1948-04-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a matter of privilege affecting one member of the House of Commons in particular, and for that purpose I crave your indulgence for a few moments.
A person is usually known by the company he keeps. May I be permitted to refer to an item which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, April 13, and which concerns in particular the hon. member to whom I have referred. The names of the three illustrious persons mentioned in the Gazette were His Excellency the Earl of Athlone, the former Governor General of Canada; the Honourable Walter Jones, Premier of Prince Edward Island, and-no less important than the other two-none other than our genial vice-chairman of the committee of the whole, the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding). These three names are linked together, and rightly so.
It was reported in the Gazette that these illustrious persons are today passing another milestone in their journey through life. Before stating my question of privilege I consulted the Parliamentary Guide and found to my amazement that our genial friend from Huron-Perth has inadvertently omitted from that record the date of his birth. I traced his career to earlier days and I found that April 14 was his natal day.
I express my appreciation, sir, of your indulgence in allowing me to discuss the matter at this time. What I am saying was prompted particularly by consultation with the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd), whom, I might say, very little passes. I feel sure that every hon. member in the chamber will join with the hon. member for Kingston City and me in conveying to our genial friend the felicitations of all members of the House of Commons, and that all will join with us in wishing him many happy returns on this his natal day, and many more years of preference and distinction.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That the name of Mr. Skey be substituted for that of Mr. Homuth on the select standing committee on industrial relations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield) moved that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders presented on April 12 be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL E. COTE (Verdun) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) presented the third report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is carried I should like to make an observation. For a quarter of a century the banking and commerce committee has been convened in an orderly way so that members of the committee would find it convenient to be present when the committee was called. My reason for rising at this time is to say that in the mail box of members of the committee there was found, some time after the hour of ten o'clock in the morning, a notice saying that the banking and commerce committee would meet, while the house was in session, at 8.30 that day.
Those who open their mail boxes before ten o'clock in the morning and not again until later in the evening find themselves bereft of the information that this long-established committee on banking and commerce, which meets ordinarily when the house is in session, is to be convened on that day. As a member
Questions

of this house I am of opinion that there is ample time and ample opportunity for those who order the convening of the committee to give notice of it in the ordinary way so that the itinerary for our march during the day may be so arranged that we shall be able to attend its meetings.
Yesterday through no fault of his the member for Danforth innocently stood to one side while the committee on banking and commerce was being convened, and in his innocent sort of way he knew not thereof. This committee has been functioning since confederation, and with so much time now being available for our meetings, a notice given after 10 o'clock in the morning that we shall meet at 8.30 o'clock that day while the house is sitting is not sufficient for the old-fashioned representatives who still sit in this honourable assembly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the English edition of the annual report of the Department of Transport for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947. The French edition will be tabled as soon as it is received from the king's printer.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1948.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total cost incurred in connec-xion with the sittings of the Board of Transport Commissioners on the application by the railway companies for an increase in freight rates?
2.	Who were the counsel appointed by the dominion government to appear at the hearing and how much was paid to each of said counsel for (a) fees; (b) living or other expenses; (c) other disbursements?
3.	What was the per diem fee paid or agreed to be paid to each of said counsel?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	$20,034.32.
2.	No counsel were appointed by the dominion government.
3.	See answer to no. 2.


DOMINION GRAIN INSPECTORS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North);
What has been the average increase in salary allotted to the dominion grain inspectors between December, 1939 and December, 1947, by the following grades; grain samplers, grain inspection assistants, grain inspectors grade 1, grain inspectors grade 2, grain inspectors grade 3?
Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Average increase in salary between December 1939 and December 1947: Grain sampler, $471; Grain inspection assistant, $408; Grain inspector, grade 1, $360; Grain inspector, grade 2, $345; Grain inspector, grade 3, $660.
Grain inspectors, grade 1 or grade 2 in charge of elevators, increase of extra pay from $10 per month to $20 per month.
Increase in hourly overtime rates of pay: Grain sampler, 75 cents per hour 1939 to $1 per hour, present; Grain inspection assistant, 85 cents per hour 1939 to $1 per hour, present; Grain inspector, grade 1, $1 per hour 1939 to $1.30 per hour, present; Grain inspector, grade 2, $1 per hour 1939 to $1.50 per hour, present.


CHILD AND MATERNAL HEALTH
Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: What is the Department of National Health and Welfare doing in an educational way regarding child and maternal health in Canada?


Mr. MARTIN:: The department has produced within the last year a series of films and filmstrips which are available to the provincial departments of health, health units, women's organizations and similar groups and devoted to pre-natal and post-natal aspects of child and maternal care. Most important of these is a film entitled "Mother and Her Child" which has been produced in English and French and is in colour. Another is entitled "Know Your Baby", also in colour. Two filmstrips are entitled "Nine to Get Ready" and "Introducing Baby".
The seventh reprint edition of the book "The Canadian Mother and Child" is now being printed and will as usual bfi made available to provincial departments of health for free distribution to expectant mothers and others interested in child care. It is expected that within the next few months the distribution of this book, since it was originally written by the chief of the child and maternal

Questions
health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, will pass the one million mark.
Additionally an attractive folder entitled "Ten Points to Remember" is now being prepared by the information services division. This is intended as a complementary piece of literature to the films mentioned above and will be made available to the public when such films or filmstrips are being shown to women's audiences.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-INVESTIGATION OH CASE WORK
Mr. JAENICKE:: With what provinces has the Department of National Health and Welfare made arrangements to do investigation work or case work on behalf of the Department of National Health and Welfare in respect of recipients of the family allowance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nova Scotia, Ontario,
Manitoba, British Columbia.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES'-PAYMENTS TO OTHER PERSONS OR AGENCIES
Mr. MARQUIS:: In how many instances has it been necessary to make family allowances payable to another person or agency under section 5 of the Family Allowances Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As at February 29, 1948, a total of 238 cases, of which 154 are being administered by social agencies and 84 by individuals.


MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF RUSSIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Since entering upon his duties as Secretary of State for External Affairs, has the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent met (a) official representatives of the government of Soviet Russia; (b) official representatives of countries other than Russia?
2.	If so, (a) when, where, for what reason and who w'ere the said representatives, in each case; (b) what was the result of the conversations held, in each case?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should like to answer this question orally. First, with respect to representatives of governments other than Russia, the answer to that question is yes. In answer to the second question I should like to say that it is not in accordance with diplomatic practice nor in the national interest to disclose the nature of official conversations with representatives of other countries.
With respect to the representatives of Soviet Russia, the answer will have to be somewhat
qualified in order to be accurate. Since I assumed my duties as Secretary of State for External Affairs there has been no occasion for official conversations between representatives of Soviet Russia and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As hon. members know, the post of ambassador from Russia to this government has not been filled, and such conversations as there may have been would be conversations between the charge d'affaires or members of his staff and members of the permanent staff of the department.
On the other hand it would not be accurate to say that I had not met any representatives of the Russian government. No doubt I participated in meetings of the united nations where there were representatives of that government, and I have no doubt it did happen that I attended social functions where they were also present. Those were the only times when I had occasion to meet them since I assumed the duties of my office.


CIVIL SERVICE-HEALTH DIVISION
Mr. LANGLOIS:: What are, at present, the specific activities or functions of the civil service health division?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	To examine new employees upon* employment or upon application for permanency and at other specified times as circumstances dictate.
2.	To examine employees upon reassignment of duties, change of position or promotion demanding review of physical requirements.
3.	To examine employees upon their own request or upon the request of their supervising officer.
4.	To examine employees where the physical requirements of the job in relation to the duties involved are in need of assessment.
5.	To conduct studies and make reports on the health of civil servants.
6.	To protect civil servants from contracting and spreading disease.
7.	To study hazards associated with the nature of the employment and adopt measures for their control.
8.	To discover and instruct employees in overcoming physical defects and defective health habits, especially those of a remedial type by individual and group health education.
9.	To enlist the services of private practitioners and specialists for the detection of physical or mental defects.
10.	To provide emergency and first-aid service for minor disorders and injuries.
Orders for Returns

11.	To furnish medical guidance and advice to all departments of government on matters relating to the health and welfare of civil servants. This includes job placement, ventilation, lighting, heating, accommodation, and other factors associated with environmental sanitation.
12.	To assist in the interpretation of medical reports when such interpretation becomes a factor in administrative procedure.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many motion picture projectors are owned by the national film board?
2.	What is the size and value of each make, and are they new or used?
3.	How many of each kind of projector are there in each of the national film board offices and are these projectors loaned to other joint or individual film councils?


Mr. WINTERS:: Return tabled.



FISHING REGULATIONS-ALBERTA WATERS

Mr. HANSELL:: What are the rivers and lakes in the province of Alberta which come within dominion government fishing regulations?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.



NATIONAL REVENUE-INCOME AND OTHER TAXES

Mr. HEON:: 1.	What provinces of Canada have refrained during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948, from levying (a) personal income taxes; (b) corporation income taxes; (c) corporation taxes; (d) succession duties (as defined in agreements made between the dominion government and the governments of certain provinces under the provisions of the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947) ?
2.	What revenue has the government of Canada collected in each of such provinces during said fiscal year from (a) personal income taxes; (b) corporation income taxes; (c) corporation taxes; (d) succession duties?
3.	What is the amount of the total compensation paid and/or payable for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948, to each of such provinces under agreements made pursuant to the said act?



MILK BOTTLE FILLING MACHINES

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Are milk bottle filling machines ranging in capacity from 12 or 15 quart bottles per minute, to 120 quarts, made in Canada?
2.	Is there a customs tariff on all of these sizes of machines being imported into Canada? If not, on what sizes is there none?



U.S. CURRENCY PAID FOR GOODS OR ASSETS IN CANADA-ALASKA HIGHWAY

Mr. JACKMAN:: How much United States currency or gold was paid to the United States government or its agencies for goods or assets located in Canada, including that part of the Alaska highway within Canada, and purchased by the government of Canada since December 31, 1945, specifying all items costing over $1,000,090?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Harry Rutherford Jackman: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Finance and any other departments of the government and the Export-Import Bank of the United States regarding the negotiation, application, granting and acceptance of a loan from that bank to the Dominion of Canada.



COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION- MARINE INSURANCE

Mr. FLEMING:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation and Dale and Company of Montreal, concerning marine insurance and the premiums thereon, and the placing of such insurance, in respect of import shipments for the account of Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation?



BRIDGE ACROSS SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER AT SASKATCHEWAN LANDING

Mr. BENTLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and text of telephone conversations exchanged between the government of Saskatchewan, its officials and employees, and the federal government and its officials and employees, from January 1. 1948, to date, regarding the request of the Saskatchewan government for permission to build a bridge across the South Saskatchewan river' at Saskatchewan Landing.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection to the passing of this resolution, with the usual reservation that the government of Saskatchewan be consulted, and if they do not object we shall table the return.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Carried, with the reservation made by the minister.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Lionel Chevrier: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the ac-

Committee on Railways and Shipping
counts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing order 65, in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs; Bourget, Ohevrier, Clark, Emmerson, Fulton, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Hatfield, Hazen, Hlynka, Jackman. LaCroix, Lafontaine, Lockhart, Maybank, McCulloch (Pictou), MeLure, Moore, Mutch, Nicholson, Picard, Pouldot, Reid, Warren.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the usual annual motion to set up the committee on railways and shipping which deals with the affairs of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, and to which is referred the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines. The motion is in exactly the same form as that establishing the committee last year.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the minister would not have brought in this motion until after the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party to the motion for supply had been disposed of. It has been thirty years since we have had a revision of the Railway Act, the last revision being in 1919. There have been vast changes since then. There have been very few results, so far as I have observed, from the setting up of this committee each year. The accounts are referred to the committee, which makes a report but concurrence in the report is not moved, and that is the last we hear of it. It means that the House of Commons is simply divesting itself of all control over the Canadian National Railways and its ocean, hotel and lake services. If you ask me, we have got very little value from this committee, and certainly this motion should have stood until the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had been disposed of.
I do not believe in the setting up of this committee at all. It is not the proper way in which to conduct the business of the house. Here is the annual report of the Canadian National Railways, in a booklet with these flowery pictures on the covers, and it shows a deficit of $23,000,000 on last year's operations. Who is going to pay that deficit? It is charged very largely to consolidated revenue fund, which means that the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec are paying 74 per cent of all these deficits. We have no control over
rates or over the money the railways are spending on the system, on hotels, on ocean services and subsidiaries. Thirty years ago the province of Prince Edward Island sent up an old boat, the Northumberland, to be used on lake Ontario by the Canadian National subsidiary, but on two occasions the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) instead of going with his picnic to Port Dal-housie on such a boat as that, went in safety to Centre Island.
I can tell you this: too much is charged up to capital expenditures on the system which should be charged against earnings. Furthermore the refunding system is all wrong. Talk about subsidiaries; we cannot get a steam suburban service in the Toronto district, although Montreal has had one for thirty years. The headquarters of this national railways should be moved back to the public-ownership city where it started with the old Grand Trunk, in Toronto, and made all its money. They scrapped the old Grand Trunk in Ontario and used the funds to build the Grand Trunk Pacific from Moncton to Winnipeg.
I am opposed to the principle of this motion, for the reasons I have given. The capital structure is all wrong. The forgotten people are the taxpayers of Ontario and Quebec, who have to make up these deficits. The committee might just as well never meet. The time has come to revise the whole set-up of this system. Handouts of passes should be abolished and the British system of paying cash for everybody adopted instead. The board of transport commissioners has not been consulted on these various reports. It is all done over their heads. The Drayton-Acworth report set out wrhat should be done with this government-owned railway, and how to avoid deficits. There is too much interference. The committee might just as well never meet because it has done nothing but whitewashing ever since it started.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the agreement covering financial arrangements between the United Kingdom and Canada ends today, what provision is the government making so that Canadian food exports will continue without interruption?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The agreements do not end
today, but on December 31 next. Arrangements were made last December covering down to December 31 next.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Then what does the British Food Minister mean when he said that today was the day the agreements would terminate?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no such word here. I do not know what the newspaper reports from Britain may say, but we have had no indication to that effect. The agreements are continuing.


Gordon Graydon: That is not what Mr. Strachey said.



HOUSEWIVES CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the government. Has it refused to grant an interview to representatives of the Housewives Consumers Association? If so, is the government aware that many of these ladies are members of all parties represented in this house and are not confined to any one particular group?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I might answer that
question, Mr. Speaker. Representatives of the Housewives Consumers Association have visited me on I think at least two occasions, perhaps three, and on each occasion some of my colleagues were present. I came to the conclusion, as they did, that the primary purpose of these delegations was to foster communist propaganda. I am quite aware, as my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has indicated, that a great many people who come with these delegations and form part of the association are not communists nor do they support communist propaganda. Nevertheless I came to the conclusion that that is what these delegations were being used for. One of the leading spokesmen in the last delegation who took an active part in the discussion was a well-known communist from the city of Toronto.
For these reasons the government felt it was not justified in facilitating movements of that kind. The advice that was given to these organizations was that the government would be prepared to consider any representa-

tions which they cared to make in writing, but was not prepared to facilitate mass demonstrations of this kind in Ottawa.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I ask a supplementary question? Is not the minister aware that refusal of requests of this kind will be used as communistic propaganda against the institution of parliament?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am quite aware of that. I and my colleagues have already seen this organization on three occasions. There have been large delegations each time. The third occasion was a repetition of the others; there was not a single new thing brought forward from what had been said on the other two occasions. I do not think it is the duty of myself, or of any of the ministers, to facilitate that sort of propaganda, and that is the reason why we refused them.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That is what the refusal does.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will just add one thing, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that my hon. friend has brought this up, because it has enabled me to make this statement in parliament, and the people of the country can form their own conclusions.



COMMUNISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister, or any of the officers of his department, communicated with Brigadier Murphy of Vancouver in connection with the Vimy Day address he gave before the United Services Institute at Calgary on the subject of communism? If so, what was the nature of the communication, and why was it sent?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not communicate with the brigadier and my office did not; and from inquiries that I have made so far I have been unable to find anyone of national defence headquarters who did. (Translation):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, before we take up the orders of

Inquiries of the Ministry
the day, I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) a question, notice of which I have sent him. Did the minister receive representations recently from the Lachute Board of Trade regarding the cost of postal service between the Lachute post office and the Lachute Mills postal station?
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: In answer to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the officers of the department to investigate and in a few days I shall, as my hon. friend has suggested, answer the Lachute Board of Trade directly.
/ Text) *



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? Can the minister inform the house what percentage of those who were entitled to a return of their compulsory savings portion of income tax for the year 1942 did receive them by March 31, the deadline set by the government when all refunds would be made? Can the minister inform the house as to when his department expects to complete rebates on the refundable portion of the tax that still remains to be paid?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member sent me notice of his question, for which I thank him. The answer is as follows.
There was a total of 1,100,000 cheques in all to go out for the refundable portion of 1942. Of that number, approximately 200,000 could not be mailed because the department did not have the addresses. In that particular, may I mention that an attempt was made through a questionnaire and through a card system to obtain the addresses of all persons to whom the refundable portion was payable in 1948. It might amaze the house to know that of the 1,100,000 that were sent out, our information was to the effect that over 400,000 people had changed their addresses, or their names, or both, since 1942. I might say that the cheques have been left in the hands of the district offices and have been going out slowly since the end of March. The department has no way of telling how rapidly they will go, but is using every effort to trace the taxpayers to whom they should be delivered, and as fast as addresses come forward, the cheques will be mailed out.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Revenue, or perhaps it should be of the Minister of Finance, with respect to these compulsory savings? Reference has already been made to the 1942 savings portion repayment of which is now being made. Will consideration be given to making the remaining payments, that is, those for 1943 and 1944, in just one more bite instead of two?


James Joseph McCann: Under the present regulations, and I think the statute, the 1943 payment will be made in 1949 and the 1944 payment in 1950. Of course in the case of death, and an estate makes application for the refundable portion, it is paid; and in cases where persons who have a refundable portion coming to them, and are over sixty-five years of age and have an income of less than $5,000, the refundable portion is paid upon application.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask another supplementary question? Is it not true that the legislation sets the deadlines referred to by the minister, but that the governor in council can make payments sooner?


James Joseph McCann: The matter of combining the payments of 1949 and 1950 will be given consideration.


Gordon Graydon: That question should be directed over here, because we shall be looking after it then.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!



MARSHLANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce, or when he will be able to announce, the policy of the federal government with respect to the protection, drainage and reclamation of the marshlands in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as requested by the premiers and the ministers of agriculture for these provinces when they waited on the minister and the government on February 24 last?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government has made an arrangement with the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as the result of a meeting which was held, under which for this year we are advancing certain
Freight Rates

moneys to each of these governments which form part of an expenditure under which the provinces, the farmers and this government are sharing in the reconditioning and repair of dikes of the marshlands. The plans for the permanent policy proposed have not yet been put into form. I rather expect that they will be considered very shortly and some decision reached with regard to them.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture? Will the same consideration be given in connection with dikes in the province of British Columbia that is given in the maritimes. If not, why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two by-elections on out there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am asking the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are carrying on operations in the Pemberton area of British Columbia on a similar basis.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not the Fraser valley.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are carrying on operations on a similar basis and for about the same amount as in the maritimes.



FREIGHT RATES-INCREASES ORDERED BY TRANSPORT BOARD-AMENDMENT, MR. COLDWELL- SUBAMENDMENT, MR. BRACKEN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott, for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bracken.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, on April 5 the hon member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose in his place and asked leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the proposed increases in freight rates authorized by the board of transport commissioners, which rates it is understood to be posted by the railroads concerned on April 8. Having received permission, the hon. member proceeded to present 'to the house a very reasonable and well thought out argument.
Gordon Graydon: Less noise in the house.


Mr. ISNOR:: Thank you.


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Again I say, as I have said in the past, that the hon. member for Peel is always considerate, and apparently he is anxious to hear what I have to say. I appreciate his kind consideration.
I was saying that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar proceeded to present a very reasonable and well thought out argument as to why he did not believe that the decision of the board of transport commissioners was one which would be well received in all sections in Canada. After he had presented his case he was followed by other members representing the different parties, and together with two other members from Nova Scotia I had an opportunity at that time of taking part in debate.
While I do not wish to go over the ground which was then covered, I do wish to refer to certain remarks I made on that occasion, because of the amendment by order in council which was later introduced by the Minister of Transport.
At that time I did not have the report of the Canadian National Railways, although I did point out that it was difficult for those residing in the maritime provinces to understand why a 30 per cent increase in freight rates was necessary, in view of the large increase in revenue in 1947 over 1946, particularly in connection with freight operations. Since then I have received a copy of the annual report of the Canadian National Railways, and it is shown that 78-2 per cent of the total revenue of the railway company was derived from freight rates. That 78-2 per cent in 1947 represented $342,582,002 as against $300,313,198 from the same source in 1946, an increase of $42,268,803 in the freight receipts. It was also shown in the report that there was a decrease in the passenger traffic, represented in dollars and cents, amounting to $7,110,000. I mention that figure because, in the summing up of the case by the board of transport commissioners in their finding, they took the whole operation into consideration.
I should like also to point out that there was an increase in the express rates. Whereas in 1946 the receipts for express were $19,579,478, in 1947 they had increased to $21,251,783, am increase for the year of $1,672,304. Therefore it was a little difficult at the time this decision was made for the man in the street to understand why this increase was granted.
It is true the application made by the two railways was for an increase of 30 per cent, and having received representations from the

Freight Rates
various provinces and parties throughout the dominion, they decided that 21 per cent was all that was necessary.
Representations were made from seven of the nine provinces. It was mentioned on one occasion, as something rather strange to those living in other parts of Canada than Ontario and Quebec, that these two provinces did not make representations. Well, I believe the other sections of Canada know the reason. These provinces were not greatly concerned with the application for increased rates; they had other methods of looking after their transportation problems.
The two central provinces are thickly populated; they are prosperous; they are industrialized to an extent attained by no other province in the dominion. Therefore they were not greatly concerned, and for that reason did not deem it necessary or advisable to argue against the increase, nor indeed to show the slightest interest in it.
I have said that they had other means of taking care of their transportation problem, and I have trucks particularly in mind. They have an organization, largely centred in Ontario, known as the Canadian Automotive Transportation Association, with 5.000 members and employing something like 70,000 persons. They are able therefore to transport goods in certain areas much more efficiently perhaps, and certainly in a manner which gives greater service to the user, than the railways, who depend to a large extent on their long hauls.
I say that Ontario and Quebec, with their population of roughly speaking 7,000,000 people as compared with 1,100,000 in the maritimes, found it hard to appreciate the significance of the increase brought into effect, particularly as Ontario and Quebec were served by this trucking association whose lines extend to every part of these two provinces, doing an exceptionally big business.
I am not criticizing the operations of this organization. They serve a good purpose and I believe in competition. But I repeat that it is because these highly industrialized areas have thickly populated centres that the organizations can operate to the extent that they do.
I noticed in a recent publication an illustration which brings home the points I have in mind, in a comparison between industries in the extreme east and those in the central provinces. I quote:
You know that at Oshawa there is a huge plant manufacturing motor cars and trucks. The axles for these vehicles are made not in Oshawa but in St. Catharines. How do the axles produced on the St. Catharines assembly line flow
smoothly into that main assembly line at Oshawa? Two hundred and forty axles a day have to be delivered. A highway transport company spent weeks working out this problem with officials of the two plants. Four specially designed tractor-trailers were assigned to the run, and a system of carefully scheduled deliveries was evolved. The result is that axles produced at St. Catharines today, Tuesday, will be components of the new cars and trucks rolling off that Oshawa assembly line some time tomorrow.
We find therefore that they are able to give service in Ontario such as we lack in the maritimes. And may I say that whereas this association has connections throughout the central provinces, extending westward, there are no such connections in the maritime provinces. They state definitely that they have no similar organization to carry on their activities in the maritimes.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, that we were concerned about this railway freight rate increase, because we felt that no matter what the increase might be, it would result in a heavier burden on our section of the country than would fall on the two previously mentioned industrial areas.
I pointed out, in my previous remarks on this subject, the background, the early days of the railway system. I referred to confederation, the manner in which Nova Scotia and the maritimes entered it, the undertaking to build the old Intercolonial railway system and to connect Nova Scotia by rail with the industrial areas of central Canada. The measures were designed also to increase the population of the two central provinces, which certainly has been the result, and to industrialize them; but at the same time they would provide a means whereby we should be able to ship our goods into those two large central provinces.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has not worked out in that way. It is a long haul from Halifax, we will say, to Toronto, as it is to Montreal and into the larger centres. Unfortunately, manufacturers in the maritimes must bring certain of their products all the way from these industrial centres down to the east coast, and then ship the goods in manufactured form back to the central provinces against keen competition. So I say we have been more or less labouring under a handicap ever since the days of confederation.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and others may argue that this matter does not enter into the application as presented before the board of transport commissioners and that for this reason they were unable to
Freight Rates

deal with it. I raised that point when I spoke on April 5, and I am going to raise it again today because of the wording of the amended order in council placed before us by the Minister of Transport.
I contend that the reference limited the board of transport commissioners in their findings and deliberations. They dealt with the matter purely from the point of view of dollars and cents and did not take into consideration the spirit of confederation as outlined on many occasions, and as so well set forth by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) in his remarks on this subject yesterday. I feel that it is necessary, if we are to bring about a proper adjustment of freight rates, to deal with this subject not only from the point of view of dollars and cents, but also, and more particularly, from the point of view of the spirit of confederation, looking to the development of trade between one section of the country and another. If there is anything in the freight rate structure which is detrimental to any particular section, that structure should be overhauled and a remedy should be found if possible.
Let- me read what I said on April 5 on this question, as reported at page 2641 of Hansard:
Prom my point of view, what is important is the question of trade connections which must be maintained throughout all parts of Canada, and that is a matter which, I suggest to the minister, and through him to the cabinet, should be given serious consideration.
Later in my remarks, as reported in the next column of Hansard, I had something to say along the same lines:
Therefore I say it might be possible for the board of transport commissioners or the government itself to consider whether the whole railway structure should not be revamped so as to bring it more in line with a service to the country such as that given by the postal department.
Again I had in mind the trade of our section of the country with central Canada.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg also touched on maritime freight rates. If I may be permitted to touch on the reasons for what was done in that regard, I should like to do so just briefly. We were not given any preference at that time. It is true that the rate was readjusted and there was an allowance of 20 per cent made to us, but it was not any preference. It was simply a matter of adjustment. At that time, through a review, it was shown and clearly set forth that the index of operations on the old Intercolonial had risen over a period of years to 192-the index being 100, of course-thus showing a 92 point

increase. The index in other sections of the country had increased to only 155, or a 55 point increase. So there was an increase there in the beginning that we must overcome. It was because of the endeavour to equalize the freight rates in all parts of Canada that we in the maritimes were granted an allowance of 20 per cent. Twenty per cent of 192 is 38, and that brings us down to 154 or one cent below the 155, which is no preference so far as we were concerned. We felt at that time that we were simply getting what was rightly ours, and today we are asking for the same consideration, the same attention, that we received on that occasion.
We do not think this 21 per cent increase will result in a horizontally equalized freight rate from one end of Canada to the other. Once again in some cases we shall suffer and be working under a handicap. So as I say, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the minister would enlarge the reference which he placed before this house two days later. He brought in a copy of an order in council which in its terms, while asking the board of transport commissioners to look into the over-all structure, did not go as far as I had hoped it would. The orders in council are described in Votes and Proceedings as follows:
Order in council P.C. 1486, approved April 7, 1948: providing that certain tariff schedules authorized by order No. 79425 of the board of transport commissioners for Canada of March 30, 1948, be not interfered with.
Order in council P.C. 1487, approved April 7, 1948: directing the board of transport commissioners for Canada to make a thorough investigation of the rates structure of railways and railway companies which are under the jurisdiction of parliament, with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rates structure which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities in the various provinces and territories of Canada . . .
When the Minister of Transport spoke yesterday, he did so in an exceptionally fine manner. He is outstanding in that respect, and it is only natural that we followed his remarks with a great deal of interest. In fact I believe the country will read and re-read what the Minister of Transport had to say because his speech contains a great deal of information. Not only did he give us a clear picture of the matters with which the board of transport commissioners have to deal, and the manner in which they must deal with them in making a decision in connection with an application for an increase in rates, but he gave us background material which was most helpful. Then he referred to the powers of the board of transport commissioners, and pointed out that

Freight Rates
the order was sufficiently wide to permit the board to approach the question from all angles.
I am not a lawyer. I am just an ordinary businessman, and certainly would not think of offering my opinion against that of so brilliant a lawyer as the minister. I cannot help believing, however, that there has been a slip in the wording of the minister's order. In some of the judgments the board takes the view that it cannot handle questions relating to trade. Let me place before the house one or two of those judgments. I do not know if I am proceeding in the proper manner in my presentation, but I am sure my legal friends will correct me if I am not doing it properly.
In the case of the application of the District Board of Trade of Coalhurst, Alberta, the finding is stated in these words:
The board under the Railway Act has no profit and loss responsibilities, and its intervention in the matter of rates must, as has been indicated, be concerned with matters falling within the categories of reasonableness and unjust discrimination and not wdth a policy of the development of industries through rate adjustments.
So if we in the maritimes are to gain the point we have in mind, there is question in my mind as to whether the board can deal with the matter in the broad sense I have indicated.
Another quotation states:
The board has no power to regulate tolls for purposes of equalizing costs of production or geographical or climatic or economic conditions.
That was the statement in connection with an application by the Imperial Rice Milling Company vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, case No. 376.
Then there is one other, the British Columbia News Company vs. Express Traffic Association, which reads as follows:
It is not the board's function, as delegated by parliament, to make rates to develop business but to deal with the reasonableness of rates, either on complaint or of its own motion.
Therefore I say one can understand why we in the maritimes and those in other sections of Canada are concerned as to whether the board of transport commissioners will be able to make its finding as full and as broad as we had hoped it would be in a position to make it.
Following the tabling of the order by the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved an amendment. I believe I was fair when I stated that the hon. member made a splendid presentation of the matter on April 5; I felt that on that occasion he was fair, and that he created a good impression throughout Canada.
But when he introduced his amendment and was so definite in stating that it was a motion of want of confidence in the government, then I believe he undid all the good he had done. He showed clearly that he was trying to make merely a political manoeuvre, and I feel the hon. member did not do himself justice. Instead of its being a smart move, it rebounded and there has been considerable criticism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean he put you on the spot.


Lionel Chevrier: He thinks he did.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says it puts me on the spot. Well, I am glad to know that was the intention of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the result.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: -in moving his amendment, because I had an idea that it was something like that. And if it is a question of putting me on the spot, then I do not hesitate to meet it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) asked that someone present a definite motion on this matter, even though it was a motion of non-confidence?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was referring to the motion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We made the motion we were asked to make from your side of the house.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Because of the wording of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and his emphasis on the fact that it was a motion of non-confidence- and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre now reaffirms that fact, and says it was done to put me on the spot-I would say that it was in the true sense a political move which is not in the best interests of the country and does not meet with the wishes or approval of those who, like myself, are sincere in regard to this matter of freight rates.
When that amendment was introduced it gave me a greater opportunity to study what the Minister of Transport had to say. I do not know whether it will take six months or a year to find out what we want to find out. But we do know that so far as the decision of the board of transport commissioners is
Freight Rates

concerned-and I am prepared to accept the words of the Minister of Transport on this point-there was nothing else that the board could do, so far as their reference was concerned. It was simply an application made by the two railway companies of Canada for an increase in freight rates. The board gave consideration to that application and made its finding. That is final. Now, in an effort to assist the east and west, shall I say, the Minister of Transport has broadened his reference and taken a step which I trust will' help my section of the country to readjust matters so that we may be in a better position to compete with industry in central Canada.
I was hoping the minister would have made his reference even broader. I hold in my hand the report of the royal commission on maritime claims, which contains a letter written by the then prime minister to Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, the chairman of that commission. The other members were Hon. W. B. Wallace and Professor Cyrus Macmillan. This letter, dated April 17, 1926, states:
To the Chairman and Members
of the Maritimes Royal Commission: Gentlemen:
The government of Canada is asking you to undertake a task of national importance in inquiring into maritime province grievances. The scope of the inquiry is indicated in the order in council constituting the commission. My colleagues and I desire to emphasize our conviction that the commission should not interpret its instructions or its duties in any narrow or technical sense, but should take every opportunity for the fullest and frankest discussion of the economic difficulties facing this part of the dominion, the endeavours which have been made to overcome them, the causes of any shortcoming in these endeavours, and the most effective and practicable remedies.
The question is not a new one. What is necessary now is to focus the discussion into a practicable program, to take stock of what has been done, of what has been left undone, and of what still may be done.
Then the prime minister of that day went on to refer to our railway problem, the closing paragraph of his letter reading as follows:
I am sure that I am speaking for the people of Canada as a whole when I say that it is our earnest desire that the impartial and thorough inquiry which we anticipate will be made will result in clearing away any misunderstanding or lack of appreciation of one another's problems, and will assist in working out constructive policies for the continued development of the maritime provinces and the welfare of all parts of our common country.
That was signed by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who was then the Prime Minister of Canada. I say to the Minister of Transport that I had hoped he would have found it possible to enlarge his reference to

include the spirit indicated in that letter of the Prime Minister in 1926. I am still hopeful that the minister will show his interest -I know lie has done so already-by allowing this matter to be discussed in the broadest way so that the board of transport commissioners will have the feeling of hon. members from various sections of Canada.
I do not know that they can bring in a satisfactory finding with the present reference. I state again that I am not a legal authority. But there is a difference of opinion. I do feel that the minister has taken a step toward what we have in mind when we ask that the whole railway structure be revamped in the far as it applies to the maritimes will be carried out.
I feel that much good has been done by this discussion. I think the country has a greater understanding of the problems of our railway systems and will appreciate what they are endeavouring to do in the way of providing proper transportation facilities.
As I mentioned in my remarks on April 5, I appreciate, and I think every hon. member who has had any training in business appreciates-I believe the manufacturers, even though they are called upon to pay increased freight rates, recognize this-that you cannot operate a system or any type of business without the necessary revenue. I did not have the report of the Canadian National Railways when I spoke previously, but today I have before me details of the increased cost of the various items which are necessary to carry on a railway system. It is shown clearly that increased revenue must be obtained if they are to get away from the continuing deficits which they had in pre-war days and which they are again showing to the extent of 815,000,000 for the current year.
I am doubtful whether the board of transport commissioners were justified in confining their inquiry to freight rates, which represent 78-2 per cent of the revenue. There is a question whether they should not have considered the over-all picture of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National and made a finding on that basis. If they had, I feel sure that the increase would not have been as large as seemed necessary when they were dealing only with one branch of the operations, namely, the freight structure.
I do not apologize for having spoken the second time on this question. I felt it was necessary to do so in view of the additional information supplied to us yesterday by the Minister of Transport in his splendid presentation of the freight rates case. I do not hesitate to stand here in my place or face my

Freight Rates
people. They know how I stand in regard to maritime rights. They know my interest in Nova Scotia. They know that my whole interests are tied up in the development of that particular section of the country. I do not hesitate to stand here today and say that I will not vote for an amendment which is really a vote of no confidence in the government.


Mr. GREEN:: We did not expect you to.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for Vancouver South says that he did not expect me to. That is the political attitude the hon. member always shows. He is a fine chap outside the house but when he comes into the house he immediately adopts a political bias which it is hard for me to understand. I would not have dared to say this if the hon. member had not brought it on himself. I say to him in a most kindly way that I am just as sincere in working for Nova Scotia as he is in working for the interests of Vancouver and British Columbia.
It is because of that and the good government which we have had, it is because assistance has been given to Nova Scotia and the maritimes on more than one occasion, that I am not going to vote in favour of a noconfidence motion moved by the leader of the C.C.F. or by any other member of that group.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor). I agree with much of what he said. First, I agree with his statement that the board in its report did not deal with the subject from the point of view of the spirit of confederation but rather more from the point of view of dollars and cents. That is one of the main objections we from the maritime provinces are taking.
The hon. member also mentioned the fact that he had spoken on this matter before. I also spoke on this matter on a previous occasion and I am not going to apologize for speaking again. I have received a great many letters, telegrams and long distance telephone calls from my own province of New Brunswick. These indicate that people in that part of Canada are still greatly agitated over the freight rates situation. I feel that we are entitled to do all we can to place before the public the true situation of the maritime provinces.
I wish to say at the outset that I am not opposing general increases in rates; after reading the report I feel that increases are necessary. However, what I do question is the method adopted for increasing those rates. I feel that the increase could have been 5849-188
adapted to the situation existing in the various provinces and should have been equally and fairly distributed. I do not think that is the situation.
As I said on April 5 when I spoke before, I consider that we in the maritimes are again being asked to pay more than our full share of the cost and have had placed upon our shoulders more than a full share of this burden.
The senior member for Halifax has given the house something of the history of these freight rates. The history is a long one. Transportation was one of our main problems at the time our province entered confederation, and one of the reasons that induced our province to come in was the assurance given that we would have access to the markets of Canada. From 1867 down to 1912 we were fairly well treated in that regard, because the different governments of Canada allowed the maritime provinces more or less to adjust their own freight rates. But in 1912 a new situation arose. The Intercolonial railway, which was the railway given to the maritime provinces at confederation, was taken over by the Canadian National Railways and in 1912 or 1913 there was an increase of ten per cent in the rates so far as the maritime provinces were concerned. In 1915 there was a further increase of five per cent, and in 1918 another increase of fifteen per cent. For the information of members from other parts of Canada I might point out that the first two of these increases applied only to the maritime provinces, the one in 1912 and the one in 1915. The minister will bear me out in that.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I was not following the hon. member.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: These increases applied only to the maritime provinces, not to the rest of Canada. That is correct. Then in 1918, as I have said, there was another increase of fifteen per cent. All these increases began to put an intolerable burden on the maritime provinces, an increase of many millions of dollars which fell on the shoulders of our people in the maritime provinces and not on the rest of Canada.
In addition it should be pointed out that the maritime provinces have more than borne their share in providing railway extensions for other parts of Canada. When the western provinces were formed, new railways were constructed and the maritime provinces contributed many millions of dollars as their share of that expenditure. So, all in all, our maritime provinces have more than paid their share so far as railway construction and railway freight rates are concerned.
Freight Rates

The situation had become so intolerable in 1925 that all the members of parliament from the maritime provinces joined together in a movement known as "Maritime Rights", in which politics were forgotten so far as the individual members were concerned, all uniting their efforts to remedy the situation. Those efforts resulted in the appointment of the Duncan commission, which investigated the situation and made certain recommendations. I have never felt that those recommendations have been fully implemented. As a matter of fact, when I happened to be, in London, England, a few years ago, I had the honour to meet Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, and he asked me what part of Canada I was from. When I told him I was from the mari-times he said, "You in the maritime provinces are the most long-suffering people there are in Canada, possibly in the whole world. I made certain recommendations in my report but those recommendations have never been fulfilled."
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am not now discussing those recommendations except the one which has to do with freight rates. The government of that day, 1926, felt that the freight rates problem in the maritimes was a very serious one and that it should receive first consideration, and accordingly it passed in 1927 the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Since then we have been fairly well satisfied with our freight rate structure, but the situation in the maritime provinces has been such that we have not been able to take full advantage of those rates. We all remember that from 1929 to 1938 there was a great depression in this country and business shrank, with the result that the maritime provinces did not have an opportunity to develop manufacturing industry as they would have liked to do. Then from 1939 to 1945 we passed through a second world war, during which the maritime provinces had no opportunity of developing the industries they would have liked to develop.
In 1947 and 1948, when possibly we could have made some advances, we find ourselves handicapped by the imposition of these increased freight rates, a horizontal increase of 21 per cent on all our industries in the maritimes. To show that these increases are having a very serious effect in the maritime provinces, I should like to quote a paragraph or two from a telegram that was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on April 9 last by the chairman of the transportation commission of the Maritime Board of Trade. For the information of hon. members, the commission is composed of men chosen from every political party in the maritime 
provinces, outstanding men chosen for their knowledge of railway matters and economics, and whose judgment is considered sound. They are men who are not easily alarmed. This is what the chairman of the transportation commission said in his telegram to the Prime Minister:
You as the head of the then government-
He was speaking of the government in 1926. -authorized the hearings of the Sir Andrew Rae Duncan commission which recommended the present Maritime Freight Rates Act. In the opinion of this commission the spirit and terms of this act have been violated and in addition to that the imposition of an horizontal twenty-one per cent increase in freight rates means that maritime industry in many cases will be seriously affected and in some cases destroyed.
That is pretty strong language and, as I say, it comes from men who are not alarmists but men of good sound business judgment in the maritime provinces. The telegram goes on to say:
This is not only true in regard to industry but it applies with equal force to agriculture.
The telegram is a long one but that is all I shall quote at the moment.
I should like to point out that as to the judgment of the board of transport commissioners, counsel who represented the maritime transportation commission expressed the opinion that the spirit and terms of the Maritime Freight Rates Act had been violated. It was also pointed out that no recognition was givm to the strong contention of the maritimes that in the event increases were found necessary the board, under the Railway Act, had power itself to exempt or provide limitations to percentage increases. The board itself in its judgment on page 43 has this to say:
For the maritime provinces it is essential that they continue to find, to a considerable degree, markets for their primary products, as well as their manufactured products, in the more densely populated areas of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, where competition is keen. The number of manufacturing industries in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is not large, but they are of much importance to the areas concerned. In spite of the distance from the markets to be found in the large centres they have, rvith, perhaps, one or two exceptions, managed to overcome largely their geographical disadvantage and make progress. For these industries concern is expressed lest they be put at a disadvantage with their competitors, in the event that a horizontal increase in freight rates such as applied for is allowed.
I might say that nothing was done about this. What I have read is part of the judgment of the board that was studying this matter.
The question arises as to whether these freight rates in any way affect our industries in the maritime provinces. Mr. Rand Matheson,

Freight Rates
who is secretary of the maritime transportation commission, has made a study of the question. He found, for instance, that on hard woods from Antigonish to Toronto there will be an increase of $2.80 per 1,000 feet. With competition such as that, I ask this house, how is it possible for these people in Antigonish to compete with industries in Ontario and Quebec? He estimates that on apples from Kentville, Nova Scotia, to Toronto the increase will be twenty-seven cents a barrel.
When I was speaking on this matter a few days ago I pointed out that the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia, in the past, under the empire trade agreements, had an opportunity of sending its apples to Great Britain; as a matter of fact, I think 90 per cent of the pick of the apples in the Annapolis valley was shipped overseas. These apples must now find markets in central Canada and1 in other parts of Canada. In order that they may be shipped to central Canada, they will have to meet an increase of twenty-seven cents a barrel in freight rates. He also spoke about feed grains. It has been announced in the house that the assistance to feed grains will be continued as before, and I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for this and assure him that it will be of great benefit to the farmers in the maritime provinces.
Sixty thousand tons of fertilizer are used in New Brunswick alone. To a great extent this fertilizer comes from Hamilton, Ontario, and from other parts of Ontario. The increase in freight on fertilizer is $1.40 a ton, which will increase the cost of producing potatoes and other farm produce in New Brunswick. Mr. Matheson says that potatoes from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Grand Falls, New Brunswick, will be increased six cents a 75-pound bag. Besides having to pay the extra cost of fertilizer, farm machinery and everything else that goes into the production in the maritimes, we shall also have to pay the extra amount of freight and still try to compete with the farmers of Quebec and Ontario. Frozen fish from Halifax and Saint John to Winnipeg will be increased thirty-one cents per 100 pounds. Steel sheet for manufacturing, shipped from Hamilton, Ontario to Sackville, New Brunswick, will be increased by $2.40 a ton. I might point out that in Sackville, New Brunswick, a very high grade of stove is manufactured. These people have been able to compete in the past with like articles all across Canada. With this increase in the material coming from Ontario to the maritimes, and then again the increase in
freight rates from the maritimes to the different markets, it will be almost prohibitive for this industry and many other similar industries in these provinces.
Mr. Matheson also analysed the difference in first-class and fifth-class freight rates per 100 pounds. He points out that on the first-class rate from Halifax and Saint John to Windsor, Ontario, there is an increase of four cents per 100 pounds over the difference established by the Maritime Freight Rates Act. He points out that iwe are not getting the benefit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and that this is a violation of that act.
When I spoke before I think I mentioned the fact that $8,000,000 will probably be the amount that the maritime provinces will have to pay out of the $70,000,000 which will be received from the increase. The senior member for Halifax mentioned it today. In the maritimes we have a population of about one million people. There are approximately thirteen million people in Canada. We are paying $8,000,000. If we paid our proper proportion, and everything else was equal, we would be paying one-thirteenth of the cost of this increase instead of just a little over eight per cent.
I should like to refer to another industry in New Brunswick which has been giving, perhaps more than any other, considerable concern. I refer to the coal industry. The coal industry in New Brunswick is not a great industry when compared with the same industry in other parts of Canada. As a matter of fact it is a small industry when compared with the great industry of Nova Scotia and of Alberta and of other sections. But to us in New Brunswick it is a very important-industry. As a matter of fact the whole economy of our province is more or less bound up in the coal industry around Minto and Chipman in our province. We get our hydro electric development from the production of coal. Our pulp and paper mills use our coal, and there is a splendid market right in our own province for the coal production if we were not interfered with from the outside. I should like to point out to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) just how we are interfered with so far as coal is concerned. I have mentioned it in this house on previous occasions. On Nova Scotia coal which is shipped out of that province there are what are known as subventions. These subventions are paid on coal shipped by that province to Ontario and Quebec and also to New Brunswick to the extent that Nova Scotia coal can be shipped into New Brunswick and delivered at
Freight Rates

points such as Bathurst, Newcastle, Chatham, Dalhousie and to other industrial centres at a lower rate or at the same rate as is paid for New Brunswick coal. The result of that competition is very unfair, and it has made it very difficult indeed for the New Brunswick coal operators and coal mines to carry on.
Just the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe.) assured the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that in any increase in the freight rates as far as Nova Scotia coal was concerned there would be a corresponding increase in the subventions. This will make a more serious situation in our province because, as I mentioned a moment ago, no subventions are paid for New Brunswick coal which is being shipped in the province itself, where most of our coal is consumed. The result will be that the competition, which has been very severe in the past, will be more severe than ever.
In that connection I should like to read some telegrams I have received from the mining industry in the province. The first one is dated Minto, April 21:
If the freight rate increase authorized by the board of transport commissioners is allowed to remain in force the coal mining industry upon which this community depends will suffer most seriously. Some time ago we gave you information showing the serious financial and competitive position in which this industry has been placed. The direct result of this increase will be to make that position very much worse. Indirectly this industry will suffer because of the general curtailing effect upon all New Brunswick industries. In view of this most critical situation every New Brunswick member has a most serious responsibility placed upon him, also a great opportunity to give vital service to his province. We urge you therefore to use all your influence to protect the interests of this community and this province by having removed this unjust and unequal burden which has been placed upon us.
That is signed by the Minto chamber of commerce. There is a further telegram from the same community addressed to myself:
This New Brunswick coal mining industry has for a long time been suffering from discriminatory freight rates. The present increase will make the situation worse. The announced increase in subventions to the central provinces will not help us as our market is nearly all within New Brunswick. Because of this our percentage increase will be higher than the average. In one of the worst instances the rate jumped from 30 cents to 55 cents per ton on a haul of three to ten miles. Coal mining will also suffer because all New Brunswick industry will be given a severe set back. We are looking to you to stand firmly for the rights of this province and to do everything possible to protect this industry.

This is from the New Brunswick coal producers association. The minister may tell me that there has been a five cent reduction in the twenty-five cents per ton on coal moving in the maritimes.


Lionel Chevrier: So I understand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I noticed a Canadian Press dispatch this morning. The five cents is not very much, and I am sure it will not help to any extent the situation I have indicated.


Lionel Chevrier: I said I have seen it, but I cannot say officially that there is. I would not like to be committed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I noticed a Canadian Press dispatch from Moncton, New Brunswick, saying that there is a five cent freight rebate on coal in the maritimes. I do not believe this will help the situation very much, and I hope that when these freight rates are being considered the minister will see that very careful consideration is given the coal situation in the province of New Brunswick. That industry is fast being driven out of business. I have mentioned it time and again in this house, and the situation is far worse today and will be increasingly worse under the present freight rates.
I do not intend to detain the house for any great length of time. I have mentioned how our industries have suffered in the past. We have not any great number of industries in our provinces, but those that we have have been able to exist and to do business in Upper Canada, as we call it, and in other parts of the dominion, more by reason of the excellence of the goods they produce than for any other reason. The quality of the goods produced in the maritime provinces is of the very best.
I see some members smiling, but I need mention only such commodities as the Hartt boot and shoe, considered one of the finest if not the finest produced in Canada. I might mention Stanfield underwear, than which I do not think there is anything finer. I could mention Moir's chocolates and Ganong's chocolates and the Enterprise stove. These goods are all of the finest quality, the equal of any similar goods produced in this country. It is for that reason and for no other that these particular industries have been able to survive and to compete with others in the same line in Canada. I hope that everything will be done to ensure that those industries which we have will be allowed to live.
I listened to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) as he made his elaborate excuses why he would not vote for the amendment. I also listened to the senior

Freight Rates
member for Halifax this afternoon when he said that he was not going to support the resolution.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Mine was not an excuse but a good reason.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Did he say he would not support it?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; he said he would not support it. The amendment proposed by our party states that it regrets the government's failure to secure removal of inequalities and discriminations in the Canadian railway freight rate structure before the imposition of the horizontal increase of 21 per cent. The hon. member has made two speeches and in both he has regretted that very fact. I would refer the hon. member to his own premier, who spoke in no uncertain terms regarding this very point. I would refer other members from the maritimes, from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, to the statements of their own premiers, and I would ask them whether they are going to support the premiers of the three maritimes, who are Liberals and not C.C.F. or Conservative. I appeal to these members of the House of Commons to stand up and support what they consider to be in the best interests of the maritime provinces. I do not think these men were very enthusiastic before they attended their caucus the other day.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: They always swallow themselves.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to know what happened in the caucus.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Join the Liberal
party and find out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), if I remember correctly, was one of the most enthusiastic ones. I wonder what happened. Talk about being put on the spot! I should like to see the eighteen Liberals from the maritime provinces put their government on the spot. I should like to see the western members, when in caucus, instead of saying that they are put on the spot here by the Conservatives or the C.C.F., put their own government on the spot and see that they do what our provinces are entitled to have done for them.


Lionel Chevrier: Your own party has never been more on the spot than it is now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Make no mistake about
that; our party is not on the spot. Our party knows exactly where it is going as far as this is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. member know what his party did when this matter was up before, following world war I? If he did, he would not make that statement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Whenever anything is
brought up in the house the hon. gentleman, to defend himself, must go back twenty or twenty-five years, without records or anything else.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It will be fifty
years before you get over on this side of the house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This it not a matter of
twenty-five years ago; it is a matter to be decided today.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Is he in favour of
increased revenues for the railways?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. Is he in favour-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are making a
speech.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the hon. gentleman's next question?


Lionel Chevrier: May I have the permission of the hon. member to ask him another question?


James Arthur Ross: Just one.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just one question.


Lionel Chevrier: The question is this. Is the hon. gentleman in favour of the investigation directed by the government into the inequalities of freight rates?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes. But what I am in favour of is the suggestion made by three maritime premiers to the effect that we should have waited thirty days and given them an opportunity to present their case.


Lionel Chevrier: Then the hon. gentleman should support the government.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I support the three premiers from my section of the country although, as I say, I am not on the same political side as they are. I am surprised at hon. members who are of the same political stripe when they do not give these three premiers the support to which they are entitled and to which I feel our maritime provinces are entitled.
Freight Rates


James Arthur Ross: They are not even given a hearing.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In this connection I should like to quote what the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, of April 12, says about this 21 per cent increase:
The present twenty-one per cent rise in freight rates-in the considered opinion of the maritime transportation commission-sets us back to the desperate position in which we found ourselves after the first war. What are our representatives at Ottawa going to do about it?
That is the question which the Liberal members from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will be asked by the people of the maritimes. What are they going to do about that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And what an answer they will have to give!


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then the editorial goes on to say this:
If those who sit in parliament for the seven non-central provinces pool their forces, they can compel the federal government to give their regions justice.
That is what the people of those provinces *expect, that they will pool their resources and that they will make some effort to compel the government to do what they feel is justice for their provinces. The editorial goes on:
The future will be resolved, then, by the actions of these men. The answer lies with them, and they cannot evade the responsibility.
That is a paper, Mr. Speaker, which is friendly to this present government; and when it publishes that, I am sure it is not publishing it in order to try to do the government any harm but rather is simply trying to present the case for the maritime provinces.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In the Globe and Mail and other papers of today there was a news item arising out of an interjection by me while the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was speaking, which interjection cast a reflection on the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member is rising to a question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: He cannot do it now.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is doing it.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: When I made that interjection, Mr. Speaker, I was not thinking of any particular member of the house. My remarks were prompted by the general hubbub on the floor of the house.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: The subject under discussion, Mr. Speaker, namely, freight rates, has caused considerable turmoil. The previous speaker said that a considerable number of members of the Liberal party did not know a few days ago what they were going to do. The pressure he talks about was not needed after the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) made his speech on the matter yesterday.


James Arthur Ross: Others spoke besides the Minister of Transport.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am not going to be misled or fooled by the amendment of the C.C.F. or by the subamendment of the Conservative party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are already fooled and misled.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Conservatives, who were in command years ago, had the chance to make this equalization and failed to do so. The fact that the party in power now has given orders and instructions to the board of transport commissioners to find out the differentials and report thereon should be enough to convince us that the right thing is being done. I hold no brief for the railways who contend they need more revenue. It is true that the costs of materials, maintenance of way and wages, have all gone up. Naturally, the railways will need more money. But at the same time there are factors to be taken into consideration by the board which, I hope, will result in much benefit to eastern and western Canada. As this debate goes on, I hope the matter will not be treated as a political football but rather that hon. members will act in the interests of Canada as a whole and not merely in those of their own little sphere. I stand here as a dominion member, not acting for my own constituency; I am acting in as fair a manner as I can for the whole of Canada.
I claim that there should be no battle between the east and the west or between the central provinces and the east and the west. There is no doubt that there will be some hardship unless the board of transport commissioners make a wide adjustment of present rates. With the competition of waterborne traffic in the east and the competition of trucks, it will be imperative for the railways to have an over-all increase of 21 per cent. The very fact that the railroad rates are increased by 21 per cent will naturally result in the truckers getting more business, and the railways will have that much less revenue. The long hauls between Vancouver and Montreal will be the ones that take the

Freight Rates
brunt of it, and the ones from Montreal east. What I should like to see is that the board of transport commissioners, before they arrive at their decision, take this matter into consideration and that the loss, if any, be suffered by the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Some mention has been made of the seven provinces which have made representations with a view to having the board's decision held up for thirty days. This has been a bone of contention for the last couple of weeks or so. Great emphasis has been laid on the benefit which would be derived from holding up the matter for thirty days. For my part, while I believe it might possibly have been better if that had been done, at the same time there is no object in doing so, from the very fact that the board of transport commissioners have now been given instructions to go ahead. The provinces have the chance to appeal. If they are right, they have the same opportunity as they had before.
The main freight hauling from western Canada to the east is in connection with grain. That matter has not been touched at all. Naturally western Canada is looking to eastern Canada for a market for its feed grain. The federal government is paying a subsidy on this feed grain moving east, and the amount of that subsidy is coming out of the consolidated revenue fund. This subsidy is helping to market our feed grain in eastern Canada. Because of the climate in eastern Canada it is far more convenient to feed stock there than it is in the western provinces.
I do not know whether I have been rightly or wrongly informed, but I have been given some information about the competition between the Canadian Pacific, a privately owned railway, and the Canadian National Railways, which is nationally owned. My information is that the effect of an order of the board of transport commissioners is that the Canadian National is not allowed to compete unfairly with the Canadian Pacific. I am informed that a train on the nationally owned line can travel from Vancouver to Montreal in about nine or ten hours less time but, because of the hampering restriction of the board of transport commissioners in curtailing speed, they are not allowed to compete in that way.
I believe that is one reason why trains of the Canadian National are running only half filled with passengers, while those of the Canadian Pacific are filled. This is the condition, despite the fact that the Canadian National track is straighter, their grade is lower, they use only one engine between Montreal and Vancouver and, if pressure were put on the board of transport commissioners or
those who are in charge of the travel of these trains, they could make much faster time and still travel at a safe speed. I understand that the time between Winnipeg and Ottawa could be cut by seven hours. I believe that with these changes the revenues of the Canadian National would increase considerably. As I said before, I am voting with the government.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: No, no!


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is not because I am a back-bencher, not because I have been forced into voting for them, but because I am convinced that the government is acting in the cause of justice for the whole of Canada.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the subject of freight rates let me at the outset advance the point of view that this is a national problem, one of concern to the whole of Canada and, therefore, properly to be discussed in the House of Commons. At the same time I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat that there should be no controversy between east and west, or between the central provinces and the east and west. There should be no controversy; but we have to deal with actualities, and there will be controversy so long as the extremes of the country are at a disadvantage in this particular matter as compared with the central part. That being so, and the hon. member holding the belief he expressed as to the desirability of doing away with controversy, I suggest that he join with us in attempting to remove the causes of that controversy. That is what we are doing when we seek to have an equalization of freight rates as between British Columbia and the maritime provinces, and central Canada.
I do not intend to enter into a controversy as to who is actually most prejudiced by the present freight rates structure, whether it be the maritimes, the prairies or British Columbia. But I do wish to place before the house some of the rates in existence, so that hon. members may judge whether we in British Columbia are prejudiced.
In this connection I would quote from the judgment of commissioner MacPherson as it appears at pages 84 and 85 of the judgments of the board of transport commissioners for Canada. Referring at the outset of his judgment to the mountain differential, Mr. MacPherson says this:
During the progress of the hearing it was pointed out by counsel for the provinces on many occasions that in Canada we have different grades or steps in the freight rate structure, viz.,
The maritime rates (in preferred territory)
The competitive rates of Ontario and Quebec
Freight Rates

The prairie rates for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta
The mountain scale or Pacific scale of rates.
Then he went on to say at page 85:
Then lastly there is the mountain or Pacific scale which is commonly referred to as mountain differential, whereby one and one-quarter prairie miles equal one mile in Pacific territory for rate purposes. I am of the opinion that this situation, which amounts to an increase of sixteen per cent over the prairie scale of rates, should be again reviewed at the earliest possible date.
By inference the commission is there agreeing with those who claim that on account of the mountain differential, which means an increase of sixteen per cent over the prairie rate which, in turn, is higher than, the rate in central Canada, we in British Columbia are hardest hit by the freight rates structure. So that the importance of this question to British Columbia can be seen, by reference to the judgment of the commissioner. We from British Columbia would ask the co-operation of all members in the house at this time to remove that differential, the cause of our grievance.
It has been said, and clearly proven, that the railway problem in Canada is a national one. The railways were constructed as part of a national policy in the building of Canada so as to ensure that our lines of communication, trade and commerce should be east and west, rather than north and south. That policy has carried with it certain benefits as well as some difficulties. But inasmuch as the whole of Canada has participated in the benefits, it stands to reason that the whole of Canada should be concerned about removing the disadvantages. Since it is a national policy it follows, also, that both the welfare of the railways which serve the national interest, and the welfare of the country in its relationship to the railways are matters of national concern, and should be discussed in parliament.
It follows from this reasoning that the welfare of British Columbia, as part of Canada, is also an item for consideration in this house. At this point I should like to deal with the argument advanced yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that the board of transport commissioners was justified in concluding that an increase in freight rates was necessary, and at the same time in making an award, without removing the discriminatory features in our freight rate structure.
During the course of my argument today I do not intend to question that some increase in revenue on the part of the railways is necessary. That fact I take for granted because, after all, after fourteen months of hearings the board has come to that conclusion. Certainly I would not question it, and I doubt

if anyone who has participated in the debate would question it. However, what I am concerned about is the minister's statement that the board was justified in awarding the increase without at the same time taking any steps to remove the discrimination.
It must be admitted that at that time the board concerned itself only with a revenue case. The minister himself said that, when at page 2898 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
The board dealt with and was faced purely with a revenue case.
I do not, however, accept the suggestion that there was no other issue before the board. I maintain that there was the issue of discrimination under the freight rates structure; and that aspect of the matter I would ask leave to deal with later.
I agree with the minister when he says that the main consideration before the board was the revenue aspect of the case, and also when he says that, in making its decision the board did not allow itself to give consideration to political or economic questions outside the matter of revenue. But I submit that political or economic questions, in the broadest sense of those terms, must be considered in arriving at any fair decision with regard to what freight rates may be found to be necessary. I say that is a national problem, and I submit that, therefore, the government of Canada must be concerned with the political and economic implications of the question and that the Canadian House of Commons is the proper place in which to make our views known to the government.
I have no criticism to' make of the railroads for applying for a rate increase, or of the board for deciding that an increase was necessary. But we have the strongest criticism to make of the government for allowing the increase to go into effect without removing the inequalities under which various sections of this country have suffered for years. That is the point involved in the first paragraph of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), and I should like to read this paragraph in order to bring out that aspect of the situation. It reads:
That all the words after "this house" in the fourth line of the amendment be deleted, and that the following be substituted instead thereof:
"Regrets the government's failure to secure the removal of inequalities and discriminations in the Canadian railway freight rates structure before the imposition of a horizontal increase of twenty-one per cent-an increase which is bound to intensify the aforesaid inequalities and discriminations."

Freight Rates
That first paragraph of the amendment indicates the clear issue which is being placed before this House of Commons for consideration. In connection with that point I ask hon. members to consider the effect of this 21 per cent increase upon the economy of British Columbia. For this purpose I should like to divide our population into three groups. The first group would be made up of consumers generally. We are all consumers and, therefore, we are all affected by an increase in freight rates. It has not been denied and it cannot be denied that, since we already have a tremendous differential, a greater burden will be imposed upon our province than upon the rest of Canada. An increase of 21 per cent all across the board hits us that much harder. Therefore the consumer in British Columbia will be that much harder hit than the consumer anywhere else. As an example of this fact I should like to refer to a report in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 10, reading as follows:
Freight Rate Compensation Shortening and soap will rise in price
Ottawa, April 10-The wartime prices and trade board will shortly authorize increases in the prices of shortening and soap to compensate for the increases in freight rates, it was learned Friday.
There we see the beginning of the increase in the cost of living which affects our consumer population in British Columbia much more adversely than the consumers in the rest of Canada.
The second classification I should like to make for this purpose is made up of our farmers. The province, particularly the interior from which I come, is interested principally in the primary industries of farming and logging. These primary producers will be affected because they must pay the increase both on the things they have to buy and on the things they have to sell. It has been said, and said truly, that the farmer is the only person whose costs are doubly affected by any increase in freight rates. Certainly that is true of the livestock industry where you have to ship your cattle. It is always the case that from the return received from the sale of cattle there is deducted the amount of freight from the collection point to the marketing point, which in our case is Vancouver, Calgary or Edmonton. Not only is the farmer hurt because of the increase he must pay on everything he has to buy, but he will have this extra freight deducted from the prices of the things he has to sell.
The president of the tree fruits industry in British Columbia, Mr. Lloyd, has already said -this was referred to last night by the hon.
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green)- that this increase in freight rates will cost the British Columbia fruit industry approximately SI.COO,000 a year. The effect of this increase will be that much greater on our people.
The third category which I should like to consider is made up of the railway employees themselves. In British Columbia they are concerned both as consumers and as railway workers. In many areas in the interior the prosperity of the district is largely dependent upon the prosperity and stability of employment enjoyed by the railway worker. I am quite certain that no railway employee in British Columbia, facing this problem as he must as a British Columbian, as a consumer and as a railway worker, wants any increase in freight rates to be made at the expense of our province or indeed at the expense of any section of Canada. I have spoken to some representatives of the railway employees, and they are as vitally interested as anyone else in the removal of discriminations in connection with freight rates.
I maintain that the wage increases which the railway employees are asking for should form no part of this discussion. We must not allow the wage requirements of the railroads and their employees to be caught in the cross fire of political controversy. One or two addresses which have been delivered in this debate have indicated a tendency toward making this aspect of the matter a political issue. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to any increases in freight rates as such, but I am opposed to increases without equalization, to increases which increase discrimination at the expense of the railway workers, quite as much as that of anyone else in British Columbia.
In order to keep the record clear in this respect, I should like to refer to what the leader of the opposition said yesterday. He indicated clearly that he felt the position of the railway workers should not be prejudiced as a result of this discussion. The leader of the opposition said, as reported on page 2911 of Hansard of April 13:
Roughly it would appear that they have received on an average about twenty-five cents an hour increase. But the cost of living, as compared with pre-war days, has gone up 50 per cent, while the average wages of railway employees it would appear have gone up only some 33 per cent.
And then again on the same page:
These working men and women have had no adjustment of wage rates since June of 1946. Yet since that date the cost of living index has risen 27-2 points over the 1938-39 average, and the food index has gone up 43-8 points during
Freight Rates

Pacific scale of rates is higher than other scales of rates, such as the prairie scale. This condition, it is alleged, works to the serious disadvantage of the business and industries of British Columbia, and is most discriminatory in respect to that province. It is further submitted that this situation should be taken fully into account by the board in fixing rates in the present case. The submissions of British Columbia on this subject had the full support of a number of witnesses in Alberta.
Some other questions raised in the submissions made during the western hearings had to do with rates to assist and develop industry.
Farther on he says:
Wide latitude was given to the protestants in the development of their objections to the proposed increase.
Then he goes on to show that in fact they had all raised this question of discrimination; therefore the question was certainly before the board. The minister has taken two completely different positions. On the one hand he says, as reported on page 2907 of Hansard, that the matter was not. before the board; that the only thing properly before the board was the question of the revenue situation. On the other hand he says in the same speech that the board of transport commissioners themselves said that there was nothing in the Railway Act which hampered them in any way in dealing with the inequalities of the so-called discrimination which may exist in this country.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: That statement has to do with the investigation which has been ordered by the government, and not with the case which was before the board for the increase in rates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree with the point the minister is now making, and in reply to him I say that, although the board refused or declined to take any action with respect to inequalities and discriminations at the time they made their findings and recommendations, it cannot be denied that the question of discrimination and inequalities was very much before them, as I have proven in my reading from the judgment of the chief commissioner who said that the matter was placed before them on many occasions and that wide latitude was given to the protestants to bring the matter before them.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member allow me?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I finish this? That is the case, and if there is nothing in the Railway Act to hamper them in dealing with the

question of discrimination my point is that the question should have been dealt with at the time they made their findings.


Lionel Chevrier: The application was not for removal of the inequalities, and counsel for the provinces so stated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has made that point before. Counsel for the provinces said that if we were making at the moment an application for the removal of discrimination it would be brought out and that we would have to make separate submissions. Their position was: This application was made by the railway company. We admit that they are not applying for the removal of discrimination, but an integral part of our position was that it could not and should not be granted without at the same time removing discrimination. Therefore the point I make is that there could be, in my view, no doubt that the question of discrimination was very much before the board during the whole course of this hearing.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The fact that they declined to take action on it is a matter, the reasons for which can be known only to them, but there was nothing to prevent them at that time from taking action to deal with the inequalities and discrimination in the Canadian freight rate structure. That being the case, it seems to me that the government has been compelled further to reverse its position. Immediately after the freight rates decision was made known, seven of the provinces said that they would apply for a stay in its imposition. The government refused to grant that stay. They concurred in the immediate imposition of the freight rates increase. I wish to make this clear. The government concurred in the imposition of the new freight rates, and the western provinces, of course, took that as an insult. In fact one is given to understand that in some of their minds it was taken as being an indication that the governor in council did not propose to permit them to make an appeal from the decision. We now find that the government is saying, While we will go ahead with the imposition of the freight rates immediately, we shall have to allow the provinces to appeal the actual award. The present decision of the government followed the protest which was raised in the house as soon as an opportunity was given to discuss the matter of freight rates, the protest which took place on Monday, April 5, and again on Wednesday, April 7, a protest which was joined in vigorously, in fact

Freight Rates
almost led by members from British Columbia, including members on the government side.
May I at this point read some of the submissions made by the provincial premiers, tabled in the house yesterday by the minister. The Premier of Alberta said this:
The decision of the board of transport commissioners authorizing an over-all increase of 21 per cent in freight rates has been a shock and a severe disappointment to the people of Alberta. This province has for many years suffered from excessive and discriminatory freight rates and the judgment of the transport commissioners only serves to aggravate that situation. This province desires and intends to appeal from the board's decision to the governor general in council. If increased' rates made effective now and then the governor in council as we confidently expect rescinds the board's increase order much confusion and dislocation of business will inevitably result. The government of Alberta respectfully requests the governor in council to use the power conferred by section 52 of the Railway 4.ct and vary the transport board's order 70425 jy extending three days notice period to thirty lays.
The Premier of Saskatchewan made a similar submission. The province of British Columbia wired in the following terms:
Government of British Columbia protests strongly any increase in freight rates under recent ruling of board of transport until such time as the mountain differential affecting British Columbia and Alberta is removed. Existence of mountain differential constitutes a grave injustice under ordinary circumstances. Imposition of a 21 per cent increase in freight rates would further accentuate the injustice and place both British Columbia and Alberta in very disadvantageous positions within Canada's economy. Strongly urge that ruling of board of transport commissioners be withheld from operation until such time as British Columbia government has opportunity to appeal against the decision.
Byron I. Johnson, Premier of British Columbia.
These requests from the premiers of the seven provinces were, as the house knows, in effect rejected by the dominion government which introduced the order in council referred to yesterday, saying that the governor in council had considered the representations and had come to the conclusion that the freight increases must be granted forthwith.
Then, as I say, there was a protest which took place in the house, in which western members on all sides joined, and the government then reversed or partly reversed its decision and said, "We will continue to make the increase effective as of now but will permit an appeal and will in fact refer the matter of discrimination to the board."
The point is this. The question of discrimination was before the board. The government has the power to insist that discrimination be removed, and I suggest that it should
have done so at the outset and not waited until the protests in the house and in the country became so great that the government was forced to throw out the sop that it would submit the matter to the board, at the same time forcing itself to say that such consideration would take from six months to a year before any effective action could be taken.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read from an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun of April 9, 1948, which sums up the position we take:
This government has been in power since 1935. At any time since then, if it was sincerely concerned about the inequalities in the national freight rate structure, it could have instructed the transport board to make a revision. But no. The government thought it politically unwise to arouse the animosity of Quebec and Ontario, hereditary beneficiaries of the obsolete system.
Only at this late date, when the chickens of neglect have come home to roost on Parliament Hill, does the government decide "it would be in the public interest to have a thorough investigation . . . with' a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rate structure."
There is absolutely no evidence that such an inquiry would have been started by Ottawa on its own volition. If the railroads had not asked for a percentage boost across the board, and won their case before the transport commissioners, the government would have been quite content to continue its neglect.
This government has given the victims of regional rate discrimination not the slightest grounds to believe that it is interested in inequalities as such. It is interested, however, in shutting up the roars of protest evoked by a 21 per cent magnification of the injustices.
The editorial concludes with these words:
A test of how genuine is Ottawa's sudden conversion would be an application to the government for subsidies on B.C.'s freight bills pending the transport board's rulings.
This would give Ottawa a cash reason for speeding up the hearings. B.C. business is genuinely alarmed at transport minister Chevrier's estimate of one or two years for the investigation. A restriction of that duration on B.C.'s trade with the prairies would be intolerable.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) is about to rise. With the permission of the house, if I may interrupt him for a minute or two. I should like to move a motion having to do with the business tomorrow. I should like to move:
That the provision of standing order 28, in relation to Mr Speaker leaving the chair with-
Freight Rates
[Stage Direction]
out question put, for the house to go into supply, be suspended for the sitting of Thursday, April 15, 1948.
Without the suspension of that rule, this debate could not be continued tomorrow because the rule provides that there is no question put about the Speaker leaving the chair on Thursdays or Fridays to go into supply.
Mr. BRACKEN:: Can the minister say
what the business will be tomorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If this motion is
carried we shall go right on with this debate and, if and when it is concluded, go back to the debate on the motion to set up the committee on human rights, and if that were concluded we would proceed with the other business that has been indicated for the past few days.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister indicate
when time will be set aside for discussing external affairs?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If this were completed tomorrow, the intention would be to call one item of external affairs, have it stand, and fix it for debate on Monday, so that we could have a day or two to consider the general field of external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bracken.
Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we are debating freight rates in that many weeks, and it may be useful to state at this time the reason for this type of procedure. I think the public generally knows that on October 9, 1946, the railway association applied for an increase in freight rates, and immediately after that application was made opposition was taken to it by various provincial governments and members of this house. Many of them would like to have debated that issue in the intervening time between the application and the decision, but were prevented
[Mr. St. Laurent.J
from doing so because of the rules of the house, which preclude our debating any matter which is before a judicial body.
I think it will be admitted also that, after the announcement of the board was made on March 30, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he rose on April 5 and asked that this house debate the question, was doing a public service to the people who are interested in this issue, both in eastern and in western Canada.
It is possible that, had not the hon. member risen at that time and initiated a debate on this very important issue, the decision might have been accepted without very much protest in this house, and the people concerned would not have had the benefit of what I consider to have been an interesting and valuable debate here.
The second motion which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made came on April 7, which followed the statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in reply to the debate of April 5. The motion was necessary because the statement the minister made on April 7 in this house was not satisfactory either to the members of the house or to the provincial governments concerned.
The minister, in his remarks yesterday, made some statements with which we can agree, but which he was not exactly in a position to make, because he is reported on April 13 to have said, at page 2908 of Hansard,-.
Any hon. member who attempts to make a political issue out of this question is to my mind doing a disservice, not only to himself bait to his country.
I agree with that statement, but I think it is clear, from reading all the debates in the house, that when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised the question in the house in the first instance, and again on the second occasion, it was not on a political basis. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who spoke in that debate, made the statement in this house, complimenting the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that he had left politics entirely out of the matter and was to be commended therefor. So that the debate which was initiated in this house started off on a very reasonable basis; but before the Minister of Transport had finished his speech, he himself had introduced certain political considerations into the question.

Freight Rates
For example, he made what amounted to an accusation, that there was some type of lobbying going on from the province of Saskatchewan. He said, in reply to a statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar:
I have realized that since this debate started, because no one has been flooded with more telegrams than I have from members of the province of Saskatchewan. And this indicates to me that there is some attempt to make a political issue out of this question.
That statement was unfair, and it was inaccurate because, as a matter of fact, the members of this house who represent the constituencies which are affected by this increase have all been receiving telegrams, resolutions and letters which have been urging us to make our views heard in this house. For example, coming from Manitoba, I have a resolution which comes from a municipal council in that province. It happens to come from the rural municipality of Dauphin. The resolution is in these words:
Whereas the board of transport commissioners authorized an increase of 21 per cent in railway freight rates.
And whereas the said increase will bring about an increase in price on all commodities detrimental to our economy and cause inflation.
Now therefore be it resolved that we protest against the proposed increase in freight rates until an equality in way freight rates has been established as between eastern Canada and the prairie provinces.
That is a resolution which is characteristic of the type of resolutions and telegrams we have been receiving. They have been coming not only from municipal bodies but from locals of pool elevators, co-operatives of different kinds, boards of trade and so on. They have been coming from other provinces as well as from Saskatchewan. Therefore I do not know that the minister was on solid ground when he intimated that Saskatchewan exclusively was carrying on a lobby on this question.
As a matter of fact, a statement was made here the other day to the effect that it is quite possible that the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) who, I understand is in Saskatchewan at the present time, may be doing his quota of lobbying on this question. He is reported in the western papers to have stated that in his opinion the western provinces-that is, the prairie provinces-will get a square deal out of this decision yet; that the announcement of the board of transport commissioners is not final; that it is in the nature of an advisory ruling, and that the government will see to it that an equalization is carried out. Of course that hope is somewhat on a par with his ill-fated hope on the coarse grains issue. It is too bad that he has not had an opportunity to state his views in the house during this debate. The hon. member for Rosthern seems to have the uncanny faculty of being in Saskatchewan when the issues are hot in Ottawa and of being in Ottawa when they are hot in Saskatchewan.
I think it can be said, however, that for the most part the members who took part in this debate have shown something which is perhaps new on this issue, and that is an awareness that our transportation system in this country has graduated from being a purely commercial undertaking, and is now a social undertaking. I believe there is a new realization, perhaps brought about by events in recent years, that the transportation system of this country is now so vitally necessary to all provinces and to all people concerned that we can no longer treat it as a purely commercial operation requiring so much revenue to provide certain services, and leave it at that. We must take into consideration the burden of keeping that transportation system functioning and giving good service in parts of Canada which in themselves may not be able to produce the necessary revenue. It might be considered perhaps as a minor version of the situation we have in our post office system. Our post office system takes into consideration the convenience and necessity of communication for the country as a whole. Where it is found necessary to give service to a certain community, that service is given regardless of whether or not it is possible to raise in that district the revenue with which to pay for the service. Something of that kind of consideration must now be taken into account in dealing with this question of freight rates.
There are, of course, two broad phases involved. The first is the general flat increase of 21 per cent, and the second is the discrimination as a result of the differentials that exist. On the first issue-that is, on the general increase-I believe it is in a way one of the fruits of the government's decontrol policy. The government were warned on more than one occasion that, if they continued their decontrol policy, they would be
Freight Rates

faced with one problem after another; and this freight rate problem is not the last one. There will be other problems along the same lines and emanating from the same reasons. The other day the minister stated that the cost of operating railways, the level of wages and the expense of maintaining our system have increased. That is true. But the government itself will have to take the responsibility for having permitted prices to rise to the point where it was necessary for the men working in this industry to ask for higher wages. I do not think that one member of this house has
said a word in opposition to the efforts being made by the railroad workers to have their wages increased, because we realize that the cost of living today is such that it is necessary for them to ask for that increase.
It is not possible for me to complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker, so I would move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Zaplitny the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 15, 1948