1933-05-18

BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary) (for Mr. Matthews) presented the sixth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce, as follows:
The select standing committee on banking and commerce begs leave to present the following as a sixth report:
On Mouday, February 6, 1933, the following order of reference issued from the house, viz.:
Ordered,-That the following proposed resolution be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce:
[Stage Direction]
Whereas the question of public and private indebtedness has become one of our greatest and most perplexing problems, enhanced during the past years by the extremely low price level of all primary commodities, through which this indebtedness must be in large part met, and the effect of which has been to double and treble the actual burden of these liabilities; and,	.
Whereas this fact has been recognized in respect of certain international obligations, and has become a practical issue in respect of the public obligations of many countries; and,
Whereas no such recognition has as yet been given to the heavy private indebtedness within this country, although these, together with the high interest rates which prevail, constitute just as heavy and impossible a burden to the individual, as do national and international obligations to the countries concerned; and,
Whereas this situation is one of the greatest factors in the present economic depression, and is one of the greatest barriers to the financial recovery of agriculture and industry, and as such, deserves and commands the immediate attention of this parliament;
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give serious and immediate attention to the question of debts and interest rates within this country, and the possibility of their reduction, either by way of direct action, or by the submission of the entire problem to the select
vMr. Speaker.]
standing committee on banking and commerce, in order that the subject may be fully inquired into, and if possible, some solution found.
Attest.
Arthur Beauchesne,
Clerk of the House.
In view of the general terms in which the resolution is expressed, the sponsor was asked to prepare a memorandum indicating more specifically the ground he would suggest the committee endeavour to cover. This was done, and the memorandum may be found on page 3A of the printed evidence.
The committee accepted the task set before it, but to obtain the information outlined to the committee by the proposer of the resolution, was an undertaking that in part was incapable of fulfilment. For example, a comprehensive answer to the question asking for a general classification of the wealth level of all lenders of money would require a complete census of the wealth of private individuals as well as of corporations. Such a census, in the view of the committee, could not accurately be taken.
While the dominion statistician was able to supply from existing records a large amount of relevant statistics, additional data are needed which can only be obtained by special inquiries for which a period of time covering some weeks or even months will be necessary. In view of these facts, this report must necessarily be limited in scope and is not intended to be a complete review of the subjects contained in the reference.
Nevertheless, studies of the material gathered to date reveal tendencies upon which certain conclusions may be based. These are developed in the paragraphs which follow:
1.	Public Debt-Dominion of Canada
(a)	Debt outstanding-
The total of unmatured funded debt of the dominion on March 31, 1933, was $2,715,910,607. From this amount should be deducted sinking funds of $66,001,724, leaving the net funded debt at $2,649,908,883.
(b)	Interest rates-
Interest payable on this total was $127,239,499, or an average rate of 4-68 per cent. On specific bond issues the rate varies from 2J per cent on the loan of $4,888,186 made in London in 1897, due in 1947, to 5J per cent payable on victory loans maturing in 1933, 1934 and 1937.
Evidence presented to the committee indicates a downward tendency in interest rates in recent years. The yield on typical Dominion government bonds used by the Bureau of Statistics in their index of long term interest rates, which was as high as 5J per cent in 1922, was down to a rate of 4£ per cent in 1933. This cheapening of the cost of money is reflected in the current interest rates, which have been paid on various classes of debts. The average rate of interest paid on Dominion government funded debt was 5-20 per cent in 1922, and in 1932 was 4-97 per cent. The current rate, due to the effect of conversion loans, is 4-68 per cent.
Since the committee began its sittings, the rate of interest on savings deposits in banks has been reduced from 3 per cent to 2i per

Banking and Commerce
cent, in loan and trust companies from 4 per cent to 3J per cent, in the post office from 3 per cent to 2J per cent, and in the province of Ontario savings office from 3 per cent to 2J per cent.
(e) Sinking funds-
Sinking funds are applicable only to sterling bonds issued in London, of a par value of 8254,000,000. The amount presently held in the sinking fund represents about one-quarter of the outstanding principal of the issues to which the sinking fund applies. With respect to
other issues, retirements have been made from yearly surpluses from time to time, but no definite program of debt retirement has been laid down in the past.
Recommendations re Public Debt
1.	The committee highly recomends the conversion of outstanding obligations from a higher to a lower rate of interest when the state of the money market warrants it. The conversion loan of 1931 is an example of the benefits of this practice, as shown by the following table:
Conversion Loan, 1931
Description of Loan Converted	Amount Converted	Interest Old	Rate New	Maturity of Conversion Issue	Annual Saving in InterestSecond War Loan, 1916-31	
Renewal Loan, 1922-32	
Victory Loan, 1918-33	
Vicory Loan, 1919-34	$ 38,625,700 37,523,200 276,688,100 285,772,300	per cent 5 54 54 54	per cent 44 44 44 44	1956 1957 1958 1959	$ 193,128 375,232 2,766,881 2,857,723638,609,300	6,192,964
Tile annual saving of interest is shown to be $6,192,964.	_	.	.
In pointing out that bonds maturing within a short time should be converted to lower rates of interest as soon as it can be done, the committee calls attention to the possibilities as shown in the following figures:
There are outstanding victory loans maturing in 1933 and bearing 54
per cent interest	$169,971,850
Victory loans maturing in 1934 and
bearing 54 per cent interest.. .. 226,138,350
The conversion of these 54 per cent securities presently falling due affords an opportunity of further reducing the burden of fixed charges. If they were converted to a 44 per cent coupon the saving per annum in interest would be $3,961,102. If the rate of interest were 4 per cent, the saving would be $5,941,653,
The committee expresses the hope that a coupon rate not exceeding 4 per cent may be used. Any discount on the sale of the bonds could be absorbed by amortization.
2.	A general amortization or debt retirement plan should be put into effect as soon as finances permit, and the annual payment to effect this end should be budgeted for each year. The adoption of this plan would ensure an orderly retirement of the existing debt within a definite period.
The committee particularly draws attention to the fact that after the heavy refundings that will be necessary up to and including 1937,
there follows a period of twenty years in which the maturities in any one year are not so large as to involve major borrowing operations.
3.	Future long term bond issues should either (a) have sinking fund provisions; or (b) have their maturity dates arranged, in so far as practicable, to conform with the suggested plan of annual debt retirement.
In good times, when revenues are buoyant and no bonds maturing, the pressure for increased capital expenditure throughout the country is almost irresistible. When maturities are coining due, the Minister of Finance must provide for them. Hence the desirability of regularity of maturities.
4.	Long term issues should, when possible, have callable provisions so that in times of low interest rates advantage may be taken to re-finance.
If and when these recommendations are adopted, the whole debt structure of the Dominion of Canada will be on a retirement basis that will tend to safeguard and indeed improve the credit of the country.
The committee is of opinion that an emphasis on the integrity of our national obligations will re-affirm to our own people and to the world that in trustworthiness and quality we stand for the honour of our bargains, whether convenient or not.
The following table summarizes the situation as regards public debt in the dominion, its provinces and municipalities, and the funded debt of corporations:
Banking and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
Public Debt of Canada, its Provinces and Municipalities, Funded Debt of Corporations, together with
Interest Payments (Latest Available Figures)
-	Amount	Interest	A\rerage RateNet debt of Canada March 31st, 1933 (preliminary) (1)	
Bonds guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada as to principal and	$ 2,599,089,000	$ 121,637,365	per cent 4-68interest, and interest only March 31st, 1933 (2)	996,148,354	45,356,904	4-55Gross direct liabilities of provinces, fiscal years ending in 1932 (3)	1,363,382,464	62,715,593	4-6Indirect liabilities of provinces, fiscal years ending in 1932 (4)	
Grand total direct liabilities of all Canadian municipalities Dec.	215,977,011	9,071,034	4-231st, 1931 (5)	
Corporations-	1,584,000,000	77,616,000	4-9Railways (6)	919,000,000	40,897,000	4-45Other corporations (7)	1,178,000,000	64,672,000	5-498,855,596,829	421,965,896	4-77(1)	Funded debt was $2,715,910,607 with interest charges of $127,239,499.
The net debt figure is used in preference to that for gross debt ($2,990,315,000) because certain items in the gross debt are offset by active assets ($391,226,000), which are in large part cash assets and interest bearing assets. Among the active assets are loans to provinces which should appear among provincial debts. If they were included in Dominion government debt also there would be duplication. Net debt figures are used in preference to funded debt because the latter would include money raised and put into active assets, such as loans to provinces.
(2)	Bonds guaranteed by the dominion. Of these, interest only is guaranteed on principal amounting to $216,000,000. Principal and interest are guaranteed for the remaining $780,148,354.
(3)	The largest item in provincial public debt is the bonded debt which totals $1,148,451,597. In addition there were treasury bills amounting to $103,707,602, bank loans, savings deposits, etc.
(4)	Indirect liabilities of the provinces include guarantees of railway, hydro-electric, municipal obligations, etc.
(5)	This figure includes the total liabilities of all municipalities in six provinces and the bonded debt of the others (the total liabilities not being available). The amount given is. therefore, the lowest at which the aggregate direct liabilities of Canadian municipalities can be placed.
(6)	Only the unguaranteed portion of Canadian National bonded indebtedness is included here, the guaranteed debt being included in the second item of the table.
(7)	Other corporations include industrial, financial, merchandising, etc., in fact, all except public and railways.
II.	Municipal Debt
The gross debenture debt of municipalities nurrjbering over 4,200, by provinces, as at December 31, 1931, was as follows:
Province
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island (a) ..
Quebec	
Saskatchewan	
Bonded Debt $	78,679,570
129,913.890 116,864,937 499.002,074 31,386,025 21,477,521 1,863,211 362,132,334 47,488,595
Total	$1,288,808,157
(a) 1930.
Other liabilities, consisting of temporary loans and overdrafts on banks, accounts payable and miscellaneous floating liabilities, amount to $295,223,318.
Interest payments on municipal bonded debt average 4-9 per cent, or on the total shown in the table above, $63,151,599.
III.	Private Debt
While the figures for public debt can be obtained with approximately completeness, those 
for private indebtedness can only partially cover the field. Figures for bank loans are a matter of monthly record, and were submitted to the committee.
Concerning mortgages, definite information is obtainable for only a portion of the field. In the census of 1931, a question regarding mortgages was included in the farm schedule. As a result of this investigation it was ascertained that out of a total of 654,297 owned and partly owned farms in the dominion, 244.201 were mortgaged to the extent of $677,564,100. It should be pointed out that these figures refer only to the debt secured by a mortgage or by an equivalent legal instrument on lands and buildings. Details may be found in the evidence. These figures apply also only to "owned" farms. It is estimated that urban mortgages held by corporate lenders amount to about $765,000,000.
No attempt has been made to compile information on debts of private individuals which may have been contracted in various ways, because of lack of available data.
IV.	Bank Interest
Rates of bank interest and discount are not available by provinces but average rates for the dominion as a whole are known. Average interest rates on loans, including call loans, show declines from 1930 to 1932.

Banking and Commerce
Maximum and minimum average interest and discount rates charged by all banks on loans or advances in
Canada during the years 1930, 1931 and 1932.
	Average Interest		Average Discount	
Maximum*	Minimum*	Maximum*	Minimum*per cent	per cent	per cent	per cent1930 	6-43	6-29	6-99	6-866-39	6-05	6-80	6-666-18	603	6-81	6-67N.B.-These average rates include call loan transactions on which for some years past the prevalent interest rate had been 6 per cent.	,
Each bank reports quarterly its maximum and minimum rates. The averages shown above are the averages of four quarterly periods and of all banks.
V.	Mortgage Rates of Interest Considerable data were secured by the Dominion bureau of statistics from the Dominion Mortgage and Investment Association, and from some individual mortgage companies relating to interest charged on mortgages. Average, rates were obtained from 57 companies, which show current rates ranging from G per cent to 8 per cent in all provinces except Quebec, where slightly lower rates were reported. One large company furnished records showing that the average rate on new rural and urban mortgages for. the Dominion declined from 8-35 per cent in 1921 to 6-84 per cent in 1931. On renewals the rate fell from 8-17 per cent in 1921 to 6-90 per cent in 1931.
In general, it may be concluded in the cases of the figures supplied that mortgage rates have declined throughout the dominion in recent years on both new mortgages and renewals.
Nevertheless, these conclusions should only be taken as tentative, because they are based on returns from corporate lenders only. No data are available yet from private lenders or from mortgagors themselves. Statistical enquiries should be instituted to secure information from these sources to round out the case presented by the mortgage companies.
VI.	Supplementary Information Required On several other subjects which came to the attention of the committee, partial information was furnished by the Dominion bureau of statistics, but it is felt that the data thus far brought together are insufficient upon which to base definite conclusions, and that an allround enlargement in the bureau's organization of financial statistics should be instituted. In particular, in addition to the supplementary information required on mortgage rates (which has already been mentioned) the committee recommends that the Dominion bureau of statistics be authorized to obtain the following: Data on fees and charges to which mortgagors are subjected when taking out new mortgages or renewing old ones. Very meagre information is available on this subject, but enquiries are already under way in the bureau of statistics.
Data on the cost of money to loaning bodies are required so as to get some idea of the spread between actual costs and loaning rates. Only partial information is now available.
Data on arrears of interest payments and on the amount of principal and interest written off by mortgage companies.
VII.	Jurisdiction of Parliament
The following questions respecting the jurisdiction of parliament to legislate on the subject of interest and loans were submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Finance, and the attorneys-general of the various provinces (pp. ix and x):
"1. Has the Dominion parliament the power to fix a maximum rate of interest which may be charged on loans, et cetera, granted by corporations created by Dominion statute or letters patent where such corporations were
(a)	previously incorporated;
(b)	to be incorporated?
2.	Has the Dominion parliament any pow'er !to prescribe the maximum rate of interest chargeable on loans generally made by
(a)	persons,
(b)	corporates created by statute or letters patent other than Dominion?
3.	Has the Dominion parliament the power
(a)	to fix;
(b)	to alter
rates of interest in respect of bills of exchange and promissory notes?
4.	(a) Has the Dominion parliament power to enforce reduction of principal of debt in respect of loans made
i.	by corporations incorporated under jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament;
ii.	by corporations incorporated under other jurisdictions;
iii.	by individuals?
(b) If necessary for the determination of the above questions, is any differentiation to be made between loans
i.	secured upon real property;
ii.	secured upon personal property;
iii.	without security?"
Answers to these questions were made by the Department of Justice and the attorneys-general of Nova Scotia, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Quebec. These answers appear in the minutes of proceedings and evidence as follows:
Department of Justice, pp. 43 to 48;
A.-G. of Nova Scotia, p. 49;
A.-G. of British Columbia, pp. 65-66;
A.-G. of Newr Brunswick, p. 187;
A.-G. of Manitoba, pp. 188 to 190;
A.-G. of Quebec, pp. 198-2CG.
The answers may be summarized as follows:
Questions l (a) and (b)-all answers were in the affirmative.
Banking and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
Questions 2 (a) and (b)-all answers were in the affirmative. The A.-G. of British Columbia, however, said that:
"so far as corporations other than federal are concerned, the dominion perhaps could not interfere with a contract made with a foreign company outside Canada though the party liable for the interest might reside within Canada."
Questions 3 (a) and (b)-all answers were in the affirmative.
Questions 4 (a), i, ii, iii-all answers, with the exception of that of Manitoba, were in the negative, the Department of Justice excepting, however, bank loans. The A.-G. of Manitoba said that it was difficult to give a satisfactory answer but stated that in the ease of legislation arising out of what might be termed a national emergency, or legislation which could be classed as relating to banking, incorporation of banks, the issue of paper money, bills of exchange and promissory notes, bankruptcy and insolvency, the answer would be in the affirmative. He further stated that in the case of a debtor who resides in one province and the creditor outside the said province, the legislature of the province of the debtor could not validly legislate in derogation of a civil right existing and enforceable outside the province.
Questions 4 (b), i, ii, iii-all answers, except in the case of Manitoba, were in the negative. The A.-G. of Manitoba did not answer this question expressly, but it would appear by implication that his answer would have been in the negative.
General
It is hardly necessary to point out that obligations, both public and private, undertaken when the general price level was much higher, present a serious problem under economic conditions presently prevailing. This is particularly true of Canada, in which within a comparatively short period, heavy obligations have been assumed for capital investments in plant, equipment and transportation facilities connected with the development of our natural resources and the expansion of the productive capacity of the country.
In so far as public debts are concerned, we believe that the most desirable course to be pursued lies in the direction of means that may be taken to cheapen money, and other measures, including international cooperation, designed to lay the foundation for a rise in the general price level and a restoration of world confidence and trade.
Within the country, the balancing of governmental budgets and the conversion of maturing debts at lower interest rates will be a constructive influence. Measures which will tend to relieve the burden of fixed public debts will of course also operate with similar effect in the field of private debts.
The committee believes that the reduction in interest rates on bank deposits recently achieved with the cooperation of the government is a constructive step, and, it is to be hoped, a forerunner of more important action which Canada may be enabled to take in the international sphere as a participant in the World Economic and Monetary Conference.
A printed copy of the evidence taken is tabled with this report.

Mr. STANLEY moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Would it not be as well
if we first had an opportunity of reading this report?


Mr. DONNELLY:: This report has been submitted to the house and we do not know what it is. It should stand for twenty-four hours until we know what it contains.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion to adopt the report is perfectly in order but the house can take what action it wishes.


Mr. IRVINE:: We do not know what we are being asked to adopt by this motion. The subject submitted to this committee for its study and examination was a very important one and before we finally endorse the report we should know what it contains.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: A motion of this kind requires the unanimous consent of the house. As exception has been taken, the motion can stand until members have had a chance of reading this report in votes and proceedings.
_ Mr SPEAKER: The report will be published in votes and proceedings of to-morrow. If hon. members desire the motion to stand, it will stand.
Motion stands.



DISCOUNT AND LOAN CORPORATION

Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria) moved:: that standing order 104 be suspended in relation to Bill No. 110, an act to incorporate The Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada and that the said bill be placed upon the order paper for consideration this day in committee of the whole house.


Ernest Edward Perley: The rules of the house do not provide for the discussion of private bills on Thursdays. I submit that this matter should be considered at the next sitting.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Objection having been taken, the motion cannot be proceeded with.
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I beg to lay on the table a number of orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRA'SSET:
1.	Is the government aware that Rodrick Eden, of Gaspe village, recently appointed collector of customs at Gaspe, is unable to either speak or write French?
2.	Is the government aware that the same Rodrick Eden has a contract to carry the mail from Gaspe to the Wakeham post office?
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	The district inspector of customs and excise reports that Mr. Eden possesses a sufficient knowledge of French to satisfactorily perform the duties of collector.
2.	Yes.


WINDSOR, ONT.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. CHEVRIER:: When will the Minister of Public Works place on and in the federal building recently erected on Ouellette street, in the city of Windsor, Ontario, sign-plates bearing French inscriptions, corresponding to the sign-plates bearing English inscriptions affixed on and in the said building?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Representations
with regard to sign-plates bearing French inscriptions being placed on and in the new public building at Windsor, Ontario, will be given due consideration at the proper time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. STANLEY:: What amount was paid by the government of Canada to Arthur G. Slaght, K.C., from and including the year 1926 to and including the year 1930?


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT STEAMSHIP CITADELLE
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	For what purpose was the Canadian government steamship Citadelle built?
2.	Upon whose representations or requests was this boat constructed?
3.	What type of boat was requested?
4.	Who prepared the plans and under whose instructions were they prepared?
5.	Were the parties responsible for the representations or requests consulted and their approval of the plans secured before this construction was commenced?
6.	How were tenders called?
7.	Who tendered and for what price?
8.	Who was the successful tenderer?
9.	What was the price?
10.	What moneys have been paid to them to
date?
11.	Were there any extras? If so, what were they and what did they cost?
12.	Was any work done for private interests in the port of Quebec last fall?
13.	If so, for whom and what amount was paid by these private interests for the services rendered by this boat?
14.	Upon whose request was this boat trans-fei'red to the port of Saint John last fall and for what purpose?
15.	While at Saint John was any work done for private interests?
16.	If so, for whom, what payments were made by these private interests and to whom were the moneys paid?
17.	Upon whose request was the boat brought back to the port of Quebec this spring. 1933?
18.	For what purpose was it brought back?
19.	Has the Department of Marine or the government made any arrangements, tacit or otherwise, to do work for private interests in the port of Quebec?
20.	If so, what are they-viz-for whom and what consideration?
21.	Has the government gone into the towing business?
22.	If so, for what reason?


MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the right hon. the acting leader of the house (Sir George Perley) whether Canada has received the disarmament message of President Roosevelt. The newspapers give a list of fifty-four nations to which this message has been sent and the name of Canada does not appear in this list. I should like to know whether Canada has received that message.


Ernest Edward Perley: The President's
communication, as my hon. friend will have seen by the press, was sent to the heads of all the different governments of the world. In our case, as one of the constituent parts of the British commonwealth of nations, this communication was sent to His Majesty the King, and a copy of the same has been transmitted to the Governor General for the consideration of the government of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: It was not sent to the
Imperial government?


Ernest Edward Perley: No.


Ernest Lapointe: It was sent to His
Majesty?


Ernest Edward Perley: It was sent to
His Majesty on behalf of all parts of the British commonwealth; a copy of it has been sent by the King to His Excellency, the Governor General, and it has been transmitted to the government of Canada for its consideration.
5154	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Chewier

Mr. Gobeil



PRIVILEGE-MS. CHEVRIER-MR. GOBEIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I rise to a question of privilege, not so much one that affects the honour of any hon. member of this house, 'but one that may be referred to under standing order 41 in reference to decorum in debate. I want to quote the words of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) as reported in Hansard on page 5057. It is quite true that these words are not addressed to any other hon. member, but in speaking of a certain article that appeared in a newspaper, the hon. member for Compton on a question of privilege used the words that the representative of the newspaper-
-Is not only a dirty individual, but a dirty, crooked liar.
Under the rules of the house this is one of the most unparliamentary expressions that could be used. Your Honour ihas been pleased on other occasions, indeed, only within the last few months, to rule in matters of this kind. Let me refer to Hansard at page 3630, where an hon. member made certain remarks about another newspaper correspondent. Your Honour was pleased to rule, as reported on page 372S, that the hon. member had attacked the reporter, of course not a member of this house, and Your Honour was pleased to say further:
I therefore direct the Editor of the Debates to expunge from the record-
So and so-the paragraphs in question. At a later date there was another ruling which Your Honour was pleased to make and which will appear in Hansard at page 4908 where the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), anxious to maintain the high reputation and character of this house, was pleased to say:
If a member can talk that way about a man who cannot defend himself on the floor of this house, about his whiskers, then all I can say is that this parliament has reached a low level.
Another decision which Your Honour was pleased to give as to striking out from the record a similar expression. It is quite true that May states:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals.
Let me submit that in the use of those * words-
Or injurious to the character of individuals.
[Sir George Perley.l
-one cannot dissociate the feelings or character of a member of the house, and I for one, who have the highest regard for the traditions of parliament, for its rules and precedents which you have with so much dignity so far upheld, resent extremely 'that words of that kind should be used with reference to a man who cannot defend himself upon the floor of the house. It would be very difficult, if such words may be used, to find a line of demarcation as to how far one can go in describing people outside. An hon member is well within his rights to say in a few words what he thinks of anyone, but I ask that some decency be maintained in the use of expressions. I therefore request you, sir, in view of the precedents you have established in the decisions you have given to rule that the words complained of be stricken from the record.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: May I answer?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is in order for the hon. member to speak on the matter.


Samuel Gobeil: I was in any case going to rise on a question of privilege. I am going to speak on a question of privilege and at the same time answer the hon. member. Will that be in order? I must say first that the last part of my remarks in Hansard accusing this man of being "not only a dirty individual, but a dirty, crooked liar," is not exactly what I said. What I did say and what I have since corrected in Hansard is "a dirty public liar." *


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Gobeil: I quite agree that if I had said "a dirty, crooked liar," his degree of crookedness might have been debatable, but I said "a dirty public liar." On the question of privilege, in view of an article that appeared yesterday signed by Mr. Emile Benoist, which, in my opinion and I am sure in the opinion of the house, is very injurious to myself and also absolutely false, may I be permitted to give a little more detail in regard to what I said the day before yesterday? On that occasion I complained of the title of the article and also of the article as a whole . which I said was a tissue of lies. What the corespondent of Le Devoir said was that as a rural member I was insisting that more seats should be given to the island of Montreal. The intention of the writer is quite obvious. Knowing that I represented a rural riding, his intention was obviously to give my constituents and, indeed, all the rural citizens

Privilege-Mr. Chewier-Mr. Gobeil
of Quebec the impression that I, as a rural member, had insisted that more seats be given to the island of Montreal, to the detriment of the rural parts of my province.
In this article of yesterday, Mr. Benoist makes the accusation that I have spoken to that effect and almost suggests that I should prove that that was not what I said.


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order! The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is rising to a point of order. I will hear him.


Jean-François Pouliot: No hon. member can discuss or complain of an article in a newspaper unless he lays that newspaper on the table of the house. That has not been done yet, and therefore, until it is done, the hon. member is not in order in speaking to his question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Temiscouata is premature in his objection.


Samuel Gobeil: The writer being present at that meeting of the redistribution committee knew perfectly well when he wrote the article that the proceedings of the committee were not taken down in writing.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Would the hon. member
proceed to tell the house what he complains of in the article? There is no necessity for a long debate.


Samuel Gobeil: I complain first of the heading of the article which says that Mr. Gobeil as a rural member wants a larger number of urban seats, a statement which is amplified in the article. What I was going to say was that the writer knew when he wrote the article that the proceedings of that committee were not taken down in writing, and surely my word as a sworn member of that committee and as a sworn member of this house should be as good as that of the writer. I denied in this house the day before yesterday that what was said in that article was correct. I said that it was not only incorrect but altogether false. I will go further. I have taken the trouble to look at practically all of the newspapers that I could find in the reading room of this house-


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I rise to a point of
order. A question of privilege has been raised by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) regarding certain words that have been used. I submit that the hon. member
for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) is not in order in quoting another article which has no reference at all to the first one, or in making a speech on redistribution a subject which has been especially entrusted to a special committee of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the redistribution
bill itself is before the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: ' The hon. member for Compton is dealing with the question of privilege raised by the senior member for Ottawa as well as with another matter at the same time in order to shorten the proceedings.


Samuel Gobeil: I was saying, Mr. Speaker,
that I had looked at practically all the Liberal papers published in the province of Quebec and also the Conservative papers that I could find in the reading room and not one of them has words such as are used by this writer, and of which I complain. What I said before the committee was that projects had been submitted conceding two more seats to the island of Montreal, three more seats and four more seats, and I said that Mr. Dorion and myself were quite agreeable to working on a plan that would give three more seats, and it was agreed upon.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Compton complains that he has been misrepresented as to his actions before a certain committee of this house. He has made his complaint.
In regard to the question raised by the senior member for Ottawa, the precedents he quoted are in themselves an effective answer to his application that I take some action, as according to said precedents, when words are spoken, no matter what they may be, concerning people outside the house, there is no recourse. In the instance referred to in which I as Speaker ordered certain statements expunged from Hansard and as to which there was objection from the right hon. leader of the opposition, in all of these cases reference had been made to members of this house. The references were not solely to people outside the house. I say that under the rules and precedents of parliamentary procedure the Speaker has no right to order the words complained of by the hon. member for Ottawa expunged. If reference had been made to hon. members of this house the Speaker could deal with them, but there is nothing to prevent this house taking whatever action it may choose, or see fit or be well advised to
5156	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Gobeil
take, concerning the statements made by the hon. member for Compton in this house or by any other hon. member. It is entirely a matter for the house to deal with, and can be done by motion.


Samuel Gobeil: May I say-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member
has sufficiently addressed the house on the subject. His position has been made quite clear.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, with the greatest possible respect I would point out to you that when an hon. member had made use of a certain expression at page 2535 of Hansard and you had considered the matter you were pleased to direct, "I am of the opinion that the remark is not directed to the hon. member for Regina." If it was not directed to the hon. member for Regina it was directed to no other hon. member, but Your Honour ruled at a subsequent date that the words should be expunged from the record. Another remark practically of the same nature was made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) with reference to parliamentary correspondents, and Your Honour then ruled that the words were unparliamentary and that they should be stricken out of the record, and that was done. I have the greatest respect for Your Honour and I have no quarrel with your decision, and the citations I made were simply for the purpose of showing that the decorum of the house is a matter in your hands which I think should be regarded as a sacred trust.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): In my opinion these are not questions of privilege but questions of personal explanation. An hon. member of this house before the orders of the day were called complained about a newspaper article on what he said was a question of privilege, but it is not a question of privilege; it is a question of personal explanation. When an hon. member of this house is attacked by a newspaper the rule is very dear. He has no other recourse but to have the writer of the article or the editor of that newspaper brought before the bar of the house. That recourse is open to the hon. member, but I think that these are not questions of privilege and should not be raised as questions of privilege.


Samuel Gobeil: Leaving my personality
altogether aside I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of the redistribution committee I did my duty to the best of my
[Mr Speaker.]
ability. That may not amount to very much, but that is all I can offer, and I submit that I should not be subjected to all the slanders and falsehoods of that dirty individual.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I can only say this: I wish it were in the power of the Speaker to protect hon. members from any annoyance, but as I pointed out in reply to the hon. member for Ottawa, if he wishes to deal with the matter, then as the Deputy Speaker has already pointed out, the editor or the reporter can be ordered to appear before the bar of the house. That is entirely a matter within the power of the house itself, and is not subject to be ordered by the Speaker. The whole matter has to be dealt with by the house, and I say to the hon. member for Compton 'that if he wishes to go further, it should be done by motion.
Before this incident is closed, I do not want hon. members to take it that I approve of the language that has been complained of. It is quite within the power and the best judgment of every member of the house to refrain from using such language as will give offence. It is quite proper to engage in debate and severely criticize the policies and even the personal actions of members, without indulging in language of which the house should be ashamed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: You had better repent.



JUDGE RUTHERFORD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a petition was presented to the government asking that Judge Rutherford be restored to the air. I should like to know if the minister intends to take any action.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has just spoken.


Edward James Young: The minister does not answer. I should like to know if he intends to take any action.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I believe the statement I made some time ago about Judge Rutherford was quite clear, namely that the air had not been denied to him, but that the commission wanted the discs upon which the speeches of that gentleman were reported submitted to them before they were put on the air. That is all.

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Kennedy



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 17, consideration of 'the motion of hon. Mr. Duranleau for the second reading of Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have read this bill, and I believe the intent behind it is contained in seotion 935.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will hon. .members please be quiet. It is impossible for the hon. member to make himself heard.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That section reads as follows:
No goods shall be transported by water or by land and water, from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
I suggest that that section is rather badly drawn. One phase of it is amusing, because I do not see bow one could transport goods in a ship by land. As I see, it,, Mr. Speaker, the issue is between the Canadian lake shippers and the western farmers. There has been injected into the debate the suggestion that the issue was between Canadian and American lake shippers. That does constitute an issue, 'but it is second only to the main one. There is also the suggestion that a question arises between western farmers and labour engaged on Canadian boats on the great lakes. That also is an issue, but does not interfere with the main point.
Personally, under ordinary circumstances, I have no objection to the government trying to bring about conditions which will bring a reasonable return to men engaged in shipping or in any other occupation. But I submit that until the time arrives when the farmers of western Canada are receiving at least a living wage from the sale of their grain it is absolutely unfair to put through any regulation or law which will mean that the producers who are selling at less than cost of production1-'and in this statement I am. taking government statistics-shall be asked to sacrifice something more to help some other people engaged in a legitimate business, simply because those other people are suffering a loss. It is that phase of the matter to which I object. If through the financial or economic policy of Canada we were able to raise the level of wheat prices to the place where they would make a reasonable return to the farmers, and provided we 'had reasonable control of ra'tes on the great lakes, I would not take any objections. That this
is an issue between the grower of wheat who must pay the rates and the shipping interests, is made very plain in the evidence submitted 'to the Senate committee.
I do not wish to read much of it, but I think I am in order to read some because the bill has not gone before a committee of the house where evidence could be taken. The question has been raised as to whether or not there is a combine. I do not know whether it is possible to term as a combine the arrangement existing among Canadian ships on the great lakes. That was not admitted in 1923, despite the fact that .the committee investigating found that there was virtually a combine. But that this legislation is asked for in order to make it easier for Canadian steamship lines operating on the great lakes generally to increase prices is admitted in the evidence, and I shall read just enough to establish that point. The evidence of Mr. Enderby of the Canada Steamship Lines as found at page 54, is as follows:


The Chairman:: You say there is nothing that savours of a combine in that circumstance?
Hon. Mr. Dandurand: Was there any agreement ?
Mr. Enderby:	There was an agreement between the Canadian vessel owners to endeavour to get the rate up to where they could get their living expenses out of it.
Hon. Mr. McRae:	That accounts for the
advances.
Mr. Enderby: Yes. Even at six and a half cents there is no money in the rate for any Canadian steamship company, or any American steamship company. When steamers have to lay around at the discharge port for four, five, ten or fifteen days, there is no money in a six and a half cent rate.
So I think that establishes quite clearly the intent of the owners of the Canadian steamship lines. Immediately you eliminate one competitive factor you make it easier for the combine, or for the agreement to increase rates, to operate. I't does not matter whether that factor is some interference with the western rate on grain or whether it is the elimination of American vessels in connection with the hauling of any portion of it. May I say that some of the gentlemen who took part in the committee investigation were men who had at least some part in the combine formed in 1923. Therefore I do not think there is any question about the fact that there has been an attempt on the part of the owners of the Canadian steamship lines to eliminate competition in connection with the movement of some portion of the grain which has to be moved from the head of the lakes to Buffalo, in order that they may secure a higher rate. Until the time comes when we have a knowledge of the cost and conditions
5158	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Kennedy
of the steamship business, and a commission set up that could gain that knowledge, I do not think it will be fair simply to give this additional right to Canadian steamship lines when it is perfectly clear that the money must come from the farmers of western Canada who to-day are selling grain at very little over sixty per cent of the cost of production.
We might as well recognize that a little while ago wheat was at its lowest price for 250 years, and to-day it is a long way from being up to a reasonable price. There has been a tendency in past debates in connection with matters affecting the shipment of grain on the great lakes to suggest that we were playing into the hands of the Americans, and also that the port of Buffalo was not of any real value to the producers of western grain. I think the best thing that has been written in connection with the transportation of grain from western Canada to the markets of the world was written by one of the board of grain commissioners, Doctor MacGibbon. Members who have known Doctor MacGibbon and his record know that he is a very careful and thorough student. He pointed out, in his book published in 1932, the significance of the port of Buffalo in the Canadian grain trade. That port has been necessary for Canadian grain shipments because of peculiar natural conditions. One factor that tended to raise grain rates in 1923, and which the people who were accused of forming a combine and charging exorbitant rates gave as a reason why they were compelled to charge those rates, was congestion in the ports, which prevented them from delivering the grain and getting back for return cargoes. There never are any more than enough elevators, ships, canal space and loading and unloading facilities to take care of the rush in the fall due to a big crop in western Canada. If you eliminate Buffalo or handicap it in any way you bring about in some seasons at least a condition of congestion that will hurt the western farmers. The sale of wheat in the worlds market is highly competitive. It has been pointed out time and time again that Canada is in a rather difficult position; the wheat fields are far from the seaboard, and in the late fall the great lakes freeze up. Therefore in the fall the great effort is to get the grain off the prairies and down as far as possible along the great lakes so that it is in a strategic position for delivery to Europe and elsewhere during the winter. Hauling wheat by rail from western Canada to the east is not economical, the natural route from western Canada to the east for grain is the great lakes. Doctor MacGibbon 
in his book says that in the fall it is absolutely necessary, in some seasons at least, to have all the ships that can be massed to handle the crop in order to prevent congestion at the head of the lakes. At page 246 of his book we have the following:
When a new Canadian crop is ready for shipment, especially if it be a large one, the Canadian lake freighters as well as the American lake freighters not engaged in the ore trade, are fully employed in moving the crop from the head of the lake. Indeed it becomes necessary to use to the limit all the ports available, in order that the elevators at the head of navigation may be kept clear, and as much as possible of the crop be shipped east from Port Arthur and Fort William before the close of navigation. Traffic conditions in the great lakes, in the fall season, therefore, tend to cause grain to flow through the port of Buffalo.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Would the hon. member
mind telling us at what time that book was published?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In January, 1932.
It has been said that we ought to use Canadian ports. I am all in favour of using Canadian ports, but Canadian traffic routes and Canadian ports have not the facilities to handle grain, economically and efficiently. That is a fact. As a matter of fact if you go back in the records you will find that Canadian ports have been handling in some years, at least when the United States was a large exporter, almost as much United States grain as 'the United States ports were handling of Canadian grain, not quite balanced. In 1930 I think Saint John handled 30,000,000 bushels, and 17,000,000 bushels of that was American grain.


James Langstaff Bowman: How are the figures at Montreal? Have you any figures for Montreal?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, I have not gone into that. A statement from the Canadian National Railways, which I think was given- to the shipping committee, gives an indication of what is happening. The number of bushels of Canadian grain moving through Canadian ports, crop year 1928-29, was 83,512,520. In 1930, Canadian grain shipped by way of Buffalo, amounted to 92,479,728 bushels; 72,277,730 bushels were shipped by United States ports, and 20,201,998 through Montreal.
It has been said that we have regulation as a result of -the act of 1923, and with regulation we ought to be able to take care of the producers' interest. The act of 1923 provided that the board of grain commissioners could fix maximum rates. It provided for the

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Kennedy
publication of tariffs, and that brokers who were handling contracts for space could not handle insurance. Doctor MacGibbon in commenting on that act, dealing with freight and handling charges, says at page 257:
A fundamental difference between lake rates and rail rates is that the latter are approved of by regulative bodies in both the United States and Canada. They are relatively stable, and they are non-discriminative, in that between two points under similar conditions the same rates prevail for all shippers. But with lake rates, the rates charged are reached by a process of bargaining between the individual shipper and the carrier. In each case there is a separate contract, so that the rate varies according to the amount of space demanded, the terminal point designated, the season of the year when carriage is desired, and, in general, the amount of grain offering for carriage in relationship to the bottoms available; all these play a part in influencing the terms of the contract. It follows that it is open to the lake freighter to carry in the same vessel on the same date, and between the same points of origin and destination, shipments of wheat of the same quality at different rates per bushel. One lot of wheat may be paying three cents and another lot four cents per bushel. The individual bargain accounts for the rate.
In dealing with the Inland Waters Freight Rates Act of 1923 we have the following, at page 261.
This measure provided that shipping companies should file with the board of grain commissioners a tariff of rates to be charged for the carriage of grain. When the rates proposed appeared excessive or unjustly discriminative in the opinion of the board, it could prescribe such rates as it deemed reasonable.
This act, which was intended to regulate shipping rates for grain, proved altogether unworkable in its main features, and it was drastically amended in 1924. The main features of the act of 1923 were the setting of a maximum rate and publishing the tariff, and of course the separating of the insurance and the allotting of space. The only real difference between the act of 1923 and the amending act of 1924, is that it was provided that instead of simply publishing the tariffs;
Every shipper shall immediately after entering into any charter party, bill of lading or contract for the carriage of grain from Fort William or Port Arthur to any other port or place in Canada or the United States by lake or river navigation, and before the grain shall have been laden in pursuance thereof, file with the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada a true copy of the said charter party, bill of lading or contract for carriage.
The point is that the board shall prescribe a maximum rate. In railway matters the board of railway commissioners practically set the rate; they conduct an exhaustive inquiry with regard to the proper costs of
equipment and so on and then fix the rate. In lake shipping, however, in connection with the freight rates we have a situation something the same as obtains with regard to tramp steamers all over the world. The matter is left to the individual bargain and the contract. As Doctor MacGibbon points out, the conditions are such that you may have different rates applying to different quantities of the same quality of goods on the same vessel. So the fixing of a maximum rate, if you enable the Canadian Steamship companies to eliminate a certain amount of competition, will not prevent a generally higher rate being charged.


Mr. STEVENS:: Except that a maximum
can be fixed.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes. The other point is that the board of grain commissioners can examine the rate and then report the matter to the governor in council.
I do not think the governor in council can be reasonably expected to have time to look after the details of these rates, in view of all the circumstances. That is one reason, in addition to the generally difficult situation confronting the farmers to-day, why I do not want to see any of the competition existing on the great lakes to-day eliminated so far as the steamship companies are concerned.
There is just one other point to which I should like to refer; that is the question of the 6 cent preference. I take it that under this act if grain is shipped from Fort William to Buffalo in a United States vessel it cannot be taken on down to Montreal, because no goods can be moved except in British or Canadian ships. I take it that grain stored in United States lake vessels during the winter could not move to Montreal. I take it therefore that this act would interfere to some extent with the movement of grain from the head of the lakes to Buffalo for storage over the winter, and possibly this would bring about a congestion at the head of the lakes. I believe the first trial shipment that was sent to the old country through Buffalo, and reconsigned from there, did not obtain the preference. I believe a second shipment was sent through with the original documents, but that the preference was not given in that case either. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong in that statement, because I think it has some bearing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has any grain been consigned through Buffalo that did get the preference?
3160	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Kennedy


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I might interrupt my
hon. friend, because I know he desires to get the point right, the documentation of the second shipment to which he referred was not correct according to the regulations of the' British customs authorities under regulation 12 of the import act.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then no
shipment has gone through Buffalo and obtained the six cent preference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not say that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: So far as we know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Any shipment may go
forward on a through bill of lading.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Right
from a Canadian port?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But as a matter of fact Buffalo is useful, so far as the Canadian grain trade is concerned, for storage and for redirecting the grain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And for reconsignment.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, and because it is necessary particularly in the event of a big crop it seems to me there will be a great deal of confusion so far as the preference is concerned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This will not affect the
situation at all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This is
my argument, and my hon. friend may answer it if he wishes. It seems to me there will be that confusion until the question of proper documentation is dealt with and the officials at both ends are thoroughly familiar with all the necessary requirements. It appears to me that grain shipped to Buffalo in a Canadian boat and there unloaded or transshipped will be unable to proceed to Montreal because, if I read the act correctly, it would be impossible to distinguish between the grain hauled from the head of the lakes in a Canadian ship and grain hauled to Buffalo in a United States vessel. You may say that ten million bushels of a certain kind of grain came by a Canadian boat and that ten million bushels will be allowed to go to Montreal by a Canadian boat, but I do not think it would be possible to separate the grain in that way, and a good deal of confusion might arise as to grain going to Montreal and thence to England to claim the preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No more difficulty than
there has been in the past.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I cannot
quite see it in that way, but possibly I am wrong. At present grain moves to Buffalo where it is kept in bond for shipment to the old country. It is in the interests of the officials of the United States government to see that this grain does not get on the United States market without paying the duty. The organizations handling that grain, the elevator companies, railway companies and steamship companies, have no interest in mixing that grain or anything else, yet with all these organizations interested in keeping that grain apart from United States grain, and with no real temptation to do anything but get it through, the preference will not be given unless it is sent on a through bill of lading. Evidently if it is stopped on its way through it stands a very good chance of losing the preference, and I am afraid that some time a question will arise as to some of the grain that goes through Buffalo and from there to Montreal, because I do not see how anyone can tell whether it has been sent to Buffalo and reconsigned to Montreal and so through to England or whether it was brought to Buffalo in a United States vessel and had no right to go to Montreal at all.
Briefly I am opposed to this measure because it eliminates competition and will enable our friends of the shipping combine, or those Canadian ship owners who have an agreement among themselves, to take more out of the western farmers in connection with their grain. I am opposed to this legislation because I think we need all the facilities that exist at present on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence in order to properly handle a big crop when it comes along. If the organization is cut down in any way there may. be a tremendous amount of trouble and congestion in handling a big crop, perhaps when the weather does not continue favourable for harvesting until the whole crop is in. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I want to register my protest against this legislation.


Mr. D. J. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, one has only to listen to the observations which have been made by members on all sides of the house to realize the difficulty which arises in framing legislation dealing with the grain trade which will appeal to all interests. The bon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) has spoken on behalf of the western Canadian farmer and he has stated the position in which he finds himself when he comes to contemplate the legislation now before us known as the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. We are on common

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Cowan
ground in slating that the grain, trade and the shipping of grain to market is one of the most important functions in our economic life. The growing of grain is important and the means by which that grain reaches the market is also important. The hon. member has pointed out only one side of the picture. There is another side in which I am particularly interested, representing as I do one of the ports at the head of the lakes which relies almost exclusively upon the shipment of grain for the maintenance of its industrial life.
We have built up in Canada a merchant marine which must be protected and must be given the opportunity to function. Otherwise, the fear which the hon. member has expressed as to the possibility of an absolute monopoly in the transportation of our grain will be realized. The desire of the men who are employed in this merchant marine is that it be given an opportunity of functioning and that -they be given the right to labour in preference to seamen employed by the American merchant marine. I think I am on common ground' when I say that everyone desires that Canadian grain should be transported to the British market in Canadian owned ships manned by Canadian seamen, *that is, provided that no other interests are jeopardized or prejudiced. It seems to me that that is the sensible conclusion at which we should arrive and I propose to address my remarks in an effort to allay t'he fears which seem to be in the minds of certain western members that their interests would be jeopardized by the passing of this amendment.
If hon. members would read the evidence given before the Senate committee I think they would discover that there is in existence to-day a sufficient tonnage of Canadian ships to handle all the Canadian crops. This may not have been true ten or fifteen years ago but I think the evidence was conclusive that there are in existence to-day sufficient bottoms to handle the entire Canadian crop. If that be the case and the rates charged are not exorbitant, what good argument can be advanced that Canadian wheat should not be shipped in Canadian bottoms from Canadian ports? We have the facilities and the Canadian seamen have a right to work in preference to the seamen of other countries. At Port Arthur and Fort William I have seen American ships, fitted out and supplied at other ports, leaving with a cargo of Canadian grain while our own seamen stood idle on the docks. Such a situation should be remedied and it is intended to remedy it by this amendment to the shipping act. As I said a 53719-320
moment ago, I do not think that anyone would disagree with this proposal provided there was no increment in the rates. In my opinion there are at least four ways in which this can be prevented.
0 . . .
In the first place, there is the competition
between Canadian companies. I dio not think anyone needs to be told at this time that the shipping companies are working in the red.
I believe that every company operating a fleet of boats on the great lakes to-day is losing money and has lost money for some time. I mention this only to show that there is competition amongst such companies as the Patterson Company, the Canada Steamship company, the Matthews line and so on. When companies are insolvent or facing bankruptcy there is always a desire to get business even at cut rates. This has been the case in Canada during the past year. In order to get business and meet competition these companies have been willing to cut rates.
There is a second reason why these rates will be kept within bounds. There is an alternative route available to grain shippers by way of Buffalo, the Erie canal and New York. A Canadian shipper or exporter in Winnipeg is bound to take advantage of the cheapest route and if he finds that the route via Buffalo and New York is cheaper than via Port Colborne and Montreal, he will ship his grain over that route. There will always 'be that competition Which will prevent the Canadian companies making the rates unduly high. If they do that they will find that their route will be forsaken in favour of the Buffalo route.
If that argument is not strong enough to convince my bon. friend, theTe is the further argument of the Inland Water Freight Rates Act which provides that the board of grain commissioners may fix a maximum rate. It is true that they do not fix actual rates, that being left to competition and other factors, but they do fix a rate which cannot be exceeded. This act forces the shipping companies to keep their rates within bounds.
Then there is the further fact that the governor in council may exercise their powers to suspend this law. That provision is an advantage to the shipper because if the rates become unduly high, the governor in council have the right to suspend this act. In all frankness I say that in my opinion that would be done only when the rates became exorbitant. I do not think there is cause for fear on the part of hon. members of this house that a monopoly or combine would be brought into being. I think it would be impossible

*152	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Cowan
for such a thing to happen. Consequently, I approve of the principle of this bill.
There are a number of other sections with which I do not propose to deal other than to say that I give them my support. These have to do with safety devices, the providing of better working conditions for the men and so on. Such provisions will always meet with hearty approval at my hands. The Seamen's union is at one in saying that they are to their advantage. I do not propose to speak at any greater length on those sections of the bill. With regard to the section dealing with the coastal laws, I think it will be to the advantage of Canada to see that this , section is put through and at this session so that the resultant changes can be made during the current year.
Correlated with the business of shipping is that of dry dock construction plants. It appears to me that it would be to their advantage to have this legislation go through so that a greater amount of repairs, when damages occur, might be completed at Canadian dry docks. A United States boat will not go into a Canadian dry dock for repairs, because of the regulation that there must be paid to the United States government a tariff of 40 per cent of the cost of such repairs when the boat returns to its United States registry. This bill is designed to put us on a parity with United States shippers; it is their law practically word for word. I do not see that anything could be said by interests adverse to us as to our giving them a sample of their own medicine, because if this measure goes through, Canadian boats will have exactly the same privileges as United States boats and the latter will have no advantage over Canadian boats in Canadian waters. I therefore commend the government for bringing this bill down at this time and I intend to give it my hearty support.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, the only clause of this bill that I shall discuss in any detail is the one which deals with the proposed amendment to the coastal laws. As regards those clauses dealing with the interests of labour engaged in hazardous employment, we can only say that we would give them our hearty support. I say therefore, it is regrettable that this highly contentious clause of the bill should be introduced along with those clauses that we would like to support, and we shall therefore be compelled, because of this contentious clause, to oppose the whole bill, notwithstanding the fact that there are some clauses which we would like to approve, sympathetic as we are towards

all legislation that would protect men who are engaged in hazardous employment.
The proposed amendment to the coastal laws is one that we as producers of wheat cannot view without alarm. Anything that has within it the possibility of increased freight rates must, to say the least, merit the keenest scrutiny on our part and we are not going to be very easily convinced that this bill does not contain that possibility. The avowed purpose of the bill is to protect Canadian shipping and when any measure is introduced that has for its object the protection of a particular class of the community, it almost inevitably results that that protection is given at the expense of somebody else. That that protection can be given only by taking something more from the Canadian producers of wheat is the opinon that we on this side of the house hold, and we intend to protest against any such course. I am not going to say that it is the deliberate purpose of the government to overburden the producer of wheat. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) made that statement as he was quoted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Certainly we would not say that it was the deliberate purpose of the government to place additional burdens on the producers of wheat, but I say that the almost inevitable result of this bill will be to impose such burdens on him and that is something that at the present time he cannot stand.
There is nothing of greater concern to the wheat producer than freight rates on wheat. Situated as we are in the middle of the continent, competing as we have to do with other wheat producing countries more favourably situated, the question of freight rates is to us of prime importance, infinitely more important than to our Australian, or Argentine, or even our Russian competitors. The question of raising the freight rate on wheat by even the fraction of a cent, with wheat at its present low price, is to us a matter of prime importance. The wheat trade and the production of wheat constitute our principal industry. I do not underestimate the importance of the live stock industry; our cattle, beef, hog products, poultry and dairy products are all important, and in spite of the opinion which is sometimes given expression to in the east, we are engaging in those industries to the utmost extent that we find profitable. Nevertheless it is true that for many years to come, the agriculture of western Canada will be based on wheat, and therefore freight rates

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Brown
that are paid on that commodity are to us of first importance.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce will pardon us if we are not so readily convinced as some hon. memibers opposite seem to be that this will not result to our disadvantage. We are not going to be very easily convinced that there will be no increase in the freight rates on wheat. We have had similar assurances in regard to the tariff and there has been no indication as yet that the assurances of the government in regard to increases in tariff have not been prejudicial to those of us who have to buy the products of Canadian manufacturers. The hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan), who has just spoken, says that the interests of the producer will not be jeopardized. We have reason to fear that they will be because we have had some experiences in the past when there has not 'been sufficient competition in the carrying of grain. They tell us that there will be no increase in local rates. Will hon. members opposite explain to us why it is that wheat is carried to Buffalo cheaper than it is carried to Georgian bay ports? Does anyone imagine that on the basis of actual cost, it costs more to carry wheat to Georgian bay ports than it does to Buffalo or that it costs more to carry wheat to Port Collborne than it does to Buffalo? The figures that have been furnished by the board of grain commissioners absolutely disprove any 6uch statement. I have before me the figures for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, covering the months from April to December and so far as the figures I have are concerned, there is only one month in which the freight rate to Buffalo was higher than either to Port Col-borne or Georgian bay ports. Yet, with these figures before us, they ask us to expect that rates will not be increased if Canadian steamships are given the monopoly of the carrying of wheat. We on this side of the house are not going to be so easily convinced as some hon. members opposite seem to be.
Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberm (Mr. Neill) I was interested when, after the minister had presented his case, he was followed by a speaker on the other side of the house who proceeded to show from the evidence given before the Senate committee that -.here was strong reason at least to believe fiiat the bill would be prejudicial to our nterests. I wondered in my own mind where the hon. member was going to land, but it was quite evident before he got through that he was preparing a soft place on which to fall.
The situation at Buffalo is unique. It is unique in that it has always been to the advantage of the producer of wheat in western Canada and to those who export wheat. As has been said, Buffalo is the strategic point at which wheat can be stored. Wheat stored there can be carried to any of the American ports or to the port of Montreal, and as I have said, that is a unique situation which has been to our advantage. We do not propose to lose that advantage through any failure on our part to make our fight against changing it. We have no prejudice against Canadian ports; we have no prejudice against our wheat going by Montreal or Halifax or Saint John; but the position to which we are going to adhere is that we must have these alternative routes open. It is only by keeping them open that under the present conditions under which grain is handled we can expect to get the utmost possible return to the producer, and that, is the important thing to-day.
I have said that the situation at Buffalo is unique. The government tell us that they, introduced into this bill the exact wording of the United States bill dealing with similar matters. That may be, but the situation in the United States is not parallel at all. What would be a parallel situation? It would be the shipment of grain from, say, Duluth to Port Golbome in Canadian vessels, and then an American law stepping in forbidding the carrying of that grain from Port Colborne to another American port. It may possibly be that the American law as at present existing would forbid such a transaction. I suppose it would, but that is a situation which simply does not arise to any extent, because to what other American port could the grain be carried from Port Colborne? Perhaps across that little bit of water to Buffalo or down through the canal to some points on the south shore of lake Ontario-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or through the Erie canal to New York and Albany.


John Livingstone Brown: But does that happen to
any great extent? If it does, we want the minister to give us the facts and figures with regard to that situation when we are in committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not happen at all so far as Canadian vessels are concerned. The law prohibits it.


John Livingstone Brown: That is what I say. Then
that thing in itself is not a matter of importance to the Americans so far as protecting the situation from their viewpoint is con-
5164	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Brown
eerned, but it is of importance to us that the strategic point at Buffalo should be preserved.
After all, Mr. Speaker, this bill is the product of an attitude of mind that sees the necessity for ensuring a profit to everyone in the secondary industries in this country at the expense of the primary industries. It is one of the problems that concern us. I do not know how we are going to get away from what seems to be an inevitable situation, that the farmer is compelled to take simply what is left after everybody else has been paid. Since we have nothing to say at all, or only under very rare circumstances, in regard to the price we shall receive for our products, it is almost inevitable that the farmer has to take what is left after everybody else has been paid. In view of that situation we 'have to resist to the utmost extent of our ability any move that increases the costs that are taken off our product between the time it leaves us and the time it reaches the world's market. We have to make demands, as we have upon every occasion when we were dealing with the tariff, that our production costs shall be kept as low as possible. That is the only way we have to protect ourselves. It is the only kind of protection that the government can give to us, to ensure that our cost of production shall be at the lowest possible point, and it has always been upon that ground that we have resisted the impositions that have been made upon us for the benefit of other industries.
I wonder if the government have considered some of the possible results of this legislation. It is generally found that when established trade routes and established trade methods are interfered with there are some unforeseen and unintended results. We cannot foretell all the results in this case, but I am prepared to believe that the first result will be an increase in freight rates by Canadian ships. Do we imagine that the Americans are going to lie down entirely on the question of carrying Canadian grain? I wonder if the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan) fully realizes the significance of the admission he made when discussing this question, when he said that the exporter of grain would have the alternative route via American ports, and that if the grain went cheaper that way the exporter could ship that way. Here is what may happen. American steamers will not lie down on this job. They will carry Canadian wheat to Buffalo, where it will be stored, and let us rest assured that they will carry it in competition with Canadian vessels

carrying grain to Port Colborne or to Georgian bay ports. Now has not that situation the possibility in it of sending a larger quantity of Canadian grain via American ports and less via Montreal?


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has my hon. friend
lost sight of the fact that Canadian ships can compete in that trade? They can carry grain from Fort William to Buffalo.


John Livingstone Brown: I realize that they can, but rest assured that if there are lower rates or if the spread between the rates to Buffalo and Port Colborne or Georgian bay ports is wider than it is at present, it matters not whether that grain is carried by American ships or Canadian ships. The situation still has in it the possibility of sending a larger amount of grain by American ports. Not that we as grain growers could object to that; I am not advancing it for that reason. But I am asking the government if they have considered the possibility of the adverse influence it may have upon the port of Montreal. So that, as I pointed out, these changes are very far reaching. One cannot be sure that the results intended to be achieved will be achieved, and that no ill effects will be the result.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to ask a question. If as the hon. member has argued the result of this legislation will be to divert the grain trade from Canadian into American channels, how can he complain that in using that route his interests will be prejudiced?


John Livingstone Brown: I am not complaining that this legislation, particularly, is prejudicial to that route. When I spoke of that I was simply dealing with a general proposition, namely that we want the alternative routes preserved. That portion of my argument was not addressed to this bill. We want the alternative routes preserved. I simply pointed out to those who are strongly advocating the use of Canadian ports that this very step they are taking to help Canadian ports may have the opposite result.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You cannot have it both ways.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not trying to have it both ways. All I intend to do is to point out that the thing you are going to do may not have the result you expect. Much of the legislation of this government has had unexpected results. All restrictions upon trade have had unintended effects. I am simply

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Thompson
pointing out that this legislation may be prejudicial to the interests of those who are advocating it, and who think that they are speaking in their own interests.


Alfred Duranleau: Does the hon. member not think that the six cent preference will be protection for the port of Montreal?


John Livingstone Brown: If you ask me my opinion in regard to preferences, I would say that we have yet to see that they have been of any value to us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They certainly have.


John Livingstone Brown: When we go into committee we are going to ask the minister to prove conclusively that grain has been shipped through the port of Buffalo, and that it has received a preference. That is a matter I had not intended to discuss at the moment. My attitude towards the preferences in general is that up to the moment they have meant nothing.
We have heard something about maximum rates, and that competition ha3 kept the rates below the maximum. That may be true, so long as there is free competition. But when competition is removed the inevitable tendency will be for the maximum rate to become the minimum rate. That is almost certain to be the result. Further, I do not wish to be unduly offensive concerning any hon. member of this government, but I must state frankly that we have not confidence in the governor in council, under this government-


Henry Herbert Stevens: We understand that fully, because we have heard it so often. We know it, and we do not expect anything else-individually or collectively.


John Livingstone Brown: We have not confidence in the governor in council because their attitude has been to give secondary industries first consideration. How can we be expected to have confidence in the governor in council, after some of the things to which we have had to submit? Let us consider, for instance, repairs to farm implements, to which we have had occasion to refer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are you dissatisfied with what we have done in that connection?


John Livingstone Brown: No, we are not dissatisfied with what you have done. The minister tries to get away with that kind of stuff, but it won't go.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my hon. friend is the one who tries to get away with it.


John Livingstone Brown: The minister is trying to do now what he tried to do when he spoke on the budget. He tried to prove that we were absolutely opposed to everything in the budget. Of course we are satisfied with the present situation in regard to repairs to farm implements. But we are satisfied only because we brought conditions to the attention of the country and the government. For that reason the government simply had to withdraw from the position they had taken. That is the only way we can get anything from this government to help the farmers.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: It is like pulling teeth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some you do not have to pull.


John Livingstone Brown: Even if we had confidence in the governor in council, the probability is that their action would be so slow that it would be of little benefit. The hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay said that the governor in council could take action only when rates became exorbitant. I suppose an exorbitant rate would be a maximum rate, above which they could not go. I think there were some inconsistencies in the argument of the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay.
I do not know whether it is necessary for me further to discuss this matter. I believe X have made it clear that representing a western constituency I must view with alarm even the possibility of an increase in lake rates on our wheat. While I regret having to oppose the whole bill, because of other provisions in it, to be true to the interests 1 represent I must do so.


Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, coming from a constituency which has within its borders the Georgian bay ports of Midland and Port MoNicoll, I should like to say a few words concerning this proposed legislation. X shall direct my remarks more particularly to the amendments to the coastal law. One hon. member opposite has asked these questions: "What is the need for the bill now before us? Why is this legislation necessary." If I were to answer I would say that the reason is to remedy an injustice which for a long time Canadian elevators, Canadian ships and Canadian mariners have suffered by reason of Canadian grain being routed on American vessels to Buffalo, thence re-routed via American vessels to the elevators at Montreal and other Canadian ports. To my mind this is a condition, which should have been remedied years ago, and it is gratifying to know that at last we
5166	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Thompson
have a Minister of Marine backed by a government prepared to do something for our Canadian steamers.
Let me read what the Canadian Unionist, Canada's national labour magazine, has to say in connection with this matter. I find the following:
One direction in which the Canadian government can relieve unemployment is by enacting the many amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which have been proved necessary by long experience ai)d which have been under consideration for the last twenty-odd years. The most important of these proposed amendments is one to ensure that Canadian ships shall be manned by Canadian seamen. At present Canadian ports are full of idle seafarers, while Canadian ships are manned by citizens of every country but Canada.
The article goes on to say:
The Department of Marine has come under new management in the last couple of years, and there is a possibility that the long-overdue revision of the law will be undertaken at the present session of parliament.
Then, further on:
The new Minister of Marine, Hon. Alfred Duranleau, is a much brighter lad than Hon. Pierre Cardin. Between them Messrs. Duranleau and Hawken have at last managed to put a tackle inspector on the Vancouver docks, which Messrs. Cardin and Johnston never would do, despite the appalling list of fatalities that accumulated, under their coldblooded "do nothing" administration.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that in common with other countries we have been passing through a period of depression-


Alfred Speakman: May I ask the hon.
member a question? From what official document was he quoting?


Alfred Burke Thompson: I said at the outset that I was reading from the Canadian Unionist, "Canada's national labour magazine."


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a good magazine.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When it supports the
government.


Alfred Burke Thompson: We are passing through a period of depression. The greatest cause of the depression is unemployment. If this bill becomes law it will to a very considerable extent relieve the unemployment situation, because a great part of our Canadian grain which is now carried by American vessels and passes through American elevators will be carried by Canadian vessels and pass through Canadian elevators. When this bill becomes law Canadian grain shipped from one Canadian port and destined to another Canadian port, directly or indirectly,

must be carried in Canadian vessels. We know that a great deal of money is spent in the handling and carriage of this grain, and when it is moved by American vessels through American ports Canadians derive very little benefit from it. Certain hon. gentlemen on the opposite side appear to think it is a serious offence for anybody to speak for the Canadian shipping interests. No vessel owner has ever spoken to me about this legislation, but ever since I have been a member of parliament I have had Canadian seamen and masters and mates and engineers come to me and want to know when our government was going to put our coastal laws on the same footing as those of the United States, giving to Canadian seamen the same measure of protection that the Americans give to theirs. Surely, sir, if we can do something for the Canadian mariner it is up to us to do it. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) speaking yesterday seemed very anxious to know what the American government would think if we passed this legislation.


Edward James Young: What they would do I was more concerned about.


Alfred Burke Thompson: He was very much concerned about what they would think and perhaps what they would do. I will tell him what in my opinion the American government will think; they will think more highly of us and have more respect for us, that we had the courage and backbone to pass legislation which they have had on their statute books for many years.


Edward James Young: They 'will be quite flattered that we have copied them!


Alfred Burke Thompson: It has been
one of these cases of jug-handled protection that the Americans have enjoyed at our expense. Let me give an illustration of what took place in my riding two years ago. A large quantity of American grain was brought down to Port McNicoll just at the close of navigation to be stored in elevators there. When navigation opened the following spring that grain had to be carried to Buffalo, and although there were a number of Canadian boats lying idle at Port McNicoll and Midland not one of them was allowed to take part in that traffic because the American coastal laws would not permit it. Now we are going to put our boats in the same position as the American.


Edward James Young: Did they pay storage on
that grain?


Alfred Burke Thompson: I assume
they did, it is customary.

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Maclnnis


George Brecken Nicholson: Canadians pay storage on grain in Buffalo.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Is the hon. gentleman
right in that statement that Canadian boats could not take it out of Port McNicoll?


Alfred Burke Thompson: Certainly, it
came from an American port and was destined to an American port, although indirectly; and according to American coastal laws that grain must be carried exclusively in American bottoms.
An >hon. MEMBER:	It would come over
in bond.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Mr. Speaker,
Canada is a maritime nation. We have thousands of miles of coastline on our seaboard and our rivers and inland lakes, and to my mind it is of the utmost importance that we protect this Shipping industry and give it a chance to survive. The people who would suffer most if our shipping industry were driven out of existence are the grain growers of the west, because then they would be at the mercy of the American vessels; we have no control over their rates. The hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan) has shown to the house what protection the grain growers will have in the regulation of rates, it is not necessary for me to go over that ground again. We have the competition of our own boats, the competition of the Buffalo route to a certain extent, and the powers of regulation of the government and the grain commissioners.
Some hon. members who have spoken say that the grain grower gets no protection. Why was the Hudson Bay railway built? Was it not built to give to the grain grower of the west an outlet for his grain to the markets of the world at a lower transportation cost? Why did Canada spend millions of dollars in the enlargement of the Welland canal if it were not to help the grain grower of the west?


John Livingstone Brown: No.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Absolutely
yes. Millions of dollars.


John Livingstone Brown: It was never asked for by
the west.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was, years
ago.


Alfred Burke Thompson: We on this
side of the house are not concerned in setting one class against another. We want to do what is for the general good of the country.


Edward James Young: You are setting one class
on the backs of another.


Alfred Burke Thompson: For that
reason, in order to help the farmers of the west, we have spent all that money on the enlargement of the Welland canal and the building of the Hudson Bay railway.


Edward James Young: Who is "we"?


Alfred Burke Thompson: I think it is to be regretted that some representatives of the western farmers do not realize what Canada has done for them.


Edward James Young: We are beginning to realize it.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I would like, if it were at all possible-I am afraid it is not, because the hon. gentleman who preceded me has shown that he could not be convinced against his will-that the hon. gentlemen who are opposing this bill should withdraw their objection and join hands with us and let us all work together for the common good.


Edward James Young: Withdraw the bill.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words with regard to this bill, before it goes to committee. Before doing so I must express my appreciation of the sentiments that have been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the need of looking after the welfare of those engaged on ships, and I hope they will extend those sentiments to the ships operating on the Pacific coast. I pointed out a few evenings ago that only about ten per cent of the employees on Canadian Pacific ships were white men, and that this company had their ships repaired in China rather than in Canada because it could be done more cheaply there.
I am not particularly concerned with who own the ships. We may call them Canadian owned ships, railways, docks or whatever they are, but the bondholders are in all parts of the world, and recently we were told that until such time as the bonds are paid up we do not own these utilities. I am interested, however, in the first part of this bill which refers to the protection of workers against accidents occurring while unloading or loading ships. I commend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) for bringing in these amendments at the present time. Unfortunately, as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has said, they are linked up with other amendments which we may not like, but those to which I have referred are long overdue. While commending the minister, however, there is some uneasiness in my mind with regard to section 681f. Subsection 2 of section 1 repeal?
5168	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act*-Mr. Maclnnis
sections 674 and 681 of the Canada Shipping Act, but section 681, subsections (a) to (f) inclusive, does not come into operation until a date fixed by the governor in council and proclaimed in the Canada Gazette. Until that proclamation is issued sections 681 and 674 remain as they are at present.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this implies that the rest of the act will come into effect as soon as the bill passes this house but that these sections will not come into operation until a proclamation is issued by the governor in council. My reason for being uneasy is the fact that opposition has always manifested itself when anything has been attempted in the way of protecting those engaged in loading or unloading ships, or having to do with safety on board ships. I understand that last year the Minister of Marine took steps to appoint an inspector of tackle and that when this became known it was opposed by the shipping federation of British Columbia. If up to the present they have been able to prevent the Minister of Marine from doing what I believe he considers the right and proper thing to do, and something which it is very necessary to have done, I am afraid they will be able to exert enough pressure to prevent this section from coming into operation for some considerable time. Of course if the minister can give an assurance in that regard in committee he will have my full support so far as these sections are concerned.
With regard to the rest of the bill, which has to do with the ships which may or may not engage in the coastal trade of Canada, I believe it is inevitable that there shoukj be some regulation in this regard. We may talk as we please about free competition, but really that is a thing of the past. As a matter of fact competition always tends towards monopoly; it only remains competition until such time as the bigger ones have absorbed the small ones, when it becomes a monopoly. If these amendments with regard to our coastal trade are to be put into operation I believe we should insist on sufficient safeguards so that those furnishing the freight for the shipping companies may not be unduly penalized.
In conclusion I may say again that so far as the first part of the bill is concerned, dealing with the protection of those engaged on the ships, I will extend my unqualified support.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a few observations with regard to the bill now before the house. I think the best recommendation for the bill was that quoted by my good friend from [Mr. Macinnif '
East Si'mcoe (Mr. Thompson) from the labour magazine, which expressed the attitude of the working men of Canada towards this measure.
I have always been an advocate of the Canada first policy. I have always advocated Canada for Canadians, Canadian seamen on Canadian ships and Canadian workmen in Canadian shipyards, and I have always held that when ships were required by the government or by Canadian shipping interests, if at all possible those ships should be built in Canadian shipyards by Canadian workmen and that so far as practicable Canadian materials should be used in their construction. I am surprised at the attitude that has been taken by some hon. gentlemen opposite. They fear that there may be a monopoly.


Edward James Young: There is one now.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Well, as the hon. member for Port Artfaur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan) has pointed out, and as hon. members should know, we have the necessary safeguards in the Canada Shipping Act, section 938. There is the further safeguard that the competition with Buffalo will still exist; a great deal of Canadian grain will be shipped through that port for European ports. Only the preference on Canadian grain going to the United Kingdom will prevent much of our grain going through Buffalo. In addition we have the Hudson Bay route. I believe a considerable quantity of Canadian grain will be shipped via Churchill. The competition to be offered by Vancouver is an important factor. Above all, I believe that this bill should be given a fair trial. It will mean much for Canadian unemployed. We should look with favour upon any legislation which will relieve the present condition of unemployment and give preference to Canadian seamen on Canadian ships.
I might extend this a little further. We have ships running out of Canadian ports on the Atlantic seaboard which are not manned by Canadian seamen. There are always available highly qualified masters, mates, engineers, firemen, cooks, stewards, deckhands-all that is necessary to make up the personnel of a ship's crew. Even in the personnel of the crews of the Canadian National steamers are many old country men. While I have nothing against our brothers from across the sea, as I said in the beginning, I am for Canada and Canadians first. Wherever there is a master, an officer, an engineer or a member of the crew available in this country, he should be given preference over all others. My attention was called to a large concern in this country which operates a fleet of ships under Canadian charters. They took these ships out of Can-

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Quinn
ada and had them registered in Great Britain to be manned with British crews. They pay a lower rate of wages to their masters and crews than is paid by Canadian shipping interests and I presume it was for that reason they took the action they did. Our own men should be given protection. If permits are to be granted to Canadian interests for the operation of steamers through Canadian ports, there should be some provision to compel them to employ Canadian officers and crews.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) expressed some doubt with regard to the clause in the bill covering the appointment of inspectors of ship's tackle. He doubts the efficiency of this clause because it can come into effect only by order in council. I do not suppose it can be brought into effect until there are available the proper men to be appointed as inspectors. I say to the minister and to 'the government that care should be taken in the selection of these officials. They should be familiar with the type of work carried on on the waterfront. They should be men from the ranks who have worked up and become efficient as stevedores or master freight handlers. This should not be a white collar job; it should be a job for a man who thoroughly understands the work and has had years of experience. For some years I have urged the necessity of having such inspectors; a year ago I brought this matter to the attention of the minister. I have before me a letter received under date of October 26, 1932, from the Halifax Longshoremen's Association. It reads:
F. P. Quinn, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons.
Dear Sir,

The Halifax Longshoremen's Association, local 269. I.L.A. have for some time been pressing the Dominion government to appoint a full time inspector of gears, tackles and working ways for the port of Halifax, and up to the present has not met with any success in having the appointment made.
At the last regular monthly meeting of the association I was instructed to write you and ask you to again enlist your good offices to the end that such an inspector be appointed as soon as possible.
The changing character of the methods of carrying on the work render it more necessary than ever that the appointment be made and we respectfully request you to direct the government's attention to this matter as soon as you can conveniently do so.
Yours truly,
A. M. Sullivan,
President,
Halifax Longshoremen's Association, Local 269 I.L.A.
I commend and congratulate the government for having taken up this matter and providing this amendment to our shipping act.
There is another matter which I am sorry has not been dealt with by this bill. It is a small matter and it may have escaped the attention of the minister and the committee when the bill was being drafted. Perhaps it is not too late to have it included in the present amendment to the act. I refer to the unfairness of the charge for pilotage in the St. Lawrence made against ships plying from Nova Scotia to Ontario. I have before me a resolution which was passed unanimously by the Halifax board of trade on March 14 of this year. It reads:
Whereas under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1927, chapter 186. St. Lawrence river pilotage dues are payable by ships navigating between ports in the maritime provinces and ports in the province of Ontario;
And whereas by section 457, subsection c (ii) of said act, ships employed in trading between any one or more of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and any other or others of them are exempt from payment of said dues;
And whereas payment of said dues is illogical and without merit, and a great injustice and hardship to ships navigating between the maritime provinces and the province of Ontario in that if said ships sailing from the maritime provinces were bound only for the port of Montreal, or were proceeding from the port of Montreal to the maritime provinces, said dues would not be payable, but because said ships proceed to and from ports in the great lakes they are subject to said dues;
And whereas the imposition of said dues is a great impediment to interprovincial trade;
Now be it resolved that the Halifax Board of Trade and the undersigned interested parties place themselves on record as strongly urging and petitioning the government of the Dominion of Canada and the Minister of Marine that section 457, subsection c (ii) of said act be amended by inserting the word "Ontario'' before the word "Quebec" in the second line thereof.
I submit this to the minister and ask him to give it his most careful consideration. There is another matter which I intend to bring up but I shall deal with it when the bill is in committee.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) referred to page 54 of the evidence given before the Senate committee with reference to the rates charged by the Canada Steamship company. As I said before, there seems to be in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite who represent the wheat growers a great fear with regard to rates. It was pointed out, I think by Mr. Enderby in the proceedings of the committee, that the carriage of grain was not enough to pay the company for the cost of operation. I submit to hon. gentlemen opposite that it is as unfair for them to expect the owners of Canadian steam-
5170	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Quinn
ships to carry grain at a rate too low to give them a reasonable profit, as it is to expect the grain growers to raise wheat and sell it for forty cents a bushel.


Thomas F. Donnelly: They are doing it.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, but we have the evidence in the last few weeks that the price of wheat is gradually rising; it is not going up fast enough to suit me, but it is gradually rising and I hope in the veiy near future to see it at a price that will pay the Canadian wheat grower a sufficient profit to allow him to operate at an advantage and also to pay a fair and decent rate to those who are transporting his grain to the seaboard and across the ocean.


Mr. AHEARN:: The hon. member should
thank President Roosevelt.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Hon. gentlemen on that side of the house will thank anybody other than the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Conservative party. I have no quarrel with them; they are elected and they sit there to oppose this government, and they are doing so with all their might.


Mr. REID:: Not with all our might.
Mr. QUIN'N:	Well, they have given a
pretty good exhibition of it in the last few weeks.


Thomas Reid: If we were to do so, there
would be a revolution.
Mr. QUIN'N:	I do not want to go any
further with regard to that. Hon. gentlemen opposite are entitled to their opinion and we are entitled to ours. President Roosevelt, as we all know, is a man of energy and he has proven that he is a wonderful leader of a government. I congratulate the country to the south of us on having such a brilliant mian at the head of it; I also congratulate Canada on having at the head of its government a man who will walk hand in hand with ' President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald and the leaders of other countries in bringing this world out of the chaos of the last two or three years.


Thomas F. Donnelly: 
Mr. TURNBULL:: Don't worry.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Your constituents will worry, don't make any mistake about that. A rise in freight rates will affect all the people in western Canada, the people in the cities just as much as anybody else. Wheat is the lifeblood of our people in western Canada, and we are being asked by this bill to pay more in rates for the benefit of the shipping interests on the great lakes. This increase will be taken out of the farmers and nobody else.
In 1932 the rates were even worse-on the average 2-08 cents to lake ports; to Port Colborne, 2-22, and to Buffalo, 1*55, or nearly three-quarters of a cent more to ship to Port Colborne than to Buffalo, and half a cent more to ship to Georgian bay ports than to Buffalo although to Buffalo is a longer distance. Yet we are asked to vote for this bill to give Canadian shipping interests a monopoly of all the trade on the lakes.
With regard to the movement of grain at Buffalo, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), speaking on this bill said that Buffalo occupied a unique position. There is no doubt about that. The grain of western Canada comes to Fort William and is shipped from there to Buffalo, and from Buffalo it goes down the lakes to Montreal, or out via New York, Philadelphia and other United States ports. Both Canadian and American boats have been carrying this grain, but if this bill is put into effect any grain which is going down the lakes and is intended for Montreal must go in Canadian bottoms; if it goes to Buffalo it must go in Canadian bottoms. If the grain goes in American bottoms it will be in violation of this bill. There is no doubt that the rate to Buffalo to-day is the lowest, and there is no doubt that if this bill goes into effect it will affect Montreal injuriously. To my mind it is certain that the port of Montreal will suffer. All the wheat that is going to the markets of Europe outside of Great Britain will go to Buffalo and out through New York and Philadelphia, and on to Europe. Some wheat will go to Buffalo in either American or Canadian bottoms, but very little in Canadian bottoms. Only the bigger boats will take it, and the majority of the Canadian boats are smaller
[Mr. Donnelly.)
boats. Only the bigger Canadian boats will bring wheat from the head of the lakes down to Buffalo. It would not pay the smaller boat; the rates would be too low. They would lather go to Port Colborne, Goderich, or any other port where the rate will be higher, or take it through to Montreal. If this bill goes into effect it will be to the disadvantage of Montreal. We will find a lot more grain going through American ports to the markets of Europe via American bottoms, than we find at the present time.
I do not intend to delay the house any longer. I have risen merely to voice my protest against this bill. I resent some of the references made by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Air. Thompson). He referred to what eastern Canada had done for western Canada, and how eastern Canada had built the Hudson Bay railway. I always understood the Hudson Bay railway had been built by money which the people of western Canada had paid for their preemptions. The greater part of the money put up by western Canada for their preemption payments of $3 an acre had been put into a private fund. That money was used for the building of the Hudson Bay railway and, of course, further amounts came from the general revenue. I am sorry to hear any hon. member say that eastern Canada has been handing out anything to western Canada. The hon. member said, ''Oh well, we built the Welland canal for you." Western Canada never asked for the Welland canal; it is of no advantage to us. It gave labour to people in eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario, and the same applies to the St. Lawrence waterway development. If the people of eastern Canada want to build it, well and good; but so far as we in western Canada are concerned, we are not at all interested in it. We do not want to be told that the St. Lawrence waterway development is for us, or that the Welland canal was built for us. Only now, when western Canada, on account of its poverty, has ceased to be a market, does eastern Canada realize what we mean to it. Western Canada has always been your market, and still is. We are proud and willing to buy from you-understand that. But we hate to be branded as something to which gifts have to be handed; we are not looking for charity from eastern Canada. We are looking only for our just due, for a square and fair deal. We do not like to be told continuously that we are objects of charity on the part of eastern Canada, that we want gifts handed to us, or that this or that has to be done for us. It is regrettable that that stand has been taken, and I resent it.

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Speakman


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Speaker, I regret to delay the house even for a few moments, but under the circumstances, when we consider the condition of the order paper, it is possible that the delay is mot as serious as it otherwise mi^ht be.
The other day the Minister of Trade and . Commerce (Mr. Stevens) made reference to the various beneficial features of the bill.
I should like it to be understood at once that in anything I may have to say in criticism of a part of the bill I am making no reference, nor have others made reference, to the features of the bill which are wholly commendable. The provisions which deal with the administration of Canadian shipping, with the protection of those working in Canadian vessels, with proper inspection, with the protection of men working in hazardous trades -in fact, all these provisions for the proper regulation and safeguarding of shipping meet with my approval; they are wholly commendable, and we should be pleased were we in a position to support them by our vote. With the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and other hon. members who have spoken may I voice my regret that one section in an otherwise commendable bill should be such as to make it impossible for us to register our support. That section has been discussed so widely, and its potential or possible effects have been described so frequently and so clearly, that it is unnecessary for me to go into the matter at great length.
There is, however, one phase of the situation to which I wish to make reference. I believe it will be generally agreed that the cost of freight rates, as the cost of anything else, is determined essentially by the laws of supply and demand and by competition. If in Canada at the present time we were working under a wholly planned economy, were we to have every phase of our production, transportation and distribution planned, regulated' and controlled, it is possible that competition would be unnecessary. But under existing conditions the main and indeed the only effective regulatory influence we have in respect of transportation costs is that commonly known as competition.
When we deal with competition in lake shipping, the subject specifically under discussion, there are several factors which must be considered. Unquestionably each of the various routes competing with one another -that is, the routes out from Vancouver, the routes through Hudson bay and others I need not mention-is a regulatory factor in respect of other routes. No one can stand by itself.
In the grain business the margin of profit is so small that a fractional increase in cost
on one route may divert the trade in another direction. I believe that is the only effective safeguard we have left. But when we consider that feature, we have to remember that it works both ways, and that just as the shipment through Vancouver or through Hudson bay must have its effect upon shipping costs on the great lakes, so any possible increase in shipping costs on the great lakes -which, again, is a regulatory factor over Vancouver and Hudson bay-will have its effect generally on the other routes. So the principle of competition is a matter of importance, 'and applies to every route and to every cargo of grain shipped, no matter through which route it may travel.
May I say at once that the section of the bill which protects Canadian shipping and gives to it a virtual monopoly on Canadian coastal trade, whether carried on directly or indirectly, is wholly consistent with the policy of this government as it has been developed and demonstrated since the election of 1930. There has been constant evidence of a national policy of restriction. Under this policy, so far as possible, every branch of Canadian industry shall be given its proportionate share of protection. Each shall be given, so far as the law will permit, at least a suggestion of a monopoly in its own field. May I venture to suggest that it is only when each of the industries concerned is upon an equal footing that such a policy may be applied with any degree of equity. There is nothing unfair as between any one of these interests, so long as each receives the same degree of protection, and so long as each one of them is wholly national and domestic in its scope, although a continuation of such a policy may be detrimental to the country as a whole. Unfortunately in this particular case and in respect of the commodity which will be affected to the greatest degree, namely grain, we are attempting to do the impossible. By this proposed legislation we are attempting to inject a policy of national restriction into the one business in Canada which is essentially and inherently international in character, t'he wheat business.


Jean-François Pouliot: Give Judge Sedgewick a
chance.


Alfred Speakman: Judge Sedgewick has
nothing to do with it. There is no business in Canada which from that point of view is at all comparable with that of wheat growing. It is essentially an international business. Four fifths of the entire production must, in one way or another, and by one route or another, find its market overseas; the domestic sales
5174	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Speakman
are an insignificant factor as far as prices are concerned. So by this bill we are trying to do something which in my opinion cannot be justified and cannot be made to work succes-fully; we are attempting to apply the policy of national restriction to a business which essentially is international in character. What will be the result? Of course, as has been said, we are guessing, we are estimating, we are forecasting. We are sajdng what the result may be, not what is it. But I think we are fully justified in suggesting that the only possible result must be to raise, if it be only infinitesimally, the charges for transporting wheat by the lake route. If that happens it is perfectly logical to expect that it will find its reaction in a slight increase in rates on other routes in respect to which this route is a competitive factor. I say it is only reasonable and logical to expect that this will be the result; for why is the bill brought in? It can have only one of two purposes, either to give to Canadian shipping a greater share of the present available tonnage at the same rates, or to give to Canadian shipping a chance to charge a little higher rate than they are now able to charge because of American competition. It has been stated, and I see no reason to dispute the statement, that at the present time there is not one Canadian shipping line on the great lakes whose business is not written in red ink; they are all carrying on at a loss. It has been pointed out as a deplorable situation. It, has been suggested that no business can be expected to carry on indefinitely under such conditions, and that to persist in such a course must inevitably result in bankruptcy for the companies and the final disappearance of that shipping. If that is the situation, and if it is brought about by rates that are too low, and if it is to be corrected by this legislation, how can it be corrected other than by giving the shipping companies an opportunity to charge rates higher than those charged at the present time? It has been suggested by one hon. member, and again I am not disputing his suggestion, that when we speak of the farmer as being the only producer concerned in raising wheat our application of the term is too limited; that all the essential industries lying between the soil and the seed at the one end and the consumer at the other must be looked upon as factors and copartners in production. That may not be technically correct, and in order to avoid all possibility of misapprehension I shall refer to the farmer as the primary producer. But suppose that definition to be correct; then what do we do? As far as we can by law, through the railway commission we provide

that the railways shall charge rates which pay the cost of operation and provide a reasonable return to the shareholders. To those who supply the machinery and other essentials of the farmer for raising wheat, as far as we can we give by law through monopolized market the opportunity of carrying on their part of the business at a reasonable profit. By this bill we are endeavouring to make certain that the shipping partner in this undertaking shall be given the opportunity to make a reasonable profit on the carriage of the grain. But must it not be obvious to everyone who considers the matter, whether he be from the east or from the west, that eventually, if only so much money iis available to be divided among the various factors, that amount being the price received for the grain on the markets of Great Britain and Europe, and if you ensure a profitable business to all the other factors concerned, to that extent you place the whole weight upon the primary producer, the man who raises the grain?
My purpose, Mr. Speaker, in rising was not to ask the government to depart from a policy upon which they were elected, that of protection, of giving as far as possible a domestic monopoly to the various branches of domestic industry and production, but to show that in this particular case they are trying to do that which is not only illogical and impossible but absolutely unfair; they are trying to apply that policy to the one business in Canada which cannot fit into a domestic plan, which is essentially international in its character and scope. That being the case, that one business at least should be saved from the effects of an intensive policy of national restriction. If prices cannot be controlled, if we must take a dump price on the markets of the world, we should be allowed at least the right to ship by any agency and in any way that will carry our wheat to the markets of the world at the lowest possible rate. Every additional quarter cent added to the cost of carrying wheat at a time when farmers are wondering whether or not they can continue in the business will be a deterrent to that business, an unfair increase in the burden of the farmer, and one which we, representing western Canada, trying our best to be fair, trying to see things from the national point of view, under the present circumstances cannot but oppose.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I am vitally interested in this bill, as much so as any man who sits on either side of the house. The people of my constituency

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Mullins
are engaged in grain growing as well as in raising live stock, and anything that has the effect of raising freight rates on grain would not be satisfactory to me. If I thought for one moment that this bill would work a hardship on the grain producer of western Canada I would not support it. But, Mr. Speaker, we have control of the rates. If rates are raised unfairly we can take way the concession that is given to the shipping companies. The rates are protected under the grain commission. Also we can suspend the coastal shipping laws and let the American boats in at any time we wish, according to the provisions of this bill. Then I wonder what my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) would do with the Hudson Bay railway. He has been fighting for it nearly as long as I have. Mr. Speaker, if there have been reductions in freight rates they were brought about by the Conservative party.


Edward James Young: Trying to make amends
now.


Henry Alfred Mullins: All you have to do is to
look at the old Manitoba rate which I had the privilege of helping to make. You enjoyed a ten cent rate on wheat to the head of the lakes from 1901 to 1918. I wonder if the hon. member for Lisgar will deny that. I was there when that protection was given the shippers of western Canada, not only on grain but on all products. We had control of rates then. We have control now on the lakes, and we can alter those rates just as we did previously. I do not doubt that if the angel Gabriel came down here the hon. member for Lisgar would find fault with his wings if he were on this side of the house, but if by chance he happened to be over there he would be all right. Hon. gentlemen opposite have opposed everything designed to help the grain industry, yet they are parading themselves as "holier than thou" and trying to condemn us and find fault with everything we have done.
I should like to direct attention to the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). What did he do to help the grain growers of the west? Our present minister is trying to help both the shipping industry and the grain growers. Speaking in Montreal about a year ago the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) absolutely opposed the Hudson Bay railway, on which we in the west have pinned our hopes for many years. I have quoted these words in the house previously, but I think they should be mentioned again. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been trying to kill the Hudson Bay railway, and it
would not be in operation to-day if they had been in power. Here is what the hon. member said:
-we can afford things de luxe like the Hudson Bay railway, and Port Churchill. It is like giving your best girl or your wife a present when your pockets are full of money, but these are the days when we have no money, when we cannot even meet expenditures strictly needed. The Conservatives adopt a different attitude. The finances are upside down, yet they spend millions on projects which can wait a year or two years, or even five years-
We would not have had the railway finished for five years if the former minister had been in office. Then he went on to say:
What is happening to-day as regards Port Churchill? We have Hon. Dr. Manion acting like a beggar in .the street, begging people to ship some grain over the Hudson Bay railway to Port Churchill. So eager is he to get some grain there that he is offering free elevators, a cut in railway rates-
He seems to find fault with that reduction in railway rates.
*y^and also a bonus to compensate for the higher insurance rates out of Port Churchill. That is what the Bennett government is ready to do. Sane merchants doing a regular reasonable business in grain do not want to send their grain through Port Churchill at the present time-
It is too bad that our only hope, for which we have fought for nearly half a century, should be blighted by a speech made by the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries. These are his verbatim words, which I am sure he cannot deny. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite find fault because we bring in this shipping bill.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would the hon. member care to quote the speech made by his own leader at Portage la Prairie in 1926 with regard to the Hudson Bay railway?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I go by a man's actions. We have finished the Hudson Bay railway; we are giving the grain growers of the west every opportunity to get their grain out by way of Hudson bay.


John Livingstone Brown: Who let the contract for the construction of the elevator?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Who finished the elevator? Hon. gentlemen opposite were too busy letting contracts all the time they were in office. If many other contracts had not been let all over the country Canada would not be in her present condition, and the hon. member must know that to be a fact. The Conservative party has given the farmers everything possible in the way of freight rates from	western Canada. Hon. gentlemen
opposite harp on the Crowsnest pass agree-
5176	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Mullins
*merit, but that does not amount to anything. Manitoba should get back the rates she had prior to 1917, which hon. gentlemen opposite took away. What were they doing from 1922 to 1930; were they asleep at the switch? Those rates, which were forty per cent less than the present rates, belong to Manitoba. Manitoba enjoyed those low freight rates from 1901 to 1917; the Conservative party then in power in Manitoba, which brought in those rates, saved millions of dollars to that province but hon. gentlemen opposite do not give us a bit of credit. They are not fair enough to do so. I am big enough to give them credit for anything they may have done to help the west. I am more interested in moving live stock and grain from western Canada than I am in holding this seat.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Why not resign?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I would resign to-morrow if by doing so I could bring about a cheaper freight rate in the west. I want those farmers to get their commodities to the markets of the world as cheaply as possible; that is my primary object in this house, and I know that at present they cannot get their products to the markets of the world at anything like a decent figure. I do not want to waste eight years in this house, as hon. gentlemen opposite did, without getting lower rates.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I was discussing the shipping bill as it would affect freight structures. During the recess I have studied every part of the bill and I cannot see that the western farmers are other than safeguarded in every detail. If I thought for one moment that anything would be done to make freight rates higher, I would not support the bill.
Before I proceed, may I be permitted to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). I notice a splendid bouquet on his desk and I know what it means.


Mr. DUPUIS:: With permission of my hon. friend, I would like to second him in his congratulations.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). I have

known the hon. member for many years but I wonder if he is sincere when he refuses to support this bill. Has he a sincere regard for the farmers who have to struggle and pay tribute in the way of high freight rates. What did the hon. gentleman do down through the years to have those freight rates reduced? I cannot see that he has done anything to help the farmers of western Canada obtain a reduction in freight rates. When I look over the Liberal platform with its fourteen points I cannot find anything which will help the farmers to obtain any redress. It is the same old song and the same old chorus. The farmer can go on working and slaving on the land, he can continue to be a hewer of wood and drawer of water, and he will never find one bit of assistance in this platform.


John Livingstone Brown: I guarantee that I can hew more wood and draw more water than the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins).


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member is a faithful follower of the Liberal party. I do not find any fault in that because if he is faithful, he will stand true to his party. There is not one word in this Liberal platform about a reduction in freight rates. The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) throws up his hands and speaks against the provisions of this bill. I wonder if he has noticed that there is not one w'ord about a reduction of freight rates in the Liberal platform. You cannot succeed in the west with the present freight structure. It costs 70 per cent to ship lumber to the prairies. The mill gets 30 per cent but the railway company takes 70 per cent. Under the old agreement which I had the honour and pleasure of helping to put into force, things were different. It was the Conservative party that brought about this agreement, and I think I told the house something about it when I was speaking previously. I looked up the terms of this agreement and I would like to put certain particulars on Hansard so that the hon. member for Lisgar can look them over at his leisure.
The Manitoba agreement with the Canadian Northern was dated February 11, 1901. The appeal should have been taken to the Court of King's Bench before it was taken away. Compared with the Crowsnest rates, the Manitoba agreement lowered the rates on grain four cents per hundred pounds from all points in Manitoba to Fort William or Port Arthur. I hope the hon. member gets the significance of that reduction of four cents per hundred pounds. There was a reduction of

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Mullins
fifteen per cent in the rates on general merchandise from Fort William and Port Arthur to all points in Manitoba and from all points in Manitoba to Fort William and Port Arthur. The Crowsnest pass contract applied only to a limited number of commodities and in a limited territory. It applied to commodities moving in one direction only, while the Manitoba contract covered movements from all points in Manitoba to the east, west, north and south. The Manitoba contract controlled both express and passenger rates. On October 6, 1903, an agreement was reached with the Canadian Pacific Railway covering uniform rates from all points in Manitoba to Fort William and from Fort William to all points in Manitoba. This company filed their tariff for reduced rates with the railway commission on October 7, 1903. The manitoba contract remained in force until March, 1918, when it was overridden by the War Measures Act. In 1919 subsection 5 of section 325 of the Railway Act was passed in an endeavour to override the Manitoba contract. This subsection was to remain in force for three years. In June, 1922, an amendment was passed by which the subsection was to remain in effect until July 6, 1923, and it was continued in force for a period of one year by order of the governor in council. The Crowsnest pass rates were never taken into account after the Manitoba contract came into force in 1901. The Manitoba contract was taken as a guide for everything. This contract saved western Canada 5100,000,000, and it was brought into being by the Conservative party with which hon. gentlemen opposite find so much fault.
Hon. gentlemen opposite should not object to keeping out American boats, especially when we have sufficient Canadian bottoms. A few years ago they sold a number of boats to a lot of grain men at a ridiculously low figure. I am surprised that they should find fault with this bill and want these American bottoms to come in when they put practically a whole fleet of boats on the lakes for which they had paid millions of dollars. The Liberal government built these boats and sold fifteen of them to their friends, those boats are in operation-boats that cost nearly $1,000,000 apiece were sold for the paltry sum of $50,000 each. I know one good, staunch Liberal friend who bought four and 'he still has them in operation on the lakes. Surely when so many of my hon, friends' friends have these boats, they will not be so strong in opposition to them.
Ten days after that contract between the government and the Canadian Northern Rail-53719-327
way had been signed, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company made the government of Manitoba the following offer:
That if the Manitoba government would assign to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the contract as made with the Northern Pacific Railway Company ten days previously, the Canadian" Pacific w^ld assume all the rental charges and put into force as well a reduction of grain and flour rates of four cents per 190 pounds below the Crowsnest pass rate, together with reduction on other commodities, from points in Manitoba to Fort William for the term of the lease as made with the Northern Pacific Railway Company for 999 years.
That was a business government that made a business deal and got for western Canada Cheap rates that the people there enjoyed over the years they did, thus saving to the province nearly $100,000,000. This government is bringing in just such another bill involving just such another transaction with the lake shippers, and I believe it will save millions to western Canada and give our shipping interests a chance. We have control; we can cancel at any time, and I do not see why hon. gentlemen opposite are so frightened when those conditions are inserted in the bill.
It was not my intention to speak on the matter, but I felt it my duty to do so when I listened to hon. gentlemen and know and realize how unfair they are to this side of the house, giving us no credit for anything we endeavour to do to save the agricultural industry and the situation in general. As a member I am and have been very much concerned about conditions of agriculture on the western prairies. As regards unemployment and agriculture, far be it from me to do anything that would be detrimental to the man who is struggling on the land. Is there a man on the opposite side who has given the government credit for introducing the stabilization fund? I have heard nothing but fault-finding speeches from that side of the house. When my faith is shaken, hon. members will hear from me strongly from this side, but I have every faith that this shipping legislation will be carried out satisfactorily, and as for all the little, narrow points hon. members opposite are bringing up in connection with it, they are only drawing a red herring across the trail.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I rise, for more
reasons than one, to oppose the bill which is now before the house. Representing as I do an agricultural riding in western Canada, one that is predominantly agricultural in complexion, I cannot see legislation of this kind go through the house without opposing it.

5178	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. McIntosh
In doing so I am, as I understand the situation, taking the viewpoint of the majority of the people in the three western provinces. I feel that I am taking the stand that every farmer or tiller of the soil in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta would wish me to take. I might except some of the Conservative members from western Canada who have said already in this chamber that they are not going to oppose the bill but that they are prepared to support legislation of this nature. That would be about the only exception that I could make in what I am saying in regard to the bill now before the house. I therefore leave those hon. members on the government side of the house who represent constituencies in the three western provinces to speak for themselves.
The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson) this afternoon spoke about certain shipping injustices. If this legislation did not go through, he was pitying the Canadian shippers, ship owners, masters, mates and all those who go down to the sea in ships. Beyond mentioning the injustices to the interests I have named, I did not hear the hon. member say anything about injustices suffered by western farmers in connection with legislation of this kind. The hon. member also said that this bill ought to have been before the house years ago; that it was a belated piece of legislation. I inferred from his remarks that during the past decade or so the gathering storm on behalf of this bill had been growing greater and greater until it had to burst forth. It is a peculiar thing that the storm that has been gathering in order to put this bill through has gathered the velocity and momentum it has during the period a Conservative government has been in power. If the storm were gathering a few years ago, it did not break forth, or if it did do so in any measure, it did not have any effect; it did not get very far; nothing was done; but, as I understand the matter, the Liberal government of the day, if representations were made to it on behalf of legislation of this nature, took the position that it could not be carried out seeing the expense had to be paid largely by agriculture.
The hon. member-and I am still speaking of the hon. member for East Simcoe and I want to quote him fairly-said that he was supporting this bill because it was going to help employment, to relieve unemployment. If we are going to support the bill to relieve unemployment or to help employment and the legislation is going to boost prices, I cannot see, in the last analysis, that it will help employment very much; on the contrary, it will 
create more farm unemployment. But if we are going to help employment in Canada, there is a very good way of doing it. If we want unemployment to disappear; if we want the activities of the Canadian people in the way of industry and commerce to grow apace, there are many things that ought to be done entirely apart from a measure of this kind. This legislation will not meet the situation at all. We ought to lower our tariff walls. That would help to relieve unemployment. We ought to organize and effect commercial treaties with every nation in the world. We ought to have as our objective international trade, not any narrow insular ideas in regard to building up Canadian trade and commerce. Clearly we ought to remove all restrictions on trade, thereby giving international business an opportunity to function. If these things were done, commerce would flourish, business would increase and unemployment would disappear, and there is no way by which it can disappear except by taking action along these lines. To talk of relieving unemployment by putting through a measure of this kind is to talk the veriest nonsense.
The same hon. member this afternoon said that the Americans had adopted legislation something like this and that we ought to follow their example. The idea of tit for tat in international relations and in formulating a national policy is not sound procedure. Surely we have reached the stage in the history of this government when its supporters will not stand up and say: Our policy must be dictated from Washington. They told us a few years ago that the Liberal policy was dictated from Washington. That was not true, and I hope it will not be true of any government in Canada that its policy will be directed from Washington. So I see little merit in an argument of that kind. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Even if it is, I would hesitate to imitate the Americans in any policy that was going to be of doubtful benefit to Canada.
I do not think this measure will get us very far on the road to relieving unemployment or building up a sound national spirit.
I would suggest to the hon. member that if we want to develop the shipping business in this country, we might take off the 25 per cent duty which ships must pay to get info this country after they are built. Instead of loading the dice against them, let them come in free and give them a chance to function profitably. Then there would be no necessity for legislation of this kind.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) mentioned, and I want to quote him as fairly

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. McIntosh
as possible, the Hudson Bay railway, the Vancouver route, the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence waterway, and he said: There in those routes you have the means for competition to keep down rates. I would not say that of any o.f those routes. I would not like to use the Hudson Bay railway as an argument for establishing a shipping monopoly in Canada and then after it is established say: Well, we have the Hudson Bay route to make the monopoly of none effect. I think it would be far better for us in adopting a policy of this kind to put no confidence in any regulating body whatsoever. My policy would be this. I would say that an ounce o.f prevention is worth a pound of cure, and rather than regulate a monopoly after you have created it, rather than control a merger after you have brought it into existence I would' say have nothing to do with either from the start. Prevent the thing right from the beginning, and then you will not have to correct it, will you? You will not have to regulate it, *will you? You will not have to control it, will you? The answer is self-evident. Briefly, see that no merger or monopoly takes place, and then your argument for regulation and *control disappears, as it ought to disappear, because such a monopoly would endanger the veiy foundation of the agricultural industry of Canada.
Another member this afternoon-I do not remember who it was-brought the question of the Hudson Bay route into this debate. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to give the party opposite some credit for helping with the Hudson Bay route. I am not going to be small enough to get up and say that the Liberals ought to take one hundred per cent credit for it. I think we ought all to be first-class Canadians and give each other credit where credit is due in a proposition of this kind. But I should like to draw attention to the fact that the contract for the Hudson Bay railway was let by a Liberal government, and by a Liberal Minister of Railways in 1911. What took place between 1911 and 1914? Was anything done in connection with the Hudson Bay railway? Nothing. And a Tory government was in power during those years. Then why mention the Hudson Bay railway? What was done from 1914 to 1921? Nothing whatever.


Mr. ARTHURS:: There was a war on.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is no argument. The road was left in disrepair and public opinion in certain parts of Canada was being built up against the route. The steel was left to rot to a certain extent, and no advance 53719-327J
step was taken in the matter from 1914 to 1921.
What resulted after 1921, when the Liberals came into power? We know what took place. The Liberals, as I said, in the first place let the contract for the railway. It was they who began the railway. You have to begin a thing before you finish it, haven't you? There is no use taking credit for finishing a railway and claiming credit for everything about it just because you finished it, because if it had never been started you would never have had it to finish. So from 1921 to 1930 the Liberals went forward with the Hudson Bay railway, and I am here to say that every member from the province of Quebec sitting on the government side of the house from 1921 to 1930 gave fair support to that undertaking. They were with the Liberal party in the prosecution of the great enterprise, and they did not oppose any money vote in this house for the purposes of that railway. Consequently no man can say that Quebec as a province opposed the Hudson Bay railway. It is a sound national policy, and any argument to the effect that any minister or any member from the province of Quebec went out of his way to oppose that road is not borne out by the facts of the case.
More than that, when the Conservatives did push the road onward, where did they push it? To Port Nelson, to the wrong port, and we had to correct that blunder and to put the terminus at Churchill, where the road ought to go, and where it did go. With these few remarks I shall leave the Hudson Bayrailway.
The essence of the bill which is before the' house will be found in section 935 which reads:
1.	No goods shall be transported by water or by land and water, from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
2.	No ship other than a British ship shall transport passengers from one place in Canada to another place in Canada either directly or by way of a foreign port.
That is the essence of the 'bill, as I understand it. As I see it the objective of the bull is to hand Canadian shipping to Canadian bottoms or to Canadian ships. That principle is all right; I am not going to quarrel with it. I think it is sound, if it can be done without too great a cost to any industry in Canada. If it can be done without great cost to western agriculture, it is sound; otherwise it is not. That is the angle of the question I wish to approach. But if this cannot be done, what

5IS0
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. McIntosh,
are you doing? You are applying to the shipping interests of Canada the principle of Canada first, the principle of economic nationalism, the principle of a narrow, selfsufficient Canadianism which is directly the opposite of an internationalism which to a very great degree must dominate the minds of Canadian statesmen, if we are going to get anywhere in national and international affairs.
It is because the bill is wholly in favour of what might be termed a narrow nationalism and wholly contrary to what you might term a sound internationalism that I think it ought to be opposed. What are we doing to-day? We are trying to build up a new ideal of internationalism by way of disarmaments, settlement of international debts, and adjustments. of tariffs and trade. Therefore anything which will prejudice a sound internationalism on the part of any government in Canada ought to be opposed, because it will help only to bring failure agriculturally and otherwise when we attend international gatherings and when we put forward the viewpoint which we as Canadians ought to express.
Further, some of the speakers were in doubt about the bill having the effect of increasing or boosting the rates. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not much doubt about it. I am not doubting. I do not think a man ought to be a doubting Thomas in a case of this kind. I am afraid the increase in prices will be such a grim reality that there will be no room for doubt. I am afraid that this price boosting under a new shipping combination will be a reality. Therefore as a western member I must oppose it.
May I say I did not like the way this bill was introduced to the house. It came in a roundabout manner. It came in an indirect manner-in an irresponsible manner. It came from the Senate. A bill of this kind should not come from the Senate, but in the first instance should come before this House of Commons. Any representations to be made on behalf of Canadian shipping interests, on behalf of industry or on behalf of agriculture should be made before a committee of the House of Commons, not before a committee of the Senate. This bill was introduced in the wrong way, just 'as the railway bill was introduced in the wrong way. For that reason I opposed the railway bill:-at least that was one reason. I oppose this legislation for the same reason.
Further than that, dealing with a matter of this kind the Senate will do a certain amount of work, will hear certain representations, and

will begin to frame a piece of legislation. Then when the Commons get it we find it is altogether wrong, ill-constructed, and the time of the house is taken up in undoing what the Senate has done. Therefore I say that to make progress, ito get on sound ground, to give every one a chance to make representations and to have the bill properly drawn up in the first instance it should have been brought before the House of Commons, and should not have been presented to the Senate until the House of Commons was through with it. Sound democracy demands procedure of this kind.
Let me congratulate the minister upon his plausible defence of this measure. I always appreciate hearing him speak, and if I am opposing this measure I should like it understood that I am not opposing the minister. I believe him to be one of the most competent and most courteous men in the House of Commons. Therefore I do not wish him to think there is anything personal in my opposition to this measure. The Minister referred to legislation dealing with other subjects, such as the appointment of inspectors of ships' tackle, regulations for protecting workers against accidents while loading or unloading ships, powers of inspectors in connection with an order for cessation of loading or unloading, marking of heavy packages or objects, regulations respecting grain cargoes and deck cargoes, and, lastly, pilotage and lighting facilities for loading ships. All these are worthy parts of the measure. I say they ought not to have been mixed with the other parts of the bill. A different bill ought to have been brought down. However, since a bill containing these worth while measures has not been brought down, there is nothing for us to do but to oppose the whole measure. If we oppose the measure we are not necessarily opposing those goodly things which form a part of it, but are opposing it because we have to object to the main portion of it-the transportation of goods and passengers.
The minister stated the legislation was to nurture Canadian shipping interests. From that I would understand it is to improve Canadian shipping, to build it up, to make it strong and to give it more power. We are going to give it more power by framing legislation which will make comparatively easy the building up of a shipping trust, and as a result of this nurturing there will come into being a real shipping combination. This nurturing policy will of course take care of the capital structure of any shipping trust. The costs of every ship owner will be included in
MAY IS, 1933	5181
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Boulanger
the rate structure, and every care will be taken to see that so far as ship owners are concerned the capital structure is sound, that it will bring forth a profit and that it will pay. If it pays it will do so at the expense of the farmers. In such legislation as this I should like to ask where the farmers' interests come in. Who is looking after the farmers' costs and his capital structure? Under a high tariff government his capital costs have gone up; the production of a bushel of wheat costs more than ever. If you add to his costs by building a shipping merger he will be worse off than ever. I fail to see how any western member can stand in this House of Commons and vote for this measure.
Just to show what is going on, and to show the cost of carrying a bushel of wheat from the head of the lakes to Georgian bay ports, to Port Colborne and to Buffalo, let me quote the figures for the year 1930. For 1930 the average cost of carrying a bushel of wheat to Georgian bay ports was 2-5 cents; to Port Colborne 2-41; to Buffalo 1-92. You will notice the rate to Buffalo is away below that to the other two ports. In 1931 the average rate to Georgian bay ports was 1-84, to Port Colborne 1-89 and to Buffalo 1-65. Again the rate to Buffalo is below the average to Port Colborne or the Georgian bay ports. For 1932 the average to Georgian bay ports was 2-8, to Port Colborne 2-2 and to Buffalo 1-55. So for these years the Buffalo rate was lower than that to Port Colborne or the Georgian bay ports. There you have the situation as plain as it can be put. With Buffalo an open shipping point, a storage point and a transfer point, we have lower rates to that port than to Port Colborne or Georgian bay. If by legislation we practically close Buffalo, if we say to our Canadian ships: You must carry all the grain from one Canadian port to another, then we practically eliminate Buffalo as a competing factor, and only one result will follow; the cost of carrying wheat will go up, and the western farmers will have to pay, pay!
I must say that this is the most inopportune time in the history of Canada to bring in legislation of this kind. We are in the midst of a world depression, the farmers are carrying on under the greatest difficulty, they need every cent they can get to enable them to live, they are unable to pay their taxes because the cost of production is away above the price they are getting. Being in such a predicament, I would say that such legislation would far better have been left to another time and not brought before this 'parliament without the most thoughtful consideration. Farming to-day in
this country, is in a worse position than it has been in for fifty years, and this is no time to bring in legislation as to the result of which there is even a doubt as to its helping the farmer. I think this legislation will do every farmer great injury and perhaps be the means of bringing to bankruptcy numbers of western farmers. For these reasons and many others I stand up to oppose this measure, and I hope the government will act wisely and withdraw it. If however the government presses it to a vote I hope all the members from western ridings will have the courage to oppose it, even if it means voting against their own party.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I shall
be brief in my remarks. I may state that I was greatly tempted to cast my vote in favour of the bill, and I would have done so, had the principle on which the bill is founded been frankly and entirely applied. I think it is of national import to limit the transportation of Canadian goods to Canadian ships and railways, and this, through Canadian ports. All should agree on this policy. This provision, morever, seems to be embodied in the merchant marine laws of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and in those of most of the countries of the world. There should be therefore, no objection to that principle being embodied in the Merchant Marine Act of Canada. Unfortunately, sir, it is not that policy which is applied in the bill under discussion. The reserve made is not to the advantage of Canadian ships. And, I repeat it, if the bill restricted the transportation of Canadian goods, between Canadian ports, to Canadian ships only, I would support the bill. According to the bill, this reserve is made not in favour of Canadian ships but in favour of British ships, namely English, New Zealand, Australian and South African ships, etc., etc.
Well, sir, as between the two sources of competition, I consider that the one which Canadian ships will have to meet from British ships will be just as injurious to our trade as that of the United States ships. The principle is the same.
I am aware that it will be contended that in practice there is very little danger that British ships will cross over to compete with Canadian ships on the Great Lakes. I readily admit that the danger is remote, however, this does not alter the principle. Moreover, if the danger of this competition does not exist for the Great Lakes, it does for the Pacific coast, because, at present, Canadian shipowners and seamen complain of
5182	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Boulanger
the competition waged there in coastal trade by British ships and seamen. If the policy
of "Canada First" is to be applied, let it be applied frankly and completely and, let it be stated in the Canadian Merchant Marine Act that the transportation of Canadian goods is entirely restricted to Canadian ships. It is not sufficient to suppress the competition from which Canada suffers on the part of United States ships; let us do the thing thoroughly and suppress all competition from whatever country it may arise.
I stated a moment ago that Canadian ship owners on the Pacific coast complain of the competition waged in the coastal trade by British ships. I have before me a telegram which I want to read to the house before closing my remarks. This telegram was sent to me on May 16 by Mr. C. M. Woodworth, one of my friends in Vancouver, also a prominent lawyer in that city. It is as follows:
.T. O. L. Boulanger, K.C., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian shipowners, seamen, engineers and officers have waited on me and strenuously object passage sections nine thirty two, nine thirty five Bill C one Canada's coastal trade must be reserved to Canadians described above.
(sgd) C. M. Woodworth.
I therefore repeat, sir, that I would support the bill if the principle on which it is founded applied to every country. However, as the bill affects United States ships and affords no protection to Canadian ships against the competition by other nations, I shall vote against it.


Mr. J. T. SIMPSON (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the shipping act now under discussion provides for Canadian shipping the same protection as the United States gives -to United States shipping. All the arguments that I have heard against this bill, and I have paid particular attention to the debate, were very effectively answered at a previous session of the house by -the Minister oif Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Don-nelly) this afternoon made some criticism about this bill being introduced at this time; he said it was too late in the session. I would like to point out that this bill, or one somewhat similar to it, was introduced on May 6, 1932, but was not proceeded with at that time. It is now some two or three weeks since the bill was introduced in the Senate, and ample time was given

hon. -members as well as the public generally to become acquainted with its contents and to -make any objections -they thought should be made.
The -hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), who spoke a few moments ago, said that two sections of the bill should have been left out -but that he was in perfect accord with the other sections. I suppose it would be difficult to frame a bill that would please everyone, and it is the privilege of the hon. gentleman to oppose the -bill or any section of it if -he thinks that should be done.
The first Canadian coasting law was enacted in 1870. Prior to that -time the Imperial Shiip-ping Act and Customs Act regulated Canadian shipping, but in that year the Canada Shipping Act was passed, providing in one section that no goods or passengers should be carried from one port in Canada to another except in British ships. That section has been in every shipping act up to the present time, *though it has been changed and modified by certain orders in council. Section 958 of the act of 1870 provided:
[DOT]-the foregoing provisions of this act shall not apj>ly to the ships or vessels of any foreign country in which British ships are admitted to the coasting -trade of such country, and to carry goods and passengers from one port or place to another in such country.
That power of suspension was vested in the governor in council, and this provision remained in our shipping act until 1923, when section 958 was inserted, reading as follows:
The governor in council may, from time to time, by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this part shall not, for the period specified in such order in council, apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified, ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels, of any foreign country.
This amendment ex-tended the powers of suspension to cover ships or vessels of any foreign country, thereby giving the United States fleet on the great lakes an opportunity to compete with the Canadian fleet.
The first elevator at the head of -the lakes was built and put into operation in 1884. Since that time the elevator capacity has been increased to meet the demand brought by the development of grain growing in the west. In 1911 the elevator capacity at t-he head of the lakes amounted to 26,000,000 bushels, while in 1931 it amounted to 91,000,000 bushels. The -elevators on the lower lake and bay ports as well as on the St. Lawrence have been increased accordingly. In 1928 we had the largest movement of wheat from the head of

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Simpson
the lakes that has ever taken place; in that year 404,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat came down the lakes, together with 185,000,000 bushels of United States wheat. That was the peak year; that figure has not been reached before or since. Owing to greater wheat production and in order to get away from the long haul eastward from Alberta the port of Vancouver was developed. In 1923 we shipped 25.000,000 bushels of wheat through that port, while in 1932 that figure increased to 104,000,000 bushels; thus in nine years the amount of wheat shipped through Vancouver was quadrupled. Now the Hudson Bay route will become a factor in the handling of Canada's wheat. I do not think it necessary at this time to go into the history of the establishment of these routes by the different governments that have been in office during the last twenty-five years.
Some mention has been made of the increase in freight rates in 1922, when the rates went higher than they ever had been previously. In 1922 there was a coal strike in the United States, which *was settled in the fall of that year. Then there arose a great demand for the transportation of coal from United States to Canadian ports as well as to other United States ports at the head of the lakes, and there was more money for the shipping companies in the transportation of coal than in the transportation of wheat. The grain trade had contracted for a large amount of ocean space; they were unable to get the wheat east to occupy that space, so they offered increased rates in order to induce the shipping companies to carry wheat instead of coal. In 1922 the tonnage carried on the great lakes was nothing like the tonnage carried to-day, but a.t present there is sufficient tonnage to carry the grain from the head of the lakes, and there is no danger of the rates being increased or of a monopoly or combine being created among the shipping companies.
The other evening the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) referred to the evidence submitted to the Senate committee which dealt with this act; he quoted from the evidence of Mr. Bredt, who appeared before [DOT]that committee, and who stated that there was no possibility of an increase in grain rates from the head of ithe lakes. Mr. Sydney Smith also stated that the fear of an increase in freight rates was only a bogy, and that it had no foundation in fact. Besides, there are the provisions of the Inland Water Freight Rates Act. It has also been pointed out during the
debate that the board of grain commissioners has power to fix a maximum rate for the carrying of grain from the head of the lakes.
I think it was in the month of May of last year that two cargoes of wheat were carried from the head of the lakes at the rate of three and a half cents per bushel. That was a distress rate; no shipping company engaged in the 'business of carrying wheat can do it at that price. It happened that one or two boats had taken cargoes to the head of the lakes; they 'had to return and there were no cargoes offering on their return; which meant their having to lay up for the rest of the season. In order to make expenses on the way back they contracted to carry grain at this rate. I do not think my statement will be contradicted when I say that not a fraction of -this saving in freight rates went back into the pockets of the grain growers. The total difference between the normal and this special rate went into the pockets of the grain dealers.
The price quoted to the western farmer i3 for wheat delivered at the head of the lakes, and from the head of the lakes to the place (where the wheat is consumed there is an average freight charge. The price paid to the producer is based on the Fort William price plus the freight charge to the place of consumption. Any reductions in rates, such as those I have mentioned, do not benefit the -producer in any way.
The statement has been made during this debate that a number of the Canadian grain boats are obsolete. I know for a fact that during the last two or three years some of the most recently built grain boats have not been -put into commission because of a scarcity of cargoes. This has happened while cargoes [DOT]have been carried by United States boats. It seems to me that Canadian shipping interests should be protected by the passing of this bill. If this bill is put into effect it will mean that employment will be given to many men who have learned the art of sailing and who are qualified to fill the positions on these boats. If Canadian shipping is protected it will add veiy materially to employment. A -number of -the steamship companies have boats lying idle which could handle all the Canadian grain from the head of the lakes. Among these companies are the Paterson Steamships Limited, Canada Steamship Lines Limited, Mathews Steamship Company, and others. There are besides many individual ship owners. To my mind this trade should be preserved for Canadian ships. I should like to quote from a letter of t.he Paterson

Canada Shipping Act

Mr. Simpson
Steamships Limited dated March 22, 1932, as follows:
During 1930 our steamers Fort Willdoc and Windoc did not operate at all, thus, employment was lost to 46 men, being 23 men per vessel.
We are listing the following vessels with the time lost by men, who would otherwise have ben employed on these vessels. We figure that their total employment, if working throughout the season, is nine months.
Steamer	Operating time	Time lostVandoc	20 days	8 monthsSoodoc	1 month	8 monthsCanadoc	20 days	8 monthsSaskadoc	60 days	7 monthsBrieoldoc	60 days	7 monthsOntadoc	90 days 1931	6 monthsFort Willdoc	No operation	Windoc	No operation	V andoc	No operation	Soodoc	No operation	Canadoc	1 month	8 monthsSaskadoc	2 months	7 monthsBrieoldoc	1 month	8 monthsOntadoc	10 days	Practically months
Our other three upper lakers were operated throughout the seasons but on two or three occasions they were laid up for as long as fifteen days at a time, and, needless to say, no crew were kept on them during these lay-up periods but we cannot give you the time lost by the men.
It will be seen that in the case of this one steamship company a very large number of men might have been employed if the business of carrying wheat from the head of the lakes had been kept for Canadian steamship companies. To my mind the competition between these different companies will prevent any increase in freight rates; and besides there are the provisions of the Inland Water Freight Rates Act.
There is another governing factor in the power of the board of grain commissioners to fix a maximum rate for the carriage of wheat. I feel quite sure that if this bill is passed there will be no increase in freight rates from the head of the lakes. I know something of the cost of producing grain and other farm commodities and I know that the producer, as has been stated in this debate, is entitled to every cent which can be got out of his product. However, I feel that in the interests of Canada as a whole no sacrifice would be made by any class through the passing of this bill. I intend to give it my very hearty support.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in this debate if the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) had not challenged me last evening. I want to make clear to the house that if I thought the passing of this bill would mean an increase in the freight rates to the farmer, I certainly would oppose it. I should like to say to the hon. member for North Rattleford (Mr. McIntosh) that there would be no hesitancy or lack of courage in my action; I would oppose the bill. But I think I speak for Saskatchewan members on this side of the house when I say that because I feel assured now that we shall not be exploited in rates and for other reasons that I shall mention, I am prepared to support the bill.
When I spoke on the budget I read a resolution from the town in which I live and I mentioned that some two hundred farmers who were at the meeting at which the resolution was passed asked me to bring it before this chamber, requesting the federal government to introduce legislation whereby we might preserve the identity of our wheat. To my mind there is nothing that will accomplish this better than the legislation which is now before us. There is a strong feeling throughout my part of the country, and in fact throughout the west, ^specially in Saskatchewan, that our wheat loses its identity when it goes through United States ports. In other words, our wheat is blended with an inferior grain and when it reaches the British or a foreign market, it is inferior to Canadian wheat. I am more convinced than ever of this, and perhaps I have the right to speak, because hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon mentioned the impossibility of keeping our wheat from being blended with United States wheat when it reached Buffalo. If that be the case, I think we are more than justified in seeing that the major portion of our wheat should go through Canadian ports.
I have other reasons for supporting this bill. When I read in Hansard to-night some of the statistics given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) indicating that for some years an average of over fifty per cent of our wheat had been going through United States ports in United States bottoms, there is enough of good Canadian in me yet that I would like to see a little more of our wheat going through our own ports, especially when I am assured that no additional burden will thereby be imposed upon the farmers of western Canada. When I compare the rates for the last number of years and see that we had a rate as high as ten cents and an average of

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Loucks
eight cents for a few years, in fact having to go to 1932 before it came down to five cents and a fraction, and when I am assured that there will be a maximum rate of six and a half cents, this appears to me to be a better policy than to take a chance on the rate going up to ten cents, which would be possible, as it has done in the past. Therefore as a farmer and representing a rural constituency I rise to justify my action in supporting this bill.
I do not like and am not going to criticize hon. members opposite. This is a chamber for free speech. They may be sincere in what they are saying, but when the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) was speaking, a few ideas passed through my mind. He has for a number of years been an agitator in favour of a Canadian flag; he wants a Canadian flag, but now he apparently does not wish to see Canadian vessels get the support they should from their own country; he is more concerned to see that our wheat coming down the great lakes goes through United States ports. I confess I cannot understand the psychology of the hon. gentleman. When the question is one of supporting our own shipping facilities and our own ports, I feel quite justified in my action and as I said to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young),
I am not concerned when I declare my stand on this question because I know the sentiments of the farmers in my constituency. I do not know that they are so very different from those in the constituency he represents, but I know there is a strong agitation that something should be done to preserve the identity of our wheat, because there is a feeling that we have lost, as I have already stated, millions of dollars through our wheat leaving Canada through United States ports and being blended with inferior wheat. I am still more firmly convinced that I am right from the fact that the British government, when they granted the preference of six cents, took exception to our wheat being rebilled through United States ports. That shows there is some ground for my contention that our wheat should not be blended.
I do not know why hon. gentlemen opposite should be so doubtful of this bill when we are assured by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that should anything happen, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in reply, I think, to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), it would not take weeks and months to change the measure; that it could be done overnight. If that be so, why should we worry this evening? Why not give our own ports and our own shipping interests a chance? If the privileges granted
are abused, I assure the house that I shall be the first to rise and voice my opposition.
I have always been led to believe that volume counts, and it seems to me that if we eoulld tum 100,000,000 bushels of wheat through our own shipping facilities, we might get a lower rate. Volume does count. Again I say I am justified in asking that this measure be given trial.
The criticism has been made that this measure should have been introduced long before this, but we have now had ample time to discuss it. I did not intend to speak upon it, but I want to assure the house, and particularly hon. gentlemen opposite, that all farmers are not thinking in exactly the same terms as they are, according to some of the former speakers. The farmers of a goodly portion of Saskatchewan believe they have been losing a great deal of money because our wheat has not been going through our own ports but has been shipped through United States ports and blended with inferior grain. I only wish to declare that I have no hesitancy whatever in supporting the bill.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended remaining quiet because I did not think it necessary to advance any arguments why we from the west should oppose this bill by both vote and voice, but when my good friend the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) capped the whole climax this evening by saying that he was prepared to support this legislation,
I had to rise and congratulate him on his loyalty to his party rather than to 'his electors. What are the good farmers of his riding whom he has been willing to sacrifice on account of his loyalty to his party, going to think when the rates go up?-because when you restrict the shipping the rates will go up. The hon. member is apparently prepared to take that chance; I do not know whether he has many chances to take or can afford to take many of them, but that will be discovered later. There is only one thing lacking to make this scene complete and that is for the 'hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) to rise and speak likewise. These two hon. gentlemen are, I think, the most loyal supporters that the government have in the house; in season and out, on every question conceivable, they have always stood up faithfully for their side. A measure of pride may be taken in such an attitude. When they go as far as that, putting their heads in a noose and sacrificing the interests of their constituents, they are overdoing a good thing, as I believe they are in this instance. I think I see the hon. member for Rosetown going
.	COMMONS
Canada Ship-ping Act-Mr. Motherwell
up and down the 'highways and byways of 'his constituency trying to explain what a delightful thing it is to have a monopoly of shipping on the great lakes.


William John Loucks: It will be an easy matter
for me to explain.


William Richard Motherwell: If he chooses to
take that attitude, I have been in the house for some years and in the west for longer and my hon. friend is the first farmer to get up and brazenly and openly advocate what the government is going to do to-night. This is a government of agricultural folly. I do not think, since they came into office, there is anything under heaven they have missed making a fool of, especially as affecting agriculture. If there is a chance to give agriculture a knock behind the ears or in any other fatal spot, they get after it with a club. One more coddling of the big fellow, and one more swatting of the little fellow-that is whait it is. This is not a new question, Mr. Speaker. It was before the house many times when the liberals were in power. The Minister of Marine in this government had it up last year in a somewhat halting, 'hesitating fashion.
I do not think he knew what it was all about himself. It might have been some story of Adam and Eve for all he knew. He did not seem to possess any knowledge of it, and at last he rather reluctantly retired from the scene of action with his bill and left it till to-day to bring it up again.
I wonder if this is one more source for replenishing the war chest. I am wondering, in my innocence, what all these trusts mean^ and how much there is in it for the boys. Does the hon. member for Rosetown figure he can take a chance on losing a few votes, by reason of what he will acquire by having access to a plenteous war chest?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that it is not within the right of any hon. member to suggest that another hon. member is expecting to overcome a possible loss of votes by his access to a war chest. I submit that it is not competent for any hon. member to suggest any such thing.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think it is out of order at all, Mr. Speaker, but I will be quite accommodating and-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Sullivan):: I think the hon. gentleman is out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: I will apply the same remarks to the sugar trust, which is in exactly the same category, and then, to save time, withdraw for both.
TMr. Motherwell.]


Mr. SPOTTON:: Getting old enough to know better.


William Richard Motherwell: Although, Mr. Speakei, if I cared to enter into an argument I do not think I was out of order. I suppose I cannot say anything about cream separators or barbed wire or anything of that nature.
I should like to say a word about the attitude of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). There is another loyal old scout. There is one thing I do like about him. No matter how hopeless the debate may be for the government, the hon. member for Marquette always nicks in, and when you would naturally expect all the government supporters to hide their faces behind the curtains the hon. member for Marquette always shoots up in the government's defence. But there was one night last week when he did not. I thought he was about to expire. He did not even clap his hands or endorse the government's policy on that occasion by any vocal noise he was capable of making. He simply sat silent. I forget just what the occasion was but I think it was the salary grab for the chairman of the tariff board. There were so many events last week that I could scarcely distinguish them, but at any rate one was almost too much for the hon. member for Marquette to swallow. I suppose other hon. gentlemen sitting opposite have swallowed so many, so much, that their larynxes have become so distended that they are capable of taking down almost anything without a wink; and so with this bill. I think we shall have to be forgiving towards them.
I did not think that you would ever find a full-fledged protectionist from western Canada on either side of the house who would support this shipping bill, but here are members from the west sitting opposite supporting protection in its most vicious form. I wonder what the hon. member for Rosetown's predecessor would have said. Just think of what those votes at some elections mean! The gentleman who preceded the hon. member for Rosetown, Mr. John Evans, was one of the extreme low tariff or indeed absolute free trade men in this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And he was left at home.


William John Loucks: He pretty nearly lost his deposit over what he said in the last campaign.


William Richard Motherwell: Here is his successor taking absolutely the opposite side. It will be interesting to look forward to the next representative for Rosetown.


William John Loucks: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Porteous


William Richard Motherwell: I do not see why there should be occasion for calling me to order so frequently.


John Alexander Sullivan: What is the point of order?


William John Loucks: I was taking a little exception to some of the things the hon. member for Melville said, and I want to inform him-


John Alexander Sullivan: That is not a point of order.


William Richard Motherwell: I conclude with one more remark, and I expect that that will be out of order also: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."


Mr. Y. C. PORTEOUS (North Grey):: Mr. Speaker, this bill opens up the whole subject of transportation. Many hon. members have referred to steamships as if they were the only means of transportation, but surely they must realize that in times past different governments in this country have frequently given bonuses for the development of transportation facilities so that freight carrying charges might be reduced. We have in times past built docks, done very considerable dredging, and spent a tremendous amount of money on aids to navigation for the sole purpose of eliminating some of the costs of transportation for the benefit of the producer of the commodities transported. The benefit goes back to the farmer and the producer of the products of the forest and of the mine. I have sometimes thought that the assistance given to navigation facilities was not warranted because it meant competition for our railways. In the past large sums of money have been granted to the railways with a view to bringing about cheaper transportation rates, but much more public money has been expended on water transportation than rail transportation. I have sometimes wondered if the large expenditures that have been made on the Welland canal, for instance, did not warrant tolls being charged on the ships passing through, but I realize that that would add to the transportation costs. Many hon. members have presented that phase of the situation in the debate on this bill. They must realize, however, that these vast amounts of public money have been spent in order to lower transportation costs and thereby allow a profit to the producer of the commodities which are shipped.
It is also true that an enormous amount of private money has been invested in shipping facilities such as boats, elevators, and so forth. I wonder if the farmer from western Canada realizes that if it were not for that large amount of private money invested he would
be in a much worse position than he is in today. If Canadian capital had not been invested in this country. American shipping would have taken the business and would have tended to create a monopoly; and so I say that the investment of Canadian capital in transportation facilities has increased competition and in that way kept down freight rates. It is also true that numbers of men in eastern Canada are employed on our ships and on harbour work, aids to navigation, and so forth. I do not think that the western farmer will stand in his place and begrudge the sailor or navigator his honest means of livelihood. When we accuse Canadian shipping interests of entering into a monopoly we must remember that we might be faced with a similar monopoly in a foreign country. I do not think any hon. member in the chamber would say that he would trust American interests more than Canadian interests. Therefore I think it wise that these amendments to the shipping act should be passed. If there is a combine we have our Combines Investigation Act with which to effect a remedy, but I do not see how there could possibly be a combine in connection with transportation facilities of this country. Not only have we our own Canadian steamships, operated by many different companies seeking to get business through a competitive system, but we have competition from the railway companies. We have shipping carried through the Panama canal; we have the Hudson Ray route, to which reference has been made. Apart from that, as hon. members have said, the man who has a commodity to sell will find the cheapest channel through which it may pass to reach its port of destination.
If this bill becomes law there will be competition with American ports for a great part of our wheat which is not shipped to the United Kingdom. I do not wish to comment at length, but in my view it is high time that a bill of this kind was put through in order to give our Canadian shippers and those employed in lake shipping an opportunity equal to that enjoyed in the United States. Hon. members will realize that at no time has the United States allowed coastal trade from one American port to another American port by Canadian ships. Why should we not take the same step. I am perfectly convinced that there is sufficient competition to keep down transportation costs. Were I not so convinced I should be inclined to oppose the measure. But, as I have said, transportation is not limited to Canadian steamships. The railways are in competition. It is not limited only to great lakes ports; there is competition from
Canada Shipping Act-

-Mr. Duranleau
the ports in the far west and those of the Hudson bay. Further than that, Canadian shipping is in competition with American ports for that portion of the wheat which may be shipped to points outside the United Kinsr-dom.
On the grounds I have stated I have no hesitation in supporting the bill. I am convinced that it will be in the best interests of all concerned, and that it should be passed without delay.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I shall not speak at length, as I have only a few observations to make. First, I should like to answer the objection raised 'by the hon. members for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) to the effect that this bill should not have been introduced at the last minute of the session. That was the expression used by the hon. member for Willow Bunch. Is it necessary to repeat what I said earlier in the debate. These amendments have been before the Senate for over two months; they were embodied in the complete revision of the shipping act. These particular amendments now before us were discussed before the banking and commerce committee of the Senate. Surely the hon. members in this house are familiar with these amendments and their purport.
The second objection of my hon. friends is that the measure should not have originated in the upper house. Why? My answer to that is that hon. members who have read the proceedings of the Senate in regard to this bill, and more particularly the inquiry before the Senate committee, will have to admit that wonderful work was done. Every phase of the matter was thoroughly studied and this work done by the Senate is of considerable assistance to this house. When the hon. member for Willow Bunch suggests that the measure was brought in at this late hour of the session, because we were afraid of the opposition and that we anticipated no objection, on account of the fact that the opposition is tired, I say he is greatly mistaken. This government is not afraid to bring any measure before the house at any time in the session, because this government would submit to this house only measures of public interest and on all such occasions hon. members opposite will have full opportunity for discussion. If this measure was brought down late in the session it is due to the well known fact that the complete revision of the shipping act was abandoned only a few days ago in the Senate. This remedial measure was
XMr. Porteous.J
introduced at this session because its urgency had been clearly demonstrated to the Senate. I think hon. members opposite will admit that they have had ample time for the discussion of this proposed legislation. Many of them have addressed the house. Some have thrown some light on the subject; others have not. As a whole however we had a fair discussion of the bill and I do not think it is fair to criticize on this point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly all that was said on this measure, nobody denies that Canadian ship owners, Canadian shipbuilders, Canadian elevator owners and Canadian mariners are entitled to fair protection from the administration. They are important groups of citizens, and it is the feeling of this government that they are entitled to fair protection. That being so, and since the American law prohibits the shipping of goods from an American port to another American port either directly or indirectly in a Canadian bottom, it is only fair that our Canadians should receive the same protection. Unless very serious grounds can be urged against it, I submit it is the duty of this government to accord such protection.
The main objection to the bill on the part of my hon. friends opposite is that it will increase freight rates on the great lakes. But my hon. friends did not bring any reasonable proof of their contention in that regard. I do not know on what they rely. In the testimony of those called before the Senate committee to oppose the bill there is nothing that would justify the contention that rates would be increased as a result of this legislation. Some of my hon. friends say: You are asking the farmers to pay more. My hon. friend from Willow Bunch made that statement. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) said: You have no right to take one cent more per bushel from the farmers to help the Canadian ship owners. Where do you find any proof of anything of the kind before the Senate committee? Mr. Bredt is practically the only one, apart from Mr. Smith, who was heard in opposition to the proposed legislation, and he could not affirm, as was done in this house by our friends opposite, that the effect of this bill would be to increase the rates. Mr. Bredt was very frank; he was representing the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba pool organizations. At page 46 he said:
It _ is very difficult, of course, to state definitely that it would mean an increase in rates.
You have there the statement of a man who had some responsibility and wanted to be on the safe side. He said he could not

Canada Shi-p-ping Act-Mr. Duranleau
affirm positively that it would mean an increase in rate. He repeated the same thing two or three times. At page 51 Mr. Ballantyne put this question to Mr. Bredt:
Mr. Bredt, if this act went through do you claim it would increase freight rates?
A. There is the danger as we see it. We may be wrong.
Did any member opposite in this house say to-day: "We may be wrong''?


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Bredt is opposed to the bill, nevertheless.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: That makes it all the Stronger.


Alfred Duranleau: At page 55 Mr. Meighen asked Mr. Bredt:
Before you get to that point, Mr. Enderby says that that very same competition which resulted in reducing the rates would exist just the same after the passing of this legislation as before. I cannot see why it would not. What do you say to that?
Mr. Bredt: Frankly, we are afraid that that would not be so.
There was a fair statement by a man sent by the western growers to oppose the bill. In view of the proof given before the committee by many people from the west who know the business, who proved positively that there would be no increase in the rates, I say that in the position they take my hon. friends hawe not a leg to stand on.
I think it was the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who asked this government if we had considered the injurious effect of this legislation upon the port of Montreal. He did not, I believe, definitely so state, but that was the effect of his question. The hon. member for Willow Bunch said he was sure this bill would be detrimental to the port of Montreal. Well, Mr. Speaker, those were only assertions, without proof. I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friends to the memorandum which was filed with the committee of the Senate by Mr. Campbell, representing the Toronto Elevators, Limited, Sarnia Elevator Company, Limited, Midland Simcoe Elevator Company, Limited, The Great Lakes Elevator Company, Limited, Collingwood Terminals, Limited, and Goderich Elevator and Transit Company, Limited. What was the memorandum of those organizations on this question? The main proposition put forward by these companies is as follows:
1.	The proposed provisions will have the effect of diverting a larger volume of grain through an all-Canadian grain route which has been established by the expenditure of large sums of money by the government of Canada and private interests.
This is the opinion of a large number of citizens interested in these elevators, that instead of injuring the port of Montreal or our Canadian ports it will direct a larger volume of business through them. The same memorandum-I am giving only the headings -says:
2.	The proposed amendment will eliminate the existing unfair competition from American vessels.
Is it true or is it not that our Canadian shipping is suffering unfair competition from American bottoms? If it is true, is it not our duty to give some protection to our own people? Then the memorandum goes on:
3.	The transportation and handling of Canadian grain is principally dependent on Canadian vessels and elevators both rendering public service entitled to the support and assistance usually afforded public services.
Then:
4.	These provisions will have the effect which was intended by previous legislation, the language of which was insufficient to effect its intent.
To-day our law protects Canadian ship owners from direct shipping from one Canadian port to another by United States vessels, and we are asking now that they be protected against indirect shipping in the same way.
This afternoon I heard some hon. gentleman refer to labour. I remember that two years ago I received a delegation composed of sailors and others citizens who came here to urge the adoption of this very legislation. They represented to me that very often during the navigation season they had many empty and idle Canadian ships in their ports while the sailors were walking about watching United States ships passing in front of the ports, manned by United States sailors but loaded with Canadian grain which had been taken on at a Canadian port and was to be delivered in another Canadian port. I think it was proved very clearly, as the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Simpson) stated this afternoon, that a great many Canadian sailors are actually idle and unemployed and a great many Canadian ships are anchored in our ports while many Canadian elevators are capable of handling much larger quantities of wheat than they are getting to-day. If this is all true, I do not see why we should not give our Canadian sailors and ship owners an opportunity to get larger business.
I am greatly indebted to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for the generous support he has given me in this instance, because I frankly admit
5190	COMMONS
Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Duranleau
that I am not an expert in these matters. My colleague stated very clearly that if we had thought for a moment that this legislation would injure the grain growers of the west in any shape or form it would not have been brought before the house. It is because we are convinced that the farmers of the west are fully protected that we believe this protection should be given the other classes in our community.
My hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) said he approved of the principle of this bill in so far as it affords protection to Canadian ships, but that he could not vote for it because it would protect British ships as well as Canadian ships. I want to tell my hon. friend that the competition with , which Canadian ships are faced at the present time, and which they have faced for several years, does noit come from British ships or from vessels belonging to nations to which we accord most favoured treatment. British ships, as a rule, do not cross the ocean to compete with our Canadian bottoms. That competition comes from other sources, and I think we are protecting Canadian ship owners and the people of Canada as a whole against those who would injure our best interests. I hope that my hon. friends will permit the second reading of this bill so that we may get into committee as soon as possible.
Loucks,
Maclnnis,
MacNicol,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McLure,
Maloney,
Mitchell,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Myers,
Neill,
Nicholson,
Peck,
Pickel,
Porteous,
Quinn,
Ryekman,
Senn,
Shaver,
Blair,
Boulanger,
Bradette,
Butcher,
Carmichael,
Casgrain,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Denis,
Dumaine,
Factor,
Fafard,
Ferland,
Garland (Bow River), Girouard,
Golding,
Simpson
(Simcoe North), Simpson
(Algoina West), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Spankie,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stev-art (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Sutherland,
Swanston,
Tetreault,
Thompson
(Simcoe Bast), Turnbull,
"Weese
White (Mount Royal), Wright.-06.
Goulet,
Hanson (Skeena), Hurtubise,
Jacobs,
Jean,
Luchkovich, Macphail, Miss, McPhee,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont), Rheaume, Sanderson, Thauvette,
Totzke,
Young.-30.
NAYS Messrs:


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did not hear all my hon. friend's remarks, and before he takes his seat I should like to ask if he made any explanation with regard to the powers that are to be delegated by the minister to some of his officials.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend will wait until we are in committee I shall give all the information required.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was paired
with the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn). Had I voted, I would 'have voted for the bill.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading of the bill.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: I was paired with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier). Had1 I voted, I would have voted against the second reading of the bill.


Thomas Reid: I was paired with the hon.
member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Ryerson). 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 for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I was paired
with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


William Richard Motherwell: I was paired with
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


John Livingstone Brown: I was paired with the hon.
member for Souris (Mr. Willis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


John Vallance: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. DO'NNELLY:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Alfred Speakman: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


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


Donald James Cowan: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I was paired with the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I womld have voted for the motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Canada Shipping Act

Mr. GOTT; I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GARDINER:: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted voted against the motion.


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


Mr. MEROIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. ST. PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BARIBEAU (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (N.B.) (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted 1 would have voted against the motion.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee, Mr. Gott in the chair.
On section 1-May delegate duties by way of confirmed by-law.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before this clause is
disposed of I think we should have some explanation from the minister. If I asked some questions before the second reading it was due to the fact that I was not sure that the way this clause stands at the present time will meet the requirements of the pilotage authorities of the district of Montreal. I think representations have been made to the minister and the officials of the department with reference to the powers to be given to the officers of the department, the deputy minister and other officials when the minister happens to be absent. These representations have endeavoured to point out what may happen should this section stand as at present. The explanatory note reads:
The object of these provisions, which are new, is to avoid the necessity of the actual attendance of the minister as pilotage authority, possibly at Halifax or Vancouver, in certain cases and to attach the powers of the authority to the department rather than to the persona of the minister.
According to the explanatory note, this section is to cover only the ports of Halifax and Vancouver. I think it would be better, rather than conferring the present extensive authority upon the officials of the minister's department, to insert in the bill a provision that this would obtain only in cases concerning these two ports, so that there would be no ambiguity about the matter. I was told also there were conferences with some of the officials of the department regarding certain improvements that might be made to this clause along the lines suggested to the minister. The clause the way it stands was one of the principal reasons I voted against the bill, but on the other hand, other clauses may contain paragraphs which might have induced me to support this legislation. This clause as it is now is not acceptable to certain interests and I think there are members on the other side who hold the same views as I do. I would ask the minister to give whatever explanations may be necessary in connection with this measure, and to indicate in what respect, if any, I am wrong.

Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry my hon.
friend was not in the house when I moved the second reading of the bill, because then I said very clearly that this clause would be deleted and replaced by another one which reads as follows:
3. Whenever the minister is appointed as pilotage authority for any district, his successors in office or any acting minister or, in the absence of the minister, his lawful deputy, shall be the pilotage authority, and any such pilotage authority may by by-law confirmed by the governor in council, authorize the superintendent of pilots in the district to exercise any of his functions. Moreover, such pilotage authority may, for such time or such purpose as he may decide, authorize any person to exercise any particular function or power vested in the pilotage authority by this act or any by-law made hereunder.
This amendment was asked by the pilots and I think, under the circumstances, it is a fair amendment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I wanted to be sure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I move that amendment.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I read over carefully the amendment that the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) has just submitted to the house. As the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mt. Casgrain) stated a few moments ago,
I think that it should be stipulated in the proposed amendment that this clause does not apply to the pilotage authority in the Montreal and Quebec districts. The reason for this is that there are two sections in the Merchant Marine Act, of which one, No. 395, is as follows:
The minister shall be the pilotage authority of the pilotage district of Quebec, and all the powers vested in the harbour commissioners of Quebec, previously to the twentieth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and five, as such pilotage shall continue to be vested in the minister.
Previously, the pilotage authority in the Quebec district was entrusted to the harbour commissions. Later it was entrusted to the Minister of Marine on condition that the pilotage authority remained in the hands of the minister. The same conditions prevail in the Montreal district; section 397 of the Merchant Marine Act is as follows:
The minister shall be the pilotage authority of the pilotage district of Montreal, and all powers vested in the Montreal harbour commissioners, previously to the twenty-fourth day of October of the year one thousand nine hundred and three, shall continue to be vested in the minister.
If the authority which was previously entrusted to the minister by these two sections 53719-328
is delegated to the Deputy Minister of Marine or else to the superintendent of pilotage, the same thing which happened last year will occur once more. One of the Marine department officials, thinking that the pilotage authority had been vested in him, suspended six or seven pilots of Quebec. Pursuant to the amendment moved, the provisions of sections 395 and 397, which heretofore protected the Quebec and Montreal pilots would disappear. As the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay pointed out, if this amendment has only affected the Halifax and Vancouver pilots, why not state so.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Quite so. Those are my views.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I submit, sir, that these amendments are introduced with a special and indirect purpose, that of embodying all pilots; under the pretext of amending section 414, it is proposed to amend the two sections 395 and 397. However, it goes further. If one reads section 391, we find the following definition:
(i) pilotage authority means any persons authorized to appoint or license pilots or to fix or alter rates of pilotage, or to exercise any jurisdiction in respect of pilotage.
Therefore, the superintendent of pilots or any official of the marine department, may, in the absence of the minister, license or suspend pilots, alter the pilotage rates or exercise any particular function or power over the pilots and pilotage.
I submit, sir, that the Minister of Marine is deprived of the powers vested in him by the act or his authority is diminished. Extraordinary powers are vested in persons in no way responsible to the house or people. At any time, we may be faced with orders in council appointing authorities who will take decisions over a whole district, when, by virtue of the act and the history of pilotage, pilots had acquired rights. When the Quebec pilots accepted the Minister of Marine as pilotage authority, they gave up certain rights which they, previously, possessed. Why? Simply because they were guaranteed that the pilotage authority would be the Minister of Marine and not a superintendent whatsoever.
If the Minister of Marine simply wishes to affect, by his amendment, the pilotage at Halifax and Vancouver, let him state so in this clause. However, if the intention is to change the pilotage authority in the Quebec and Montreal districts, let him state so, as I wish to be apprised of it.

Canada Shipping Act


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The hon. member is quite right, I agree with him.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is most
important. I submit that this amendment has an indirect purpose and is introduced with the set idea of wiping out the advantages which sections 395 and 397 conferred. I am therefore opposed to the amendment introduced by the hon. Minister of Marine.
I also wonder why only a paragraph of part VI of the act is amended. No other clause of the same part is changed. One particular clause, a small and hardly noticeable one, is altered in part V of the act, however, tomorrow one will discover that Mr. so and so, an official of the marine department has been handed over the pilotage authority in the Quebec and Montreal districts. I would be inclined to move an amendment or subamendment. I would request the hon. Minister of Marine to state, at least, that sections 395 and 397 will have their full effect as in the past.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: Will the hon. member allow me to put a question? The minister himself cannot see to everything. In his absence, is it not possible for the deputy minister to exercise the duties delegated to him? I think that the deputy ministers in the various departments have greater powers conferred on them than these.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Let me refer to what I stated just now. The pilot unions of Quebec and Montreal were, in the past, under the authority of the Quebec and Montreal harbours, respectively. They had quite extensive rights, and one of the main reasons which made them sacrifice their rights, was because they were guaranteed, at the time, that the Minister of Marine alone would have pilotage authority. The act states: ''Pilotage authority" signifies all persons authorized to appoint or license pilots. There is nothing else mentioned, to license pilots, appoint pilots and fix or alter pilotage rates or exercise any particular function or power over pilotage. These are the powers which it is intended to vest in the deputy minister or head of a department. I submit that such powers should remain in the hands of the minister.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: As the bill
reads, the person who has authority can delegate it, under certain circumstances.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is exactly to what we are opposed, namely, that
IM. Dorion.]
the Minister of Marine should delegate his authority to fix rates and license new pilots.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Is the
deputy minister not as conversant as' the minister in regard to pilots?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I do not
think so. It is a right granted to pilots. They accepted the Minister of Marine as pilotage authority, on condition that it be the minister himself and not another official of his department. In sections 395 and 397, it was specially stated:
The minister shall be the pilotage authority of the pilotage district of Quebec.
Further it is stated:
The minister shall be the pilotage authority of the pilotage district of Montreal.
Those who prepared this act intended to vest the pilotage authority in the minister only.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Is it not a fact that in all departments the deputy minister carries out the duties which are delegated by the minister.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: At present, there is no deputy minister in the Marine department.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why is
not one appointed?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The deputy minister receives his instructions from the minister and is responsible to him. In an urgent case when action is required, the deputy minister is in charge of the administration and he must act.


Mr. BURY:: May I ask what is the effect of the amendment that has been moved? I cannot see any practical difference between the amendment as proposed and the amendment as it appears in the foil. Is there any real difference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the absence of the
minister the deputy acts.


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to very strongly oppose the proposed amendment; in fact, I admit that in the absence of the minister, it is important at times, under urgent circumstances to have in the department an official authorized to take immediate action. I simply wish to inquire from the hon. minister whether he intends to adopt a similar amendment in connection with section 397 which refers to Montreal. I frankly confess that I am not an expert in the matter, however, I wonder why special provisions are made in so far as the

Canada Shipping Act
Quebec district is concerned, when no change is contemplated for the Montreal district. Why should the hon. minister be replaced by an official for the Quebec district, while he keeps for himself all the authority and prerogatives in connection with the Montreal district?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: There is nothing in the amendment to that effect.


Onésime Gagnon: If a special amendment is sought for the Quebec district and if the Merchant Marine Act, in so far as the Montreal district is concerned, remains unchanged, I submit that this constitutes a contradiction devoid of sense. '


Mr. RALSTON:: I would point out what seems to be a real difference. The first change is to insert the words, "in the absence of the minister." The other is that by the last clause of this proposed amendment the power of delegation of the pilotage authority can be given effect to without the approval of the governor in council. Under the bill as originally introduced into this house it required the approval of the governor in council both for the authorization of the superintendent of pilots to exercise any of the pilotage authority functions, and for the special authorization in connection with any particular power. Under the proposed amendment the pilotage authority, which may be the minister, the deputy minister, or the acting minister, or the superintendent of pilots, may authorize any one of his functions to be performed for such time or such purpose as he may decide without the deterrent of having that authorization given the approval of the governor in council. Is that not a distinct difference?


Alfred Duranleau: I think, Mr. Chairman, that it must be done by by-law approved by the governor in council.


James Layton Ralston: Not according to the
amendment now before us.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Better to leave things as they are.


Alfred Duranleau: The amendment reads:
Whenever the minister is appointed as pilotage authority for any district, his successors in office or any acting minister or, in the absence of the minister, his lawful deputy, shall be the pilotage authority, and any such pilotage authority may by by-law confirmed by the governor in council, authorize the superintendent of pilots in the district to exercise any of his functions.


James Layton Ralston: Then follows the clause to which I referred.


Alfred Duranleau: It continues:
Moreover, such pilotage authority may, foi such time or such purpose as he may decide, authorize any person to exercise any particular function or power vested in the pilotage authority by this act or any by-law made hereunder.
I think everything should be done by bylaw ratified by order in council.


James Layton Ralston: But not as it reads. My point is that the pilotage authority may authorize the exercise by any person of any of his powers under this act without the sanction of any by-law and without the approval of the governor in council, as the last clause now reads. In the original amendment the approval of the governor in council is made a condition precedent both to the appointment of a superintendent of pilots to exercise the powers of the pilotage authority, and to authorizing the delegation by the pilotage authority to anyone else of his functions in any particular case. But in the amendment now before us the approval of the governor in council is not necessary. The pilotage authority may delegate his power without reference to the governor in council or without any by-law, for such time or such purpose as he may decide.


Mr. CARDIN:: The last clause referred to a particular function.


Alfred Duranleau: This amendment was suggested by the pilots themselves after consultation with the Department of Justice, but if my hon. friends think there is a doubt as to the meaning of the amendment I have no objection to adding a word or two to make it clear. We might delete the words between the word "functions" in the eighth line of the typewritten amendment and the word "for" in the next line, and insert after the word "functions" the word "and".


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is there any other difference in the amendment except that the absence of the minister is a condition required before his deputy can exercise his powers? If, not why not simplify it by adding after the words "his stead and" on the twelfth line the words "in his absence." The section appears to me to be admirably drafted.


Alfred Duranleau: Objection was taken as to the wording of certain parts of the draft. The words "without more," for instance, were objected to by someone yesterday.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is all right; the words "without more" are necessary; the authority goes without anything further thar the act itself.
Canada Shipping Act


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I put a question, just now, to the hon. minister. I wish to know whether sections 395 and 397 will have the same effeot as they had previously, when this amendment is adopted?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, the section which we intend to amend does not only affect the pilotage of Quebec, Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver, it affects all pilots who come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Marine, so that there will be no discrimination between pilots of Quebec and Montreal or other parts of Canada. May I add that the amendment such as proposed, after the changes suggested by my hon. friend are made, meet all the needs of the situation; it is perfectly clear and I submit it should be accepted.


James Layton Ralston: The minister spoke about pilots having been consulted concerning this amendment. Does he mean pilots of Quebec and Montreal? Have the pilots of Halifax and Vancouver been consulted?


Alfred Duranleau: The pilots generally.


James Layton Ralston: Representatives of pilots generally.


Alfred Duranleau: I believe I have not understood my hon. friend correctly. I do not believe the pilots of Halifax and Vancouver were consulted. This amendment was asked for by officials of the department. Pilots of Montreal I understand objected to the wording of the amendment, and suggested the substitution of the amendment which was just proposed.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it the amendment is suggested because of the fact that in some cases it is found necessary for the pilotage authority actually to be in attendance at the port. Would the minister tell me what those cases would be?


Alfred Duranleau: Let us consider subsection (j) of the general powers of pilotage authorities contained in section 415 of the act:
(j) provide for the compulsory retirement of licensed pilots who have not attained the age of sixty-five years, proved on oath before the pilotage authority ito be incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity or by habits of drunkenness.
If proof has to be taken in Halifax and Vancouver, under the law as it stands to-day the minister would have to go there to take such evidence.
Mr, RALSTON: Or they would have to come here?
[Mr. Bury.l
Mr. DURANlLEAU: Yes, or they would have to come here. Therefore we want to delegate the power to someone else so that such person could take the oath.


James Layton Ralston: Why not let Mahomet come to the mountain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may cost a lot of money.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think the amendment means much, because it is effective only in the absence of the minister. And as stated a moment ago by the hon. member for St. Henri surely the deputy minister must have some authority in the department. There are other duties performed by the deputy minister in the absence of the minister.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And more important duties.


Alfred Duranleau: The minister is always head of the department, and on his return he could make a change in the decision made by the deputy minister.


Paul Mercier: It is only a delegation of power in some special instances.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I have received a telegram from the Pilot Association of Quebec strongly protesting against this amendment being enacted. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, when the explanatory note states that the amendment only affects the pilots of Halifax and Vancouver, it is clear that this was intended to deceive us. It is as follows:
These provisions which are new, is to avoid the necessity of actual attendance of the minister as pilotage authority, possibly at Halifax or Vancouver . . .


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is because they are the most remote points.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: In truth, it looks as if the amendment was aimed at the Quebec and Montreal pilots. However, sections 395 and 397 remain in the Act, thereby liable to stir trouble. In the future, if the Quebec pilots refuse to conform themselves to an order received from the pilotage authority, they may base their contentions on section 395 which stipulates that they are still under the authority of the Minister of Marine Who will decide whether section 395 or section 414, as amended, should apply? I submit that there is ambiguity and had the intention been to only include the pilots of Halifax and Vancouver, it should be so stipulated in the amendment.


Paul Mercier: The cities of Halifax and Vancouver were mentioned because they were extreme points which the minister could not reach. In such instances he would delegate his power.

Canada Shipping Act


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is stated " possibly."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amendment applies to the sections you have just quoted, because it is stipulated that when the minister is appointed as pilotage authority, his powers may be delegated. That applies to your case.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) may think, from the legal aspect, section 395 still will provide that the minister constitutes the pilotage authority.


Alfred Duranleau: The
minister or his deputy.


James Layton Ralston: My concern is this: While apparently the amendment is for the benefit of the harbours of Quebec and Montreal, they really do not need the amendment because the minister could attend at those points. It seems to me that in effect the amendment will apply only to the points far away. If there is any benefit in having the act as it was before, with the minister acting as pilotage authority, it does not seem to me that those points should be deprived of a benefit simply because other points happened to be nearer. I am in accord with the idea of delegating authority to a certain extent in special cases. But this amendment goes much further by way of delegation than is usually the case. As a rule the term "minister" includes an acting minister. The present amendment, however, goes further and provides for the "deputy minister," and then there is further provision "in the absence of the minister." As a matter of fact there is usually an acting minister, if the minister is absent any length of time. It seems to me that that should cover the case, rather than have a further delegation not only to the deputy but to someone else altogether, namely the superintendent of pilots. Then from the superintendent of pilots it goes to someone else. I submit this is delegation with a vengeance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Everything is done by bylaw.


James Layton Ralston: I am showing that the delegation is not done by by-law. The delegation is done simply by someone writing a letter. In any other function of the minister you do not have the minister delegating his power; the acting minister always has power. Sometimes the deputy minister has power, but you do not have a further delegation to the superintendent of pilots, then to some
other official, and then from him to somebody else. It seems to me we are making the section more involved than is necessary. As pilots from outside points have not been consulted, there may be some objections. I do not know whether or not there could be, but if there was any benefit in having the act as it stood before and as it has been for many years, why change it just at this time, and have all these powers of delegation?


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member has stated that the proposed amendment may be useful in outside districts such as Halifax and Vancouver, but that perhaps it may not be necessary at other points because the minister could go to Quebec and perform his pilotage duties. However if there were an inquiry held even at Quebec I should hesitate to go myself. In some circumstances I believe it would be proper to delegate powers to hold an inquiry even in Quebec, instead of forcing the minister to leave his office for that purpose.


James Layton Ralston: Would the minister tell me how many pilotage districts there are in Nova Scotia? Sheet Harbour used to be a pilotage district, but I do not know whether it is now or not.	*


Alfred Duranleau: There are two, Halifax and Sydney.


James Layton Ralston: Under the minister.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I still maintain my contentions in connection with the amendment proposed. Last year, an official of the department, Captain Robertson, on his own responsibility, suspended seven pilots. A number of pilots having refused to undertake some special service, those who had made the request immediately communicated with Ottawa. At the time, the hon. Minister of Marine was absent What happened? Captain Robertson, on his own authority, suspended six or seven pilots, by telegram. These Quebec pilots were suspended because they had refused to undertake some special service, notwithstanding the fact that such pilotage authority was not vested in the superintendent. Not only he had not that authority but he was unaware of the provisions of a contract between the shipping federation and the Quebec Pilots' Union. If that authority is vested in the superintendent, the same thing will happen as last year, he will suspend without any cause these pilots. I again contend that the authority to appoint pilots and fix pilotage rates should not be vested in officials of the:
Canada Shipping Act

department, but that this authority should be left with the minister or, perhaps, the deputy minister and no other official.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Could the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Dorion) inform the house as to what happened to -these seven pilots? I understand -they were suspended in virtue of the authority delegated by the minister?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: No, they
were not suspended under authority delegated by the minister. Fortunately, the minister after examining the facts of the case, gave instructions that -these -pilots be reinstated. Nevertheless, the superintendent of pilots was under the impression, when the suspensions took place, that he was the pilotage authority. That is exactly why this amendment to the act is moved this evening, i-t is -to avoid a similar occurrence in the future. After a pilot is dismissed or suspended by an official of the Department of Marine, what recourse will we have, if this amendment is adopted? The minister will then reply that the pilotage authority had made such and such a decision, I am helpless.
I contend that such powers should be vested in the minister or deputy -minister only.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The minister may delegate such powers and appoint a competent official. Pilots who do not wish to carry out special duties, will be ;6uspended, and this will only be fair and just.


Mr. NEILL:: I have heard the amendment read once, but I have not heard the amendment as amended. Would you mind reading it now as amended, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gott):: It now reads as follows:
Whenever the minister is appointed as pilotage authority for any district, his successors in office or any acting minister or, in the absence of the minister, his lawful deputy, shall be the pilotage authority, and any such pilotage authority may by by-law confirmed by the governor in council, authorize the superintendent of pilots in the district to exercise any of his functions, and for such time or such purpose as he may decide, authorize any person to exercise any particular function or power vested in the pilotage authority by this act or any by-law made hereunder.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the authority to be granted to the original -minister's deputy or the second minister's deputy?


Alfred Duranleau: His lawful deputy.
Mr. NElILL: Both ministers have lawful deputies. I want to know which deputy is referred to.


Alfred Duranleau: It is the lawful deputy of the Minister of Marine.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no deputy minister of marine.


Alan Webster Neill: The deputy of the present minister. A good many of these references will aipply to the port of Vancouver. May I ask the minister if any request has been made for this legislation from any of the pilotage boards of British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: No, we have had no such requests. It is purely an administrative amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister any reason -to believe that this legislation will be acceptable?


Alfred Duranleau: Oh, surely.


Alan Webster Neill: We have not heard anything to that effect.


Alfred Duranleau: To the amendment as drafted I do not think there would be any objection.


Alan Webster Neill: But the minister has no knowledge on the subject. The pilotage boards have not asked for it. How does the minister know that this legislation will be acceptable or workable to the pilotage boards of British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: This does not affect any pilotage board; it affects only the pilots. If there is any place where we need delegation of power it is a place three thousand miles from Ottawa. It is that I may delegate my authority to hold an inquiry in Vancouver, for instance, otherwise I would have to go there myself.


Alan Webster Neill: The whole purpose of this amendment, then, is to authorize the minister to delegate his power?


Alfred Duranleau: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.

Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, some of us who have been discussing the difficulties in regard to redistribution have made some progress to-day, and we would like to have to-morrow morning to meet and go further into these matters in an effort to

Pension Act
arrive at a conclusion. If it is satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite I suggest that the house adjourn until three o'clock to-morrow, and I hope we shall be able to make some progress in this matter.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: I understand that the Minister of Marine is a member of the committee that is conferring on the redistribution measure and he could not very well be in both places at the same time. If progress is being made in respect to redistribution I am sure it will be welcome news to all hon. members, and if the matter can be furthered by the house not sitting in the morning, I am sure we will all be agreeable to adjournment until three o'clock to-morrow afternoon.


Ernest Edward Perley: I move that the house adjourn until three o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11 p.m.
Friday, May 19, 1933