two questions are similar in every particular. Products are going to the ports of export and in no way do they interfere with the internal rates either in the maritimes, in Quebec and Ontario or the iprairie provinces. I.f these two questions were out of the way and some readjustment made, I think it would go a long way towards the settling of this vexed question which has been agitating the mind of parliament and particularly of the people of Alberta and British Columbia. May I say here and now that I think the government would be wise, if appeals are to be allowed to have the act amended, to have at the earliest possible date those appeals go to the supreme court or the exchequer court.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the suggestions made by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) with regard to the responsibility or jurisdiction of parliament in a matter of this character. For parliament as a body to attempt to adjust freight rates or to go into all the details in connection with freight rates is entirely out of the question. My opinion is that for the government itself to act as a court of appeal to hear cases coming from the railway commission and to go into the details of freight rates is also out of the question. But freight rates being what they are, applying as they do to all commodities in Canada that must be transported, often considerable distances, and being so intimately linked up with our export trade, being in a word one of the most important factors affecting the Canadian people, I believe it would be well for parliament to lay down a principle that should apply in determining the differential between the export and domestic rates in all parts of Canada. I might stand here and cite case after case, not so exaggerated perhaps as those that have been cited as between the prairie provinces and Vancouver,

but nevertheless showing a very wide spread between the domestic and export rates which it is difficult to understand. It is indeed difficult to understand sometimes why domestic business is penalized as it is, but the problem that must be dealt with is this: the railways must have revenue, and we must treat all classes of industry fairly. We cannot select a particular commodity or a particular locality and apply a principle with respect to it that should not be applied to every other commodity and in every other part of Canada. Having given the matter such consideration as it can give in a debate of this character, and having ascertained the general view of the country in regard to the subject, parliament might well appoint a committee to study the question and hear interested parties in all parts of Canada, with a view to laying down the principle that should be followed in determining the extent of the differential between the export and domestic rates and between the short-haul and long-haul rates. In that way something might be accomplished; but simply to throw the question back to the railway commission without instructions is to invite a decision similar to the one already given.
I do not agree with my hon. friend the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who has just spoken, that these questions should be settled one at a time, because when you deal with one particular commodity or one particular locality, you cannot help but discriminate against some other commodity or some other locality. If the railways are to get sufficient revenue to make it possible for them to continue to operate, when the freight rate is reduced on one commodity moving from one particular point to another, it must perhaps be raised on some other commodity, and you are simply taking the burden from one industry and placing it on another. The problem is so vast, the details are so innumerable, the range of country is so wide, the number of commodities that have to be transported is so large, that the question can be adequately dealt with only after an intensive study of all industries and after hearing all interested parties. But the subject might be referred to a committee of this house to report back the principle it thinks should be followed in determining what the differential, if any, should be.
It must also be borne in mind that one of our tremendous problems is to get our export products, particularly of the west, into the world markets on a basis that will enable them to compete. There are many commodities-lumber, for instance, newsprint, pulp, coal in the east and the west-vital to different

Western Freight Rates
parts of this country, and in my opinion the only way in which the sense of parliament and of the people can be ascertained is by having the whole subject carefully inquired into by some body which will hear evidence from all parts of Canada and from all classes of people interested. It can then be determined whether it is the general desire to have the differential narrowed, and a principle can be laid down which will guide the commission in working out the details and reaching its decisions.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, I cannot very well let this resolution pass without saying a few words on behalf of those whom I have the honour to represent in this house. It is all very well for the people of the west to talk about the disparity in freight rates and ask for substantial reductions on grain and grain products, but I wonder if some of our friends have ever thought of the conditions that now prevail in the province of Quebec, the people of which are suffering at the present time to a greater extent perhaps than those of some of the western provinces. Inequalitj^ of freight rates is not justifiable in relation to goods of the same class shipped a similar distance, but this condition does exist in the province of Quebec and is creating a most undesirable situation in various parts of our province. Perhaps it is not known to all the members of this house, but it can be shown that there is charged the sum of 812 to S13 for shipping a cord of fuel wood from the colonization districts to the central markets in our province. That is out of all proportion. It is also out of proportion to charge a rate of SI .08 per one hundred pounds for goods of the first class shipped from Montreal to Montmagny, a distance of 307 miles, when the same class of goods is transported at a rate of 83 cents per one hundred pounds from Galt to Sudbury in the province of Ontario, also a distance of 307 miles. As a result of this disparity in freight rates the traders and shippers of the province of Quebec are called upon to pay in a year over 8100,000 more than are the people of the province of Ontario for the movement of goods of the same class over the same distance.
The maritime provinces have special freight rates for their coal. The prairies have special freight rates for their grain, their cattle, and coal from the province of Alberta. Last year parliament voted a bonus to help the distressed farmers of the west in the shipment of their grain to the export market. Ontario has the advantages of its lakes and a rail tariff lower than prevails in the province of
Quebec. It is true that the province of Quebec is served by the great and mighty St. Lawrence, but this river does not serve the outlying and remoter parts of the province. It can be affirmed with safety that the province of Quebec has not the same advantages from the point of view of railway rates that are enjoyed by the other provinces in this dominion. The difference in the cost of transportation is particularly high as regards goods shipped from remote districts, such as the Abitibi district and from part of the county which I have the honour to represent in this house. Transportation costs as they affect these two districts, and no doubt other districts in the province of Quebec, are of such a nature as to impose a real hardship on the traders and shippers in those districts, placing them in a very inferior position from the point of view of agriculture, trade and industry, as compared with the other provinces. This is also a serious obstacle to colonization, working against the policy which every government nowadays has in mind, that of keeping our people on the land.
I should not like to see the present proposal adopted unless the same opportunities were given to the province of Quebec as would appear to lbe offered to other parts of the country by the resolution now before us. Therefore I move, seconded by Mr. Brasset, that the following words be added to the motion:
and the domestic freight rates in general, now prevailing in the province of Quebec are prohibitive and of a nature to injure agriculture, colonization and industry in general, and should also he substantially reduced..


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are those words to be added at the end?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Yes, I have moved that these words be added to the resolution.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is submitted I should like to say a few words, because I believe I have given somewhat more study to the matter than has the hon. member (Mr, Casgrain) who has just resumed his seat. I should like to ask him in what way the maritime provinces secured a special freight rate from the Dominion government or from the Canadian National Railways?


Pierre-François Casgrain: A few years ago there was a readjustment of freight rates, at which time special rates were given and the Canadian National Railways assumed a certain part of the cost of transportation. That additional sum was added to the cost of operation of the railways.
Western Freight Rates


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: But for what reason? It would be well for any hon. member standing in his place in the House of Commons to know what he is talking about. What was the reason?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I know the maritime provinces got more than the province of Quebec ever got.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The reason was that there had been imposed on the maritime provinces a 90 per cent increase in freight rates, and for years those provinces laboured under that handicap. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he confer with his colleague to his right, from whom he might receive substantiation for my statement.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, as the discussion on the original motion has been quite exhaustive there is very little left for one to say. The justice of the proposal is so apparent that no further comment is necessary. Two carloads of grain may be shipped from a given point in the prairies to the city of Vancouver. The ultimate destination of one carload may be China, while the other is to be used locally, either in the Fraser valley or in some other part of British Columbia. Although the two cars are coupled to the same train and arrive together in the city of Vancouver, one carries double the freight rate of the other, and really pays a bonus on export. The question whether or not the railway companies can afford to handle the grain at a given rate does not, in my view, enter into the discussion. If they can afford to handle grain at the export rate, then they are charging an exorbitant domestic rate. If they are receiving only a proper domestic rate, then they must be losing on their export trade, and the country, from the public treasury, is bonus-ing exports. Surely something is wrong one way or another, and the matter ought to be adjusted. We are faced with a condition under which the farmers in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia are consuming the coarse grain produce of the prairies, and are paying more to feed their stock than the farmers in Europe or China. Such conditions should not obtain. We have done a good deal of talking about securing the British market for our bacon, and competing with Denmark. As a matter of fact, we are bonusing the Danish product in the British market by selling grain to the Danish producer cheaper than it is sold to the eastern farmers. Surely such a condition ought to be rectified.
There can be no question that parliament is supreme over all the courts. The railway commission and the courts of law have their [Mr. Casgrain.J
respective jurisdictions, but in the last analysis the responsibility rests upon parliament. If the railway commission fails to act, parliament is responsible. A little more than a year ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when visiting the western provinces announced that we would be given the Crowsnest rates on grain to Churchill. There was no question of referring the matter to the railway commission or to a court; the decision was made arbitrarily in the interests of the people and as a matter of plain justice. Moreover, the proposal was approved by the great majority of the Canadian people. Here is another case equally as if not more important, a matter of tremendous interest not only to the producer of coarse grains in the prairie provinces but to the consumers in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
I am not sure what the exact procedure should be. Perhaps the whole question should be referred to a special committee; I do not know. But I believe if such a reference were made, and if a conference were held with the heads of the railway systems, something could be done. At any rate there is no use evading the responsibility resting upon parliament to wipe out a discrimination which is a disgrace to Canada and to the whole freight rate schedule.


Mr. H. A MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, although I am in favour of the proposed resolution of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), advocating lower freight rates, I believe it does not go far enough. The live stock industry is not mentioned. I should like to see a reduced rate on live stock, and the old rates of the year 1900 restored. I am sorry the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is not in his seat, because I think he was in the province of Manitoba when the Conservative government brought in a rate much lower than the Crowsnest rate. From 1900 until 1917 the Crowsnest rate was forgotten, and then as a war measure it was taken away from the people of Manitoba. At one time we enjoyed a ten cent rate on wheat. To-day from Brandon to Fort William there is a sixteen cent rate. In those years we had a 60i cent rate on live stock from Winnipeg to Montreal; today we are charged 85 cents.
Wheat can be milled in transit. Suppose, for instance, we stop a carload of wheat at Portage la Prairie, and it is there milled. The miller receives the benefit of the through rate. But if you bring a trainload of live stock from western Canada and want to feed the stock in transit no such privilege is available. The old Manitoba rate applied on all commodities, and the Crowsnest pass rate was not

Western Freight Rates
to be compared with it. That old rate was secured by the Conservative party when they were in power in Manitoba. I think the hon. member for Lisgar will remember the occasion and will probably be good enough to give the Conservative party some credit for obtaining that rate. It saved millions for the province.
Now, if feeding-in-transit privilege could be secured for live stock shipments it would greatly help the live stock industry. During the past nineteen years the railways have earned a profit of $520,000,000 in the west, and $241,000,000 in the east. The capital investment in the west is half that in the east. In other words, the railways have earned twice as much in the west on half the capital investment that they have in the east. A statement to this effect appeared in the Manitoba Free Press of November 14, 1927. Anyone who has travelled on the branch lines in Manitoba is familiar with the old rattletrap cars that have been transferred to western Canada after having been withdrawn from service on the eastern lines.
The farmer pays the freight rate on screenings to Fort William. I should like to see something done to secure a lower rate on screenings from Fort William back to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, for it is very suitable feed for live stock. Under the old Manitoba rate Saskatchewan got the benefit through to the lakehead on every commodity coming in and going out. The Crowsnest pass rates that my friends talk so much about all over the country apply only on grain and flour.
All through the years I have been a champion of lower freight rates. No man can exist on the farms of western Canada to-day while the present freight rates continue in force. When you complain to the railway companies they say the rates are due to the labour costs. I take issue with that statement. In the early days fourteen cars of cattle constituted a train, the crew numbered five, and the rate was 60i cents a hundred pounds. What do you see to-day leaving Winnipeg? You see a seventy-car train in charge of the same number of men as formerly, five of a crew. True, the men are paid a little more money; true, there is a little more upkeep on their locomotives and track, but they are pulling a much greater tonnage, and it is not labour that is responsible for the present freight rates at all.
I am in favour of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to see it go further and apply to live stock as well as to grain.


John Anderson Fraser: if that connection were .made Alberta would have the opportunity of sending to British Columbia down through the great central Valley, the Fraser river valley, her products which are required all through that country by the live stock industry. I believe in British Columbia we have nearly 250,000 head of cattle, of which about 110,000 are in the Cariboo district, that great central valley of British Columbia. This is one of the largest natural areas for the development of the live stock industry in Canada; it is capable of immense development, and I believe if the Pacific Great Eastern were connected up with the Canadian National at Prince George there would be a large amount of traffic in order to provide the live stock industry with coarse grains and other products of the prairies. I point that out as one of the things that seem to make Alberta and British Columbia fit in so well. It is a matter well worth the consideration of the house, and I hope it will be taken into consideration when the question of freight rates as between those two provinces is under discussion.
I did not intend to say very much, Mr. Speaker; I sympathize sincerely with the poultrymen and the dairymen of the Fraser valley, who use a large amount of the grain products grown in Alberta. They are paying entirely too much of a differential; the differential should be more like that existing in the rates between Winnipeg and Montreal. If we had something approaching that figure I do not think there would be many complaints, but at present in my opinion it is entirely out of line.


Mr. J. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have closely
followed the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) in connection with the resolution before the house, it strikes me, however, that there are, in this dominion, other provinces besides the western provinces. There is, for instance, the province of Quebec and that of Ontario, both of which are equally entitled to government favours. If the sponsor of this resolution had wished to be fair to all, he should have included, in his request for lower freight rates, the province of Quebec whose products are shipped to the western provinces, this would have helped to promote between the provinces an exchange of products and thereby put into practice the policy so strongly advocated of "Canada First."
For a number of years past, and even today, Quebec is called upon to stand the racket. The government, at the last session, thought first to grant the western provinces
fMr. J. A. Fraser.]
a rebate of five cents on each bushel of wheat exported. We requested a rebate for Quebec butter but we failed to obtain it, the government positively refusing to entertain such a request.
When a request is made to parliament care should be taken to avoid causing any prejudice to other provinces interested, but rather see that fair play to which they are entitled is observed and that they are not called upon to bear the extravagances of the others. Since the western people have but few products to dispose of on the Canadian market, it strikes me that the government should not bleed us to death to foster the sale of these products to the detriment of other provinces. Canada is at present in a very critical state, our railways are almost bankrupt, it is inexpedient to ask the government a rebate on freight rates. WTe should rather encourage them to practise economy and try to find work for the people of this country. The government instead of thanking employees for their services should, on the contrary, keep them at work, and make sacrifices in order that all may be given an opportunity to earn a living, it should moreover find them work, help in reestablishing the "bonne entente" which must exist between the provinces, and avoid all discrimination.


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi):: I should like to say just a word or two on this subject, Mr. Speaker. This matter has a great many angles. Probably the differential between export and domestic rates is necessary in order that our wheat may be exported in competition with the other countries of the world, but the people in my riding suffer from that differential. In the town of Richford, Vermont, twenty miles south on the Canadian Pacific railway, Canadian mill feed, shorts, bran and middlings, can be bought for less than they can be bought in my own home town. I am told that is so because the people in that city are able to buy full carloads or trainloads of mill feed while we have to rate a local car and pay a special domestic rate from Montreal. That is one of the disabilities under which the dairy farmers of the eastern townships are suffering to-day. It is hard for us to buy mill feed at these high prices and compete with the people across the line. If that price could be reduced; if we could get a domestic or a through rate from the west right to my town, we could buy mill feed for a great deal less. As it is the trains come to Montreal from the west; they are broken up and distributed to different parts of the province, and we have to pay the

Western Freight Rates
domestic rate. That is something which I should like the government to take into consideration.
I am very much in favour of having the question submitted to a competent body of men who will deal with the matter intelligently. I think the suggestion of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) was a good one, namely, that the House of Commons is not in a position, has not the expert knowledge, to deal with the question in the manner in which it should be handled, and so far as the Board of Railway Commissioners is concerned,
I am not in a position to say whether it is a competent board to deal with the matter or not. Certainly the rates should be adjusted in the best interests of the majority of the people.


Mr. J. T. SPROULE (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the house would welcome a reduction in rates all the way around. I notice hon. gentlemen opposite have stated that they would be very much in favour of rates being reduced. It seems to me freight rates at present are so high that many commodities cannot be moved. For instance, it is impossible to-day to move straw and hay and some other commodities of that nature. If therefore, the rates could be reduced, much benefit would ensue. One of the previous speakers pointed out that the statement has been made that the rates cannot be reduced because the railways are losing money now. On some of the branch lines there are trains going out drawing four, five or six cars although they could haul ten or twelve cars at the same cost. If the rates could be reduced, there are many commodities that could be moved, thereby giving occasion for the employment of a great deal of labour.
For instance, take potatoes. What can be done with them at their present price? You can take almost any form of produce you like and you will find the freight rates are almost as high as the price of the commodity itself. Does it not sound reasonable that if those freight rates were reduced, a great deal of labour would be involved right along the line? An hon. member on this side of the house pointed out how the introduction of the penny postage had brought about an increase in revenue. I have noticed that since the reduction in the week-end passenger rates most of the railway coaches are crowded and the railway is deriving a great deal of revenue in that way. I have heard many people say that at those rates they would rather take the train than drive their cars. Similarly, there is moving by truck to-day a great deal of
freight that would go by rail if the freight rates were within reason. Would the railways not be justified in making the experiment? It has been said that the railway men have figured the matter out, but at the present time there is a good opportunity to make the experiment in order to try, by reducing the rates, to move some of these commodities to the places where they are required.
Let me go a little further. A great deal of live stock to-day is being moved by truck. In our locality they have trucks that will hold almost as much as a cattle car. I have seen a truck that contained seventy hogs and ten sheep. If any more than that were put in a cattle car, the chances are that some inspector would come along, and if there happened to be a dead animal in the car, the man who made the shipment would be fined. But that truck carried those animals 175 miles without one dying; it landed them at their destination about eight or ten hours sooner than by train, and with that much less shrinkage. What does that mean? It means that the railroad must develop a very fast service and reduce the rates if it is going to compete with the trucks.
Take the case of a man who raises hay and is prepared to sell it for $5 or $6 a ton. The freight rate from around my district to Toronto is S4.50 a ton. Do you mean to tell me the man who owns the land, raises the hay, cuts it, presses it, draws it to the station and puts it into the car, is not doing more labour than the man who hauls it from that station to Toronto? Is there any comparison? Yet I can mention different localities where hundreds of tons of hay that were lying in the stack a year ago are still there to-day. Why? Simply because the farmers cannot afford to sell it and pay the freight on it. These are the conditions.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 8, 1932