[Stage Direction]
mr. ross (st. Paul's)'-reference to report in OTTAWA "JOURNAL" OF APRIL 21
Mr. DOUGLAS. G. ROSS (St, Paul's): I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in connection with which I wish to refer to an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of this morning. Some fifteen hundred people came here from every corner of Canada to hear the speech made last night by the future prime minister of Canada, Mr. John Bracken. Some of us would have liked to listen to that speech last evening. My point of privilege is that some hon. members on this side made a great sacrifice to come here; and the Journal says the official Progressive Conservative opposition found itself heavily outnumbered. In the first place I believe ten of us were here, not three, as this article states; and though there were some sixty members on the government side of the house, certainly we were not outnumbered. That is all there is to that. I would point to Hansard to show the contribution made from this side last night.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. gentleman has stated his question of privilege.



RIGHT HON. W. L. MACKENZIE KING FURTHER FELICITATIONS ON PERIOD OF TIME AS PRIME MINISTER-GIFT OF FLOWERS

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to say a word with respect to the propriety of certain proceedings which took place at the opening of the session yesterday. Some of us were unable to be present because we were performing duties designed to take care of any eventualities that might develop with respect to the successor to the Prime Minister during the next few months. I want to point out, if I may, that the celebration yesterday was somewhat premature, and I rise at this time to correct that error.
Yesterday the Prime Minister and the late Sir Robert Walpole were still running a close tie, and the overtime had not been played. Today, Mr. Speaker, Sir Robert is only a good second and the Prime Minister an undoubted first. As one who has sat across from him for
some little time in this parliament I want to say from the depths of my heart that I wish him the best of health and happiness in the years that lie ahead, and that I am pleased indeed that he has won out after the long and vigorous contest he has carried on.


Mr. J. T. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, the flowers which are in front of the Prime Minister are an expression of the feelings of the members of "Little Chicago" who take great pride in having a leader who has exceeded the record of any other prime minister in the British commonwealth of nations. We are proud to serve under him, and we hope his example during the years past will serve us when it comes our turn to lead in future.
As the member for Ottawa East, however, may I say that my constituency has as its most distinguished elector the Prime Minister of Canada, and I want to tell him that we, the people of Ottawa, are grateful to him for what he has done for this city, and trust he will stay with us for a long time to come.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be here yesterday. I had fully expected that the felicitations to the Prime Minister on having achieved his very fine record would come today; but since this opportunity has been afforded I should like to join the others who have spoken, and to extend to the Prime Minister my very sincere felicitations on this occasion, together with my very best wishes for many years of happiness and good health.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Should I be fortunate enough to come into the house tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I hope I may find that this longdistance contest is really over. I do thank my hon. friends who have so kindly supplemented the words so generously expressed yesterday. I feel deeply grateful to them for what they have been so kind as to say.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) asked whether I could tell the house
Questions

what amounts of Canadian dollars are being converted into United States dollars by subsidiaries of United States corporations to meet their obligations in the United States. I have been able to obtain the information I think the hon. gentleman desires, and it is as follows: During the first quarter of 1948 the amounts of United States dollars obtained by subsidiaries of United States corporations in order to make payments by way of interest, principal repayments or dividends to their United States parent corporations were as follows:
Interest	 $	300,000
Principal repayments	 nil
Dividends
Subsidiaries 100 per cent
owned	 13,000,000
Subsidiaries owned 50 per cent
to 100 per cent	 2,800,000


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has the minister the figures for 1947?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those figures are for the first quarter of 1948; I have not the figures for 1947. As I said yesterday, the question is one which should be placed on the order paper, because it requires the obtaining of figures. I have given this information to my hon. friend today, but I do suggest that in future questions of this kind be placed upon the order paper.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many inmates are confined in each of the federal penitentiaries at present?
2.	What steps have been taken by the government to implement the recommendations made in the 1938 report of the royal commission to investigate the penal system?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Kingston, Ontario	 Male 715
Kingston, Ontario	 Female 71
St. Vincent de Paul, P.Q	1080
Dorchester, N.B	 512
Manitoba	 297
British Columbia	 448
Saskatchewan	 359
Collin's Bay, Ontario	 289
Total 3771
2.	The steps taken between 1938 and 1947 to implement the recommendations of the royal commission to investigate the penal system of Canada are set forth in detail at pages 48 to 56 of the annual report of the superintendent 
of penitentiaries for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, which has been tabled in the House of Commons. Since that date the Penitentiary Act, 1939, as amended, has been proclaimed and the commissioner, deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners therein authorized have been appointed, fulltime vocational training has been instituted in two penitentiaries, classification officers have been appointed in all penitentiaries, and the procedure for classification of prisoners has been improved, training courses for penitentiary officers have been instituted, and a reorganization of the educational facilities in the penitentiaries is being carried out. A program of construction and renovation of buildings and replacement of machinery and equipment, as authorized in the annual estimates, is being proceeded with.


FILM BOARD-FILMS MADE FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Did any departments of the government ask the national film board to produce films for them (a) during 1947; (b) during January, February, March, 1948?
2.	If so, what departments had films made and what were titles of these films?
3.	Were all these films produced by the national film board or were some films produced by commercial companies?
4.	What films were produced by commercial companies?
5.	Did any departments request that films be made by commercial companies?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) yes.
2.	Department and title:
Agriculture-Science Helps the Farmer; Prairie Homes (French version); Farm Homes Beautiful (French version); Best Quality Beef (French version); Dutch Elm Disease (English version); Dutch Elm Disease (French version); Soil Conservation; St. Mary's Dam.
Bank of Canada-Canada Savings Bond Newsclip.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Saek-ville International Shortwave (working title).
Canadian National Railways-Song of the Ski, Gaspe Film (working title), Song of Algonquin (recording only).
Federal District Commission-Capital Plan, Community Plan.
Insurance-Are You Safe at Home?
Labour-International Labour Office. Industrial Safety 1948, L.M.P.C. Discussion Trailer, Displaced Persons Dispersal Centre, Older

Questions
Workers Newselip, Take it up with the L.M.P.C. (French), L.M.P.C. Discussion Trailer (French).
Mines and Resources-Winter Sports at Banff, Prince Edward Island National Park (working title), Cape Breton Highlands National Park (working title), Holiday Island, Highway of Canada, Winter Sports in National Parks (working title), Yellowknife.
National Defence-Royal Canadian Artillery, Going North, Parachute Training.
National Health and Welfare-Restaurant Sanitation, Dental Health Film, Community Chests 1947, Immunization (newselip), Fit for Tomorrow (French version), Immunization, Narcotics, Feeling of Hostility, Urban Recreation, Cancer, V.D. Education, Why won't. Tommy eat?, Dental Health Cartoon, Rural Health, Rat Control, National Health Week (newselip), Know Your Baby.
Post Office-Mail Early (newselip 1947).
Trade and Commerce-Trade Missions (editing only), Let's Beautify Canada, Bass Fishing. Tyee Fishing, International Trade (working title), Blue Bloods from Canada.
3.	48 films were produced by the National Film Board and 9 by commercial companies.
4.	Are You Safe at Home?; Prince Edward Island National Park; Cape Breton Highlands National Park; Holiday Island; Dental Health Film; Why won't Tommy eat? Know Your Baby; International Trade; Blue Bloods from Canada.
5.	Yes. *


HEALTH AND WELFARE-NARCOTIC DIVISION
Mr. RICHARD (Gloucester):: Has the narcotic division of the Department of National Health and Welfare noted any increase in drug addiction during the past three years?


Mr. MARTIN:: There is no certain index of the amount of drug addiction at any time in Canada. However, constant and vigilant attention by the enforcement authorities has resulted in an increasing number of convictions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, as follows: 1945, 147; 1946, 215; 1947, 265.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-REVENUE- POSTAGE RATES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What was the over-all surplus of the Post Office Department during each of the years 1945, 1946 and 1947?
2.	What revenue was derived form the carrying of parcels overseas during each of the above years?
3.	What increases have been made in overseas parcel post rates since 1940?
4.	Have any steps been taken to reduce postage rates in Canada and to the United States of America?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.
Fiscal year	1944-45 	.. 811,442,534Fiscal vear	1945-46 	.. 10.905,913Fiscal year	1946-47 	.. 8,773,5742. Postage paid on parcels dispatched from	Canada to	the United Kingdom, other than	for overseas forces, was as follows:	1945 ..	$1,872,7611946 ..	3,143,7781947 ..	3,967,1523. There has been no increase	in parcel postrates to the United Kingdom since 1940. The	rates were,	however, reduced effective Janu-	ary 1, 1947	as follows:	Previous rate	New rate1 lb	
$ .24	$ .252 lb	42	.403 lb	60	.554 lb	78	.705 lb	96	.856 lb	
1.14	1.007 lb	
1.32	1.158 lb	
1.50	1.309 lb	
1.68	1.4510 lb	
1.86	1.5010-15 lb. ..	
2.50	2.0015-20 lb. .	
3.00	2.504. No.	VALDEZ	ISLAND, B.C., INDIAN	RESERVES-


TIMBER CUTTING
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	Have any applications been received during the past two years to lease or cut timber on any of the Indian reserves, or portion thereof, on Valdez island, British Columbia?
2.	If so, to whom were such leases or permits granted and to whom refused?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1 and 2. No. One existing timber licence granted in 1942 in favour of T. L. Garner of Duncan. British Columbia, covering part of Lyacksun Indian reserve No. 3 on Valdez Island was renewed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What was the total amount of printing let by the government of Canada to commercial printing firms in each province of Canada in each of the past five years?
2.	What are the names and addresses of firms receiving in excess of $5,000 for government printing in any or each of the past five years, and what amount was paid to each?
Proposed Legislation

3.	What value of government printing is it estimated was used in each of the provinces of Canada in each of the past five years?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.


ELECTORAL REPRESENTATIONS-DISTRICT OF MACKENZIE
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did persons not residents of the distract of Mackenzie and of Yukon territory petition parliament or the government not to add Mackenzie district to Yukon?
2.	Did any residents of Mackenzie district or of Yukon territory ask parliament or the government to add Mackenzie district or any part of Mackenzie district to Yukon as an electoral district; if so, who were those residents, to whom were such requests made and when?
3.	Will the government at this session or during the life of this parliament and before the next dominion general election, have legislation introduced so as to create the district of Mackenzie an electoral district and give the electoral district of Mackenzie the right to elect a member to represent it in the House of Commons of Canada?
4.	Failing that will the government, at the present session of parliament, introduce legislation so amending the Representation Act, as to remove that portion of the district of Mackenzie added to the electoral district of Yukon-Mackenzie river?


Colin William George Gibson: Return
tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and memoranda in connection with the appointment of postmaster at Stenen, Saskatchewan, since March 16, 1948.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and in particular to authorize approved lending institutions to purchase from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages held by the said corporation and to make loans to owners of rental housing projects not exceeding in amount 85 per cent of the estimated cost thereof; to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to guarantee an annual return of an amount to be determined by the corporation of rentals from rental housing projects for a period not exceeding thirty years, to make loans to owners of rental housing projects if such loans are not being made available by approved lend-

ing institutions; to authorize the governor in council to transfer lands vested in His Majesty to the corporation; and to make provision for the winding-up and dissolution of Wartime Housing Limited and to vest in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation power to provide rental housing out of moneys which may be appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to make provision inter alia for a contributory superannuation scheme for future members of the force and present members who elect to come thereunder, and also for the granting of compensation to members suffering injury in the course of duty and1 pensions to widow's and children of members losing life in the performance of duty.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). In view of the importance of this matter, would it not be fair to private members of the house on all sides, and to others, for the minister to take over the question of oleomargarine as a government measure so that it will not become a party matter and members will be free to vote as they like on it. I would ask for a reply, because this is a matter of public importance.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: Order. As the question is now before the house, I suggest that the hon. member's request is not in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.

Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) has refused to accept it, may I with your permission have the privilege of presenting to the hon. member for Broadview a pound of margarine?


Mr. FRASER:: Mr. Speaker, I see that a pound of oleomargarine has been imported into Canada. I wonder if the department of the Minister of Justice will take action against the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says it was imported?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: He said it was.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And it is supposed to be on the banned list. How did it come to be here? I think I should have an answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My hon. friend uses axle grease, which is the same thing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am pleased to have the answer from the hon. member for Fraser Valley, because none of the ministers can answer the question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Judging from the noise, the Conservatives should have continued their convention in the Chateau instead of here in the house.
May I be permitted to ask a question of the Minister of Labour which arises out of a telegram-*


John Ewen Sinclair: "Which I received before coming into the house".


Clarence Gillis: You fellows must have been dining with the Tories last night, and it has not worn off.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: Careful; you know what Tim Buck says.


Clarence Gillis: Can the minister inform the house if the commission consisting of Leonard W. Brockington and J. D. McNish have rendered a report regarding the dispute between the Canadian seamen's union and the Canadian lake seamen's union as to which organization is the legal bargaining agency for the Colonial Steamships Limited and the Sarnia Steamships Limited? If so. has their report settled the matter; if not, what steps does the minister propose to take to resolve the dispute?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, it is true that an unsatisfactory situation has developed on the great lakes owing to the fact that a number of companies on the great lakes have entered into contractual relations with the Canadian lake seamen's union, which is a rival union to the previously recognized, and in some instances, certified, Canadian seamen's union. These companies are refusing to hire members of the Canadian seamen's union, as a result of which the union is claiming that the companies have committed a breach of the existing collective bargaining regulations.
My department, over a period of several months, has laboured diligently to conciliate the dispute between the companies and the Canadian seamen's union; but owing to the attitude taken by the companies, we were unsuccessful. The industrial disputes inquiry commission, which I established about two weeks ago in an endeavour to settle the differences between the Canadian seamen's union and the Sarnia and Colonial steamship companies, reported to me within the last few days. This report was released to the press yesterday. No doubt hon. members have had an opportunity to read the reports which appeared in this morning's newspapers. The commission was composed of Mr. Leonard W. Brockington, K.C., of Ottawa and Mr. J. Douglas McNish, K.C., of Toronto.
I may add this further remark, that the Canadian seamen's union has applied to the national labour relations board for leave to prosecute the companies which they claim are violating the law, and the board has given the union permission to do so. Since court action has already been taken by the union in this connection, it would be improper for me to express any view at the present time as to the merits of the case. The report of the industrial disputes inquiry commission, to which I have already referred, set out the facts of the dispute, and I think it may be advisable to table a copy of the report of this commission, which I now do.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, of which I have not given notice. In view of the recent increase in freight rates, can the minister assure the house that there will be no increase in the freight rates on grain moving over the Hudson Bay railway?
Freight Rates


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to give some thought to the question, because the application of the railways did not include the Hudson Bay railway, as I recall it-although grain is excluded in the decision of the board. However in view of the fact that I was not given notice of the question, I shall have to look into it and give a reply later.


Mr. FAIR:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is all grain moving west of Fort William-Port Arthur exempt from this increase in freight rates?


Lionel Chevrier: The only answer I can give to the hon. member is to refer him to the judgment, where he will find six or seven items excluding grain moving in various directions.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is, off the main line -transactions between farmers involving branch line transportation are subject to the increase in tax; is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: If that was the purport of the question, then the answer is yes.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. J. McCUAIG (Maple Creek):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State why it has taken so long to bring down the return in answer to the question standing in my name and appearing on page 1605 of Hansard.


Colin William George Gibson: I could not hear the subject matter of the hon. members' question, but I shall look it up in Hansard and see when the return can be brought down.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 20, 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.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, this debate started two weeks ago, and while it may be annoying to some hon. members who have already spoken to have to listen to more addresses in this debate, on a subject so important as this I should

be lax in my duty to the constituents of Selkirk if I did not raise my voice in protest against the new rates which have been put into effect in the western provinces.
I do not wish to go into the freight rates all across.the dominion. Perhaps everything I could say has been said already, but before I deal with the situation as it affects Selkirk I should like to quote from the submission made by Manitoba in opposition to the increase in freight rates. I should like to read extracts from the views of some of our prominent citizens. I will quote first from page 91, w'here Premier Stuart Garson of Manitoba states:
The prairie provinces already pay a disproportionate share of the cost of railway operation in Canada.
The prairies' present prosperity is largely based upon the insatiable markets of war, a consecutive series of bumper crops, and a favourable relationship between costs and prices.
The war markets are gone, bumper crops cannot continue indefinitely, and the relationship between costs and prices is deteriorating.
The prairies' present prosperity is not as relevant to the railways' application for a freight rate increase, as are the prairies' basic prospects for future income.
These prospects are not essentially different from what they were after world war I.
I should like to quote also from page 101, on which appears the submission by Mr. Clifford E. Wood on behalf of the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation, as follows:
Farmers have a special, vital interest in freight rates. Freight rates are an important factor in determining production costs of the things a farmer sells, and enter largely into the price of the goods he must buy. Once rates are set, they tend to remain fixed, particularly in areas where no effective competition exists. Naturally, farmers view with considerable apprehension any attempt to bring about a permanent increase in their fixed costs of production. The proposed tariff changes, if implemented, will increase the cost of every item the farmer has to purchase (except those manufactured in his own locality), and decrease the net revenue from most of the things which he sells.
Then I should like to quote from page 110, which contains a submission by Mr. F. J. Goodman on behalf of the Manitoba dairy association, as follows:
We submit that if any increase in freight rates is granted it is likely to be effective for many years. Today no one can tell what will happen to prices of the products of the dairy industry. Normally history repeats itself, and looking back to what happened after the last war we can expect a definite lowering of prices even though this may not be as disastrous as when butter fell from 54 cents to 26] cents in the course of two months in 1921. We feel that

Freight Rales
it is completely unreasonable to saddle the producer with higher freight charges over an extended period on the basis of what may be very short-lived prosperity.
The last quotation I should like to make is from page 116. which contains the submission by Mr. John B. Brown on behalf of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited, as follows:
In view of the fact that any increase in freight rates will be of a more or less permanent character. any consideration of the ability of the farmer to bear any increase must be based on an estimate of his position over the next ten or twenty years. It is submitted that the continuation of a combination of good crops and good' prices over this period of time is inconceivable.
I want to return now to my own constituency. which is perhaps one of the largest in Canada, having a population of 67,000. It has 439 miles of single railroad line, perhaps more than in any other constituency. For the information of hon. members who have not been there. I may say that these lines run through what is called the interlake country, which is a mixed farming area. By that I mean that it is diversified farming, and we use the railroads a great deal. Four principal branch railway lines run through the constituency, two operated by the Canadian Pacific and two by the Canadian National. One line runs to Gypsumville. a distance of 173 miles. Another runs to Hodgson, a distance of 105 miles. Then there is a line running to Alborg, a distance of 76 miles and another running to Riverton, a distance of 83 miles. These mileages will show hon. members how necessary the railroads are to the community I represent.
I should like to direct attention to the new-dressed poultry rates. A heavy volume of poultry moves out of these districts. Many farmers specialize in the raising of turkeys, and if any hon. member pays me a visit this summer I shall be able to show him farms with over 1.000 turkeys. The old dressed poultry rate from Steep Rock to Winnipeg was 89 cents, and the new rate is $1.08, an increase of 19 cents. From Gypsumville the rate was 93 cents, and the new rate is $1.13, an increase of 20 cents; from Hodgson the old rate was 69 cents, and the new rate is 83 cents, an increase of 14 cents; from Arborg the old rate was 53 cents, and the new' rate is 64 cents, an increase of 11 cents; from Riverton the old rate was 53 cents, and the new rate is 64 cents, an increase of 11 cents. Yet we are supposed to be subject to an increase of only 21 per cent.
Let us look at the egg situation. As hon. members know, eggs are moved often to ensure freshness, and because of frequent moving are moved in smaller lots. Here is a comparison of the new rates with the old:
	15	Doz.	Crates		
			Old	New	
rate	rate	IncreaseCents	Cents	CentsSteep Rock .	35	55	20Gypsumville .	35	55	20Hodgson ....	35	50	15Arborg 	35	50	15Iliverton ....	35	50	1530	Doz.	Crates	Old	New-	rate	rate	IncreaseCents	Cents	CentsSteep Rock .	41	75	34Gypsumville .	41	75	34Hodgson ....	39	70	31Arborg 	35	70	35Riverton ....	35	70	35
The rates on poultry cover only the 21 per cent increase, but it will be noticed that the new rates on eggs represent an increase of from 80 to 100 per cent, all of which is borne by the producer.
The producers are further penalized when shipments are made to the eastern markets. In this connection may I be permitted to quote from the Winnipeg Citizen of April 17 of this year. Under the heading, "Egg producers bear brunt of freight boost," the article says:
Small quantities of eggs shipped independently to city markets will cost the producer considerably more in freight and express charges since the 21 per cent increase in freight rates came into effect, according to information from W. A. Landreth, general manager of Canadian Poultry Sales.
He told the Citizen Friday -that the minimum express charge of 15 dozen crates used to be 35 cents but that this had' been increased to 75 cents.
"It used to cost approximately 2J cents per dozen to ship eggs in small quantities by express, and this now is 5 cents per dozen," he said.
"In addition, the railroads used to have a minimum freight charge of 50 cents which no-w has been advanced to 75 cents," continued Mr. Landreth.
In the majority of cases this additional cost would be borne by the producer, he said, adding that he did not think the increased freight and express charges would be reflected in the price per dozen to the consumer.
While the rates on eggs shipped in Manitoba have increased 80 and in some cases 100 per cent, in Ontario and Quebec the rates on eggs in crate lots remain the same for the simple reason that the railways have to meet truck competition. That makes it very unfair to the prairie provinces. I have made inquiries
Freight Rates

into the rates on the shipment of eggs in Ontario and Quebec and I have ascertained that the rate today is the same as it was before the 21 per cent increase was granted. I repeat that is very unfair to the prairie provinces, because while we have many trucks in Manitoba operating right through the districts which I have mentioned, when the owners of these trucks are issued licences for public service vehicles by the Manitoba public utility board, it is on the condition that railway rates will be maintained. The railways therefore have no competition and charge the full rate.
I have a clipping here from the Winnipeg Tribune of April 17, 1948, headed : "Truck rates boost seen," which reads:
Manitoba truckers, through the Manitoba Auto Transportation Association, plan to ask the provincial government for an increase in truck freight rates to bring rates in line with new railway changes.
The Tribune learned today that the M.A.T.A. will issue a statement on the matter next week.
No matter how many trucks we have, truck competition should never make any difference in the freight rates because the board in Manitoba insists that the trucks must haul freight at railway rates. It will readily be seen that if these present tariffs are maintained we can expect a decline in the production of poultry products. This will have a serious effect on the mixed farming program, which is essential to the future welfare of the agricultural industry in the constituency of Selkirk.
Something should be said about the rates on bread. I have here a telegram from Lundar, Manitoba, dealing with the bread situation. It reads:
Bread rate Lundar to Gypsumville, old rate 51 cents per hundred, minimum 35 cents, new rate $1.05, minimum 76 cents. Bates to closer points are comparatively high according to new rate.
*Here we have a rate which has risen over 100 per cent, and even the minimum rate, which has been raised from 35 cents to 75 cents, represents an increase of over 100 per cent. These figures make the 21 per cent increase, so-called, look ridiculous because the increases amount in some cases to over 100 per cent instead of 21 per cent. This applies not only to the constituency of Selkirk but also to many other parts of the prairie provinces. I have in my possession bills of lading for shipments of bread by express from Melville to Duff, Saskatchewan, and one of these bills shows the old rate to be 35 cents, while the other shows the new rate as 75 cents for the same weight.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Page the Minister of
Agriculture.


William Scottie Bryce: 
Humphrey Mitchell: May I ask my hon. friend a question? How does he expect the railroad workers, particularly those on the Canadian National, to get an increase without an increase in freight rates?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Give them decent
capitalization.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like the minister to have the same patience as I have when I am listening to him, and to wait until I have made my argument; then I shall be only too pleased to explain my views on the matter.
I was pointing out that some hon. members have said that to argue against the freight rate increase is to argue against an increase in wages for railroad workers. That is not so. The increased efficiency of the railways, the improvements in railway transportation that have taken place during the last thirty years is progress the railways can well be proud of. An engine thirty years ago travelled only one divisional point, perhaps a hundred miles or a little more. Now it travels at least three
divisions. The engines are bigger and better than they ever were before. Box ears were built thirty years ago to handle 60,000 pounds of freight; today the railroads are building freight cars to carry 80,000 pounds, and in many instances the companies are building cars to carry 100,000 pounds. When I came to this country it was a common sight on the prairies to see freight engines rolling along with fifty cars of grain; today we have engines that can handle a hundred care of grain. The cars are heavier than ever before. Hon. members can see these things in the central provinces. The engines can haul more than they ever did before. There have been tremendous savings in the operation of the railroad. All this development and improvement must have saved money for the railroad companies and some part of the savings should go to the men who operate them, no matter what branch they work in.
I have not the training necessary to analyse the reports of the railroad companies, but from my experience in railroading I know that they are making good profits. Perhaps I should not make that, statement, because I have not the ability to analyse a financial statement and show that they are making a profit, but I know they are, and I think it can be proved by men who are capable of analysing a balance sheet-auditors, chartered accountants, and so on-and show that they are making profits.
Having been a machinist in the Transcona shops, and knowing something of the heavy work, and in many cases particular work, performed by railway workers in all trades, I want to support the demands for increased wages. If that means that the railways will have to secure additional revenues, then ways and means to increase those revenues must be found. But that does not justify that 21 per cent increase in freight rates, for that is an unequal and discriminatory way of doing it and will only take away any increases in wages the workers might get. Let us find a proper basis for getting increased revenues, if they are needed, so that the people of Canada will not have to bear the burden unequally, particularly in the west and in the maritimes; and so that the workers can get the wage increases they deserve.


Mr. F. T. STANFIELD (Colchester-Hants):: Today I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for having a bad cold; so I shall make my remarks just as brief as I possibly can.


Gordon Graydon: They will be good anyway.
Freight Rales


Frank Thomas Stanfield: I realize that this matter of freight rates is a great question across this whole country of ours and that, politically, it is dynamite. It is of great importance to the railways and to the employees of the railways. It is also a great question to us in the maritimes. This increase will make it a little more difficult for all of us down there, especially for us in Nova Scotia which, at the present time, is having a little difficulty with its internal economic position, in changing back completely to a peacetime economy.
We in the maritime provinces know quite well that the railways need more revenue. There is not any question about that. We maintain that the railways must be kept in a strong position, from both an operative and a financial point of view, all the time. However we object to paying more than our just share of the increase in these rates. The people of the maritimes are, I believe, quite prepared to pay a just share of the increase in revenue needed by the railways. If our rates had been increased by 8 or 10 per cent, I believe that would be just as fair an increase as 21 per cent is for the large central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I will endeavour to point that out clearly in a few words later on. I believe it is a fair statement to make that it costs the people of the maritimes $1 to $1.50 in freight rates as compared with fifty cents to sixty cents in central Canada; that is, Ontario and Quebec. I have reference to rates for the same class and volume of freight received by the consignees in the two regions. Therefore an increase of 21 per cent might easily amount to twenty-five or thirty cents to the people in the province I come from, whereas it would amount to an increase of only ten to fifteen cents in central Canada.
I will just give a few illustrations; I will not quote any figures. Hon. members may look them up if they have any doubts about them. In Sackville, New Brunswick, there are two firms making stoves and metal products. It is necessary for those firms to bring in a great deal of their material from Hamilton, Ontario.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Will the hon. member speak a little more loudly, please?


Frank Thomas Stanfield: I cannot do so, I am sorry to say, on account of my cold.


John Horne Blackmore: Then will the hon. member face more this way?


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Yes. If hon. members will compare the freight rates from Hamilton, Ontario to Sackville, New Brunswick, with the freight rates from Hamilton to Montreal, they will be surprised how much difference they 
will find. And if they compare the freight rates on the return shipments of these stoves and various enamel products which these concerns make, to Ontario and the western part of the country with the rates on shipments from Montreal, they will be still further surprised. I think my statement will be found to be correct, that the two firms at Sackville have to pay at least 200 per cent more than do firms in Montreal.
The case of the sugar refinery in Saint John may also be mentioned. If they want to get into the Montreal market, they must absorb all the cost of the freight between Saint John and Montreal. Otherwise they cannot sell their sugar there. Therefore any large increase like 21 per cent will mean a great deal to that sugar refinery in normal times.
In the minister's home town of Cornwall is Canadian Cottons, which also has two large mills in New Brunswick. I am sure that the freight cost to its two factories in New Brunswick would be 150 per cent more than the cost of freight moving into the Cornwall plant; and in saying that, I mean for the same volume of freight.
It may be said that we should make all these things ourselves in the maritimes and we would be better off. But we just cannot live within ourselves down there, because of our geographic position and for many other reasons. We must bring things in. Therefore the products we bring in come from long distances. Many of the products we have to sell, such as our potatoes, apples, lumber, et cetera, must be shipped long distances. Therefore the freight rates are heavy on the people of the maritime provinces when compared with the freight rates on the short hauls in the central provinces. These comparisons may not be 100 per cent correct, but they are substantially correct. They certainly show how grossly unfair these increases are to these three little provinces down by the sea. They put them at a further disadvantage in the Canadian economy.
It is my understanding that of the estimated $70,000,000 which these increases will bring to the railways, nearly $45,000,000 will come from the four western provinces and the three maritime provinces. This means that they will certainly be absorbing a little more than their just share. The west do not get any increase on their grain. Having received such consideration as that, they should not have too much complaint. But what exception from the increase do we in the maritimes get for our lumber, our fish, our potatoes or apples or any other of our natural products? Not one five-cent piece 1 It may be said that

Freight Rates
on our coal we did not get any great increase; but we did not get any special consideration whatsoever on coal rates. The coal rate was increased by twenty-five cents a ton all over Canada, and we got the same consideration as anyone else on coal.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member knows that the increase was twenty cents a ton in the maritimes. The railroads, or at least the Canadian National Railways, did not put into effect the twenty-five cent increase. They put into effect the twenty cent increase per ton.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: All right.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: We were
entitled to 20 per cent off the twenty-five cent increase in freight on coal, as I understand it, under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman's line of thought, but I felt that at that point I should say that the increase is twenty cents, not twenty-five cents.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: These rates only apply
to Diamond Junction. The 20 per cent reduction only applies as far as that point and no farther.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not referring to the Maritime Freight Rates Act but to the fact that the increase of twenty-five cents a ton on coal was not put into effect by the Canadian National Railways. Instead, they made the increase twenty cents.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: While I am dealing
with the matter of coal I may say that the subsidy on Nova Scotia coal from Glace Bay to Montreal is about $1.35 a ton, while the subsidy on coal moving from Alberta to Toronto is about $2.50, so in comparison it will be seen that we do not get any special consideration as far as coal is concerned.
No doubt the other parts of Canada have many just complaints with respect to discrimination, but I want to deal only with the discrimination that is shown against those three little provinces down by the sea in the judgment handed down by the board of transport commissioners. Members of this board, I am sure, are all honourable and capable men, but it does seem to me they must have forgotten or never heard about the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is only adding insult to injury to ask such a good and kindly people as those in the maritimes to swallow such a dose of medicine as this discriminatory increase in freight rates. It is all very fine to talk about finding some way to rectify these injustices, but once these rates are put into operation, it is another 5849-203
matter to get rid of them. I want to wish the minister every success in his endeavour to remedy this condition.
In closing, may I add that we do not want anything to do with subsidies. We are not asking for charity or a hand-out. All we want is just consideration in the matter of freight rates, with due regard to our geographical position.


Percy Chapman Black: Did I understand from the statement made by the minister that the maritime provinces get
20	per cent off the 21 per cent increase in freight rates, or, in other words, that we are entitled to 20 per cent off the increase of twenty-five cents a ton on coal?


Lionel Chevrier: The Maritime Freight Rates Act, as I understand it, is not affected in any way by the judgment of the board of transport commissioners. But in that judgment the board, over and above the
21	per cent increase, granted the railways an increase of twenty-five cents a ton on coal. My information from the officers of the Canadian National Railways is that they are not putting the twenty-five cents a ton increase into effect in the maritime areas, but that they are going to put into effect an increase of twenty cents a ton, or five cents less than is authorized by the board.


Percy Chapman Black: That is simply applying the 20 per cent reduction to the increase of twenty-five cents. Are we entitled to 20 per cent off the twenty cent increase?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The house is not in committee.


Mr. H. W. IIERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, owing to a certain indisposition occasioned by a rather heavy bout with the 'flu I have not been present in the house for any length of time during the past two weeks, so unfortunately I have missed the major portion of this debate. But 1 have followed the record fairly closely. It is not my intention at this late stage of the debate to delay the house for any great length of time, nor do I feel capable of a sustained effort, but I should like to say a few words.
I would not presume to think myself capable of dealing with the intricacies of freight rates. I consider that a technical matter to be dealt with by experts, with, decisions to be made by a judicial body. However I wish to place before the house the opinions of my constituents concerning this 21 per cent increase, particularly in view of the discrimination British Columbia has suffered throughout the years. When I say "my constituents" I am speaking for those of all parties because,
Freight Rates

as far as my constituents are concerned, this is not a political question. It is a bread and butter question affecting -every man, whether he be a Conservative, a Liberal, a C.C.F'er or whatnot. As a result there is widespread opposition in British Columbia to the recent increase in freight rates.
I said this was not a partisan question. I believe that has been evidenced by the debate which has taken place so far, and by the fact that from the provinces particularly concerned protests have come from every level, governmental, industrial, commercial, farming and so on. So in considering this matter I think we are dealing with a question affecting all the Canadian people, with which all are concerned regardless of political affiliation.
The protests that have been heard in this house have indicated a widespread opinion that British Columbia, the prairie provinces and the maritimes are suffering definite injustice under the present freight rate structure, and I support the position which has been taken by other members from British Columbia who have protested against this increase. I read with interest the excellent speech of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), in which he briefly outlined the history of this situation as far as British Columbia is concerned.
I also read with great interest the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in introducing this debate. I believe later some of the members on the government side of the house complimented the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on his approach to this question. He covered the ground' completely and in a non-political way.
I read the comments of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), and rather enjoyed his salty-or coming from the prairies as he does, should I say alkaline-remarks. We must realize that he does not speak from an academic point of view but as a person who has lived and worked with the farmers, who knows what they feel and think and what they have suffered and do suffer under the present freight rate discrimination. I was very much interested in what he had to say with respect to the over-capitalization of the Canadian National, and agree with his remarks in that regard.
I read with rather less delight the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), who, I am sorry, is not in the house at present. I was disappointed in what he had to say. I noted, however, his statement that the lumber industry could well afford to pay these increased freight rates. In making that

statement he took a narrow view because he overlooked the fruit industry in British Columbia, which will suffer a severe handicap as a result of these increases on top of the discriminatory rates in effect. I very much enjoyed reading the speech made by the hon. member for Ivindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), because, strangely enough, his argument was one that has been presented by many people in my own constituency. In the course of his remarks the hon. member claimed that the board has power to deal with the question of discrimination at all times. I want to refer to that point briefly, because I do not think it has been dealt with again during this debate in the same way. That is the argument being put forward by many organizations in my riding, and it is also being publicized in the press. I should like to deal with that point for a few moments, because I think the argument is sound. First, I am going to quote from page 2929 of Hansard for April 13, but before doing so I should refer to the remarks of the minister at pagei 2662:
There has been a tendency in this debate today to confuse two issues, the one which was the increase recommended by the board of transport commissioners and the other which was the equalization of the rates; or, to use the expression mentioned at various times in the debate, a discrimination in the rates across Canada . . .
The board in this ease was dealing with one specific matter, namely an application ... to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in freight rates.
That is the end of the minister's statement. Then, on the same date the hon. member for Kindersley said:
With great respect I say to the minister that I think he was wrong, as I shall try to show in a moment. What he said is, of course, substantially what the board of transport commissioners said in their judgment; and in my opinion the board were also wrong. They held that discrimination was not in issue, and skilfully skated around that point.
May I say I agree completely with those remarks. The hon. member continued:
This afternoon the minister quoted from the decision of the board something which had some application to the argument I am about to make, but I am going to quote another paragraph from the judgment of the chief commissioner as it is found at page 81 of the mimeographed copy:


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member like to have an explanation now? He says he would like me to reply to that argument.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister mean at this time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When I finish speaking.

Freight Rates


Lionel Chevrier: No, now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Very well.


Lionel Chevrier: As was explained at the time, the distinction between the two is that one was dealing with an application to increase rates and the other is to deal with an application to dispose of inequalities. The application to increase freight rates could not possibly equalize the rates, because there was no such application before the board.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I fully appreciate the minister's argument in that respect, but I agree with the hon. member for Kindersley when he said:
The application was made under section 325 of the Railway Act, which reads:
"The hoard may disallow any tariff or any portion thereof which it considers to be unjust or unreasonable or contrary to any of the provisions of this act, and may require the company within a prescribed time to substitute a draft satisfactory to the board in lieu thereof or may prescribe other tolls in lieu of the tolls so disallowed."


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt again? That is so. The board is authorized to proceed under that section. But the board also must proceed in accordance with the terms of the application made before it. And counsel from the hon. member's province, from Alberta and from other provinces as well, clearly stipulated that this was not an application to do away with discrimination. I did not wish unduly to interrupt the hon. member, but I think in fairness that should be pointed out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can see the point of the minister's argument. Then the hon. member for Kindersley quoted from section 314 as follows:
"All tolls shall always under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, in respect of all traffic of the same description and carried in or upon the like kind of cars or conveyances, passing over the same line or route, be charged equally of all persons and at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage, or otherwise."
Subsection 2 reads:
"No reduction or advance in any such rates shall be made either directly or indirectly, in favour of or against any particular person or company travelling upon or using the railroads."
Subsection 4 reads:
"No toll shall be charged which unjustly discriminates between different localities."
Therefore I still agree with the hon. member for Kindersley that the question of discrimination is one which is before the board at all -times.
May I quote briefly from an editorial in the Trail Daily Times? This newspaper does not by any means support my political philosophy, -but sometimes I agree with it. I would say 5849-2031
this newspaper, in writing this editorial, is reflecting public opinion in that district. In part it says:
The charge made repeatedly in the course of the debate, and from the government side as well as the opposition,-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. It is not in order for the hon. member to read articles from sources outside the house reflecting upon a debate taking place in the house -at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I bow to Your Honour's ruling. M'ay I say, however, that the editorial supports my contention and also the belief that the question of discrimination should have been dealt with at first. Had that been done, the increased freight rates would have been accepted with much better grace in this country, if found necessary.
I shall not take much more time, but I say that if we had a government which really supported public ownership and which gave the Canadian National Railways the advantage it has in respect of grade and so on, I believe much of this problem would disappear. And that is a belief held by many people in Canada.
As I said before, the recent increase will be a heavy burden upon the fruit industry of British Columbia. I have been an official of the British Columbia fruit growers' association for some years and have attended many annual conventions, so that I know from experience that the matter of freight rates discrimination is a serious issue with fruit growers. Even at the January conference of that association this year the following resolution was passed:
Be it resolved that this 1948 B.C.F.G.A. annual convention endorse the action taken by the British Columbia government to have the "mountain freight rate" differential removed, and request the provincial government to continue to press for such removal.
That was in January, prior to the 21 per cent increase. Even at that time this organization considered that the fruit industry was suffering an injustice. Then on top of that injustice we have the increase announced by the board of transport commissioners, which increases the discrimination.
I have lived in British Columbia for over forty years. During all that period of time I have heard about the fight against unfair freight rates, the mountain differential, and the like. But to date, nothing has resulted from years of protest. As I understand, from correspondence I have received, I do not think reasonable people are opposed to increases
Freight Rates

which are shown to be necessary. We realize that increased operating costs have to be met and that increased wages have to be met. We realize that there is a great demand for new rolling stock and for improved roadbeds. I must say, however, that the people I represent are opposed to the present 21 per cent increase being allowed before an equalization of freight rates is given effect. The people in my constituency maintain that the board of transport commissioners went at this matter backwards. They maintain there should have been first an equalization of rates, and then the consideration as to whether an increase in rates was necessary.
While I realize that the board cannot consider these questions from a political point of view, and that they must approach the problem from the economic point of view, I think this government must consider it in political terms, if confederation is to continue to mean anything. If Canadian unity is to be strengthened, and if it is to mean something worthwhile in days to come, then the unfair rates from which the west and British Columbia have suffered must be removed. At this time the people of British Columbia demand that equalization long delayed be given effect.


Mr. T. V. GRANT (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my first observation should bring applause from all sides of the house: it is that I am going to be very brief. I merely wish to make two corrections, with the necessary trimmings. The first of these is that a few days ago there appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian a front page account of the speech delivered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in the House of Commons with respect to the freight rates increase. In this report it was stated that only one member from the province of Prince Edward Island, applauded the minister's remarks or joined in the applause during the minister's speech, and that member was the member for Kings. I felt that it was a compliment to me, although the Ottawa reporter meant it otherwise. That report is incorrect, because I was sitting here and wTatch-ing the other two members, the hon. Liberal member for Queens (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. Liberal member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) and they both joined in the applause, very enthusiastically.


Gordon Graydon: Do you have to watch them that closely?


Thomas Vincent Grant: I do not have to, but I happened to see them that time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope you see the point.


Thomas Vincent Grant: When the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) interrupts I am reminded of when I was a little boy. We used to have a billygoat which had a very perverted appetite; he used to eat nails.
I want to say that I am not finding fault with the Charlottetow-n Guardian, as that paper has been fair to me for some years; although it is a Conservative paper it has been quite fair. However, I think they should check on their Ottawa reporter, because this is not the first falsehood he has sent down to Charlottetown.
Next, I should like to correct a statement made by the Tory member for Queens when he was speaking on this matter. He said that he and other members from the ma/ri times had received scores of letters and telegrams and telephone calls in opposition to the freight rates increase. I took the trouble to speak to the two Liberal members from Prince Edward Island and I find that neither of them received any letters or telephone calls. I have received no letters or telephone calls, but I did receive two telegrams, one from the board of trade in Charlottetown, and another from the federation of agriculture. I asked other members from the maritimes whether they had received any letters and they said they had not. The Tory member for Queens was simply exaggerating-a thing which he always does for political purposes.
The Tory member for Queens stated his belief that the salaries of the railroad employees should be increased, but he denounced the increase in freight rates, which was simply absurd. He did not tell us, as the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) so aptly said, what way they had done it when they were in power. When they were in power they cut the wages of railroad employees about 20 per cent; they increased the rates and they cut down the service. In my own county of Kings they closed down one railroad line altogether, and they cut the service on another line to two freight trains a week, and the Post Office Department had to establish mail routes over those lines. That is the way they did it when they were in power. The old-time Conservatives who were here between 1930 and 1935 do not want to talk about that as much as my Tory friend from Queens, who seems to forget that he was here also.
I have just been reading an editorial in the Charlottetown Patriot written by the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, who is the present editor, and who was one of the members of the Duncan commission. It is entitled, "Freight rates and common sense".


William Ross Macdonald: Order.

Freight Rates


Thomas Vincent Grant: I am not reading the editorial; I am quoting from my own notes.


William Ross Macdonald: Some hon. members have drawn my attention to the fact that the hon. member for Kings is reading from an editorial which is a commentary upon the present proceedings in the house. If that is so, he should not continue to do so.


Gordon Graydon: He is talking politics.


Thomas Vincent Grant: It is the view of the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, the editor of the Patriot, that the Minister of Transport acted properly in not interfering with the judgment handed down by the board of transport commissioners.


William Ross Macdonald: I would point out that the hon. member should not read
that editorial.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I am not reading, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think we should have some understanding in this debate. When an hon. member gets up and makes a statement, whether he takes it from an editorial or whether he takes it from his own mind, as long as he paraphrases he is perfectly within his rights.


William Ross Macdonald: The rule is that an hon. member must express his own opinion. It makes no difference when he is expressing the opinion of some person out of the house whether he reads it or paraphrases it; the rule is that he must express only his own opinion and not read a commentary by someone outside the house.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not the rule of the house as I understand it. The effect of your ruling would be that if I were to make a statement in which I quoted a farmer minister or another individual, I would not be within the rule. Surely that is not the interpretation to put upon the rule.


William Ross Macdonald: That is not the interpretation that I put on the rule. An hon. member may quote another hon. member of the house, but he may not quote people outside this house who are expressing an opinion of what took place in the house.


Thomas Vincent Grant: My opinion is that the views of the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan are right and that the minister acted wisely in directing the board of transport commissioners to make a wide investigation into the inqualities of the freight rates and correct them where necessary.
I have read the amendment and the subamendment. I think the amendment can be
summed up in the one word "procrastination", while the subamendment could be summed up in two words, "more procrastination". For these reasons I intend to vote against the amendment and the subamendment.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, it seems proper that I should say one or two more things before this debate closes, inasmuch as I said some pretty harsh things the other day regarding the minister's decision to permit the railroads to increase their freight rates 21 per cent. I should like to talk over this problem with the minister heart to heart as Canadians who are both interested in the welfare of this nation. I propose to point out to him several things which may have escaped his attention by reason of the exceedingly busy life he leads, but which probably would modify his views as to how to deal with this vexatious problem.
I tried to be perfectly calm the other day and I want to be calm today and moderate in what I say. However, some strong things need to be said because this problem has been exercising Canadians for generations.
The first important thing which needs to be borne in mind in connection with this problem is one which has already been dealt with to a considerable degree and quite thoroughly by a number of other hon. members-discrimination in freight rates. Nevertheless I propose to repeat some of these things once more so that we can all come to understand the nature of the problem which confronts us, for otherwise we might easily make a decision which we thought was for the welfare of Canada but which might result in its destruction.
We have inequitable freight rates between Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver. I am going to use Alberta as an illustration of the inequities of the freight rate structure, because I am more familiar with that province and it will illustrate the problems which confront the west as a whole. I wish to say to the members from the maritime provinces that although I do not mention the maritime provinces, I am not unaware of their problems. Indeed I believe their problems with respect to freight rates are quite as glaring and onerous as are the problems of the west, and their complaints are for almost exactly the same reason. I am going to use Alberta as an illustration, as I said, and point out some of the things we suffer from.
We have inequitable freight rates, as has been pointed out by several members previously, in the freight haul from Montreal to Alberta and to British Columbia. May I say, before going farther, that I work with the
Freight Rates

members from British Columbia and I am not wishing to reflect upon British Columbia in what I say in quoting these rates. The problem which confronts them is the same as that which confronts us. These are merely illustrations of glaring absurdities in the freight rate structure.
You can put 100 pounds of barbed wire on the train at Montreal and ship it to Vancouver for seventy-five cents. But if you take that same 100 pounds of barbed wire off at Edmonton you pay SI.98, which is considerably more than twice as much. Those were the rates before the increase was granted. I do not know why it is so hard to get into the heads of some people in Canada how important these discriminations are, and what a bleeding process they constitute on the people of Alberta as they go on year after year and generation after generation.
A similar thing exists in shipping building paper and roofing. It costs S1.25 per hundredweight to haul it from Montreal to Vancouver, and SI.98 to haul it from Montreal to Edmonton; kalsomine, SI from Montreal to Vancouver, and $1.33^ to Edmonton; lard, SI to Vancouver, and SI.98 to Edmonton; nails, SI.50 to Vancouver, and SI.98 to Edmonton.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can you get them to ship nails at all?


John Horne Blackmore: We have trouble that way too.
Paints and varnishes, SI.25 to Vancouver, and $1.98 to Edmonton; sewing machines, $2.15 to Vancouver, and $3.03i to Edmonton; shoes, $2 to Vancouver, and $3.03 to Edmonton; soap in 100-pound lots, SI to Vancouver and $1.98 to Edmonton; twine, S1.30 to Vancouver, and $1.98 to Edmonton; window glass, $1 to Vancouver, and $1.98 to Edmonton; agricultural implements, $1.25 to $1.50 to Vancouver, and $1.79 to $1.98 to Edmonton; canned goods, seventy-five cents to Vancouver, and $1.73 to Edmonton; flannelette blankets, $1.75 to Vancouver, and S4.53J to Edmonton.
The argument ordinarily advanced, as the minister knows, when we quote these figures is 'that in taking freight out to Vancouver the railways must compete with water traffic. But it does not matter how much competition the railways have to meet by water around by the Panama canal so far as -the cost to the individual Albertan is concerned. The items I have mentioned, wire and so forth, we use in fencing and in carrying on our business and agricultural production-practically everything that goes into our daily life-and these rates constitute a drain which is absolutely unjust, unfair and uneconomic from the point of view

of Canada and is one to which we should not 'be subjected. That is the first important point.
The freight rate structure as it exists at the present time has apparently been deliberately designed to prevent internal trade and development among western provinces. One would hardly believe that a group of men of average intelligence holding office in a country which they hoped to see become great would contrive a scheme which would prevent internal trade among the provinces and within the provinces, but that has apparently been done, and done deliberately. Here are some illustrations.
The freight rate on lumber from Mont Laurier, in the province of Quebec, to Glencoe, Ontario, a distance of 613 miles, pays twenty-three cents per 100 pounds. Lumber from Vancouver to Calgary, a distance of 643 miles, exactly the same distance, pays fifty cents per 100 pounds, or more than twice as much. Will someone tell me why anyone in the Dominion of Canada living in Alberta should have to pay twice as much freight on lumber to build his house or even his pigpen as a person living in Ontario has to pay? If the minister has time I should like to see him figure that out.


Lionel Chevrier: That has been stated in the debate already. If you have to ship lumber or any other commodity 2,500 miles or 3,000 miles from the source of supply it goes without saying that the cost of the freight over that distance must be far greater than if it has to travel only 1,000 or 1,500 miles.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry that the minister temporarily lost contact with what I was saying. I was telling him about the cost of shipping lumber from Mont Laurier, Quebec, to Glencoe, Ontario, a distance of 643 miles, as compared with the cost of shipping lumber over exactly the same distance, 643 miles, from Vancouver to Calgary From Mont Laurier to Glencoe the cost is twenty-three cents, and from Vancouver to Calgary the cost is fifty cents. The lumber is produced right out there in British Columbia and is used in Alberta just as the lumber produced in Quebec is used in Ontario, and \ve have just as much right to get British Columbia lumber at a reasonable rate as Ontario people have to get Quebec lumber.


Lionel Chevrier: I presume the reason for the difference is the competitive rates that exist in one or other of the areas. But if there is in what my hon. friend says an inequity or a discrimination, it is the object

Freight Rates
of the order in council, by directing the board of transport commissioners to study the question, to do away with that very thing. Why then is he complaining about what we are doing?


John Horne Blackmore: That sounds quite plausible, and I want to be considerate of the minister because he has not been in his department long enough to become accustomed to all these things. But the situation I have mentioned has existed in the Dominion of Canada for years and years, at least fifteen or twenty years, and never has anything been done to rectify it,


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed an interjection, what the hon. gentleman says may be quite true, but it is a fact that over a period of more than twenty years no application has ever been made to the board to do away with discrimination or inequities.


John Horne Blackmore: Once more the minister's inexperience must be his excuse for lack of knowledge about this matter, because in the "Case for Alberta", which was prepared by the present administration in Alberta in 1937, all these details are carefully enumerated, and a strong but respectful and dignified protest was made to the Rowell-Sirois commission. There was no excuse at all for anyone failing to know-


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell the hon. gentleman that the Rowell-Sirois commission was not charged specifically with this question of discrimination. It was a matter having to do with dominion-provincial relations. The board of transport commissioners is the only body in this country that can study inequalities in freight rates; and what I am saying, and what I have already said, and what is the fact, is that in the last twenty years no application has been made to the board of transport commissioners by any of the provinces to do away with so-called discriminations.


John Horne Blackmore: cents a hundredweight, but from Streamstown, Alberta, to Vancouver, 995 miles, the same distance, the cost is forty-nine cents, or more than twice as much. Evidently it was obvious to the men who first drafted the railway freight rates that Alberta and Saskatchewan would ship their grain west to Vancouver and have a market overseas, so they designed a freight rate structure which would prevent that for all time; we have been suffering under that thing ever since, and we are still suffering from it. Why should that be so? If it did not happen by design it was certainly a remarkable coincidence.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it did not.


John Horne Blackmore: I am certainly glad to hear that, and I hope to see the board of transport commissioners rectify its blunder at an early date.
Certain freight rates from which we are suffering, Mr. Speaker, have the effect of putting a tariff barrier around Ontario industry. What would you think of a Dominion of Canada, where so many people love to talk about Balkanizing the country because we insist on provincial rights; what would you think of a Dominion of Canada, in which the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, acting through the board of transport commissioners over which they politically are strong enough to exercise control; what would you think of their putting up a tariff barrier that keeps Alberta produce out of Ontario? That has actually been done by freight rates-


Lionel Chevrier: Ridiculous.


John Horne Blackmore: Here is an illustration. Of course it is ridiculous. We are taking the brunt of it.


Lionel Chevrier: It is ridiculous to make the statement that it has been done designedly by the board. My hon. friend should know that the rates in the east are governed not only by the conditions existing on the railways but also by competition on the water and on the highways, and because of the competitive rates the rates in the east are lower. As the hon. gentleman knows, the railway and shipping committee is now sitting and it has its experts there.


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly so, Mr. Speaker, but that consideration does not explain the inequity I am talking about.. Let me give you the details. To ship 400 boxes of Alberta butter, which is dairy produce, partly processed, from Edmonton to Toronto costs S764.S2, exclusive of icing charges. To ship the same weight of partly processed Ontario milk product, namely condensed milk, a slightly longer distance, from Aylmer,

Ontario, to Edmonton costs $467.46 which, in this case, means that the freight rates have been designed to put Ontario semi-processed milk products on to the Edmonton, Alberta, market and to shut off Alberta products from the Ontario and the Quebec market; there can be no other explanation of it at all. There is no competition there, none at all; there are no water rates competing; there is no truck rate competing. It is just there as a tariff barrier; that is all.
I have not mentioned many others that could be adduced, but here is an example that is glaring. I do not want to accuse the board of transport commissioners of injustice, but the evidence is so strong that a person cannot possibly escape the conclusion.
Then we have rates on freight that impede the industrial development of Alberta. Here is an example of that. You can ship a beef steer from Edmonton to eastern Canada for $1.14 a hundred, but when you kill the steer and put him in a refrigerator car, making it far easier to ship him, taking much less space and removing all need of caring for him so that it should cost less, you ship him the same distance for $1.88. I will repeat that. To ship a living steer costs $1.14 a hundred; to ship the dead steer costs $1.88 a hundred. What does it mean? It can mean only one thing, namely, that Ontario and Quebec have wanted to have the privilege of killing the steers themselves. Let Alberta raise the steers, then ship them to Ontario and Quebec so that they can be killed and processed there and the offal sold in Ontario and Quebec and the work carried on there. That sort of thing is simply inexcusable. I do not believe that can be justified on any grounds whatsoever. There was evidently a deliberate attempt there to prevent processing in Alberta, and the development of an industry. The same thing, I am sure, would apply to Saskatchewan and the various' other western provinces.
Here is a picture unsightly to contemplate. Here is no apparent honest effort on the part of the board of transport commissioners to find revenue for the railways, but rather it appears to be a mean, ugly plot to throttle the economies of the western provinces. It looks like a deep-laid scheme to keep those provinces in economic servitude and to exploit them perpetually for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec. Some people will accuse me, or suspect me, of being sectional. That is absolutely untrue. The people of Alberta are just as loyal to the Canadian flag, Canada and the British commonwealth as are the people anywhere.

Freight Rates


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment and the subamendment which are under consideration, which deal with freight rates.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to do that. There is no sectionalism whatsoever involved. All we want in the west is a square deal; and it is time both the western provinces and the eastern provinces got a square deal. It is time we started to give them that. It looks as though there had been a design on the part of the eastern provinces, Ontario and Quebec, to keep the population of Alberta and the west from increasing, so that they would be unable to gain political power to force the eastern provinces to give them the rights which they are now denied because they do not have the political power. All the members who come from the four western provinces and the three maritime provinces get outvoted by the people from Ontario and Quebec. As long as that is the case we shall have to submit to just anything that Ontario and Quebec choose to give us.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must again remind the hon. member that he is not discussing freight rates, and that he should confine his remarks to the amendment and the subamendment.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope Ontario will remember what I have said, anyway, Mr. Speaker. There are several other matters which tend to make these discriminations against the western provinces bear upon us with particular severity. We have inequities of tariff, on which I do not intend to elaborate, but which show that the four western provinces are being-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member is apparently paying no attention to the Speaker's remarks. I have pointed out to the hon. member that he must confine his remarks to the amendment and the subamendment which are under consideration. I must ask him to do so. I hope he will not ignore that request.


John Horne Blackmore: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that you practically emasculate the speech which I have a perfect right to deliver in this house. But you are in a position to make me bow to your ruling, and I intend to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody else can wander all over the map.


Mr. LOW:: There has been plenty of wandering in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the subamendment refers to the request of seven provinces. Surely the remarks of the hon. member, whether we associate ourselves with them or not, are related to the 'inequalities that certain provinces feel are developing in this country.


William Ross Macdonald: The amendment to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) refers, deals only with freight rates. The hon. member for Lethbridge was about to discuss tariffs, and I take it for granted it was the customs tariff to which he was referring. I cannot allow any such discussion at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all right, Mr. Speaker. We shall go forward and let the bygones be bygones. But the point is that if the western provinces had not been persecuted and tortured by the sort of treatment they have had from the east in the past for these many years, they would not feel so badly about taking a 21 per cent increase. But under the circumstances it is unbearable; it is the last straw. That is the kind of thing that I was trying to convey to the members of the house. But I have plenty of other things to say. I do not need to say this.
I should like to turn now to the question of the inadequacy, from the point of view of the railroads themselves, of granting this 21 per cent increase. It is my judgment that probably the most unwise thing the government could do at the present time, in the interests of the railways themselves, is to grant this 21 per cent increase. I do not intend to go into detail, but I will say this. If the western provinces and the three eastern provinces have the spirit, courage and independence which I believe they have, they will find ways and means of making this a sorry day for the railroads.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Threats.


John Horne Blackmore: In the first place, if the western provinces accept this increase of 21 per cent on top of all the suffering they have had up to the present time, it will only help to impoverish them. Ultimately, it will be likely to ruin them. To see the possibility of that, all that is necessary is to look at the 1930 experiences. It will then ultimately ruin Ontario and Quebec which depend, in a large measure, on those provinces for markets. If that happens, of what good will it be for the railroads to have high freight rates when they will have no freight to carry?
It will finally ruin the railroads themselves, in my judgment, because the trucks will take
Freight Rates

over the business, and the business will gradually decline. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) talked about the province of Manitoba refusing to allow the trucks to underbid the railroads. While I am on that point, I should like to give Manitoba a little bit of kindly advice. It is that they had better alter their ways with respect to that kind of thing, and let their trucks compete with the railroads. Otherwise they will suffer in their own economy.
I am not questioning the value and importance of the railroads, by any manner of means. I know the railroads are necessary in Canada, first of all, to bind the Canadian provinces together in the Canadian union; second, to haul wheat and other commodities which could not very well be hauled those long distances by trucks; and finally, as a defence mechanism. In the case of war or other trouble, it is absolutely essential that we have the railroads there. I realize that, and the people of the western provinces realize that as well as anybody does. So we know perfectly well that the railroads must have support.
We know, too, that the railroads are labouring under serious handicaps, and it is well that the members of the house and the people in the country as well as the members of the government should be aware of that fact. There are great reaches of difficult or unproductive territory-mountains and prairies-where there is a scarcity of population, over which the railroads have to travel. We know that. What we cannot see is why it should be taken out of us. We will grant that there are great areas like the one between Ontario and Manitoba. We will grant that there are long reaches of prairies where there are few towns, and the people are scattered. But why should we westerners have to pay the shot just because that situation exists? M e will grant that motor transport is cutting into the revenues of the railroads at an alarming rate, and will continue to do so to a more and more serious degree. We will grant that aeroplane transport is being developed in the Dominion of Canada and ultimately that will take the cream off the railroads' business. We will grant that there is water transport competition.
We will grant that there are increasing costs in the conduct of the railroads. We will grant that there are increasing demands on the railroads. For example, as all hon. members know, it is extremely difficult for the railroads to sell their upper berths. Everybody wants a lower berth. That simply increases the costs of the railroads. That is just a little illustration. We will grant that

all these things exist. We will remember airconditioning and all the other things which the railroads have to introduce in order to make themselves better. We will grant that all these increase costs. We know the handicaps which the railroads are under. I am not complaining against the request of the railroads for additional consideration. There is obvious need of financial assistance under the circumstances. I realize that.
But the important question is, where is the money to come from? We do not believe all the money should come from the four western provinces and the three eastern provinces. We do not believe we should get all the money through increased freight rates; and I am quite sure that, in the course of the years, it will be discovered that this is simply not a sound1 way to get the money.
I would suggest to the government several measures. Why not remove the sales tax on all the materials used by the railways, thereby greatly decreasing their cost of operation? Why not reduce the capitalization of the Canadian National, a suggestion which has been made several times in the house? Why not reduce the bonded indebtedness? Why should the Canadian National be saddled with bonds that some foolish person contracted some twenty-five or thirty years ago, at six per cent interest? Can anyone see any reason why, when we know money should not cost more than three per cent, the government should allow a condition like that to continue? Why not reduce these interest rates?
I would say that if these measures, together with certain others that could be undertaken other than increased freight rates, are not found sufficient, then the cost of maintaining these two great railways, which are a magnificent asset to this country and a basic necessity to the welfare of Canada at this stage of our development, whatever may be the case in the future, should be made up from the consolidated revenue fund and borne by all the people. These two great railways are not only a national asset: they perform a national service to the Dominion of Canada, and consequently we all should pay for them.
May I now say just a word to the provinces?
I hope this will not be out of order. After all,
I see no reason why a member of parliament should not say a word to the provinces and to the people of the west and the maritimes. Now is the time when you will have to take a stand. Either the provinces and the people with them take a stern stand at the present time and force the government at Ottawa to recognize them and give them justice and the right to live, or they will permit themselves and their

Freight Rates
people to sink deeper into economic subservience. We have had plenty of experience. We see the temper of the men in power in Ottawa. We see what the board of transport commissioners are determined to do, and what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is determined to do. The question is, is there enough courage and determination in the provinces of Canada and the people of Canada to take a stand in the interests of a great, united and prosperous country?


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the house is anxious to have this vote taken, but I do not think the majority of hon. members here realize what railways mean to people in other parts of Canada. I think I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my constituency we are not yet operating our cars. Our roads have been blocked since last December; our trucks are not running. I believe hon. members should realize that the railways are the lifeblood of the western provinces. There we have weather conditions and settlement conditions which do not exist in the east. We have a sparse population, so that we cannot possibly bear the cost of keeping our highways open for truck competition all winter. We do not have the great lakes; we do not have the facilities for transport that are to be found in central Canada. So we must have our railways, and we must support them.
No one would deny that the people who do the work of operating the railways should have a decent living. No one who is familiar with the increase in the cost of living would dispute that wages do not mean what they did a few years ago; and I for one would not say the men who work on the railways do not need an increase in wages. We had some rather unkind remarks permitted by the Speaker in the house yesterday, dealing with the attitude of the C.C.F. in their treatment of labour. It was insinuated that the C.C.F. are trying to serve two masters, because we recognize the contribution that both farmers and railway men make to our economy. I do not consider that serving two masters. It must be remembered that in Saskatchewan we have the best labour laws in Canada, and they were put through by farmers, not by labour men. We realize that we all work, and it is not important whether you work on a farm or on a train; if you work you are entitled to a decent wage.
I want to refer again to the motion, because I think we have come a long way from the amendment which precipitated this debate. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved on April 7 that we should not permit these increases to go into effect.
5849-204J
His motion was that certain words be deleted and the following 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 want to support that motion, because I believe that failure of the government is inimical to the best interests not only of my province but of seven provinces out of nine, and I believe the government should not have allowed those rates to go into effect. I believe the board was right in acting upon the recommendation of the government. It was requested to investigate the increased costs, and the application was for an increase of 30 per cent. The board investigated and granted an increase of 21 per cent. No one should blame the board for that.
I do blame the government, however, for ' not reading its own reports. I have in my hand a report submitted by Hon. T. C. Davis, wdio was attorney general of Saskatchewan under a Liberal administration. He submitted this report to the dominion government at the sittings which were held across Canada, and the case could not have been put more clearly. I have lugged this book around in three elections, and I have never found better arguments in defence of my province. In it are stated all the facts that have been repeated time and again in this debate; that in our province we have fought the handicap of geography', the handicap of distance, the fact that we could not benefit by the competition of water transportation, the fact that we had such a tremendous physical volume of commodities to ship. These tremendous volumes of freight resulted in the west contributing twice as much in freight rates as the rest of Canada. According to the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the eastern lines earned 876,000,000 and the western lines $146,000,000 in the same period. We also have the statement in this report that construction costs were very much less in the west; that maintenance costs are very much less, and the statement that we have provided a great impetus to Canadian nationhood.
Again I want to refer the government to its own reports, because I think if you never read anything but government reports you could win an election anywhere in Canada running against the government. Here I have book I of the submission to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations,
Freight Rates

which contains a section under the subtitle "The wheat boom." In this chapter we are told in no uncertain terms that for twenty-five years after confederation Canada stagnated in the depths of a dreadful depression. We were brought out of that depression by the wheat boom and the development of a railway and tariff policy which created the great financial and industrial east; and we are told that in the development of the west we created the basis for our great nation as we find it today.
I do not know why we should go on forcing the west to bear this handicap of geography. I do not agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that it is a diabolical plot. I do not believe someone sat up nights trying to cook up some awful scheme, but I do know we have failed to remedy these things which are basic in our federal system, and I think it is time the government took seriously the submissions of the provinces when these hearings were held ' across the dominion.
I, for one, think we have achieved a remarkable degree of success in creating a nation out of this wilderness. We have gone contrary to all the factors of history and geography. We have defied the natural stream of trade. We have defied those terrible reaches of unproductive country. I never go west over our railroads but I think of the fathers of confederation as they sat at Quebec and in London and dreamed of the unity which they hoped some day to achieve.
I do not think anyone in his right mind or with his senses could but realize the terrible handicaps, when he considers that in those days to reach British Columbia one had to go around the tip of South America, if he went by water.
Those were dreadful handicaps; and we have been paying in the west ever since. We have not been given the advantage of the national development of this country. So I would urge the minister to see to it that this is taken into consideration, when his board sits.
I realize that these freight rates have gone into effect; that they cannot be altered by a vote of the House of Commons. I realize that the board is now investigating; but I would urge upon the minister that he bring his influence to bear upon the consideration of these natural handicaps, these dreadful geographical factors which have imposed such hardship upon the west. I believe figures were put on record by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), which deal with the cost of shipping a car of livestock east, as com-

pared with the cost to the eastern farmer. However I should like to remind the house again of those figures. The cost for the eastern farmer within four hundred miles of Montreal is $64; the cost for the western farmer is $287.
The government has recognized this handicap in its policy in regard to the eastern movement of coarse grains. In the attempt to have more meat produced, freight has been paid for the eastern farmer. This has been done because it has been realized that he could not possibly compete with a man who grew his own grain for the feeding of livestock. The man who fed only what he could grow on his Ontario farm was not in the same position at all as the man who bought his grain from the west, if he were required to pay the freight. And so the government in this instance has at least made a beginning in equalization by recognizing this long haul north of the great lakes, and paying the freight from Tort William to the point where the farmer buys his feed.
There have been other attempts at equalization. There are certain firms in Canada which have worked out their own equalization, so that if one buys a certain kind of washing machine anywhere in Canada he will pay the standard price, right across the country. I believe that is true of tobacco; and in my opinion it is a useful method for any company to bring into effect. This proves that it can be done and that it is acceptable to the Canadian people. In my opinion that should be the basis for this government's policy. It should recognize that no one should be punished because he happens to live in the west. And in that connection may I say I was impressed by the evidence given by the hon. member for Lethbridge respecting not only the difference in distance, but the difference in rate.
I am sure if hon. members from British Columbia were free to talk now, as they were when the first amendment was moved, they could bring forth many examples. I am sure hon. members from the maritime provinces could also give many examples.
I have been reading what is known as the Jones report. We are all Canadians, and proud of it; and because of that I think we should insist upon the removal of these inequalities and natural handicaps by the government. I hope, in considering this matter, the government will take what I have said into account.

Freight Rates



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. -LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it does not appear likely that a vote can be reached this afternoon on the motion, the amendment and the subamendment, I would move:
That standing order 28 be suspended for the sitting of Thursday, April 22, 1948.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bracken.
Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time also to take part in the debate on freight rates. I do not think there has been a debate before the house for a long time which has stirred so greatly the interest of so many people in Canada, particularly in the western provinces.
The people of western Canada believe they have been discriminated against for many years in respect of the high freight rates they have to pay. So they look with interest to this debate. And from the letters I receive I can say the people of the west are not greatly concerned whether or not the government falls on this motion, but they are concerned that the 21 per cent increase in freight rates should not be applied.
I was interested to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) say that the C.C.F. group was trying to make this a political issue. I would tell the minister that if he does not want this issue to be a political one, then the best thing the government can do is to agree with the members of the C.C.F. group, and not allow the increase to take effect.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what you are doing now.


Hazen Robert Argue: I -am not ashamed of it a bit.


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend know-


Hazen Robert Argue: Let me finish. The C.C.F. group has said it is opposed to the increase in freight rates. The government has allowed the increase to take place. I say the people
of Canada will view that as a political issue, because we find one party on one side definitely, and another party definitely on the other side. Therefore it is a political issue.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. member say, in effect, that he is dealing with it politically? That is the statement I was making.


Hazen Robert Argue: I say this is in fact a political issue, since the government is allowing the 21 per cent increase to take place, whereas the C.C.F. group are opposed to it.


Lionel Chevrier: Then the hon. member should not accuse me of dealing with it politically, if he is doing the same thing himself.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not accusing anyone at all.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes he was.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am amused by that remark.


Mrv CHEVRIER:: I am amused by what you are saying. I think it is quite funny.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Do not butt in all the time.


Hazen Robert Argue: What concerns me more
than whether the Minister of Transport thinks I have been accusing him of anything is the fact that he says this, as reported at page 2900 of Hansard:
The board through the chief commissioner has delivered a clear and outstanding judgment in this case.
I believe when he makes that statement he is saying that his mind is already made up, that there is not to be any change in the 21 per cent increase. He is saying that the decision of the board of transport commissioners is a good one, and that he is going to support that decision.
I was exceedingly disappointed in the fact that the government was not prepared to stay the increase in freight rates for a reasonable time, namely the period of thirty days as was requested by the seven provinces. Surely the minister will not say that the railway companies are in such financial straits that their failure to receive their increase for one month would force them into bankruptcy.
Not only are the general public of western Canada opposed to this increase in freight rates; the boards of trade and the public press are also opposed. The Winnipeg Free Press has shown quite definitely where it stands on this issue. Some excellent articles have appeared in this publication. This paper is a supporter of the present government, and the fact that it is opposed to an increase in
Freight Rates

freight rates as applied in this particular instance shows that the government is definitely on the wrong track. In an editorial on April 12 the Winnipeg Free Press pointed out that on March 30 the judgment of the board of transport commissioners was handed down; that on April 3 the railroads announced that the increase would be made effective on April 8, and that seven provinces asked the government for a stay of the rates for a period of thirty days and agreed to meet at Ottawa on April 24. It goes on to state:
So matters rested until Wednesday, last, when Hon. Lionel Chevrier, dominion Minister of Transport, stated in the House of Commons that although petitions of appeal had been received from the seven provincial governments, the dominion -government "has decided that it should not interfere with the effective date of the board's order." He qualified this statement with the phrase "without prejudice to any appeal".
I submit that in allowing the increase to go into effect the minister has in effect prejudiced the appeal. He has shown that he is willing to allow the 21 per cent increase to take effect. The editorial continues:
At the same time he tabled a copy of order in council (P.C. 1486) passed on April 7. This order states that the cabinet has before it the petitions of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the representations of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and proceeds:
_ "The committee of the privy council, having given due consideration to the said petitions and representations, are unable to advise that the said order of the board of transport commissioners for Canada be varied in the sense requested "
I do not think that is a statement of fact, because I cannot see how the government could have given due consideration to these representations in connection with a matter which took the board of transport commissioners some fourteen months of sittings across this country before they felt they were in position to hand down a judgment.
The editorial goes on:
Not since the transport board, a quarter century ago, undertook to throw out Crowsnest Pass rates has western Canada been treated so rudely and harshly as by the present Liberal government in this order in council. A more highhanded attitude is inconceivable. The government declares in the order in council that it has given due consideration to the representations of the west. That is not true. The representations have not yet been made and will not be made until April 24 when the premiers of the west reach Ottawa. Why all this rushing on the part of the government? Why is the need for action so desperate that the governments of the west, acting for the public of the west, must be denied a hearing before the increased railway charges are made effective?

It is obvious that a freight rate structure should not be raised and lowered at short intervals of time. Freight rates cannot be hoisted 21 per cent on April 8 and lowered a few weeks later without causing great and needless disturbance to business. It follows, therefore, that no dominion government would pass an order on April 17 if it had the slightest intention of reversing the decision say on April 24. And, in honesty, P.C. I486 holds out no promise whatsoever of a reversal.
And again:
Such action could only result from the dominion government deciding, in advance, that the appeal of the seven provinces was frivolous, without substance and not worth hearing. That is the only inference to be drawn from this most unusual procedure.
The people of western Canada are thoroughly seized of the injustice of the transport board's judgment. Having been turned down by the dominion government without a hearing, with no consideration whatsoever, the people of western Canada will look to their members at Ottawa to protect them against exploitation of this kind.
Certainly the people of western Canada are looking to their members of parliament at this particular time and will view with interest the way the various members vote on the motion before us. On April 13 the Minister of Transport made the following statement, as reported on page 2905 of Hansard:
I have already put on the record, in this house, but I think I should again record, the statement made by counsel for the various provinces, who made it quite clear that they did not desire this investigation to be made one for the removal of the so-called discrimination or inequalities.
I do not think that the quotes which the minister made following that statement bear out the truth of his statement. I believe the key words in his statement are these:
... that they did not desire this investigation to be made one for the removal of the so-called discrimination or inequalities.
The quotations to which the minister referred said nothing about the desire of the various provinces. The best that can be said is that some of the provinces were willing to accept what they thought was fair, namely, that the discriminatory feature of the freight rates was not before the board of transport commissioners. I should like to quote from page 58 of Manitoba's submission as follows:
Manitoba submits that a straight horizontal increase on all rates in Canada would be unjust and unreasonable and would place an unfair burden upon those who today pay the heaviest rates, namely, those whose goods must be hauled long distances (in most instances these are heavy goods) i.e., the primary producers of western Canada. We further submit that a uniform horizontal percentage increase applied to all parts of Canada would be particularly

Freight Rates
unjust to those whose freight bills are already high because of an existing rate structure which charges them rates which are higher than rates for comparable goods and comparable distances in other areas.
Thus the province of Manitoba contended that the present rates should not be increased while the discriminatory effects still prevailed. Counsel for the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. M. A. MacPherson stated:
Should the need of increased revenues from freight traffic be made out, it will be argued that in no event should any advance be permitted which will increase the present burden on the province of Saskatchewan. The contention that it is a purely financial case and that regional inequalities cannot be considered in this application will not be conceded for a moment.
The submission of the province of Saskatchewan states definitely that the question of discrimination should be considered by the board of transport commissioners at the time they heard the application of the railways for an increase in rates.
The minister said that he felt the board of transport commissioners could not be seized of the inequalities which exist in freight rates. I think the board could have been seized of those inequalities and that it should have taken them into consideration. The minister argued that no organization and no government had made a substantive application to the board since 1927 to have the discriminatory features removed; that because no substantive application had been made, therefore the board did not have before it that particular issue and the provinces could not hope that it would be considered. But Mr. Burchell, one of the counsel for the maritime provinces, is reported in the judgment of the board of transport commissioners, at page 39, as having contended that the board did not have before it the select rates prevailing in the maritime provinces provided under a special act. And the chief commissioner in his report states:
I must agree with the argument of counsel for the maritimes that the applicants, it may be through inadvertence, did not furnish us with specific evidence, or in any event sufficient evidence, of increased cost of railway operation in Canada over the cost prevailing on July the first, 1927.
To require the applicant railways to proceed by way of substantive application, as suggested by counsel for the maritimes, would involve much delay in disposing of the most important question before us. This further delay should, I think, be avoided if it can be fairly done.
The board has, I think, power to investigate and ascertain the facts itself and to make a finding based- upon the results of such investigation, and we have proceeded accordingly.
The chief commissioner said that the board of transport commissioners was not required to have before it a substantive application in reference to the select rates in the maritime provinces but that the board had power to investigate and ascertain the facts itself and to make a finding based on the results of such investigation. Therefore I contend that the board had the power to investigate and ascertain the facts as far as discrimination is concerned, and that it has power to do something about that discrimination.
The history of the various decisions that have been made by the board is clear in regard to discrimination. The board's various decisions in the past have been such as to lessen the discrimination. I quote from the submission by Manitoba in opposition to an increase in freight rates, at page 59:
In the Western Freight Rates Case (1914) it was recognized that there was a disparity between eastern and western rates.
In the Eastern Rates Case (1916) it was laid down that tolls in eastern Canada and in western Canada should be brought to a parity so far as this could reasonably be done.
In the Increase in Passenger and Freight Tolls Case (1917), the so-called 15 per cent case, there was a further recognition of the disparity between the east and the west and in that case the western rates were raised 10 per cent only, whereas the general bulk of eastern rates were raised 15 per cent.
In the 2-5 per cent Increase Case (1918) one-finds an extremely strong declaration of government policy. This was the ease where the board was directed to put into effect an increase of 25 per cent in all rates in eastern Canada whereas in western Canada the increase was limited to 25 per cent over the level previous to the 15 per cent case.
In the 1920 Rate Increase Case, otherwise known as the 40 per cent case, the board granted a 4-0 per cent increase in eastern tolls and a 35 per cent increase only in western tolls.
Thus the board of transport commissioners in previous decisions has gone a long way in removing the great discrimination that did exist; but in its present decision, instead of lessening the discrimination, it has widened it still further by awarding a 21 per cent increase across the board. That 21 per cent increase will bear heavily upon the people of western Canada. It may be argued that conditions there are such at the present time that the 21 per cent increase can be carried without hardship, but I do not grant that for one moment. The 21 per cent increase in freight rates will lower the standard of living of the people of western Canada and it will be very difficult to bear if prices fall from their present high level.
On motion of Mr. Argue the debate was adj ourned.
Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Tomorrow we shall resume this debate, and when the house goes into committee of supply it is the intention, as previously announced, to call an item in the Department of Agriculture and one in external affairs, and have them stand, and then resume the debate on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture for the second reading of Bill No. 204, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, then go into committee of the
whole on the Unemployment Insurance Act, and after that take the second reading of the Dominion Elections Act, which, after second reading, is to go to the special committee that has been set up. Then, if there is time, we shall go back into supply to deal with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. On Monday we shall proceed with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 22, 1948