1948-04-22

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Last Friday evening, April 16, I made reference to private bills which had been introduced in another place, where their standing committees were set up last December and some bills passed, whereas our committee was not set up until the end of February. For that reason I am told some lawyers thought it well to go to the other place to introduce these measures, and that this was the reason such action was being taken.
I did not wish to reflect upon those in another place, where there are able men of whom many formerly sat with me as colleagues, and all of whom have rendered real service. I have made it a rule to respect the views of others and to have pleasant relationships with all hon. members. Last Friday I said I had no intention of reflecting upon any hon. member here who might, have introduced a measure for some legal friend. I have not changed my views as to the usefulness of that other place in times so grave as these, and only desired a better study of all such bills.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Second report of sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items 502, 503 and 557 of the main estimates for 1949, approved and reported upon on Thursday, April 22, 1948', by the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Are these the same items as last year?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: That the name of Mr. Probe be substituted for that of Mr. Thatcher on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
'	FIRST READING-SENATE BILL
Bill No. 205 (from the senate) respecting Canadian Marconi Company.-Mr. Whitman.

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

Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	With reference to the mail service on rural route No. 1, St. Louis de Gonzague, were tenders invited before the expiry of the contract?
2.	If so (a) on what date; (b) what are the names of the tenderers and what were the amounts; (c) when were the tenders opened; (d) was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? If not, for what reason?
3.	With reference to the mail service on rural route No. 2, St. Louis de Gonzague, were tenders invited before the expiry of the contract?
4.	If so (a) on what date; (b) what are the names of the tenderers and what were the amounts; (c) when were the tenders opened; (d) was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? If not, for what reason?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 6th October, 1947, and again 15th January, 1948.
(b)	No tenders received on first invitation, 6th October, 1947. Following tenders received on invitation 15th January, 1948: Henri Brais, $1,200; Albeni Brisson, $1,200; James W. Tait, $1,400.
Conditional tender for both St. Louis de Gonzague rural routes Nos. 1 and 2, Albeni Brisson, $2,100.
Tenders were considered high and each tenderer was given an opportunity to reduce, with following result:
Albeni Brisson, $1,100; James W. Tait, $1,198.
Questions

Albeni Brisson submitted conditional offer for both routes, $2,000.
(c)	Tenders opened 21st November, 1947, and 27th February, 1948.
(d)	No contract awarded. Service being performed under temporary arrangement pending final decision.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) 6th October, 1947, and 15th January, 1948.
(b)	Invitation 6th October, 1947. Henri Brais, $775; Albeni Brisson, $1,535.
Henri Brais raised his tender to $1,050.
Invitation 15th January, 1948: Henri Brais, $1,050; Albeni Brisson, $1,300.
Albeni Brisson submitted conditional tender for routes No. 1 and No. 2 at $2,100.
Tenders were considered high and each tenderer was given an opportunity to reduce, with following result: Henri Brais, $1,050; Albeni Brisson, $1,100.
Albeni Brisson reduced his conditional tender for both routes to $2,000.
(e)	21st November, 1947, and 27th February, 1948.
(d) No contract awarded. Service being performed under temporary arrangement pending final decision.


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF BUTTER
Mr. DENIS:: 1.	How many pounds of butter have been exported each year from 1935 to date?
2.	How many pounds have been imported during the same period?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1 and 2.
Calendar	Exports	Importsyear	Lb.	Lb.1935 	148,5411936 	... 5,128,800	117,2811937 	... 4.096.600	65,9181938 	... 3,893,400	5,231,8381939 	... 12,398,600	5,6441940 	... 1,337.600	4,0011941 	... 1,481,800	481.7291942 	... 1,600,900	592,8161943 	... 9,408,600	1.1541944 	... 4,726,700	7401945 	... 5,598,300	3,4951946 	... 4,509,400	25,6921947 	... 3,107,100	5,118,869


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the government that on February 18 last a question asked by me was passed as an order for return; and 
on March 10 an order for the production of papers was passed. One of these was over two months ago and the other over a month ago. Nothing has been forthcoming since. I should like to have action on both of them.


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. What action does the minister propose to take with respect to the request by professional engineers for inclusion in collective bargaining under the industrial relations bill?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that question will be considered by the committee on industrial relations.


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the minister received any representations on behalf of the professional engineers?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is yes.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the minister another question on the same subject. In view of the representations made by the professional engineers does the government intend to take the initiative and amend the act in order to meet their wishes?


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member will look at the bill which is being circulated, he will see that the government has already taken action in the direction in which he wishes to have it taken.


Gordon Graydon: Then the professional engineers have had their wishes met; is that so?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. And I would say this, as a further answer to the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Browm) that the decision was made on the representations of the Engineering Institute of Canada, the dominant organization of engineers in this country.


Mr. FRASER:: I would ask the Minister of Labour to clarify what has been said with regard to professional engineers coming under Bill No. 195. Am I to understand that professional engineers will be included in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and be able to have collective bargaining?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is no, as my hon. friend will see if he reads the bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have read the bill, but I misunderstood the minister's answer.


Humphrey Mitchell: Take another look at it.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of Labour to clarify the position with respect to professional engineers, which now seems to be completely confused? He said "yes" to me, and I understood he said "no" to the hon. member for Peterborough West.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot probe the depths of my hon. friend's mind.


Gordon Graydon: That is not your job; I am probing yours.


Humphrey Mitchell: It would be too difficult a job. I will read the section of the bill if the hon. member wishes me to, but I do not think I can say more than what I said to the hon. member for Peterborough West. You had better talk it over one with the other; I cannot stay here all afternoon.
Mr. GRAYDON1: I asked the minister whether or not professional engineers had been included and if this bill was going to meet their wishes, and he said " yes." He has just said "no" to the hon. member for Peterborough West. I suppose we shall have to wait until somebody else is able to clarify this situation.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: As one engineer to another, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if it is the intention that this will be done solely by a declaration by the minister, or by the industrial relations committee, which I am advised is to meet twice a week from, now on until matters are disposed of, the first of which should be that having to do with the engineers?


Humphrey Mitchell: That will be decided by the government.


FLOOD CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, following the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) a few days ago. The question has to do with floods which have taken place at Long Branch and at Toronto island. In view of the serious trouble which has been experienced by the people in that area, has the minister received any report,
or has a report been made by his engineers, as to what the situation is, and can he say what is going to be done?
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I can add but little to what I have answered the hon. member for Broadview. Wherever the damage caused by floods is on property belonging to the federal government, or under federal jurisdiction, repairs will be made by the federal government.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The minister's answer is not quite good enough for me. I have asked him if a report has been made. These people are in very difficult circumstances, and I want to ask the minister-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I want to ask the minister a question. Under whose jurisdiction does this matter come?-so that we can get busy and give relief to the people living there. Can the minister give me an answer?


Alphonse Fournier: Speaking generally, the damage caused by overflow of rivers, creeks or lakes in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction. "When the damage is caused to federal property, or to property under federal jurisdiction, we make the repairs and the expenditures. In other instances we expect the provinces and the municipalities to do as we do.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I asked the minister a civil question,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: My question is this: Is it under his jurisdiction, or some other jurisdiction? I should like to know, so that we can get busy and have something done for these people. Can the minister tell me now if it is under his jurisdiction?


IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, to whom I have sent notice. Having regard to the lack of electricity in the majority of rural areas, and the fact that kerosene refrigerators are the only present adequate answer to rural refrigeration, would the minister consider lifting the ban on the importation of kerosene operated refrigerators?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member may have given notice of his question, but I have not received it. However, I believe I can answer now. We have considered this question of the importation of kerosene refrigerators, but we have not found that any substantial number was imported last year. It is expensive equipment, costing between $400 and $500. If a quota were allowed I think it would be found that the great majority of them would be purchased by comparatively well-to-do summer residents for their summer cottages.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration we have come to the conclusion that the ban on importation should not be lifted.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware that most of these refrigerators have gone into places not served with electricity? For example, in my own constituency of Rosetown something like five hundred went in last year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course they go to districts which are not served with electricity. But my information is that many of them are -purchased by the owners of summer cottages who, of course, find them a great convenience.


AVAILABILITY TO BUILDERS OP RAILWAY CARS
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


An hon. MEMBER:: Telegram.


Clarence Gillis: For the benefit of my hon. friend over here, this question is prompted by an S.O.S. from 'the financial secretary of the steelworkers union at Trenton, Nova Scotia. Will the minister explain to the house why the steel quota to the Eastern Car Company Limited at Trenton, Nova Scotia, was cut by twenty-five per cent?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: My hon. friend must have received a delayed S.O.S., because the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch) was twenty-four hours ahead of him with the question.
For some time past the tonnage of steel plates available to the railway car builders has controlled their rate of operation. Generally speaking they are able to obtain sufficient other steel components to level off the tonnages of plates which have been made available.

Through 1947 the three car builders as a group received an average allocation of 3,000 tons of plates per month. During the first quarter of 1948 this total allocation was increased to 4,000 tons per month, but it was found impossible to continue at this rate, and the total allocation was reduced to 3,250 tons of plate per month for the second quarter, representing approximately eighty per cent of the first quarter allocation.
In order to reallocate the total tonnage of plates available for car building it has been necessary to have the transportation equipment committee, Department of Reconstruction and Supply, call a meeting of representatives from the three car building companies, who have arrived at the most equitable reallocation of available tonnage, having regard to labour in the respective plants.


DISTRIBUTION OF RODS FOR MANUFACTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? Can he inform the house why the application from the Federated Co-operative Association of Saskatchewan for steel rods for the manufacture of nails has been turned down. I apologize to the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) for asking this question about nails.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am pleased that the hon. member has taken up the cause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All available rods are being made into nails by nail-making concerns who for years have been customers for the purchase of rods. Where an article is short, new entrants into a field are not encouraged. Obviously it is not fair to take tonnage from old customers to take care of new ones.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought this was a free enterprise system.


WHEAT BOARD ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a judgment in Canadian Wheat Board vs. Hallett and Carey, in which P.C. 1292, which is the order in council dealing with oats and

Freight Rates
barley, was declared ultra vires. In view of that decision is the minister in position to report what the government intends to do in regard to the control of oats and barley by reason of the fact that the courts have decided that the declaration of a national emergency in the preamble is not conclusive as against the courts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The decision was made on a point of law.


Mr. HACKETT:: On a point of fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not being a lawyer, I am not going to argue with the president of the bar association. I dare say it was a point of fact. The matter has been referred to the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) is dealing with it at this moment.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister state when his department will make it possible for him to advise the house what course the government intends to take with regard to the judgment of Chief Justice Williams to which reference has just been made?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: I am afraid I cannot. I have not had an opportunity of discussing that judgment with the officials of the department.


FREIGHT RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) asked if the recent increase in freight rates affected the movement of grain over the Hudson Bay railway. I have inquired of the board of transport commissioners and I am informed that since grain moving from the prairies to Churchill over the Hudson Bay railway is covered by the export rate item in the judgment there will be no increase in export rates covering the movement of grain from the prairies to Churchill.


FREIGHT RATES-INCREASES ORDERED BY TRANSPORT BOARD-AMENDMENT, MR. COLDWELL- SUBAMENDMENT, MR. BRACKEN
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 21, 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. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose yesterday afternoon I was dealing with some of the, ways in which the 21 per cent increase in freight rates will affect Saskatchewan and western Canada.


James Horace King: May I call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that there is so much talk going on that it is impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to refer again to what has already been placed on the record with respect to the way in which the 21 per cent increase in freight rates will affect the cost of shipping cattle to eastern Canada. The 21 per cent increase in the freight rates will reduce the price of a carload of cattle to the farmer by $50.05 when shipped from Crane Valley to Toronto.
Yesterday I referred to the fact that various decisions of the board of transport commissioners in the past have lessened the inequalities in the freight rates as between western and central Canada, but this latest increase has further widened inequalities that already existed.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must ask hon. members to leave the chamber if they want to carry on conversation. I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying, and I think it is most unfair for those who want to talk to do so while he is speaking.


Hazen Robert Argue: For example, the cost of shipping 100 pounds of gasoline from Sarnia, Ontario, to a point 50 miles away is eight cents, whereas the freight charges for shipping 100 pounds of gasoline from Regina to a point 50 miles away is 20 cents, the difference between the two rates being 12 cents. The 21 per cent increase in the freight rates will increase the cost of the shipment of gasoline from Sarnia by 1-6 cents but it will increase the cost of the shipment from Regina by 4-2 cents. Instead of having the previous spread of 12 cents between these two shipments, the new rates increase the spread to 14-6 cents. It can thus be seen that the 21 per cent increase in freight rates is further aggravating the inequalities that existed in the past.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) placed a table on the record to show that increased freight charges on certain articles shipped from western Canada to central Canada were not very great. His figures showed that the increased freight rates on a dozen eggs when shipped in a carload lot amounted to just one-tenth of a cent. While that may be true, the fact remains that the minimum charges have been increased by more than 21 per cent. The minimum charge for a
Freight Rates

shipment of less than 100 pounds has been increased from 50 to 75 cents.
Everyone knows that farmers in western Canada who ship eggs and cream ship them in lots of less than 100 pounds. It now means that there is an increase of 25 cents in the cost of each shipment. This means an increase of 25 cents, or approximately two cents per dozen, in the cost of shipping a 12 dozen crate of eggs. Similarly on a shipment of a crate of 30 dozen eggs the freight cost will be increased by five-sixths of a cent per dozen. So the effect of the freight rate increase will be much more than one-tenth of a cent per dozen, as outlined by the transport minister, and will in fact amount to an increase in freight charges on eggs of from one cent to more than two cents per dozen.
The same thing applies with respect to the shipment of cream. Farmers usually ship cream to the creamery in three-gallon or five-gallon cans. A five-gallon can of cream, testing 35 per cent butter fat, produces approximately 17| pounds of butter fat, and the increased cost of 25 cents on that can of cream will amount to approximately 1! cents on a pound of butter fat. The increased cost on a shipment of a three-gallon can of cream will amount to approximately 2! cents per pound of butter fat. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the only increase in freight costs as they affect butter will amount to one-tenth of a cent when butter is shipped. It will amount to one-tenth of a cent, plus from 1! to 2| cents per pound of butter fat, when cream is shipped to the creamery.
The railways when putting their case before the board of transport commissioners pleaded that they were in great financial need and that it was necessary that an increase be granted immediately. But counsel for Saskatchewan pointed out that the Canadian Pacific Railway was not in financial difficulties, that in its 1946 balance sheet was an item of $77,870,000 which had been accumulated from earnings, and the justification for that accumulation must have been that a situation might arise calling for the use of additional funds during an emergency. Placing its case before the board of transport commissioners in 1946, the C.P.R. estimated that its 1947 net railway earnings would be $14,800,000. But when the balance sheet for 1947 was made public it showed net railway earnings of $22,892,189. Thus the C.P.R. in fact in 1947 made $8,000,000 more than it had estimated when placing its case before the board. It cannot be said therefore that the C.P.R. today is in great financial need and that it needs a 21 per cent increase in freight rates.

The chief commissioner's report sets out the various items for which the Canadian Pacific, according to the commissioner, requires revenue. He gives a figure of $15,235,000 for surplus, $21,000,000 for dividends, and more than $15,000,000 for fixed charges. The chief commissioner said in his judgment:	We will
give to the C.P.R. sufficient revenue to cover its fixed charges and to pay four per cent on the preferred stock and five per cent on the common stock. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that five per cent is a high rate in view of prevailing interest rates today. The commissioner went on to say:	Not only will we guarantee the
C.P.R. a high rate of return upon its investments but in addition we will allow it a surplus of $15,235,000. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the board of transport commissioners and the government should not have permitted an increase that takes hard-earned money from the common people of Canada in order that the C.P.R. may pay big dividends and have a surplus of more than $15,000,000 per year.
The financial position of the C.P.R. has improved tremendously over the past number of years. At the end of 1947 its funded debt had been reduced $7,700,000 as compared with 1946. Its reserves in 1947 had increased by approximately $30,000,000 over 1946. Its funded debt in 1937 was $228,000,000, and in 1947, $95,301,000. a reduction in ten years of $153,000,000. The reserves of the C.P.R. in 1937 were $91,000,000 and in 1947, $379,905,000, or an increase in ten years of almost $289,000,000.
I suggest that those figures, Mr. Speaker, prove beyond doubt that the C.P.R. is not in great financial need, and in fact does not need an increase in freight rates.
Over the past years the railways have always made a greater profit on their western than on their eastern lines. Between the years 1936 and 1946 the C.P.R. made a profit on its western lines of more than $248,000,000, while on its eastern lines it made a profit of $126,000,000. That proves, I submit, that the C.P.R., because of higher freight rates in western Canada, made large profits from its western operations as compared with its profits in eastern Canada, and such discrimination cannot be justified to this house.
Over the years governments in this country have taken a very benevolent interest in the C.P.R. Cash subsidies have been paid to the C.P.R. amounting to more than $89,000,000, and land grants have been made to the extent of more than 32,000,000 acres. Over the years the people of Canada have bonused the C.P.R. It is not right, it is not just, it is not reasonable that the government should allow a 21 per cent increase in freight rates which will

Freight Rates
add to the inequalities which at present exist, and which further subsidizes a railway already highly subsidized by the Canadian people.


Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members are impatient to see this debate end and the vote taken, and I share that view. It is very difficult at this stage to say anything on this question which has not been said before, but in the very few minutes I shall take I shall endeavour to make certain that what I say is not mere repetition of what has gone before.
It seems to me that many of the speeches made in this debate might have been reserved [DOT]for arguments on appeal, when an appeal is taken to the proper tribunal from the judgment of the board of transport commissioners. It is easy for us to rise in our places in this house and wax indignant over the fact that railway rates have been increased. That is something which has a very popular appeal; everybody dislikes an increase in freight rates. No one in the prairies, or in that part of the prairies from which I come, is in favour of an increase in freight rates. But the provinces of the west and the maritime provinces and other interested governmental bodies have hired eminent counsel to argue their case before the board of transport commissioners. The board in its wisdom, as they saw it, have given a certain judgment. If they are right, then I say in all honesty that those of us who come from the prairie provinces must be careful about this thing and not let any thoughts enter our minds or into this debate that would be more in the nature of appeal to popular prejudice than appeal to reason and the facts.
If the board of transport commissioners are right, and the railways need this increase, I am satisfied that the people of the prairie provinces, who are eminently fair-minded,-if they felt that it was a question on the one hand of an increase in freight rates and on the other financial chaos for the railways, in spite of the fact that they do not like high freight rates the people would realize in their common sense and judgment that we must have increased freight rates and that they would have to share in the increase as do the other parts of Canada.
It seems to me that many hon. members are not attacking this problem on the proper ground. When this appeal is heard, the western and maritime provinces will have counsel arguing their appeal, and all the arguments that have been made against the freight rate increase can then be made and decided upon in the proper place. Those of us who come from
western Canada should be concerning ourselves with this. We must be certain that a proper reference is being made to the board of transport commissioners in respect to the equalization of freight rates. That is what affects us in the western prairie provinces, and that is why I am raising the point today.
I am not sure that the terms of reference protect the prairie provinces. Let me read from P.C. 1487, which is the order in council in question. It reads in part as follows:
It is therefore advisable that the board of transport commissioners for Canada be directed 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, so as to permit the freest possible handling of commodities.
What is new about that? The reference has to do with the establishment of a fair and reasonable rate structure which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, do certain things. If that is the complete reference to the board of transport commissioners on this question, the prairie provinces and the maritime provinces may just as well forget about it, because we shall get no more relief than we got under a similar reference in 1925, which was referred to by the minister in his speech as the decision of the board in 1927.
The third headnote reads as follows:
The application of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta re alteration in the terminal tariffs, involving elimination of the assumed mileage between Port Arthur and Winnipeg was dismissed upon the ground that the general advantage accruing from the latter feature in the rate structure did not warrant any change being made.
I do not know whether anything in our changed economy has changed that. The same thing applies to the second headnote, which refers to the mountain differential, and also to the headnote which refers to the fact that there is certain discrimination because of water competition. That situation still prevails, Mr. Speaker. What we in the west should be sure of, and what we should ask the government to do beyond any question-because at this time western Canada does not want to be fooled- is to ask that the government make sure that a directive is given to the board of transport commissioners which shows beyond any question that the board of transport commissioners will have power to equalize these rates, whether the discrimination is by reason of water competition or any other competition.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?
Freight Rates


Calvert Charlton Miller: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Was the hon. gentleman in the house when the statement was made that the board of transport commissioners had stated that they had full powers, within the meaning of the act, to equalize the rates?


Calvert Charlton Miller: The minister is correct in that, Mr. Speaker, but what I want to make certain is this-[DOT]


Mr. CASSELMAN:: You want to tie them down.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I want it in the terms of reference that the board of transport commissioners shall have power to equalize these rates in spite of water competition and everything else. What I want to see in the west is that we do not have to pay any higher freight rates than any other part of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman this question? What purpose would there be in putting in the order in council powers which already exist in the act and which the commissioners say they have?


Calvert Charlton Miller: May I counter that with this question to the minister. If there is no harm in leaving it out, would there be any harm in putting it in? If it were put in, we would be a lot safer and surer. I say this, and I think the minister will agree with me: the board of transport commissioners is little different from a court, and I think it is regarded as a court. Like all other courts, the board is bound to a large extent by precedent. The judgment of 1927, which the minister referred to in his speech the other day, is a precedent which could hang the prairie provinces and the maritime provinces if the board of transport commissioners deemed themselves bound by it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt? I do not want to be interrupting my hon. friend, and I will not do it without his consent. What the hon. gentleman says is true in part only, that the board may feel bound by a former decision, but if the conditions in the country have changed over a period of twenty years, as my hon. friend knows they have, they will have to take into consideration those changed conditions.


Calvert Charlton Miller: That is just what I am afraid of. If we have to hang our hats and our hopes on a decision made from nebulous circumstances and changed economic conditions, I have not much hope for relief in the west. What the government should do unequivocally to give relief to western Canada-and that is what I am talking about at the moment-is 
either to amend the act, or to make it absolutely certain in its directive in the order in council that the board of transport commissioners shall find out whether there are any inequalities and discriminations, and if there are, remove them regardless of their cause.


Lionel Chevrier: That is in the order in council.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I do not read it that way, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be amply clear that it is there; because unless the board of transport- commissioners are prepared to relieve the west and the maritimes from discrimination, regardless of the causes, the inquiry, whether it takes six months or a year, will be-completely useless; it will get us nowhere and we shall obtain no relief.
There is one other point that I want to make, on the same aspect of the matter, and it is this. When the case that is being complained about now by many hon. members was launched over a year ago, as you will recall, on one day in the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and maybe on two or three days- it was in the month of March-a great many speeches were made about the proposed hearing, in opposition to any increased rates and so on. Not a great deal was said by members of the party to which I belong, because we took the attitude that the matter was before the court and therefore we should not discuss it. But finally one of our members, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), made a speech on this particular point. It will be found in Hansard of March 6, 1947, beginning at page 1104. The reference I intend to make is at page 1107.
The reason I am bringing this matter up at the present time is that I am fearful lest this additional inquiry by the board of transport commissioners will drag on for a long time and will come to nothing. The government a year ago-not yesterday, a week ago or a month ago-should have seen that there was discrimination in rates as between the east, the west and the maritimes. The government knew that. I think the government also should have felt sure that the board of transport commissioners would give the railways some increase, in view of the fact they had not had any for a long time, and should have known that such increase would only add to the discrimination between the prairies and the east. Even though they did not have, of their own volition, the acumen to foresee that situation, they were told by the hon. member

Freight Rates
for Calgary West, in the speech to which I have referred, that there was that discrimination.
The hon. member for Calgary West explained, as few can do so well, the reasons for that discrimination, how it had arisen and how it had grown up over the years. He told the government then in no uncertain terms, and as plainly as he could do it-once on page 1107 and twice on page 1108 of Hansard of 1947-that what was needed was a revision of the whole rate structure so that this discrimination could be removed. As was quite obvious, the minister must have known that the board of transport commissioners, on the particular reference or application that was before them, were not interested in discrimination. As a matter of fact the minister himself, in his speech, pointed that out on two or three occasions, saying that that was not the subject matter of the application before them. I say that the government should have known the situation and should have taken steps a year ago to see that there was an investigation such as they are planning now. They should have arranged to have the investigation started a year ago so that when these rates were increased by the board of transport commissioners, as many people felt they would be, the government would have been in a position to have removed this discrimination against the western provinces, British Columbia and the maritime provinces. It is just another case of being one year too late. The people in the part of the country whence I come will not tolerate another lost year on this particular point.
I know the government does not like too well to accept suggestions from the opposition, but I wish to suggest this to them. The time has come, particularly in these serious days, when the opposition's suggestions should be seriously listened to and considered. When a suggestion as good as that made by the hon. member for Calgary West in his speech of a year ago is not adopted by the government, you can see, Mr. Speaker, the result; you can see the jam the government has got itself into today. All that could have been avoided. There would not have been this discrimination if the government had carried out the suggestion urged upon them at that time by the hon. member for Calgary West in this House of Commons as long ago as March 6, 1947, namely that there be an inquiry into the discrimination with regard to rates and the formulation of an equalization plan.
I think the government should give the opposition credit for making these suggestions. They should concede that His Majesty's
Loyal Opposition has the good of the country at heart, just as we are prepared to concede that the government has the good of the country at heart. Unfortunately we find few instances in which we can carry that to the point of a practical demonstration.
There is only one other matter I wish to mention, and it is entirely alien to what I have said so far. I want to bring to the attention of the minister something which likely has already been brought to his attention, because I have no doubt he received the same letter as I did this morning. It is a suggestion which has come from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce regarding freight assistance. I might say that over the years the Winnipeg chamber of commerce has made a close study of Western Canadian conditions, and it has been of great help to the farmers of the west in the investigations the chamber of commerce has made with regard to matters of this kind. I think therefore that the suggestion made by this chamber of commerce, which is one of the largest in western Canada -indeed, one of the largest in Canada-should receive serious consideration from the government. I will read just the last paragraph of the resolution-I do not know whether it is a resolution or a letter, but I quote from it as follows:
We ask that an equalizing freight assistance subsidy be placed on the shipment of livestock and poultry products to seaboard and eastern consuming centres to enable the western farmer to feed poultry and livestock on a parity with the eastern Canadian feeder.
The reason they make that request, Mr. Speaker, is that western feed grain is subsidized, in that it comes down freight free from the head of the lakes to eastern feeders. The Winnipeg chamber of commerce feels that in fairness to the western Canadian livestock producers we should have similar freight subsidies on the shipment of livestock and livestock products from the west to the eastern market where most of the consumption takes place.
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): For fear, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) might take my silence for acquiescence in the changes which have been made in the freight rate structure by himself and his confreres, and which have been inflicted upon the long-suffering prairies and maritimes, I wish to correct any such impression. Personally, and on behalf of the people I represent, I wish to protest these freight rate boosts, and to assure the minister that they are being bitterly assailed everywhere. I have letters and telegrams from the people living in the north-
Freight Rates

western part of Saskatchewan which indicate that they are definitely opposed to and dismayed at the changes which have been made. These changes are opposed especially by those of us who live in the western provinces, who seem, by some unfortunate circumstance, to be compelled to pay freight both ways-both on the goods we buy and on the goods we sell. We seem to have been chosen to pay the freight both going and coming.
One of the telegrams I received, from a place called Matchee up in northern Saskatchewan, asks that the permission to make the increase effective be withdrawn at once. It goes on with the further suggestion that either the increase should be withdrawn or the government should go to the country at once and seek approval. I also have a letter on my desk from a co-operative guild in northern Saskatchewan, making a similar protest.
There is another impression I should like to correct. In the course of this debate I have heard it said more than once that no one disagrees with the suggestion that the railways should be allowed to charge higher freight rates. Well, Mr. Speaker, here is one who disagrees with that suggestion. Last week the financial statement of the C.P.R. was published. On all operations of the company the profits amounted to $31,893,942 in 1947, an increase of $6,759,211 over the previous year. Stockholders received $2.04 per share as compared with the $1.53 they got in 1946, an increase of 33^ per cent. Of course it is argued that operating costs of all kinds have gone up and will go up; but if the traffic also goes up, if the business increases at the same rate as last year, even at the old charges another considerable increase in net profits would be indicated. If, however, the railways simply have to have more money, it would have been fairly simple to leave the prairie and maritime schedules as they were and raise the rates in eastern Canada to the levels being charged on the prairies. From what we can gather, there would be a substantial increase in the revenues of the railway companies if that were done.
This situation will give another incentive to the western provinces especially to get into industry as speedily as possible and so avoid payment of much of the freight now being charged. We can build more crushing mills to take care of all the flaxseed grown in the west, more woollen mills and factories to manufacture our wool clip, more tanneries, more boot and shoe, factories, more pulp and paper mills and a host of other industries to take care of the products of the west. We have plenty of water power for the production of electricity; we have coal deposits galore, and

we have oil and gas wells from which power can be developed for any industry that cares to use it.
These are a few points which may have been overlooked by our railway admirers, which could result in a very considerable saving in freight charges. So the increases, which at the moment look to us so unfair and iniquitous, may have some compensation in the long run. However, these plans would take time to mature, and in the meantime we protest.
Now, when we find the rate on a fifteen-dozen crate of eggs increased from 35 cents to 75 cents, an increase of 114 per cent, we are naturally suspicious of what the transport board may do to us in other directions. These points have been mentioned before, but it does no harm to repeat them; at least it shows a certain unanimity in thought in the protest being heard all across the country. Our local newspapers, most of which of course are Liberal, are up in arms and characterize the whole thing as a major political blunder. That does not worry me, of course; but the casual disregard by the government of what is fair and just is what rankles in the minds of tens of thousands of the people in the western provinces.
Discrimination has been mentioned, and arguments have been brought forward to show that the discrimination is not very violent or that it is necessary because of certain competition the railways encounter in the eastern provinces. One of those arguments struck me as being rather poor. I have not the page in Hansard, but the minister will remember having said that owing to the competition of United States lines in eastern Canada it had been found necessary to ease the rates on Canadian railways. Shortly before that we were told that the freight charges on the United States railways had been raised by something in the neighbourhood of fifty per cent, so to me that argument does not seem very sound. If freight charges on the United States railways are so extraordinarily high, how is it that there is such vigorous competition with our Canadian railways? As I say, somehow it does not seem to mesh.
I feel, too, that the government, having appointed the transport board, must be responsible to the country for its actions. I believe we have seen far too many attempts to avoid responsibility by passing important questions over to committees and commissions. Another one now is being suggested, which the minister says may require one or two years to complete its work. It is a sort of Kathleen Mavoumeen commission.

Freight Rates


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon.
gentleman does not want to misrepresent my position. During the course of the first debate I did say that, but after communicating with the board I said it would probably take not less than six months and perhaps could be completed within a year. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair by quoting me otherwise.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: I quite agree that the minister did say that, but previously he had made the statement, in answer to a question, that in his judgment it would take one year, and later he said perhaps two years. That is what made me think of Kathleen Mavourneen: "It may be for years, and it may be for ever."


Lionel Chevrier: But the hon. gentleman has to be fair, and I am asking him to accept the statement I made. If I did give an estimate of one year or more and later corrected it after communicating with the board of transport commissioners, the hon. gentleman will take the last statement I made if he wants to be fair. If he wants to be unfair he will say two or three or four or five years. I do not think the hon. gentleman wants to be unfair.


Mr. KNOWLES:: But he is afraid you were right the first time.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: I shall be happy indeed to accept the minister's statement, and hope his second thought on the matter will prove closer to the actual fact than the statement I quoted earlier. I should be very glad indeed if the length of time could be cut down.
1 still think the suggestion is good that when this commission is appointed it be entirely independent, perhaps something in the nature of a royal commission, rather than having the same board rehash the evidence and information that has been passed on to it and probably giving us the same thing all over again. I wonder whether our own railway committee could not do something along this line. At any rate I do feel that some body entirely separate from the transport board should be asked to do this work. Incidentally I have a letter which came to my desk today from the Edmonton chamber of commerce, asking for exactly what I am suggesting now. It asks for an independent tribunal to investigate rate structure. It also asks that the increase of 21 per cent be deferred until such investigations are completed.
Finally may I say how much I deplore the action of the government in refusing the request of the seven provinces to delay the
operation of the freight rates increase until they have had a chance to discuss it. This I feel was both unreasonable and discourteous, and quite contrary to the oft-repeated desire for more co-operation. Action of this kind aggravates the whole situation, and instead of having greater unity in the land, we are without doubt heading into greater disunity.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house for any great length of time in the discussion of this subject, although it is one of the most important which will come before the House of Commons this year. Certainly it is of great importance to both western and eastern Canada.
I am not taking exception to the findings of the board of transport commissioners in connection with the increase of 21 per cent in the rate. I believe the railroads, without difficulty, established the necessity for some additional revenue. I believe additional revenue was necessary, not only to be able to pay dividends to the stockholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but so that that company, as well as the nationally owned system, might be placed1 in a position where they could stand on their own feet, and even make returns sufficient to instil confidence in Ihe minds of the investing public. This would be necessary if later they found it necessary to sell bonds for the improvement of rolling stock. It would be a sad day for Canada if the C.P.R. ever reached the position -where the government and the Canadian people had to take it over, to be operated in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways.
Unless they are allowed to earn sufficient money to induce additional capital they cannot keep their rolling stock in a condition which would be competitive with that of United States railways. In my opinion that would be a bad position indeed. The worst factor of all is that they would not be able to perform the services which they should perform, namely, the giving to the Canadian people of as good freight and passenger service as is offered by any other transportation company in or outside of Canada.
I believe it is necessary to maintain this condition, and I believe that in giving relief the board of transport commissioners transferred the burden to the shoulders of the manufacturers and producers of the far east and the far west. Therefore it has now become necessary as soon as possible to address ourselves to the problem of finding an equitable rate structure upon which we can operate.
Freight Rates

That is my principal reason for speaking today. I do not rise to justify what has been done; rather I am speaking in an appeal to the minister to see that the board of transport commissioners bring about an equalization of freight rates without delay. If this load must be carried by the Canadian people, it must be carried on an equitable basis, or there will be difficulty. Confederation became an actuality with the building of the railways; I fear that it will go out of existence if we do not have it on a proper basis. I do not believe we can build a second story on this freight rate structure unless we are prepared to go right down to the foundation, begin over again and do it right. I am prepared to give the board of transport commissioners adequate time to do that job, but I do not want to give them one minute more than is necessary.
As I said before, to get the money to keep the railway rolling stock in good condition it was necessary to treat the railways and railway employees well. But what is happening now? The far eastern manufacturers and producers, as well as those in the far west, find that they have this 21 per cent increase piled on top of a rate which already is high. They are driven to the point where they must do business from 350 to 400 miles closer to their own doorstep. In other words there are many manufacturers in the west who have been enjoying business in the mid western provinces who will not now be able to carry on with that business for any great length of time. Certainly from their point of view there is urgency to have this matter settled as quickly as possible.
I have spoken about manufacturers. I now turn to one of our major industries on the Pacific coast, that of shipbuilding. Steel for their ships will cost the yards another 21 per cent. Those yards will be put out of line with yards in eastern Canada, and particularly those in the central provinces. It is necessary that that industry be protected particularly in respect of the shipment of steel into British Columbia. It may be that we are now in a somewhat better position, because it is possible that with more ships available we shall be able to bring steel in by water. But will that help the railways in their province? They will lose that volume of trade as well as the revenue derived therefrom. 8o for their own good I think it is necessary that that business be retained.
We do not like to feel that we are being crowded back onto our own doorsteps so far as the development of our industry is concerned. The other day the hon. member for 
Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) said that we want to be independent, that we want to stand on our own feet. That is true, but we want a place to stand. And the way things are going at the present time we are not being given a place to stand.
We have no outlook for our business, either in the west or in the east unless some adjustments are made. This is true not only of shipbuilding but also of the poultry and egg business. Certainly it is true of the tree fruits industry. I understand that the extra cost to that industry this year will be about a million dollars, and one cannot say what it will be for the lumber industry.
There are two points in connection with freight rates which I do not think require any further argument, adjustment, or meetings of the board. The first of these is the mountain differential. This matter has been argued year after year before board after board, and it has been agreed that the mountain rate should be taken off in nearly every instance. I believe that, without going too far at all, that is one place where the minister could act now, by asking the board to give a ruling without delay-right away. This would give considerable relief.


Gordon Graydon: Why could that not be done?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The 16 per cent increase in the mountain rate is no longer 16 per cent. It is 16 per cent plus 21 per cent; in other words, it is a jump to about 19% per cent. They have taken away pretty nearly all that they gave us in the last adjustment. I think that that can be done without any further argument.


Gordon Graydon: Why does the minister not say why it cannot be done?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have no doubt he will when he gets a chance.


Gordon Graydon: He has interrupted many other times. I should like to hear him interrupt now.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know who interrupts more than you do.


Gordon Graydon: Except yourself.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: But more effectively.	,


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I should like to finish. The other thing I should like to ask the minister to consider, and it is not necessary to argue about it at all-if you are trying to help me you will keep quiet.


Gordon Graydon: I could be a lot of help to you if the minister would only co-operate.

Freight Rates


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is another point that could be settled without the assistance of any committee or commission. I refer to the rates on freight going east and west. When I was home at Easter I had one case brought to my attention. A certain firm buys a commodity in the east and it costs them $2 per hundredweight to land it in Vancouver. Another firm in Vancouver making the same kind of commodity competes with this firm in the east, but in order to get it into the eastern market they had to pay $2.45. Is there any justice in that kind of set-up? I cannot see it at all. The same commodity travels over the same railroad, but in one case it goes east and in the other it goes west. Surely these two things do not require any further consideration.
Personally I cannot see why the people of Ontario and Quebec are not more interested in this matter. Surely they realize what is bound to happen. When you have railroad rates piled too high they become a tariff which makes industry in one locality permanently secure. Who wants such security? At the same time industry in Ontario and Quebec is kept out of certain areas. What will happen?
Iam going to tell you that if I were a few years younger and thinking of going into business I would look very carefully at Winnipeg's position, and I certainly would look with longing eyes at the position of Edmonton as a manufacturing centre under the high rate structure we have at the present time. The people of Ontario and Quebec cannot sit idly by and see inequality piled up as between the east and the west. Eventually it will prove to their disadvantage.
It may be thought from what I have said that I should support one of the amendments. I am not going to support the C.C.F. amendment because it means a vote of want of confidence. Who has ever heard of a government being thrown out of office because it supported the action of its own creature? That is what the board of transport commissioners is. It would be something new so far as I am concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never do anything new.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I would not do it in this instance. I cannot support the want of confidence motion moved by the Conservatives. Perhaps it has some merit from the point of view of what I have been arguing. My hon. friends evidently agree that there is some urgency in connection with this matter, but if this motion of want of confidence is successful it would mean six to seven months before we could even get started.


Gordon Graydon: Put out this government and you will get some action.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I certainly agree with the last sentence in an article which appeared recently in the Atlantic Monthly, to the effect that Canada was the best governed country on earth. I still think that we have as good a government in Canada as you can find anywhere.
There are many more things I should like
to say, but I will not delay the house longer.


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is becoming impatient and is anxious to vote on the amendment proposed by the leader of this group, but as I spoke last year on the subject of freight rates when the 30 per cent application was presented to the board of transport commissioners I feel that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not protest on this occasion about the increase recently granted.
I wish to add my voice in further protest against the additional burden which has been placed upon the prairies and the maritime provinces which already provide more than their fair share of the operating revenues of the Canadian railway systems. The argument advanced in favour of the 21 per cent increase in freight rates is the same as that which has been advanced by industry in favour of higher prices for consumer goods, namely, increased operating costs on account of higher prices required for materials and higher wages for employees.
I submit that the argument that more revenue is necessary in order to pay increased wages is an attempt on the part of the railroads to throw the onus on the employees of the railway systems for the recent 21 per cent increase in freight rates. This is unfair, because, during the war and subsequently when the railroads had the highest revenues in their history, they had ample opportunity to improve the lot of their employees. But what happened? The wages of the men barely kept pace with dhe increased cost of living.
Railway maintenance men, shop men and porters are still underpaid. They have never received wages commensurate with the onerous tasks they perform. The basis of the demand for this 21 per cent increase is not increased wages for employees; it is because greater revenue is required in the case of the Canadian National Raihvays to service an unwieldy debt, and in the case of the Canadian Pacific Company to meet the demands of the shareholders for more dividends. The government could have prevented this 21 per cent increase had price control been retained.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wage control.


Eric Bowness McKay: We will come to that later.
Freight Rates

Railway employees have repeatedly told me-this is in answer to my hon. friend who interjected-that if the government had retained price control they would not now require increased wages. They feel this way about it, that if they do get a slight increase in wages, everything they purchase for themselves and their families will go up in price so much that their wages will fall far short of their needs. They know, and this house knows, that wages never keep pace with mounting living costs. The whole freight rate issue, as I see it, is just another chicken come home to roost. It is one of the fruits of the government's reckless and ill-conoeived decontrol policy. Had price control been retained, the price level of materials required by the railways, and the wage level necessary- to maintain the standards of living of their employees, could have remained such as to make it quite unnecessary for increased revenue demands by the railways at this time. Certainly the railways would have under those circumstances no argument to substantiate a demand for higher freight rates. The government therefore must take full responsibility for the situation which has led to the 21 per cent increase in freight rates.
To give the railways a blood transfusion of a 21 per cent increase in freight rates when they are in a relatively healthy position is in my opinion quite unjustifiable. I would ask what has happened to the reserves, which, according to "Railways in Canada, 1945", a publication issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, had reached at the end of 1945 the sum of S493 million. What has become of these reserves?
The main opposition to the increase is, however, based upon the fact that it imposes an added burden upon a freight rate structure already discriminatory in effect upon the west and upon the maritimes. It places an intolerable burden on the economy of these regions. It is a severe blow to the economy of the prairies and of the provinces down by the sea. It intensifies the discrimination in freight rates as between the central provinces and the remainder of the dominion. There is not the least doubt that it will have a disruptive effect upon the Canadian economy as a whole. It contributes to inflation and will increase most substantially the cost of living of the people of the prairies and of the maritimes. According to a report in Time magazine of April 12, the new rates will take $70 million out of the pockets of Canadians, particularly in the maritimes and in western Canada. There has already been a noticeable increase in the mark-up of goods in various parts of Canada
	.
since this 21 per cent increase. For instance, in Vancouver, automobiles and trucks are now up from $25 to $50. In Halifax steak is up twelve cents a pound and tea up ten cents a pound.
According to an article appearing in the Regina Leader-Post of March 31, a paper that is most friendly to the government, the new rates will boost lumber costs $3 per 1,000 feet, canned goods forty cents a case, farm tractors from $8 to $14 apiece, coal twenty-five cents a ton and fertilizer forty cents a ton or more. In other words, the grocery bill and fuel, clothing and construction costs will be greatly increased. Furthermore, the heavier rates will increase the cost of production for the farmer, since gasoline, farm machinery and other commodities which go into his production costs will all cost more money. This will force the farmer in turn to demand a higher price for his produce in order to make ends meet.
Prairie people, and I am sure maritimers as well, are quite prepared to assume their fair share of transportation costs. I refer to the maritimes deliberately, Mr. Speaker, because I am a maritimer by birth and I have some real reason for bringing this part of the country into any speech on freight rates. I am sure that both the prairies and the maritimes are quite prepared to assume their fair share of transportation costs, but the rates in these regions, even prior to the recent increase of 21 per cent, were higher than in the central provinces. On the prairies, for instance, they were 15 per cent higher. A freight rate in Ontario of $1 becomes $1.15 on the western plains. This is the main reason for the opposition to the flat increase of 21 per cent across the board, recently permitted by the board of transport commissioners and sanctioned by the federal government.
The prairies have always provided top operating revenue for the railways. According to figures released in the equalization of rates case in 1927, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's net earnings in the western region were double those received in its eastern region. The freight rate structure has not been materially altered since that time until the present 21 per cent increase was granted. Therefore the same situation prevailed until 1948. Operations in eastern Canada have been less profitable for the railways because of greater competition, which has been referred to again and again in this house, and because of heavier maintenance charges to which the railways there have been subject. This has made a difference in the net revenue in the two regions. But in the case of the prairies it seems grossly unfair to discriminate against them in this matter just to provide additional

Freight Rates
revenue for the railways in order to meet the deficits which they may accumulate in the eastern region.
Last year when I spoke on this subject I said:
There should be no attempt to be unfair to the railways. On the other hand, if an over-all increase in freight rates is discriminatory in effect it may have dangerous consequences.
I still think so, Mr. Speaker. I continue with the quotation:
The imposition of an unfair and unwieldy freight structure upon any region of Canada can well develop an anti-confederation attitude. This has manifested itself on several occasions, both in the maritimes and in the west. This, of course, is to be avoided. All Canadians must remember that confederation should be based on equality and that economic discrimination against any area in the dominion may create separatist sentiments. I suggest that now is the opportune time to examine the whole freight rate structure so as to remove existing inequalities.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that is what I said last year when the application was being submitted to the board for an increase in freight rates. I continue the quotation:
Now is the time to set up a royal commission, if you will, to investigate thoroughly all charges of discrimination which have been levelled against the railways by western and other organizations. I submit that, until this whole matter is ironed out to the satisfaction of both the^ west and the maritimes, no body is in any position to appraise the need for a general increase in railway rates of any kind.
But the increase has been allowed without any attempt being made to remove the discrimination in rates which exists. That was the mistake which was made. Now the minister states, in an afterthought, that the present board of transport commissioners will be instructed to conduct an inquiry into alleged discrimination in the rates schedule. This is not a hopeful augury. The board has now' been occupied for more than a year inquiring into the sufficiency of the present rates, and to appoint such a board to go into the whole rate structure will be in effect asking it simply to review its own findings. Surely this should have been done-


Mr. GARDINER:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eric Bowness McKay: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that he made that statement a year ago, I wonder whether the hon. member can explain to us why the western governments not only did not make application to the board to have
discrimination and inequalities considered, but stated that they were not prepared to go on with presentation of the case?


Eric Bowness McKay: In answer to that question, may I say that this government is aware that discrimination does exist. I was coming to that point-


James Garfield Gardiner: Agreed.


Eric Bowness McKay: I was coming to that point in a few minutes. This government, as well as the provinces concerned, is aware of the discrimination, and the board are aware of it because they have had sufficient material before them to prove that there is discrimination. In those circumstances, why has no action been taken without an application? Do they have to wait until they get an application? As a- matter of fact, the minister-


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question?


Eric Bowness McKay: Just a moment please until I finish. The minister has already said that he has instructed the board to do something about an investigation of discrimination in rates. They are not now waiting for an application. Why were instructions not given before on the matter of freight rate equalization?


Mr. PROBE:: There was no chance of a defeat at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I answer the hon. gentleman? The hon. gentleman asks how it is that, although the board have full information with reference to discrimination, yet they will not deal with it. My reply to that is that the board have not the full information; they could not possibly have full information until such time as a case for discrimination has been laid before them.


James Garfield Gardiner: By the provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: By the provinces or by any other public body. The case which was laid before the board fourteen months ago was one for an increase in freight rates, and until such time as one for discrimination or removal of inequalities-has been made and it will take a thorough investigation; I am sure the hon. gentleman will admit that-they cannot deal with inequalities.


Eric Bowness McKay: I suggest that the minister read the speech of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) on this matter at page 2939 of Hansard. He definitely said then-and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said-that the board have authority to take this action if they feel disposed to do so. If the minister will permit me to continue, Mr. Freight Rates

Speaker, I should like to say that the government has been aware of the discriminatory rates condition for some time, and certainly we have not been remiss in our duty in this corner of the house for we have brought it to the attention of the government on several occasions. Material in the hands of the board also substantiates the fact that such a condition prevails. I am quite certain that the seven provinces concerned in this matter will not be very well satisfied with this afterthought on the part of the minister. The people of the west and the maritimes want action, and they want that action now.
Furthermore, I think the public in the seven provinces concerned will demand that a wholly independent body, untrammeled by past rulings, precedents and judgments, be set up to deal with this urgent matter. The matter of freight rate discrimination should be dealt with in a wholly objective manner. This is a job for a royal commission, and I urge upon the minister to restore public confidence by setting up such a body. I do not feel that much will be gained by the reviewer reviewing its own findings or its own judgments. A royal commission completely independent should be appointed to examine the host of questions affecting public policy in this regard, and to bring in a report to parliament as expeditiously as possible.
I question the competency of the present board to deal with this subject, a board appointed to control railway rates and practices, and I say that, Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister said this afternoon to the effect that the board has power to deal with equalization of rates. If power exists, why has it not been used? This is a very important matter; it is a matter of freight rate differential, and it affects the economy of the country. Furthermore, the subject of freight rate discrimination appears completely outside the sphere of authority of the board on this matter, or it should have been dealt with long ago.
I believe., however, that any commission of inquiry which might be appointed should act and act quickly. There has been a public apathy toward certain of these commissions in the past. There is good reason for it, because they have too often been abortive of results, and public suspicion of them is to some extent well founded. The reports of many royal commissions are gathering dust in the archives of this nation and have been doing so for many years. I suggest, therefore, that a year on such an inquiry is ample time, for if a longer period were taken it would only promote a

lack of confidence and intensify the agitation which already exists in both the west and the maritimes against the decision of the board and against the railways as a whole. Such a commission should, in my opinion, be instructed to act with dispatch and to submit a report not later than the next session of parliament. Such a body could examine the effects of the whole freight rate structure upon our whole economic life.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I believe freight rates on essential goods should be held to a minimum. Moreover, there must not be regional discrimination. If periods should occur when operating expenses exceed revenues, the nation as a whole should be responsible for the deficits. All parts of Canada should assume a part of that burden if it should occur. The future welfare of Canada as a nation may well be at stake if rates are to vary in different parts of the country. Moreover, it is time that the dependence of the railways on the west for top operating revenue stopped. Until now the west has carried the major load in providing the railway system with profits. All the west and the maritimes are now asking is that they, as a part of this nation, be accorded a square deal in this urgent matter that affects their economy.


Mr. J. W. MacNAUGHT (Prince):: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate to delay the house for more than a few minutes. I feel, however, that I should make just a few remarks on this most important subject. Almost without exception every speaker so far has reiterated the fact that the railways are entitled to additional revenue. Most of the opposition seems to be directed toward the fact that the government did not prevent the order from going into effect at once. The opposition members, more particularly those from the maritimes, have stated time and again that editorial opinion in the maritimes is directed against the increase. I consider it important now that I should point out that an editorial recently appearing in the Charlottetown Patriot, and written by the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, one of the members of the Duncan commission, whose report has been quoted with much approval in this house, is just to the opposite effect. This editorial appeared on April 19, and I shall make one or two brief quotations from it:
The decision of the board of transport commissioners to allow the railways an increase in freight rates of 21 per cent-


Gordon Graydon: This was ruled on yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

Freight Rates


John Watson MacNaught: I continue:
-not 30 per cent as the railways requested, is still causing wide discussion, much of it ill-considered, uninformed and some of it bordering on illogical hysteria in its prophecy of resulting ruin.


Gordon Graydon: Once again I say this was ruled on yesterday.


John Watson MacNaught: I continue:
Protests against the increase of rates are still loud and at times inaccurate in their implications.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: What is the point of order?


Mr. LESAGE:: There is no point of order. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) is trying to be smart.


Gordon Graydon: No one seems to have recognized the point of order involved. I should think Your Honour would, because it was your ruling yesterday.


William Ross Macdonald: I just came into the chair.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that. For that reason, perhaps I had better bring Your Honour up to date. Yesterday the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) attempted, I think he said, to paraphrase and I take him at his word. I always take his word. But in any event, he said he was going to paraphrase an editorial which was written by Cyrus Macmillan and which, I understand, suited some of my hon. friends on the other side of the house. He was about to read it into the record, but Your Honour refused him that privilege, and I think perhaps properly so. But I do not think this editorial-


Mr. GRANT:: I did not read it.


Gordon Graydon: Just a minute. It would be nice to hear the hon. member, but I should like to go further in my remarks.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Gordon Graydon: It seems to me that we should not allow this editorial to take flight around from one member to another in order to have it read. I should think what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I suggest that goose and gander ought to be treated alike.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is which?


Gordon Graydon: I will leave that for the public to decide.


John Watson MacNaught: On the point of order, I wish to refer to Beauchesne, third edition, 1943, notation 262.


Mr. LOW:: We are governed by May.


John Watson MacNaught: The notation reads:
The practice of reading extracts from newspapers to support an argument in debate has been followed in the British house since 1840, when Speaker Peel, w'ith the acquiescence of the house, allowed a member to proceed to read passages from a newspaper. In 1856, when a member was called to order for reading an extract from a newspaper, tile Speaker stated that on former occasions when he had attempted to enforce this rule, he had been overruled by the house.
And again, notation 263:
Speaker Brand decided on June 3, 1878, and his decision seems to have settled the point, that a member is not out of order in reading a newspaper article on which he proposes to found a motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member intend to found a motion on it?


Gordon Graydon: What motion has the hon. member?


John Watson MacNaught: Notation 264 points out that it is out of order to read extracts in a debate under certain conditions, and goes on to enumerate the occasions. I submit that none of those applies to the point in issue, and therefore I insist that I am perfectly in order in reading this extract.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order-


An hon. MEMBER:: Another one?


Gordon Graydon: Yes, another one. I wish to state that I should not like to see hon. gentlemen opposite reflect on the decision made by Your Honour yesterday, and I hope they will not persist in doing so. Your Honour ruled clearly on that point.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) has quoted the Speaker's ruling in 1856, and I note the following:
. . . the Speaker stated that on former occasions when he had attempted to enforce this rule, . . .
Therefore the rule must have been in existence; otherwise he could not have attempted to enforce it. But at that time he was overruled by the house. If the house wishes to have read editorials commenting on what is taking place in the house I have no objection. But I think the rule is clear that members may quote an article which is merely a statement of fact; and I now read from Beauchesne, third edition, the latter part of notation 266:
Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.
Freight Rates

If the hon. member for Prince wants to quote an editorial which merely states facts, I would not object. But if it is a commentary on what has taken place in the house, I do not think it is within the rules.


Gordon Graydon: It is a commentary.


William Ross Macdonald: If it is a commentary on what is taking place in the house I do not think it is in order.


John Watson MacNaught: I have only this to say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the citation you have read. It has been properly pointed out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Watson MacNaught: I am speaking to the point of order.


Gordon Graydon: It has been decided; the Speaker ruled it out of order.


John Watson MacNaught: I am not raising a point of order; I am speaking to the point. The citation refers to "any proceedings in the house." I submit that we are debating something with which the house had nothing to do. It was a decision of the cabinet, and the cabinet is not a committee of the House of Commons. Therefore we are debating something over which the house at that time had no control.


William Ross Macdonald: There is a proceeding before the house now; there is always a proceeding of some kind before the house. That proceeding is an amendment to the motion to go into supply. During this debate the Speaker has ruled that commentaries, from sources outside the house, on what is taking place in the house at the present time, are not in order; and I think the house should abide by that ruling.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to get the point of order clear, I have not read the editorial-


Gordon Graydon: Have you read the rules?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I have; but I submit that the editorial, as I understand it, is not affected by the ruling the Speaker has given. I understand that the editorial contained a comment on the decision of the government to accept the judgment of the railway board. That is not discussing something which is taking place in this house at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the point brought up by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), may I remind Your Honour that on April 20 the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) sought to read from an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 9. At that time it was his contention, as the Minister of Agriculture has contended, that the editorial commented, not on what was
fMr. Deputy Speaker.]
taking place in this house but on an "unfortunate decision" that had been made by the government. As I look at the rules, it seems to me that there is room for argument on both sides, but the fact is that on two occasions, while you were in the chair, you have stopped first the hon. member for Saskatoon City from reading an editorial in the Star-Phoenix, and the Liberal member for Kings (Mr. Grant) from reading the very editorial the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) now proposes to read. I submit that, however we may interpret the rules, at least Your Honour will have to be consistent.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I thought Your Honour had made your ruling, but since you have permitted a discussion in support of the argument advanced by the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to say that on April 15, when I was taking part in this debate, the Speaker of the house rose and referred me to citation 306 of Beauchesne. At the time I was quoting from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press exactly along the line mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture, but I was ruled out of order. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from reading his editorial, but surely when a ruling is made in this house it should apply to all sides.


William Ross Macdonald: If I ruled previously that an hon. member could not refer to what the board had done or to some previous action of the government, that should have been brought to my attention at the time. If the hon. member who had the floor at that time had brought the point to my attention, probably I would not have given the ruling, but I did not understand that he brought it to my attention. I think we shall have to leave it to the discretion of the hon. member for Prince-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Ross Macdonald: I have not read the editorial, and I do not know whether or not it is a commentary on what is taking place in this house That will not be known until the editorial is read. I will repeat the ruling that if it is a commentary on the present debate I do not think the hon. member should read it; but if it is not such a commentary he may read it, as any other hon. member could. I do not think I should permit further debate on my ruling at this time.


Mr. KNIGHT:: On the point of order-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have given my ruling.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a question of privilege, my name has been mentioned in this con-

Freight Rates
nection and I want to put the matter right. Your Honour has just said I should have brought this matter to your attention at the time, and I would point out that I did so at page 3148 of Hansard, in the following words:
With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this comment has to do with the government, not with the house.


William Ross Macdonald: I did not get the import of the hon. gentleman's remark at the time, which I regret. However, as I say my ruling is that commentaries by parties or persons outside the house on what is taking place within the house at the present time are not in order.


John Watson MacNaught: I was practically
through with the quotation when the point of order was raised. The concluding sentence of the first paragraph is:
In response to these protests the government has taken the most reasonable action.
I wish also to quote one sentence from another editorial appearing in the Sydney Post-Record, a newspaper not noted for its friendliness toward the present government. The first sentence in the third paragraph reads:
In its decision not to interfere with the increase in railway freight rates, the federal government stands on solid ground.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to one other point. There seems to be much confusion in the maritimes as to the effect of this decision on the benefits accruing under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I am happy to point out that if one looks into the judgment he will find that the benefits under that act have not been interfered with in any way.


Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate that hon. members want to get through with this debate; but if they had received the letters and resolutions I have received they would feel as I do, that it is my duty to say a few words in support of this amendment. I have boiled down what I should like to have said into a short speech, and I hope I may have the privilege of delivering it now.
It would seem to me that the board of transport commissioners, in allowing a horizontal increase, has not carried out the intention of the Railway Act. Section 31 of that act deals with the matter of equity with respect to tolls and facilities. In effect the section says there shall be equality as to tolls with respect to all classes carried under substantially the same circumstances and conditions, and no toll shall be charged which unjustly discriminates between different localities. The two principal considerations governing the board are, 5849-2054
first, as to the reasonableness of the rate, and, second, whether or not there is the feature of unjust discrimination.
Many instances of discrimination and injustice have been cited by hon. members in all parts of the house and belonging to all parties in the house, and I do not intend to take time to go farther into those discriminations. I wish to point out, however, that we have had increases in freight rates in the past. The first increase, following the first world war, came in 1917, when they were increased 15 per cent. The second increase was in 1918, and was 25 per cent, while the third increase came in 1920. The increase in 1920, however, was not horizontal. That is the point I wish to make. The board in the past has made at least one increase where the increase was not horizontal and was different in different parts of Canada. For instance, in eastern Canada the increase was 40 per cent and, in western Canada, 35 per cent, and on the transcontinental rates it was 33J per cent, subject to certain exemptions.
My contention is that the board knows and has known that there has been discrimination for years. It seems to me that when the board allowed a horizontal increase it took the easy way out. Had the board increased freight rates in a manner similar to that which was done in 1920, allowing an increase of 30 per cent in eastern Canada and 10 per cent in western Canada, there would ffot have been such a protest made as has been made by the western and maritime provinces. This would, of course, have required more work and more study as to what actual percentages of increase should have been allowed.
Much has been said about the Canadian National Railways and their needs. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) made what I thought was an excellent analysis of the balance sheet of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I am not going to deal with the Canadian Pacific this afternoon. The figures which he gave at that time will have to be answered by the government and by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) before this debate is concluded.
In considering the need of the Canadian National Railways I think it is essential that this house take a look at the financial structure of that corporation, and I should like to quote from the judgment of the board of transport commissioners in this regard:
The'situation in respect to Canadian National Railways is quite different today to the situation prevailing in 1929 or even in 1925. The railways are now fully integrated into one great railway transportation system which is well and efficiently operated and managed. Furthermore, the Canadian National Railways Capital Revisions
Freight Rates

Act, 1937 (Canada, chapter 22, 1937), went a long way towards alleviating the financial burden carried by the railway. One of the results of the adjustments which were made by the said act, in the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways in 1937, was to reduce by $35,900,600 the amount of interest payable by the Canadian National to the government of Canada, the proprietors, on moneys advanced by the parliament of Canada to the railways to defray operating deficits incurred prior to 1937.
In 1936 the fixed charges were shown for the Canadian National Railways at $86,995,878; in 1937 they had decreased to $51,597,321, and in 1946, through refinancing during the war, to $46,104,626.
In 1939 the interest on government loans amounted to $916,165, but in 1946 this item had reached the total of $21,322,583. Mr. Vaughan, president of Canadian National Railways, in his statement before the board, on the present application, repeated his suggestion which was previously made to the railways committee of the House of Commons "that at least this amount of $400,000,000 which the government had loaned- for the purpose of repatriating securities should be placed on an income bond basis," that is, that the interest on this amount would be paid only if earned, Were this suggestion of Mr. Vaughan approved by parliament, it would go far towards placing the fixed charges of Canadian National on a comparable basis with other roads in Canada and the United States. This is, however, a question for parliament and not one for consideration of the board.
The situation as it stands today is that the Canadian National Railways must earn sufficient net railway operating income to meet fixed charges, which, in 1947 amounted to $44,745,000. On the other hand the Canadian Pacific Railway Company only needs $18,000,0-00 for fixed charges.
The suggestion which Mr. Vaughan made in a statement before the board that the amount of $400,000,000 which the government had lent the railway for the purpose of repatriating securities should be placed on an income bond basis, that is, that the interest on this amount would be paid only if earned, seems to me a matter that the government should take under serious consideration.
In considering interest rates alone, and the difference in interest rates paid by the two companies, I find that in 1947 on capital borrowings bearing interest of 4 per cent or more the Canadian Pacific borrowed $10,700,000 at 4 per cent, while the Canadian National borrowed $128,000,000 at 5 per cent; $48,000,000 at 4-| per cent; $181,000,000 at 44 per cent and $46,000,000 at 4 per cent.
If the government would bring about refunding of the Canadian National debt to such a point where it would not be overly burdened, the need for increased freight rates would not be so great.
Speaking before the railway committee of the House of Commons on Monday, April 19, Mr. Vaughan said that the question of lowering

the burden of debt the line owes the government was constantly before the finance department; interest payments were entirely too high.
In the railways' application for higher rates they pointed to the great increases in wages paid employees. I believe it was yesterday that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) drew to the attention of the house the wonderful progress which has been made in technological developments. He pointed to the fact that larger engines are hauling larger trains and larger boxcars, and that there are greater numbers of them. In that connection I should like to place a few figures on record. In 1922 there were 165,635 employees of all the railroads in Canada. During that year the railways carried 108,530,518 freight tons, or an average of 655-2 freight tons per employee. In 1946 they had 180,383 employees and carried 179,966,180 freight tons, or an average of 997-7 freight tons per employee. This represents an increase of about 52 per cent in freight tons per employee. I think that is something which has not thus far been brought to the attention of the house.
It has been suggested to me by different Canadian National employees that some discrimination exists against the Canadian National in the matter of handling government business. For instance, on October 11, 1945, 1.700 recruits were moved from Vancouver to Halifax on the Canadian Pacific railway, which required four trains of seventeen cars each. In giving me this information, a Canadian National employee had this to say:
Here we have the C.N.R. with a better grade, where one engine could handle each train, standing by while the C.P.R. requiring three engines to each train through the mountains, walks off with a rich haul. I cannot resist drawing this to your attention as it is a case of the C.P.R. getting the cream of the transportation business in every instance and our officials sit back apparently helpless because of the pressure from somewhere, I do not know.
In the northern part of my constituency, the Canadian Pacific have running rights over several Canadian National lines. My information, which I got from a source which I believe is reliable, is that the Canadian Pacific pick up loads all along the Canadian National line. I am also informed that mail travelling on the Canadian National destined to the west coast from Saskatoon is unloaded in Edmonton and reloaded on the Canadian Pacific route through Calgary. These are matters which I think should be investigated and, if found to be correct, rectified.
In 1947 estimates of the Post Office Department, I find that the Canadian Pacific received

Freight Rates
84,177,775 for mail carried, while the Canadian National received S3,756,489, or $421,286 less than that received by the Canadian Pacific. This means that the Canadian National receive 11 per cent less of moneys paid for carrying mail than did the Canadian Pacific.
I want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the total mileage of the Canadian National Railways is 23,660 miles, while that of the Canadian Pacific Railway is 20,899 miles, giving to the Canadian National almost 13 per cent more miles than the Canadian Pacific, so that with 13 per cent more mileage than the Canadian Pacific the Canadian National receives 11 per cent less of the moneys paid by the government for carrying mail.
This situation is bad enough, but there is another type of discrimination, to which I should like to direct the attention of the government. This is something to which I have drawn attention before. Governments in the past have allowed the Canadian Pacific to run branch lines into districts adjacent to Canadian National lines. We all know that these lines go through districts which vary as to the kind of soil and in other respects. You can go into Saskatchewan and find many places where the Canadian National have built lines into fertile districts which are now tapped by the Canadian Pacific. The latter company is taking freight which I think should justifiably go to our own Canadian National.
The Minister of Transport is young and energetic. I think he should begin to take a greater interest in the Canadian National Railways and to see that this sort of discrimination is done away with.
During the period of the war the railways did very well and there was no talk of an increase in rates. This because they were able to carry on a two-way traffic and lots of it. But many times in the past those of us who come from the west have seen our farm products hauled away in mile-long trains loaded to capacity. We got very little for those products, with the result that we also saw mile-long trains coming back from eastern Canada consisting of empty boxcars. We should see to it that that condition never recurs, because if it does we shall have the railroads asking for another increase in freight rates.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon, member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). The minister has complained that many of the speeches made during this debate have been destructive in character, but I think the hon. member for Davenport made some good suggestions. One suggestion was that there should be greater production and the development of backward areas.
In offering a partial solution to this question of freight rates, I would suggest three main points for the government to consider. First, there should be a refinancing of the Canadian National debt structure and a reduction of the interest rate. Second, there should be planning for more traffic by increased production. Third, subsidies should be paid where necessary in connection with lines which are not productive and where the traffic is not sufficient to pay operating costs.
After this action has been taken, the board of transport commissioners, to which I think some new blood should be added, should then carry out the provisions of the Railway Act, which states that there should be equality as to tolls with respect to all traffic carried under substantially similar circumstances and conditions and that no toll shall be charged which unjustly discriminates between different localities.
Mr. -ROBERT FAIR (Battle River): Mr. Speaker, I shall delay the house for only a few minutes because the case for this group has been placed before the house and the government earlier in the debate. We consider that it was good business to state our case and let it rest. This morning, as well as during the past weeks since this freight rate increase has been in effect, I have received a number of complaints. I should like to bring two of these to the attention of the house.
The first was received from a merchant in a small town near the Saskatchewan border who complains about express rates from Edmonton to his town. On April 3 he received from Edmonton a shipment of two boxes weighing 55 pounds for which he paid 42 cents. On April 10 he received a similar two boxes weighing 54 pounds for which he was billed 81 cents, or practically a 100 per cent increase. We have been given to understand that only a 21 per cent increase was authorized. One week later, on April 17, he received another shipment weighing 52 pounds for which he was billed 80 cents. This party has written me and he wants an explanation which I cannot give him. If the minister can give me an answer I will pass it on to this merchant. He and many others are really peeved about this increase in freight rates which has been granted without having the discriminatory features of the freight rate structure remuv- J.
I received a letter this morning from the Edmonton chamber of commerce. This contains some suggestions which I should like to place on the record. Their letter reads:
It is the opinion of this chamber that such an inquiry should be conducted by an independent
Freight Rates

tribunal, in the nature of a Toyal commission, and this chamber has so advocated for the past year and a half. In so advocating, the chamber does not desire to express lack of confidence in the board of transport commissioners, but desires to point out that what may in some rejects be an appeal from the findings of a quasi judicial body should not be referred to the same body. Furthermore, the chamber feels the inquiry should be by well qualified men, versed in the field of commerce and economics who would be unhampered in any way by the statutory restrictions by which the board of transport commissioners has heretofore been hedged about.
The chamber has been advocating, and still advocates, the appointment of a commission of the prestige and influence of the Rowell-Sirois commission because the chamber feels the question of freight rates is the single most important matter facing the Canadian economy at the present time.
Skipping two or three paragraphs, I quote again:
... it would seem unfortunate that the findings of any such inquiry should be anticipated by the implementation- of the present 21 per cent increase, and the chamber considers it to be in the interests of Canada that the findings of the board of transport commissioners be deferred until the new inquiry has had an- opportunity of hearing evidence, fully considering matters and reporting to the government of the day.
In the view of this chamber it would be in the public interest, if necessary, to protect independent railways from operating losses by governmental subsidy while the commission conducts its study.
That is the exact stand which was taken by this group when our position was placed before the house some days ago. I want to endorse these suggestions fully, as does my group, and commend them to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the government.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker having read the motion, the amendment, -and the amendment to the amendment:


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on the amendment to the amendment and I wish to comment on it very briefly.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the rule is very clear that when the Speaker rises-


Major James William Coldwell: I rose too.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and puts the question and asks if the house is ready for the question, and the house agrees-


Major James William Coldwell: The house did not agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was watching very closely what took place. The Speaker started 
to read the question to the house before the hon. member stood up the first time and, that being the case, I submit that, under the rules of the house, there is no opportunity for any further speaking.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I started to rise when you rose, but as you had risen to your feet I resumed my seat. I rose because I had not spoken to the amendment to the amendment and I wanted to speak on it for a very few minutes. I think, Mr. Speaker, I am within my rights in suggesting to you that I should be accorded that opportunity. I sat down simply because you also were on your feet.


Joseph Henry Harris: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was on his feet, although it is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that you may not have noticed it. My second point of order is this, that Your Honour had not concluded reading the amendment to the amendment before the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was again on his feet. So on both points of order, Your Honour, I feel that the hon. member is in order in speaking.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for just a few moments on the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken).


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I insist on a ruling on the point of order I raised. Is it correct or incorrect?


James Horace King: The point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture is well taken. As hon. members know, according to the rule, when the Speaker has started to put the question no member is allowed to speak. When I rose I asked the house first: Is the house ready for the question? And no member rose. The question before the house was the whole question, the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment, and when I asked if hon. members were ready for the question-


Major James William Coldwell: Your Honour did not ask that.


James Horace King: I asked the house first: Is the house ready for the question? I certainly did, and no member rose. Then I put the question. So I think we should proceed.


Major James William Coldwell: Before Your Honour finally rules, may I refer you to Beauchesne, Parliamentary Rules and Forms,' second Edition, citation 260:
A member may not speak on a question after
the Speaker or Chairman has collected the voices both of the yeas and nays on that question. A question is said to be "fully put" when the voices have been- so eolieeted.

Freight Rates
May I also point out, Mr. Speaker, that I always try to be courteous to the Chair, and when I saw you on your feet I knew I should resume my seat, and I did. I had partly risen when you rose, Mr. Speaker, and then I took my seat again when you were on your feet. 1 believe that the rule which governs in this case is the one I have cited, citation 260, that the question is not "fully put" until the voices of members have been heard.


James Horace King: I have already explained the situation to hon. members and they know very well what is the practice. After the house is ready to divide on the question, it would be of no use to listen to other hon. members. But if a mistake occurred, and it is the wish of the house that the hon. member should be given unanimous consent to proceed, he may proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Other hon. MEMBERS: No.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It is very good of you, Mr. Speaker, to put it in that way, that I may proceed with the unanimous consent of the house, but I do not wish to have the unanimous consent of the house. I am standing on the position that the whole question had not been fully put and that I am within my rights to speak at this stage. I appreciate very much Your Honour's suggestion that I may proceed with the unanimous consent of the house, but I believe I am right in my contention that the question has not been put. Your Honour did not say, for example: The question is on the subamendment.


James Horace King: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: Now, and no voices have yet been heard. Have I the right to speak?


James Horace King: Order. I do not want any confusion. Hon. members know perfectly well the practice we have always followed in the house. The Speaker rises and asks the house: Is the house ready for the question? It is then open to any member to rise and speak on the amendment or on the amendment to the amendment or on the main motion. I put the question to the house and no member rose, so I started to read the motion. After that, I could take the yeas and nays. I ask hon. members to allow me to proceed.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I was paired with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. JEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I did not vote, Mr. Speaker. I have had a long association with these railways, and I thought I owed it to the integrity of this house and myself to abstain, which I did.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. BURTON:: May I ask you to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Horace King: Order. I asked if the house was ready for the question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Horace King: -and an hon. member of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) rose to speak. So, it being after six o'clock, I have to say, It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph William Burton: Mr. Speaker, if this question of freight rates were not such a serious one it would indeed be iunny, the way the government and its supporters are endeavouring to force such an unjust and unfair ruling onto the greater part of this country. The least a person can say is that it is ironical that the only representative from Saskatchewan in the cabinet-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe it is my duty to call the attention of the hon. member and the house, before we carry on with this debate, to the fact that we have had a long debate on this question. Of course it is the privilege of the house to continue the debate as long as hon. members think it should be continued.
I have been most generous in permitting hon. members not, shall I say, to read their speeches-because that is against the rules of the house-but to consult their notes in the debate. I do not believe, however, that in carrying on with this debate I should permit hon. members to read their speeches. I must advise hon. members, therefore, that from now on I shall be very severe. I will not tolerate any member reading his speech.


Joseph William Burton: On a question of privilege, may I inquire whether Your Honour was implying that I was beginning to read my speech?


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to have the respect he should have for the Chair. I have made this statement before the hon. member begins, to call the attention of hon. members to this point so that they will not read their speeches. Moreover I must call the attention of all hon. members to the fact that I will not tolerate any member attempting to indicate that he
Weir Whitman WinkleT Winters-110.

Freight Rates
is not reading his speech by stating that he is just consulting his notes. If hon. members are. reading their speeches, I shall not tolerate it.


Joseph William Burton: If this is a speech that is being read, then I would say-


James Horace King: Order. I will not tolerate any representations from the hon. member. I did not accuse him of reading his speech; I did not say he was reading it. I just called the attention of hon. members in the house to the fact that I will not tolerate any hon. members reading their speeches. I would ask hon. members not to forget the rules the Speaker has to apply.


Joseph William Burton: I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no desire to be discourteous to the Chair or in any other way to violate the rules of the house. I wish to assure you and all other hon. members that I have not a written speech before me, and that I have very scanty notes which I wish to consult. If necessary, I shall speak even without consulting those notes.
So far as the other matter was concerned, the one with which I was dealing before I was interrupted, I was going to say it is ironical that the only representative in the cabinet from Saskatchewan should make use of the only time he has taken part in the debate to speak in an attempt to prevent my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), from exercising his right to speak to the amendment to the amendment.
In that connection may I also say that the only other member from Saskatchewan on the government side of the house has not taken part in the debate. However he did have quite a bit to say about it out in the west. In that connection I quote from a report in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 3, where he said:
I think the west will get a fair deal out of the freight rates situation under proper representations.
Then he described the ruling of the board of transport commissioners, and I should like to have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) pay attention to this:
He described the ruling of the board of transport commissioners as just an advisory ruling.
Farther on comes the gem of the interview, where he says:
We are best represented by our members at Ottawa. But there are only four of us from the west; two from Alberta and two from Saskatchewan.
Then he said:
How I could have used the support of fifteen or twenty Libera] members in my talks before the caucus.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if those fifteen or twenty imaginary Liberal members from Saskatchewan would not have been any more vocal in the interests of the people of that province than are the two Liberal members from there at the present time, it would have been just too bad for Saskatchewan.
Then, to think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should raise the point that he did raise this afternoon, in an endeavour to shut off the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
Those of us who have lived in the west, those of us who have helped build up the west, realize that this is not the first time we have been let down by Liberal members from the west. In connection with this question of freight rates, may I say it is such a large subject and one which covers so much ground that, despite the fact, that we have spent considerable time in a discussion of it, there is still much that could be said. However, it is not my intention to go into the details of the various angles of this question which affect the people of the constituency I have the honour to represent, which affect the people of Saskatchewan; indeed, the people of the western provinces, as well as the maritimes.
I would say, however, that during the time this debate has been in progress a number of members taking part in the debate have endeavoured from time to time to show that there has existed and still exists discrimination as between the different parts of Canada, so far as freight rates are concerned. A number of times the Minister of Transport and his supporters have endeavoured to brush that aside by saying that the question of discrimination will be referred to the board of transport commissioners for further consideration. In that way he is trying to shove that part of the debate to the side. I would draw to his attention, through you, Mr. Speaker, that last year when members of this group were trying to bring the question of discrimination before the house the Minister of Transport took another view of the matter. I have here before me Hansard of March 6, 1947.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, we have just completed a vote on the amendment to the amendment which had1 to do with discrimination and inequalities. The amendment now before the house involves only the deferring of increases in rates. As I say, we have already taken a vote of the house on the other question and I think we should go on and discuss the amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: On the point of order, I fail to follow the Minister of Agriculture. Our amendment states that what has been proposed by the board of transport commissioners is
Freight Rates

inimical to the people of Canada, is discriminatory to some of the people of Canada. Hence I contend that what the hon. gentleman is saying about discrimination in reply to the minister is perfectly within, the bounds of this debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is another foul ball.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: You have to stifle discussion of that kind. You are afraid of it.


Lionel Chevrier: You are trying to carry the debate ad, nauseam.


Mr. BENTLEY:: It will nauseate you when you hear it.


Lionel Chevrier: Indeed it is nauseating.


James Horace King: I think the hon. member who has the floor and the hon. members who have spoken on the point of order know perfectly well that in debate they should not refer to a question which has already been settled by a vote of the house. The amendment now before the house reads:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to defer the imposition of the increases in freight rates recently authorized by the board of transport commissioners is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada; further this house is of the opinion that the government should reconsider this matter and take action to prevent the proposed increases from coming into effect at this time.
I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment now before the house. The amendment upon which the house voted this afternoon reads as follows:
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.
I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment now before the house. I realize that some hon. members may say the amendment now before the house is close to the spirit of the subamendment upon which a vote was taken this afternoon, but hon. members must admit that if I accepted the amendment to the amendment it was because there was a difference between the amendment to the amendment and the amendment. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the amendment and not discuss the subamendment upon which a vote was taken this afternoon.


Joseph William Burton: Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall endeavour to the best of

my ability to comply with your ruling. It is ironical that the Minister of Agriculture rises to his feet only on a point of order of this nature.


Lionel Chevrier: You have said that three times already.


Joseph William Burton: Your Honour has pointed out that the amendment to the amendment which was disposed of this afternoon-I shall not refer to it-was very close to the amendment moved some time ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, so I hope that if I should get close to the line you will take that fact into consideration.
In moving the amendment, we in this group asked the government to delay putting into effect the ruling of the board of transport commissioners because it was inimical to the welfare of the people in certain parts of the country. Consequently, when we deal with that matter we are dealing with a question which we endeavoured to discuss last year. At that time the Minister of Transport raised objections, and raised them successfully I would say, because members in this group were prevented from discussing what was then uppermost in their minds.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, the hon. member is quite incorrect-


Major James William Coldwell: No, he is not.
Mr. CHEVRIER-in the statement he has just made.


Major James William Coldwell: Let the minister read Hansard of March 6.


Lionel Chevrier: I remember what happened since it concerns myself.


James Horace King: May I ask the minister to be kind enough to address himself to the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: I will gladly do that, Mr. Speaker. The point of order which I make is that when the discussion on freight rates occurred on a previous occasion I took the position that, since the matter was before the board of transport commissioners, it was then sub judice and therefore could not be discussed in this house. Notwithstanding that position, I was overruled in part by Your Honour. Your Honour allowed a general discussion on freight rates, I think in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. When the hon. gentleman states that I objected to the debate and that they -were not allowed to debate freight rates, I take issue with his statement and say it is unfounded and incorrect. The house was allowed an opportunity at that time to discuss freight rates.

Freight Rates


Major James William Coldwell: The discriminatory
features were objected to.


Joseph William Burton: Were it not, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling of a few moments ago, I would be glad to place on the record the exact words of the Minister of Transport in that connection.
An hon .MEMBER: Do so now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he did, you can.


Joseph William Burton: Since he has raised a point of order on that, may I ask your permission, sir, to quote from page 1087 of Hansard of March 6, 1947, where the minister is reported as saying:
But in essence the hon. gentleman is discussing exactly what is before the board of transport commissioners today. He has referred to the discrimination alleged to exist between freight rates in the east and in the west. That is exactly what counsel have been arguing before the board. There can be no difficulty or doubt about that. I hope the hon. gentleman will understand that I do not want to interfere with free speech, but certainly there is no doubt in my own mind that what he is discussing is on all fours with the evidence given before the board.
Then on page 1088 the minister is reported as having said:
I think I have the right to bring up this point, on the question of order. My hon. friend is quite right when he says the sole application before the board is for an increase in freight rates. But surely my hon. friend know's that those who are asked to appear with respect to that application have the right to reply on other matters, and they have in this reply pleaded this particular matter of the discrimination which may exist as between certain parts of Canada, with respect to both freight rates generally and what are known as regional rates. That matter has been discussed and evidence has been submitted. That is the point I am making, and I add that, in effect, that is what the hon. gentleman is discussing.
That is what the Minister of Transport said last year.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Does he not think that in order to be fair he should put on record the decision of the Speaker?


Joseph William Burton: I would gladly do so if His Honour would not object. I would have done so long ago if it had not been for the Minister of Agriculture. At page 1087 of Hansard of March 6, 1947, when the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay) was dealing with this question, he was interrupted by His Honour, who said:
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to direct his attention to the memorandum I prepared on this matter, which was read by the Deputy Speaker yesterday, and particularly to this paragraph-
5849-206J


James Horace King: Order. As I recalled to the attention of the house a few moments ago, we had a very long debate on that question, and I believed that it was my duty as the voice of the house to rule, that the debate should be relevant to the matter before the house. Now we have an amendment actually before the house and I asked the hon. member a few minutes ago to confine his remarks to the amendment, but since he started his speech, which seems to have been enjoyed very much as shown by the laughter in the house, he has been on the borderline throughout not to say more, in spite of my advice. I have a duty to perform and I must insist upon the hon. member confining his remarks to the amendment before the house. If he does not do so, I shall be obliged to apply the sanction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has done nothing to call upon him the castigation you have just given him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: I sat down too soon a little earlier.


James Horace King: Order. I wish to give the hon. member all the liberty he should have, but it is my duty to ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is quite in order in what he is doing, that there is nothing improper in his behaviour as a member of this house and that the kind of lecture that has been given him is undeserved.


Joseph William Burton: I hope that I and all other members will profit by this incident. May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to add a few personal words. Ever since I entered this chamber in 1943, in my conscience before God, I have not said or done anything in this house that was out of order; and even if I did not honour you personally as I do, I should still honour the office you hold and endeavour to conduct myself in an honourable and upright manner in this house.
The amendment moved by my leader the hon. member for Rosetown^Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), as I was saying before I was interrupted by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)-and if I may be permitted to say so, our whole difficulty this evening has come from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-was moved to persuade the government that, for the time being, they should withhold the
Freight Rates

application of the order of the board of transport commissioners. I could show how this freight rate increase will affect my constituency and the province from which I come, and, going beyond the confines of that province, how it will affect other parts of this dominion, but I shall not weary the house this evening when apparently the members are in such a hurry to do something which I believe they will regret before many years are over.
I received my early education in the southern states, where I was bom, in the union to the south of us. In the first part of that education the British form of government was not spoken of in any too glowing terms, but, having come to this country as a young lad and continued my education here, I was very soon impressed by the parliamentary system of government that prevails throughout the British empire. Following the admonitions of my father, I endeavoured to study that system, and the more I studied it, the more firmly I came to the conclusion that we had in this country a form of government that was well adapted to accomplishing everything we desired and that it was one that should be furthered and encouraged.
As one goes on through life, things sometimes occur, and possibly something occurred this evening, to check one's firm belief in something that he admires and loves. But all this while, Mr. Speaker, I have believed and still do believe in our parliamentary system of government, and one of our rights under that system is the right of appeal, even to the foot of the throne, if necessary. The appeal from the board's decision would go before the ministers who are His Majesty's advisers.
On a question such as this which affects the people of this country so vitally, we hear a great deal said about the need for national unity. I plead with the ministers on the treasury benches, who are seemingly determined to have this order go into effect before even the appeal against it can be heard, to withhold the imposition of the order until those provinces which have registered notice of their intention to appeal may be heard. On Saturday the premiers of seven of the nine provinces are to present their case to the government, and I think it would be only fair and proper for this house to defer the vote on the amendment moved by my leader until next week, until that appeal is heard. One way of doing that would be for the members from the west and the maritime provinces to continue this debate, but personally I think there is a much better way. All that this house has to do is to agree to adjourn this debate until some time next week. In the

meantime we can go on with our other work. I shall make the proper motion in this respect in a moment. Because of the anxiety that has been shown by hon. members on the Liberal benches for us to get on with the business of the house, I am sure that they will support the motion I am about to make. I think it will be better for all concerned and in the interests of national unity for the government to go on with the other business of the house and give the premiers of the seven provinces an opportunity to present their case. Therefore I hope they will support my motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay):
That this debate be now adjourned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those against the motion will please say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the "nays" have it. Call in the members.


James Horace King: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Herbert Matthews: All right, Little Chicago; go to it. The house has just voted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Matthews: Bottoms up 1


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: Order. Hon. members should understand that it is the duty of the Speaker to preserve order, and I would ask them to remain quiet while the hon. member continues his remarks.


James Herbert Matthews: The house has just voted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. COLD WELT,: I rise to ask this question of hon. gentlemen on the Liberal benches. Is this a sample of Liberal democracy?


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has the floor asked us to go ahead with our remarks. That is his privilege, and we cannot be attacked for doing as we were asked.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members to observe the privileges which are extended to all hon. members of this house, including freedom of speech, and I ask that this privilege be extended to the hon. member who has the floor.


James Herbert Matthews: This house has just voted1 down a motion to adjourn the debate. Therefore I am going to continue the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Herbert Matthews: And if the hon. gentlemen on the other side want to keep this up until next Monday morning, I can stand it as long as they can.


James Horace King: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have only forty
minutes.
Freight Rates


James Herbert Matthews: I can stand for more than forty minutes, and it will not be the first time I have done so. I have not taken part in this debate previously, but I fully intend to exercise my right to do so for the definite reason that I represent the constituency of Kootenay East in British Columbia, a province which has suffered under the freight rates structure as much as if not more than any other province.
( Translation):


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I certainly have the right, before the main motion is discussed, to say that I was paired with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and that had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
(Text):


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer the point of order.


James Herbert Matthews: I have never posed as an expert on our freight rates structure, and I am not proposing to do so now; but living in the province of British Columbia, as I have for many years, I have always known of the inequality which existed and the fight which has been carried on for many years to remedy that situation. I have always coupled in my mind in connection with that struggle the names of two British Columbians.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Herbert Matthews: Thank you, Little Chicago. You will get your own dose back one of these days, and I will do my share of it. If you do not know what courtesy is, we on this side of the house can teach you.
The gentlemen to whom I refer, who have participated so splendidly in this fight in past years, are the late Senator McGeer and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The late Senator McGeer was untiring in his efforts to obtain a better deal for the province of British Columbia; and I dare to think in my own mind that his interest in this problem went much deeper than the mere legal emolument he may have received for his services. Standing by his side year after year, tilting a brave lance, was the hon. member for New Westminster.
As I said a few moments ago, I am not an expert on this freight rate issue, but I do know something of the harmful effect this 21 per cent increase will have on the lives of the people of my constituency. In the Kootenays we produce huge quantities of goods and commodities:	coal, lumber, ores, fruit, dairy

produce and wheat. I am sure it would not hurt the house to learn that in my constituency, in the Creston valley area, lives Mrs. Amy Kelsey, who grew in that district wheat which won first prize at the Chicago exhibition and made her the wheat queen of North America.
When I speak of freight rates I am not speaking specifically for those larger producing interests, though naturally they are concerned over this 21 per cent increase. I am thinking particularly of the fruit growers of my constituency, the men who pack from two thousand to six or eight thousand boxes of fruit each season. These are the people who now are being over-burdened with this 21 per cent increase in freight rates; and I want to tell the members of this house that it does not matter whether these growers are Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F. or what have you, every last one of them is opposed to this increase. I believe it has already been pointed out in this debate that this increase will cost the fruit growers of British Columbia, particularly the tree fruit growers, a round million dollars extra in distributive transportation costs.
I have been amused the last few days, believe it or not, at the eagerness with which hon. members on the government benches, who are not here now-and if it was the noisy crowd we can well do without them-have been calling for the vote. They have all been so eager to have the vote: "Question; question!" they yell, every time an opposition member gets up to speak. I would remind them that that eagerness stems from the time the party caucus was held immediately after the moving of the amendment to which we are now speaking. The press all across the country carried headlines, "Government Threatened". Then after getting something of the news which came out of the party caucus, and after hearing various members on the government benches speak their piece, members who might well have been expected to bolt on this issue, the press, after hearing them say that they would vote to sustain the government, began, of course, to change its tune. Then we began to see new headlines: "Government Weathers Storm".
I venture to point out there are times when even the press of this country makes mistakes. And I am not so sure that the government has weathered the storm. My message to the government is this. Just because you may win this vote, do not pat yourselves on the back. This storm is just beginning. Instead of patting yourselves on the back, my advice would be to prepare to meet the deluge-because you will have to meet it if these things go on.

Freight Rates
I should like if I may to say a few words ' about what was said by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat this evening. Speaking in the house on Tuesday, April 20, as reported at page 3145 of Hansard, and referring to the C.C.F., he said:
But there are hon. gentlemen of the cloth on the other side-my hon. friends have a number of them-arid these hon. gentlemen should have told them that one of the oldest precepts in human relationships is that a man cannot serve two masters.
The implication being, I take it, that we of the C.C.F. group were trying to serve two masters, and that we were thereby inconsistent. Replying to that statement, may I say that in all my life I have never seen a more flagrant case of inconsistency than that exhibited by certain British Columbia members in connection with this particular issue. They themselves have expressed their feelings keenly. They have expressed the feelings of their province on this particular issue; and then, just to save their party from extinction and from being defeated they created a nice little fence for themselves, and then climbed on it, one after another. If that is not inconsistency, I should like to know what it is.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni ventured into the realm of holy writ when he said:	"No man can serve two masters", and
so I am going to ask the priviiege of reading briefly from holy writ. The hon. member may have learned that in Sunday School as a boy; he may have learned something about it at his mother's knee. I hope he did. But it will not help-


Thomas Vincent Grant: What about freight rates?


James Herbert Matthews: You will get freight rates by and by. But he may not have just remembered all the passage. Therefore I would read it, and tell him that the passage is found in the gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 6, verse 24, which states:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
When I record my vote in this House of Commons against the 21 per cent increase in freight rates, I do so because I believe that in serving the people of my constituency who will be oppressed by this increase I am serving God. And if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni wants to go the opposite way, I have a perfect right to infer that he wants to serve mammon.
Mr. P.E. WRIGHT (Melfort): Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate; but since I have seen that the government did not want the debate adjourned, but wished to see it carried on for the rest of this evening at least, I thought it my duty to take part in it.
Coming from western Canada, where we are particularly interested in the recent increase, because of its effect on our basic industry out there, I felt that as a farmer representative in the house I should have something to say about it. The implementing of this 21 per cent increase without first removing the inimical and unjust freight rates structure is probably the worst feature of the present situation. It leads to discontent and to a feeling of rank injustice in a great many parts of our dominion. This is something which any government in Canada should try to avoid at all costs.
If the government had agreed to the postponement for six months of the implementation of this 21 per cent increase, until the matter had been placed before the board of transport commissioners, and some equalization in the freight rates structure of Canada agreed upon, I do not think there would have been the feeling that there is throughout Canada today with regard to it. I can assure hon. members of the Liberal party that they have not a majority in the country so far as the feeling of discrimination in connection with this matter is concerned. There are many people all across Canada who consider that the 21 per cent increase at this time is unjust. I believe that it is unjust, and that the railways are making a mistake. They spend large sums of money every year to create better relations with the public. I do not think they could have done anything which would have more impressed the public with their genuineness than by having asked that this 21 per cent increase be deferred until there had been an equalization of the freight rates structure. It would have been good business on the part of the railway companies to have made that suggestion, even though the government or the board of transport commissioners were prepared immediately to give the increase.
Many examples have been given of just what this 21 per cent increase means, especially as it affects small shippers. The discrimination is much greater as it applies to people in outlying areas who cannot collect their produce for large shipments. Figures were given here both by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) and the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) showing this discrimination as between large and small
Freight Rates

shippers. This is particularly true with respect to eggs and cream. In many cases the increase is not 21 per cent, it is 50 and 100 per cent.
When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) spoke he gave figures to indicate that these increases would mean only a small increase in the prices of butter, tea, coffee and other articles of consumption in Canada, but the figures he gave did not show the whole picture. The increase in the freight on these articles when moving into centres for distribution was not included in his figures. When you consider those increases you will find it amounts to as much as two or three cents more for a pound of butter.
Either the producer or the consumer must pay that increase. If the producer pays it, it means there is less spending power in the hands of the producer. If the consumer pays it, it means a higher cost of living in Canada. I do not think the government should be doing anything today to increase the cost of living. Surely they realize that that is something about which the people are today protesting right across Canada. They also are protesting the inflationary effects of this increase in the freight rates.
This increase of 21 per cent is pyramided two or three times before the article being shipped reaches the final producer or consumer. The minister did not given any examples of what this increase means in connection with prices of binders, tractors, farm machinery and all those things entering into the cost of production. The increase of 21 per cent means an increase of from $30 to $70 in the cost of many implements. That is not a small item at a time when prices have been increased several times during the last year or two.
This increase of 21 per cent in freight rates will be a serious blow to the livestock industry in western Canada. There is not only an increase of 21 per cent in the freight from the local point to Winnipeg; there will be a greater effect through the fact that the Winnipeg market will be lower in relationship to the eastern markets. Over a period of time the Winnipeg market price is based on the eastern price plus freight to eastern Canada. The Winnipeg market is generally that much lower and that increase will mean another general lowering of livestock prices in western Canada. That will be an important thing at a time when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is asking for more bacon and an increased production in our livestock and

dairy industries. The government is passing legislation which will discourage that increase in production.
There will also be an increased demand from western Canada that the government absorb the freight on livestock shipped to the eastern markets. The government now pay the freight on coarse grains from the head of the lakes to eastern Canada, with which policy I agree, but if the government are prepared to do that they should be prepared to pay the freight on livestock and dairy products from western Canada to the eastern markets. As I say, this 21 per cent increase will mean more pressure on the government to do that very thing.
If the government pays the freight on coarse grains for the feeding of livestock it is only fair that the livestock producer in western Canada should have the freight paid on the products he ships to the eastern markets.
I should like to point out another example of discrimination not connected with agriculture. The freight rate on a cord of pulpwood shipped from a point ten miles from Hudson Bay Junction to Fort Frances is $2.90, whereas, when the same cord of wood is shipped to Churchill practically the same distance, the rate is $13 a cord or $212 a car. Recently there was a demand for poplar logs to be shipped through Churchill to Great Britain and Europe for the making of matches. When the exporters inquired about freight rates on logs going through Churchill they found this discriminatory freight rate structure, and the result was that it was impossible for them to take advantage of that market.
Where it cost $212 to ship a carload of pulp-wood to Churchill it cost only $46.40 to ship the same car to Fort Frances, the same distance. What does the 21 per cent increase amount to in those cases? In the case of the car going to Churchill the increase amounts to $42, whereas in the case of the car going to Fort Frances it amounts to only $10. The increase is four times as large in the one case for a car travelling the same distance.
It is discrimination like that to which people object. It is impossible to develop industry in western Canada, for export markets for some of the things we can produce. Why accentuate that discrimination by a 21 per cent flat increase? It is absolute nonsense to talk of equality and equity when the government are prepared to go ahead and implement that type of increase before equalizing our freight rates. I do not think there would be much objection, and there certainly would

Freight Rates
not be as much as there has been to the increase if the government had done something to remove these inequities.
I would say that from every point of view delay in implementing the increase was justified. From the point of view of better relationships between the railways and the public, and this is of particular importance to the railways themselves which have to meet competition today by road and air transport, and from the point of view of increasing the already high living costs in Canada, this 21 per cent freight rate increase is entirely unjustified at this time. Its pyramiding effect will increase the cost of living and be the cause of further inflation. I therefore submit that even at this late date the government should defer implementing this increase in freight rates until at least some equalization has been made in our freight rate structure, either by the board of transport commissioners or by some other body set up for that purpose.
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate on the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. group on April 7 to the motion for the house to go into committee of supply, particularly in view of the excellent representations that have been made to the government, not necessarily from my own party alone or from any one party, but from fl.Il sides of tiis lionss	TVTc*y I gay
that no plea was more eloquent than those that came from back-benchers from British Columbia and other parts of Canada, asking the government to reconsider implementing the 21 per cent freight rate increase which went into effect on April 5. I do not recall in my short parliamentary career any parallel to the speed with which the Liberals acted on the very day that the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved his amendment, asking the government to reconsider this matter and take action to prevent the proposed increases from coming into effect at this time. On that very day, as if by magic, because I do not suppose, not being familiar with how the governor in council operates, that an order in council can be back-dated, P.C. 1486 was passed. It simply states that the committee of the privy council, having given due consideration to the petitions and representations of the seven provinces of Canada other than Ontario and Quebec, had decided that it could not interfere with the board's order granting a 21 per cent increase in freight rates. It seems an anomaly to me that, under a federal system of government such as we have in Canada, when seven of a nine-member family have expressed their attitude in no uncertain terms and asked for additional time to have their case presented before the government-as a matter of fact they are to meet in Ottawa on Saturday next-[DOT] the plea of the railway systems should outweigh with the government the expressed needs of the people of seven provinces of this dominion.
When you go back into history and read the story of how the railways came into being you realize that it was an epic of achievement. The credit should go, not to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but to the pioneers in this country who backed their confidence in it with their dollars, by gifts to the company, by loans, by bond guarantees, by tremendous grants of land particularly throughout our prairies and in British Columbia, by tax exemptions, by special concessions from governments, dominion, provincial and municipal, to make the Canadian Pacific railway the tie that bound Canada from coast to coast.
It is fallacious to think of the Canadian Pacific railway in any sense as a privately owned public utility. By some freak of financial strategy, shall we say, though some people might call it business acumen, a group of people banded themselves together as a corporation and extracted concessions from the public domain, with the result that a railway worth originally several tens or, at the most,
-.- i t

jocvciai iiuix\-4i cvj.o kjl uuujuuo ui uunmo
expanded into a corporation with assets approaching several billions of dollars, all having been derived, not from the sinews of the shareholders of the company, but from the sweat and toil and tears of the people of our own country who worked and spent their money in paying the tolls extracted by the directors of the corporation.
When the railways which now form part of the Canadian National railway system failed following world war I, a charitable government took them over, not in the way that private enterprise usually takes over a bankrupt institution by paying as little as possible for it on the open market, but by providing most generously for the shareholders of the company that apparently could not run its own business successfully. When I think of those five per cent bonds which people in other lands are still holding in perpetuity, Mr. Speaker, not bonds with a date of termination at which time they are cancelled but a debt with which the people of Canada are forever saddled at five per cent interest-the coupon clippers are somewhere in the United States or in England, not even in Canada-then it makes me wonder why our people in the seven provinces, who have joined together in making their objection
Freight Rates

to the dominion government on behalf of a reconsideration of the freight rate structure, have been as long suffering as they have.
In the report of the board of transport commissioners authorizing or concurring in a 21 per cent freight rate increase, the word "discrimination" often appears. The board admit that there is discrimination in rates as between the central provinces and the remaining portion of the Dominion of Canada. They say that there is evidence of discrimination but there is no evidence of unjust discrimination. One of the most amazing peculiarities of our English language is that of combining a pair of contradictory phrases. To me discrimination seems to be the ultimate. The board of transport commissioners, however, are willing to agree that discrimination exists in our freight rate structure, but they say it has not been shown to their satisfaction that that discrimination is unjust discrimination.
It has been mentioned in this debate that the comparatively sparsely settled sections of Canada, the prairie provinces, have contributed 65 per cent of the net revenues of the Canadian Pacific at a time when the more thickly populated sections of central Canada, with much greater traffic, have been able to contribute only 35 per cent of the net revenues of that railway company. The very fact that on a population basis we contributed from the prairies sixfold the profit to the railway companies that a more richly endowed Ontario and Quebec contributed, it seems to me, speaks for the callous disregard of the sense of public responsibility that a public utility ought to have. We in the west contributed equally if not more than eastern Canada toward the construction of the railway lines that cross this country. Should we go on in perpetuity paying disproportionate transportation costs because of the distance goods have to travel to get to our provinces? Must we go on paying on a mileage basis 15 per cent, as is stated to be the average in the differential between the rate in eastern Canada and that on the prairies, or in many cases running many times that, just because we have not the ballot power, shall I say, to cause the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to adopt a more open-minded view with regard to justice for all parts of this federal union?
It was mentioned in the house today that if in my province of Saskatchewan there were fifteen, eighteen or twenty-one Liberal voices to plead with the caucus of the present government this situation might have been avoided. From the time that I cast my first ballot on the prairies this House of Commons was flooded with Liberal members from Sas-

katchewan, and from my earliest recollection of the political status of the House of Commons, with the heavy Liberal voting strength contributed by the province of Saskatchewan-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. I mush the hon. member would confine his remarks to the question before the house, namely, the increase in freight rates.


John Oliver Probe: I shall try to do that, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that gradually we are getting a little more and more confined all the time if we attempt to make a point. It has been said-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to go into supply; therefore each hon. member can bring up anything he likes, it does not matter what, on this motion to go into supply. In other words, this is one time when an hon. member has the privilege of laying his grievances before the house. With all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I do not think your point is well taken. [DOT]


William Henry Golding: What we are dealing with is the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party. That is what is before the house, and I would ask all hon. members to try to confine their remarks to that amendment.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker-


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member for Regina City has the floor.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, I do not think your point is well taken.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member for Regina City has the floor.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat I want to thank the hon. member for St. Paul's for having put in a little plug which I think is very much overdue in this House of Commons.
In concluding what I have to say on the freight rates inequities in this country, may I say that for decades my province sent to this House of Commons members who sat on the benches behind the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). It took us a long time to get our eyes open to the fact that these people would vote for the party before they would vote for the needs of the people whom they represented. We sent the Prime Minister out of our province. He came to Prince Albert to seek a safe seat. He went out of that province, record or no record, because

Freight Rates
his policies were not those which the prairie breed wanted or could understand. There are two members still in Saskatchewan who support that government.


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be many more a little later on.


John Oliver Probe: It will not be long before they will be on their way too and the Minister of Agriculture will be one of the first to go.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I have not spoken in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and it has been going on for a long time; but to me the issue is clear. I have lived in the west a good deal, and I know perfectly well that there is a need for the equalization of freight rates. That instruction has been g!'"'ri to the board of transport commissioners and that equalization will be made just as soon as possible.
The other issue is, to me, also clear. I have been a strong advocate of increased pensions and increased pay for the workers. If these freight rates had not been increased, I would not have been a bit surprised if there had been a strike on the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. We talk about serving two masters. I do not know whether there is much difference between doing that and being on the horns of a dilemma. I think we must be fair. These workers ' on the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and other railroads have a right to consideration. Out of these increased freight rates they will get their share, and it is our duty to see that they do.
There is another thing I should like to say. When we come toward the end of a session, we often hear the criticism that not enough time is being spent on the estimates. I think if we cut down our speeches on freight rates we would have more time to spend on the estimates.


Mr. H. H. HATFIELD (Victoria-Carleton):: I do not want to take up much time in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I think it has been carried on long enough. I am quite aware that we must have an increase in freight rates, but I want to see a fair increase. The other day the minister told us that he had a board of transport commissioners who were experts in the handling of freight rates. I want to tell this house that in Canada since July we have had an increase in freight rates of 10 per cent on all shipments to the United States. Before the United States interstate commerce commission authorized that increase, the railways of Canada were allowed to increase their freight rates, on the mileage haul over Canadian territory, by 10 per cent from July on, and by 20 per cent from October on. It costs $207 to carry a carload of potatoes from New Brunswick to Windsor, Ontario; and it costs $378 to carry it to Detroit, Michigan. That is $171 extra for carrying it across the river to Detroit. Does the minister call that fair?
I call that discrimination of the worst kind, and I do not think he has many experts in the board of transport commissioners. They allowed the Canadian railways to charge the increase in freight rates that the United States railroads made before the interstate commerce commission even authorized it. I ask the minister:	Is that not a fact?


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question?


Heber Harold Hatfield: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Does he know that the increase in the United States amounted to anywhere from 50 per cent to 60 per cent, whereas the increase in this country was 21 per cent only?


Heber Harold Hatfield: The first increase in the United States was only 10 per cent. That was made in July.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is it now?


Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not know what it is now. It has been increasing ever since. It is not 51 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: I said it was between 50 and 60 per cent.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Do not tell me what it is. I am shipping goods to the United States every day. I know what the freight rates are in the United States. I know what the board of transport commissioners have allowed the railways of Canada to do. They have allowed them to increase the freight rates. What right had they to allow the increase in freight rates on potatoes that originated in Prince Edward Island and were hauled 1,200 to 1,500 miles across Canada to the United States? What right had they to allow an increase of 20 per cent before it was ever authorized? I want to ask the minister that question.


Lionel Chevrier: I will answer the question and tell the hon. gentleman that, with regard to domestic rates, there has been an increase of 21 per cent, which applies to potatoes as well as to any other commodity moving across Canada. If he is talking about international rates-that is, rates from one country to another-they were increased by the interstate commerce commission last year, and
Freight Rates

the board did likewise. But with reference to domestic rates, the increase is 21 per cent and no more.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Your board allowed this increase before the interstate commerce commission ever allowed it or ever gave authorization. The interstate commerce commission did not give any authority to increase freight rates in the United States until October. But your board allowed the Canadian railroads to make an increase in July.


William Henry Golding: Is the house ready for the question?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have just one word to say to my hon. friends to my left-


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member for Cariboo.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I have unfortunately been engaged as a member of an important committee and have not had the privilege of saying anything on this important matter. I am glad that tonight I have an opportunity of at least appearing in the debate.
Before I begin I want to quote the amendment. I have noticed tonight that there have been a great number of calls to order; and I want to be in order when I begin, anyhow, even though. I should never get to be in order again. So I shall read the amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to defer the imposition of the increases in freight rates recently authorized by the board of transport commissioners is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada; further this house is of the opinion that the government should reconsider this matter and take action to prevent the proposed increases from coming into effect at this time."
_ I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, in particular to one phrase in this amendment, and that is that the authorized increase is "inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada." I just want to say that I would have to wander quite a long piece before I got outside of what is inimical to the best interests of the people of this country; for when you home to consider the increase in freight rates in act or performance, if you like, which affects Practically everything that people touch, handle or have to use in their everyday life, then you have wide latitude indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. gentleman quoting from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well)?


William Irvine: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: I was under the impression he was not. Which amendment is the hon. gentleman quoting?


Major James William Coldwell: The amendment I moved.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I should not have interrupted.


William Irvine: I was quoting from the amendment which is now before the house. I repeat that, since this amendment calls attention to the fact that the imposition of the 21 per cent increase in freight rates is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada, that in itself opens up a wide field for discussion. If it were not that I am going to catch a train I should like very much tonight to take advantage of the breadth of that amendment and deal with some of the freight rates, not the inequalities but just how the increases will affect the poorer people. I imagine many speakers have already done that, but I should like very much to have done it over again, because I do not think we can tell the story too often.
Let me say at once that the mere increase in freight rates does not concern me, beyond this, that I believe our freight rates should be sufficient to carry the services the railways must give the people of this country. Everyone will admit at once that our railway system is indispensable. It must be made to run efficiently, in the interests of the economic system of the country; but, sir, in my opinion we could do that and still reduce freight rates in the west, because the basis upon which the freight rates have been struck is inequitable, unjustifiably so. I presume the board-it used to be the board of railway commissioners but its new baptismal name is the board of transport commissioners-in hearing the evidence of those opposed to the increase, came to its judgment on the basis of past practices. It appears to me that it never occurred to the board there was anything the matter with freight rates, that the only thing it had in mind was whether the rates were to be higher or lower, on the same basis as in the past.
I think that was a very careless way to consider the matter, but I repeat that I do not think the board is to blame. I think the blame must rest on this government and past governments. I believe those who first set up the board are also to blame. In my opinion the board was brought into being to protect the Canadian Pacific. I do not believe we would have had it at all had we not been forced to take over the bankrupt railways. Those railways were taken over, not because the government of that day loved public ownership or wanted to institute a great

Freight Rates
national transportation system. They were taken over because they were bankrupt; the country was at war, and the services of the railways were required. Certain plans were made for running them; and one of the things that was to be understood from the beginning, apparently, was that nothing was to interfere with the supremacy of the Canadian Pacific; that if it should be found the Canadian National could haul more goods through the mountains or across the prairies with the same amount of power, or could travel faster and carry passengers to the coast in ten or twelve hours less time than the Canadian Pacific, then that was to be regarded as unfair competition. Therefore one of the duties of this board was to lay down the time schedules for passenger traffic.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would remind the hon. member that the amendment before the house deals with freight rates, not passenger rates. I think he should confine his remarks to the question of freight rates.


William Irvine: If you will just give me a moment, sir, I think you will see that I am leading directly to the bull's-eye. If I must reveal my hand ahead of time, I am going to show that if by the actions or restrictions of a certain board the Canadian National is prevented from hauling more freight, because it has a better line, then it will require more money to have that freight carried in some other way and therefore the freight rate must be kept up in order to keep up the profits of the company that cannot haul freight as cheaply as the other line. Therefore I say to you, sir, that I am right within the ambit of the amendment, which states that such action is inimical to the interests of Canada.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. gentleman is making some interesting statements, and I should like to ask him a question. In the first place, the railways must have more money; I think that is agreed. How are they to get it? Then I should like to ask the hon. member if he is in favour of the amalgamation of the two railways at the present time. In other words, is he in favour of the socialization of the Canadian Pacific, of having it taken over by the country in order to be able to do this job he is talking about?


William Irvine: My hon. friend has opened up an intriguing field by his question, but I am afraid I would be entirely out of order if I were to follow it up.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. gentleman is beating about the bush. It is a very simple question and requires only a very simple answer. He should say yes or no, but he will not.


William Irvine: I have no doubt my hon. friend wants a very simple answer, but I am not a simpleton and I do not usually give simple answers unless I cannot avoid doing so. In this ease I can. I am not going to answer a question of that kind, because it is outside the field of our discussion, and I have no desire to be called to order again by the Speaker.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then the hon. member refuses to answer the question?


William Irvine: Oh, yes; there is not the slightest doubt about that. I am refusing to answer the question.
Before I was interrupted I was discussing the matter of the function of the board in regulating the supposed competition between the two railways. The fact of the matter is that they regulate it so that there is practically no competition. That leads to the need for higher freight rates.
Perhaps one of the most striking speeches made during this debate was that of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I believe he gave some interesting data, and I would commend what he said to hon. members. I would also refer to the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), who put on Hansard figures which I think it would be difficult for anyone to gainsay. May I sum up in a word or two what he said on this particular point? He went on to show, quoting the actual figures of the Canadian Pacific, that the population of the west was, I believe, a little less than a third of the entire population of the country; and yet, according to those figures, those people pay two-thirds of the revenues of that railway. I would ask the Minister of Transport to put that in his mind, and think about it. Then he will understand why it is that people who represent the west are aroused on a question of this kind. If it is desired to retain unity in this country and to prevent spiteful feeling and anger arising in one part of the country against another part, then this basic injustice must be removed. And we must take the opportunity now afforded to make this matter plain to the minister, to the government and to parliament itself.
The hon. member who spoke immediately preceding me made reference to the workers, that their wages were implicated, and that but for the granting of this increase a strike might have taken place. I hope the hon. member knows better than that. I think it has been made clear by the representatives of both railways, and by the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in rebuttal that the rates of wages of employees
Freight Rates

of the railways were not conditional upon the decision of the board with respect to this matter.
Let me say to the hon. member that we are not, by any means, opposing the increasing of wages. I would say for myself that I am not opposing the increase in freight rates as such, because, as I have said, I believe that we can increase freight rates sufficiently to carry the service and to reduce them west of the great lakes, provided that we find an equitable, honest and defensible basis upon which to strike our freight rates.
I am sorry I have to stop at this point, because this has been only an introduction to what I had wanted to say. I hope, however, that what I have said will be noticed by the administration. And since they are so anxious to cultivate free enterprise; since they are so married to the principle of competition, then I am asking that the Canadian National Railways be given their head; that there be no more curbing of those railways, that they be allowed to run freight as cheaply as they can run it, and to carry passengers as quickly and as cheaply as they can do so, and we shall very soon bring down freight rates.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is the hon. member still refusing to answer my question? Will the hon. member answer my question now, yes or no?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the subamendment, which dealt with the removal of inequalities and with discrimination in the Canadian freight rates structure, has been voted upon and disposed of. The house is now considering the amendment, which deals only with the question of deferring the imposition of the increases.
I do not wish to restrict the debate unduly, but it does seem to me that, after I do not know how many days-certainly at least four or five-of debate on this subject, we should now discuss the amendment, and not discuss too many questions which are not relevant to it.
I do not think that at this time a discussion of so-called inequalities and discriminations in the Canadian freight rates structure is in order. The question now is: Should this increase be deferred?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is not the amendment much wider than that? Does not the amendment declare that the putting into effect is inimical to the welfare of the people of Canada?


William Ross Macdonald: I shall read the amendment. It states:
This house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to defer the imposition of the increases in freight rates recently authorized by the board of transport commissioners is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada; further this house is of the opinion that the government should reconsider this matter and take action to prevent the proposed increases from coming into effect at this time.
The subamendment, which was disposed of, referred to the question of inequalities and discrimination. The house has given its decision on that matter.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on the last occasion I spoke in this debate I made out a case, satisfactory at least to myself and to many others, to show that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had not made out a case for itself, on the facts before the board of transport commissioners, for any increase in freight rates. I intend to dilate on that tonight.
Obviously the Canadian Pacific has not made out a case for increased freight rates, and these freight rate increases should not have been given to it. I wish to quote here one of the basic fallacies which I find permeating this judgment of the board of transport commissioners. At page 10 they say:
As earlier mentioned the present application of the railway association, which was made in October, 1946, was predicated, upon declining operating revenues, and increasing operating expenses brought about by higher wage rates and increased costs of materials.
That assumption has been proven to be entirely wrong, and the facts of the matter are clearly before the people of Canada. Let us consider the situation as it exists this year.
The application is predicated upon the decline in operating revenues. Yet we find that the gross revenues for January and February of this year for the Canadian Pacific are something like $49,000,000 as compared with $44,000,000 last year, or an increase of about $5,000,000, or 10-8 per cent. It is true that operating expenses also increased. They were $49,442,000 in 1947, whereas last year they were $45,233,000. But operating expenses increased by only 9-3 per cent. So that we find that last year, whereas the Canadian Pacific in those two months made a loss of $839,000, this year their loss was reduced to $230,000. Obviously there is no case here for having increased freight rates on the basis of declining revenues, when the revenues are obviously increased.

Freight Rates
Furthermore, as of April 10, carloadings have increased this year to 421,630 as compared with 410,379 last year. If the government is going to support the judgment of the board on the basis that we can expect declining revenues, then the government will find itself within the year in a most invidious position. Declining revenue suggests that there will be some economic recession. If there is to be economic recession there will be unemployment. Within a year we shall have an election; is the government going to the country on the basis that it expects unemployment? Certainly not. The government will go to the country on the basis of expected full employment. If such is the case, then we can expect that Canadian Pacific revenues will continue to increase.
I should like to return to some figures which I mentioned briefly on the last occasion on which I spoke and which are germane to the debate tonight. An allowance was granted to the Canadian Pacific by the board of transport commissioners for surplus and additions and betterments, totalling some $15,235,000. It is possible that the Canadian Pacific, having been freely awarded this additional surplus, will spend the money to buy better equipment. If they buy equipment they are going to depreciate it, which means that this asset will be charged twice against freight rates, and not just once.
We have the extraordinary position where the board and the government apparently agree that there should be allowed to the Canadian Pacific a total of 821,310,000 for dividends, $15,787,000 for fixed charges and $15,235,000 as an allowance for surplus, or a total of some $52,000,000. That is what the government and the board believe the Canadian Pacific should have to play about with after its expenses have been met. That includes dividends of five per cent to the ordinary shareholders. However, as I argued, out of this allowance for surplus it is possible that the ordinary shareholders may get another five per cent. But the board and the government do not include a total of $22,000,000 of other income which the Canadian Pacific is able to earn from investments. In other words, the position of the government is that they are quite content to see the Canadian Pacific in a position where it can possibly pay out dividends of as high as 20 per cent to its shareholders, while the people of Canada have to pay the shot.
It was brought out in evidence that, since their inception, United States railroads have earned approximately four per cent on their
investment. I suggest that that percentage is quite large enough for the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific. If such is the case, then they do not need this great surplus which has been given to them. Among the arguments which were advanced before the board was a fantastic statement by the railway association of Canada that the railroad companies were in a unique and perilous position. I have already dealt with that.
We also had Mr. George Walker, vicepresident of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, stating that that company was in urgent need of financial aid. Then Mr. Liddy of the Canadian Pacific spoke of the company's perilous financial position. Mr. Crump referred to the critical financial position, while Mr. Unwin referred to the disquieting financial position. Again we find those words echoed by the chairman of the board of transport commissioners, and I quote from the judgment as follows:
A close analysis of the current operating revenues of Canadian railways indicates that lower levels may, perhaps, reasonably be expected.
Of course that is an unmitigated example of soothsaying at its very worst. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of the situation. As I say, the facts are infinitely better than one would suspect from this judgment which has been given to us. On the basis of those facts, I should like the minister to answer some questions which I am going to pose to him. It has been argued that the Canadian Pacific is in a difficult financial position, a perilous financial position and a unique position. I think "unique' is probably the proper word.
Does the minister deny for a moment the increase in operating revenue figures which I have presented to the house? Does he deny that since 1939, according to the Canadian Pacific balance sheet-the whole case for increased freight rates was based on that- the company has retired all its six per cent bonds, all its five per cent bonds and all its four and a half per cent bonds? Does that suggest that this railroad is in a perilous financial position?
Does the minister deny the excellent cash position of the Canadian Pacific in its last-balance sheet, which showed cash of some $42,644,000. Does he deny that the Canadian Pacific owns dominion securities totalling $31,667,000? Does that indicate that this railroad is suffering from a critical financial position? If it does not, then why has it been given this quite unmerited increase in freight rates?
Freight Rates

Does the minister deny that since 1939 the funded debt of the Canadian Pacific had been decreased by .$153 million; that is, from $228 million to $75 million? Does that suggest an urgent need of financial aid? Does the minister deny that the Canadian Pacific has increased its reserves from $92 million to $380 million? Does he deny that its profit and loss balance in its balance sheet has increased from $141 million to $279 million? Does he deny that its working capital has been increased by $48 million over 1939? Do those figures suggest for a moment that the Canadian Pacific is in a perilous financial position, or that it is in a critical financial position?
Does the minister deny that the Canadian Pacific has in its balance sheet stock of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company shown at a book value of $8,412,000, whereas the market value today is in the neighbourhood of $150 million? Does the minister deny that that is an example of hidden reserves in the balance sheet of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? Does the minister deny that from 1940 to 1946 the Canadian Pacific made expenditures on railroad property of $123 million? Does he deny that it invested in leased lines, out of funds from its corporate operations, $11,500,000? Does that suggest a disquieting financial position?
Does the minister deny that the Canadian Pacific made capital expenditure on steamships, hotels and communications of some $18,000,000 between 1940 and 1946? Does he deny that it invested in stocks and bonds of controlled and other companies and advanced to subsidiaries some $20,000,000 during those years? Does he deny that it spent out of its funds for organization of the Soo line some $7,000,000? Does the minister deny that it established a steamship replacement fund of $39,000,000 during those years? Is there any sign of a perilous financial position when one considers the reserves which have been created?
Does the minister deny that this company, which is in such straitened circumstances, paid out interest during those years totalling $150,000,000, and that it paid out in income and other taxes $120,000,000? Does the minister deny that this poverty-stricken corporation paid out in dividends over those years $91,000,000, or that it established a deferred maintenance reserve of $25,000,000? Now and again the vernacular is almost vulgar, but sometimes it is quite expressive. I intend to use the vernacular in this case and say that the Canadian Pacific is simply lousy with hidden reserves.
There can be no question about it at all, this company does not need the increase in freight rates which has been granted to it. There can 
be no question at all about its being able to pay quite easily, without any increase in freight rates, the wages which its employees demand and that it can continue to do so for another two years. There is no reason why this company could not pay out of its accumulated surplus and reserves the pensions which its employees need. Rut the company has no intention of doing that. All our attention must be concentrated entirely on freight rates. These increased freight rates are absolutely inequitable and unjust and I can see no reason or sense for their having been granted at all.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, there have been so many little arguments back and forth tonight as to the subject matter of what we are speaking on that I do not want, to get caught in one of those jams myself. I am a law-abiding citizen. I believe in law and order both in and out of this house, and I try to live by that.
I will read the amendment moved by my leader, which is in two parts.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Dispense.


Thomas John Bentley: No, I will not dispense. I want to get this on the record so that I shall be sure that I do not stray from it. The first part of the amendment reads:
this house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to defer the imposition of the increases in freight rates recently authorized by the board of transport commissioners is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada . . .
That is the first part, and I propose, first, to endeavour to prove to the government and their side of the house that that is indeed the fact, that this measure is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada. In endeavouring to produce evidence to prove my point,
I shall show how generous the people of Canada have already been to the railway companies, and I hope that my evidence will be convincing enough to conjure up in the government some bowels of compassion for the ordinary everyday working citizen. Then, if I have time, after I have proved that point,
I shall deal with the second part of the amendment, which reads:
further this house is of the opinion that the government should reconsider this matter and take action to prevent the proposed increases from coming into effect at this time.
I shall endeavour to adduce arguments that will be, I hope, reasonably convincing to the government why they should undertake that.
In order to deal with the first part of the amendment and do what I said I would do, that is, show that the people of Canada have already been generous to the railway companies, I am going to quote from the public

Freight Rates
accounts of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947. In part III, at page 3, appears a "Statement of Assistance given to railways by the Dominion of Canada to March 31, 1947." If hon. members will listen carefully they will see that the people of Canada have already been very generous with both the railroads.
First, let me deal with the Canadian National, and in giving these figures I want to give the house some idea of the history of these railways, not what I have read in books but what I have learned from actual work in the railway and lumber camps in the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific through the mountains to Prince Rupert and the Transcontinental in northern Ontario; and from the point of view of one who has swung an axe or skinned a horse or driven the rivers, I think no one in the House of Commons has a closer knowledge of the building of the railways than I have. When I remember the things that went on, the graft and corruption by the contractors, Foley, Welsh and Stewart and the various subcontractors, it is easy to understand the tremendous capital overhead of the Canadian National, which I have already mentioned in another debate in this house.
When you remember wooden bridges, with 137 to 150 bents being built according to specifications-and I know something about the building of wooden bridges, Mr. Speaker- and then the whole gang of men having to come back within two months and cut down every single bent and eighteen inches off every pile in that bridge and lower every cap and make new guard rails simply because of carelessness in construction or because some lumber company wanted to sell piling that was a little longer than the specifications called for; when you remember that the approaches to many bridges cost many dollars more because of the extra yardage put in to make extra profits for contractors and subcontractors, and when you follow that right through, you begin to have some idea why the road is overcapitalized at the present time. When you go up through northern Ontario, north of Fort William by Sioux Lookout and in all that country where O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall had their contracts, and where trainload after trainload of gravel wras dumped into almost bottomless muskeg, until finally it did hit the bottom and then came up and spread out for half a mile on each side, and when you consider that that was done when even in those days there were better ways of engineering, it is not surprising that the people of Canada had to make the gifts they did.
I mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, to prove my contention that the people of Canada have given enough in this way to the bondholders of the railways, and it is time now that the people of Canada got some protection themselves. I contend that the granting of this freight rate increase is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada on these grounds. I could cite instance after instance. I could tell you about hacking ties with a broad axe for eight and nine and ten cents a lie, which were culled by the inspectors, and the culled ties were then put into the right of way for the rails to go on. I could give you instance after instance right down to the bootlegging of rotgut liquor if you want me to. Hon. gentlemen opposite who are grumbling never bad a grub-hoe in their hands I suppose, and never used dynamite and could not run a wheelbarrow if it had directions written on the handle. I will try to finish my speech early enough for some of these hon. gentlemen on your right, Mr. Speaker, to get up and speak if they have any objection to what I am saying.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: You are holding the book upside down.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. gentleman has inverted vision, which is evident from the way he acts. I would say to the hon. gentleman who thinks I am holding the book upside down that if he owned 5,728,192 acres of land, and that was given away to a railroad he would understand what I am talking about. If he owned one acre of land and anyone attempted to take it away from him we would soon hear from him. But 5,728,192 acres were given by the people of Canada to the Canadian National Railways, and a lot more to the Canadian Pacific. Let my hon. friend not forget that I am speaking first of the Canadian National. I am talking first about the poor relation, Jhe little orphan that Canada owns. The favourite railroad, the railroad that runs Canada, the railroad that dictates government policy in transportation, the railroad that governs more in this country than it should govern outside of transportation is the Canadian Pacific, which I shall come to later.


Thomas Vincent Grant: You are not there yet.


Thomas John Bentley: I am referring to the Canadian National Railways, according to the government's book. I expect they will stand behind their own people, because I know they have many excellent accountants and gentlemen of that kind in their employ; I am sure they would not print figures that they did not have good reason to believe were true, and
Freight Rates

I am positive that nobody on the government side, least of all the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) would permit inaccurate figures to be presented to the House of Commons and the public so that the newspapers could spread the news around, and the government would have to apologize later if it were wrong. In this instance the Canadian National Railways were getting 5,728,192 acres of land. Then they had great cash contributions. For instance, up to that time they had cash contributions of $44,179,077.92. I suppose the ninety-two cents were for stamps on the cheques.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There were no stamps on cheques in those days.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, this takes in all their history, and it is therefore likely that stamps were put on the cheques later on, which accounts for the ninety-two cents.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: C.C.F. politics.


Thomas John Bentley: My hon. friend said something about C.C.F. policy. If the hon. member could even understand the first-grade primer I would send him over some of the junior literature of the C.C.F., hoping that in time he would graduate into the higher classes and do as the attorney general of Saskatchewan suggests people have to do, think their way out of the old parties into the C.C.F. After he has done that and has proved his capabilities, we shall consider accepting him as a member. One of the first things he should learn to do is not to interrupt when better men than himself are speaking.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there were capital and construction expenditures given to the Canadian National Railways amounting to $377,615,604, a nice little chunk of money.
Then there were deficits and operating expenditures paid to them of $498,454,289. The total of these amounts is $920,248,971.
The next column shows amount repaid, transferred or discharged. No figures appear in that column. Therefore they have neither repaid, transferred nor discharged any of that debt.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: You have not said anything about freight rates yet.


Thomas John Bentley: My poor friend over there still cannot understand. I pointed out at the start that I was going to show why the increase in freight rates is inimical to the people of Canada, and to do that I was going to show that the people had already made great contributions; that any more contributions are greater than they should bear, and therefore inimical. That is the argument I am making.

I made that statement at the start. I wish the hon. member over there would sit up and listen.	!


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask one question to keep the record straight? These amounts had to do with the Canadian Northern, had they not, not the Canadian
National?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, the Canadian Northern and all the allied companies that went into making up what is known at the present time as the Canadian National. I have not yet reached the Canadian Pacific.


Arthur Leroy Smith: These were not Canadian Northern figures.


Thomas John Bentley: No. This is a statement of assistance given up to March 31, 1947; therefore it will include all the railroads that went to make up the present system.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Plus the deficits.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Canadian Northern was in the muskegs, too.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, and we allowed the contractors to retire with handsome profits.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Old age pensions!


Thomas John Bentley: Very handsome profits, which we are now in the process of guaranteeing in perpetuity to the heirs, successors and assigns until both the minister and I are pushing up brown-eyed Susans on the prairies.


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister will not be out there.


Thomas John Bentley: However, Mr. Speaker, I want to get to the third column in this book, because this is the amount written off. This is one of the straight gifts of the Canadian people. The amount written off was the whole $44,179,077.92 of cash subsidies, and the total amount of deficits and operating expenditures of $498,454,367. Then there were loans. Loans are assumed to be something that you get back eventually. Unfortunately I have a few small loans like that, that I am not optimistic about, but that is the hope we have when we make a loan. Of course, when we borrow we hope we shall not have to pay the loan back, but if we are private citizens we usually have to, but not if we are a railway. If we are a railway under the government's wing we are pretty sure that we shall be forgiven some of our financial trespasses.
There were loans for capital expenditures and deficits of $733,592,151. There were loans for betterments of and repairs to railway equipment, no doubt getting new brass handles on

Freight Rates
the diningroom car doors and things like that, of $1,183,592. Then railway equipment purchased and sold to the railway, under a hire-purchase agreement, of $91,872,555. I am omitting all cents here because there is not much sense in this whole matter when we come to look it over.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas John Bentley: These are plain gifts of public money without any good reason behind it, and it does not make sense.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit one question? I am very much interested in these figures. These loans were all government operations; in other words, socializing the railways. That is it, is it not? .


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with that question, and I could very extensively, but I know Your Honour would not permit me to get outside of the place that I prescribed for myself tonight. I do not want to incur the wrath of Your Honour, because you have always been good to me and I propose to treat you with the respect that you deserve; therefore I cannot answer my hon. friend now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You cannot.


Thomas John Bentley: I can answer it, but I will not answer it at the present time; I will put it that way.
There were temporary loans and advances, including loans made in connection with the government's relief program, of $1,391,388,526. The amount repaid, transferred, or discharged amounts to $911,940,510, and the amount written off is $263,456,953, a nice little gift paid to bondholders who, generally speaking, in this day and age do nothing to earn any of that at all, and are simply the heirs or successors of the people of the past. There is a considerable amount of that sum outstanding, over a billion dollars.
We then come down to the guarantees, loans guaranteed as to principal and interest by the dominion government, $1,314,515,436, and loans guaranteed as to interest only by the dominion government $216,207,141, or a total of $1,530,722,578, of which amount there was repaid, transferred or discharged, $995,307,235. The balance outstanding amounts to $535,415,342.
Then we have sundry assistance. Usually, when you are secretary of a small concern like an agricultural society, a co-operative association or something of that kind, when you make your financial statement at the end of the year you have a few little expenditures which are shown; maybe $2.75 or even $10.15. You put them in-as sundries because they may represent teaspoons that were lost when you had your annual meeting with a banquet or something of that sort. But when you get sundries to the extent of $58,358,242, that is -a sizeable piece of coin to give away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some teaspoon.


James Horace King: Order. I suppose the remarks made just now by the hon. member who has the floor are for the purpose of proving that we should have an increase in freight rates, although I am not so sure about that.


Thomas John Bentley: You are correct in that supposition, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to prove that the increase is inimical to the best interests of the people of Canada; and as I stated before, in trying to prove my case I wanted to show that the people of Canada had already been generous enough with the railway companies and the bondholders of the railway companies and that there should be no further call for another $71,000,000 increase; that is the sum which the increased freight rates will amount to, so I am told. That is the point I am trying to make. As I said, by a recital of these tremendous figures I was hoping that I could arouse the compassion of some of my honourable and good-natured looking friends who sit on the treasury benches.


Mr. McCANN:: But you failed.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: You missed.


Thomas John Bentley: That was my purpose anyway in doing that.
I now want to come to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It has had most generous treatment. I want to point out that I support the things wThich were said by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) when he was here. The Canadian Pacific has had entirely too much influence on the operation of the Canadian National all through the picture, both when the Canadian National was privately owned and since it has become a government institution. I think that is a regrettable situation.
When the Canadian Pacific was being built, we know there was difficulty, and we understand that there was a good deal of risk-capital involved. We know they were to go across what at that time were empty, or practically empty, prairies; and no one knew for sure that they would actually be productive. In order to recompense them to some extent- in fact, to recompense them to quite an extent-they were made a gift of 32,848,477 acres of land, according to this statement. With that they were given the mineral rights in a tremendous amount, if not all those acres, some of which mineral rights they have used to convert into tremendous wealth
Freight Rates

for the Canadian Pacific shareholders. This does not appear in the financial statement of the railroad and is not used, so far as I know, in paying the operating costs. Nevertheless the gift was made to them to recompense them for the risk they were taking in going across that wild country, as it was at that time.
It would appear that the government should accept this argument, that this railway company, having been given all those gifts, from there on should be subject to competition from any other transportation company which may appear on the scene. But instead of that, we have found that, in spite of the gifts to the Canadian National and in spite of the gifts to the Canadian Pacific, both of them now want to gouge the public more and more, instead of getting down to a basis of proving which one can operate most economically and most successfully in the interests of the Canadian people and still take care of their capital costs, pay decent wages and provide proper working conditions for the people who work on them.
Time does not allow me to go much farther with that particular part of my argument.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Thomas John Bentley: I could give a great deal more along that line.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Thomas John Bentley: I am simply trying to get the government to see the point of view that we have, that there is no excuse for their allowing the railways such a gift as that.


Thomas Vincent Grant: You are not going to blame the rest for that.


Thomas John Bentley: I am trying to prove my point. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) can have his fun with the Tory member for Queens (Mr. McLure) at some other time. I think I have already brought forward some fairly substantial evidence to support my point.
I want now to turn to the second part of the amendment which reads:
. . . further this house is of the opinion that the government should reconsider this matter and take action to prevent the proposed increases from coming into effect at this time.
There is only one appeal which a person can make to a body of people in authority for something of that kind. One must appeal to their reason and their generosity. I want to remind this government that, aside entirely from partisan political considerations, they have enjoyed-even from those who do not

support them politically-loyal support in Canadian policies from the people across this country. Right through the war they did not ask a thing from us that we were not prepared to give. It is true that we exercised our democratic right of opposing them on the platform and in other ways, when we thought they were wrong. But they were the governing body, and when they said that something should be done, we loyally supported them. That goes for the people from Halifax to Vancouver. To people who have been as loyal as that, and who have the nature to continue to be as loyal as that, no matter who governs this country, it seems to me that the government should give consideration with regard to their needs and desires.
Outside of the places where this increase in freight rates will not be effective because of other factors which enter into the matter, a great many Canadian people will suffer seriously in the operation of their businesses, in the maintenance of their homes, and in all the ways whereby the extra freight rate they will have to pay will affect them when they go to buy the goods and services they require in order to carry on. Is there not some little place in the mind of the government where a little sympathy can edge its way in, gradually expand and grow to a nice big, green tree; not a weeping willow but a tree that will provide shade and comfort for the people of Canada along those lines.
As I say, one can produce piles of evidence to support the statement I made that this is inimical to the people of Canada. But I can use only the argument I have just used in order to try to convince the government that they should at this time reconsider this matter and take action to prevent these proposed increases from coming into effect at this time. If they will do that, they will earn the gratitude of many people in this country. If they do not, they will earn something else; and they will certainly get it.


Edward George McCullough: The debate, Mr. Speaker, has taken a serious turn this evening.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward George McCullough: I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the points I want to make. In the first place, I should like to have had more time to put on record some additional arguments for the necessity of a serious consideration of the judgment handed down by the board of transport commissioners. I know among this group there are members who would like strongly to urge the government to reconsider its refusal

Freight Rates
to delay the imposition of the new schedules until the seven provincial premiers have had an opportunity to make their recommendations to the government. When the judgment was handed down by the transport board the Premier of Saskatchewan, Hon. T. C. Douglas, made a public statement in which he said the seven premiers would be lodging a petition to the federal government under section 52(1) of the Railway Act, and I say the action we have witnessed is anti-democratic and certainly shows a cynical disregard for the wishes of the provincial premiers. This is a definite slap in the face to these gentlemen who want to come here and lay their case before the government.
Hon. members from this side who have spoken, and many from the other side, have put on record figures showing clearly that the Canadian Pacific has a surplus this year, and that only the possibility of poor business in future years can justify the additional revenue the increase will give them. Neither I nor any other member of this group would protest increased freight rates as such. We say if it can be shown that the railways need the increases then we are ready to agree to them, but we do not want them imposed in addition to the inequalities which already exist under the freight rate tariff. It has been stated that if the railways were not given these new rates and the larger profits it would mean a general strike of railway employees across this country. That is completely ridiculous. I want to read a statement made by the railways to the board of conciliation in the current wage dispute:
Any relief provided by way of increased rates will not be available for increase of extra costs for the future-such as increased wages-only those up to October, 1945, will be covered.
That should settle that argument.
Getting back to the point I was trying to make, I feel that men who have been elected to parliament do not represent only their particular constituencies but are representatives of the people of Canada, trying to carry out the wishes of those people in order that we may have better relationships, so that our dominion may grow in stature and we may improve the conditions of our people. Last Monday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) told the members of the Tory party that if the debate could not be concluded by six o'clock the government would adjourn it and take up another matter so that the vote would not be taken that evening. If the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had co-operated in the same way with this group there would not have been the necessity of carrying on
this debate. However I feel that we have served the people, and my hon. friends opposite who are making so much noise can answer to the people. I believe we have a democratic right to carry on this debate in an effort to see that the decision of the transport board is not allowed to remain in effect. The Premier of Saskatchewan said if these rates were allowed to go into operation they would bring chaos, and that if the decision were reversed later, after representations had been made, a great deal of confusion would result. That is what has happened; and, as I said before, I think the action taken by the government was a slap in the face to the seven provincial premiers who are coming here on April 24 to meet the cabinet. In the past these same premiers have co-operated with the government at interprovincial conferences, and I think they should have been shown a little courtesy.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Since I had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the house a few days ago, I have received from my constituency telegrams and resolutions which indicate that the people of western Canada will not accept the increase in freight rates without protest.
I find that the judgment of the board of transport commissioners sets out that the rates in the standard and special freight tariffs may be increased by 21 per cent. We find the word "may" appearing throughout the judgment, apparently leaving it to the railway companies to decide whether the increase shall be put into effect in some parts of the country and not in others. I have been told of the increase the poultry producers in Saskatchewan have been compelled to pay. Previously I understand that they enjoyed a rate of thirty-five cents for a thirty-dozen crate of eggs, and that this rate has now been increased to seventy-five cents.
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Graydon: What will be the business tomorrow?


Lionel Chevrier: Tomorrow we hope to deal with the motion of the Minister of Agriculture for second reading of Bill No. 204, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Then we should like to go into committee of the whole on the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then we shall take up the Dominion
Business of the House

Elections Act, and any other items on the order paper not yet disposed of. We had hoped to be able to go into supply in the Department of Agriculture, and in the Department of External Affairs on Monday next, but unfortunately that has not been possible.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister give any indication as to when the freight rates debate will go on?


Lionel Chevrier: Not at this time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 23, 1948