PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARCEL (Bonaventure) presented the first report of the joint committee of both Houses on the printing of parliament.

[Stage Direction]
Correspondence exchanged between the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada respecting the proposed investigation by the Imperial Shipping committee of the North Atlantic shipping rates, also the effect on empire trade, with special reference to the conference system.-Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; laid on the table the annual return of permits issued under the authority of section 4, subsection 2, of the Immigration Act.
He said: For the information of hon. members I beg to submit the following general notes of interest:
(1)	The return covers all permits issued between the 19th July and the 31st December, 1924. The 19th July was the date upon which the amendment to section 4 of the Immigration Act became law.
(2)	In several cases it will be observed that a permit was issued in cases where deportation had been ordered. In this connection it is well to recognize that where complaint is made to the department with a view to deportation and the board of inquiry finds that the

person is deportable, the deportation order is issued . as a matter of course. Provision is made in the law for an appeal to the minister. In a number of cases consideration has been shown on appeal. If the person whose deportation was ordered were allowed to continue residence in Canada without being placed under permit, that person, on the completion of five years' stay in Canada, would acquire Canadian domicile and could not then be deported. The issue of the permit automatically lifts such person out of the immigrant class and places him in the nonimmigrant class and prevents time running in his favour for the acquisition of domicile. This explains why permits are sometimes issued in deportation cases.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the time within which the various provinces of Canada may earn and be paid the sums allotted to the said provinces under the provisions of the Canada Highways Act, chapter 54 of the statutes of 1919, as extended by chapter 4 of the statutes of 1923, be extended for a farther period of two years.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a proposed resolution in favour of the Turtleford branch.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (1'Assomption and Montcalm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to draw the attention of the hon. Acting Minister of Customs (Mr. Cardin) to an article which appeared in La Presse on March the 12t-h last iand which reads as follows:
Notice to Tobacco Merchants and Smokers
St. Jacques de l'Achigan, March 10, 1925.
To the Editor of La Presse.
Six,-A few months ago, quite a considerable quantity of foreign tobacco was imported. This produce of an entirely inferior quality for the pipe, has been mixed with our tobacco of the province of Quebec and sold as such. It has been established, to-day, that these foreign tobaccos sold as products of the province of

Ocean Shipping Rates
Quebec have considerably depreciated the value of our tobaccos. It would be advisable that dealers who handle these mixtures should explain to merchants where these tobaccos are grown and their quality.
It is but proper that these transactions should be carried on in such a way as not to further disparage our tobaccos. It is being loyal to one's own people to try not to belittle their products.
The Tobacco Growers' Association.
I should like to know if the minister is aware of this practice of a nature to strongly prejudice the interests of the tobacco growers of the province of Quebec? If so, will strong and effective measures be taken to further protect our good friends the tobacco growers?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, no
precise information has reached the Department of Customs and Excise on the subject to which the hon. member refers. I can assure him that we shall keep him informed. The 'department is prepared to take all the necessary measures to protect the legitimate interests of the tobacco growers.



RURAL CREDITS-REPORT OF DR. TORY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GARDINER:: Will the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) kindly inform me as to whether he has yet received the final report from Dr. Tory with regard to rural credits?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: I think Dr. Tory is expected in Ottawa next week.
HOME BANK DEPOSITORS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. IRVINE:: I should like to ask the government if they have considered the advisability of providing in the supplementary estimates for the reimbursement of the Home Bank depositors.


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The government's policy with respect to the matter to which my hon. friend has just referred will be made known in due course. No announcement will be made until the government is in a position to make a definite statement.
RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. MEIGHEN:: In the Speech from the
Throne intimation was given that the government's policy in respect to land transportation would have to await the judgment of the Supreme court. Inasmuch as this judgment has been given, is the government prepared to say that they purpose bringing down legislation on the subject?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The government
does purpose bringing down legislation, as announced by myself some days ago, dealing with the freight rate situation as it now exists.


Arthur Meighen: Could the minister give an intimation as to when the government will probably be ready to introduce the legislation.


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position to say at what date, but we will do it as expeditiously as possible. The freight rate situation is not at all satisfactory to any person anywhere in Canada at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: And it behooves this parliament to deal with it. Under the finding of the Supreme court, it is the only body that has authority to deal with the question.



TORONTO TERMINALS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 12, the adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. T. A. Low (Minister of Trade and Commerce), to ratify and confirm a contract between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen providing for the establishment of a subsidized steamship line on the Atlantic and government control of ocean rates and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Clark.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I desire to offer a few remarks upon the resolution and amendment which are now before the House. There are two important factors in the life of Canada, and in fact in almost every other country, but more especially in this country of wide distances and long hauls in the matter of transportation. The first question to which I refer is that of production, and the second, that of transportation and distribution. I do not intend at this time to take up any of the time of the House in dealing with the question of production. As regards distribution, however, I may say just in
Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. EULER:: What year was that?


Robert Forke: That was 1913. I am reading these extracts to show that there have existed in the past conditions very similar to those which we are considering at the present time, and that numerous demands have been made at various times that the problem should be dealt with. Apparently everybody so far has recognized the existence of the evil. In 1914 the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was sent to England to look into the matter, and after considerable investigation he appeared to be very much disappointed with the outlook. He came back, and nothing was done at that time. In 1918 the Dominions Royal Commission reported there there existed a combine of ship owners operating against the public interest and that a discrimination in rates was being practised against Great Britain in favour of foreign countries. Sir George Perley also wrote that rates "during past years" had been higher than were reasonable; and Sir Thomas White cabled to the High Commissioner for Canada that he was much concerned about freight rates and was anxious to have inquiries made in Great Britain to ascertain whether anything could be done in the way of co-operation.
We can see therefore that attempts have been made from time to time to deal with what apparently has been regarded as an evil by different governments and different members of those governments during a number of years past. Whatever may be the facts, everyone knows beyond question that rates have increased most enormously since this conference, or combine, or whatever you ehoose to call it, has come into existence.
In this connection let me say just a few words touching the Preston report. I do not think it is at all necessary that we should pay very much attention to that report; I do not see that we need take up the time of the House discussing it so far as the question of transportation and ocean rates is concerned. It seems to me that the fact has been fully acknowledged by different governments and by former members of this government that freight fates have been uniformly higher than they ought to be; that would appear to be established even apart from the evidence that has been submitted in the Preston report. Now, I have nothing to do with the personality of Mr. Preston, about whom I really do not know very much; and so far as I can see, that does not enter into the matter at all. If Mr. Preston is presenting the facts as they are, the facts will stand investigation independently of what we may think of Mr. Preston; and if they are not facts but only unfounded allegations they will fall to the ground. It is a very common practice in law, although I am not so sure of this, not having any knowledge of courts and lawyers, that when a lawyer has no case the best thing for him to do is to abuse opposing counsel in order to fill up the time and show at any rate that he has something to say. And while this abuse of Mr. Preston may be necessary under certain circumstances, to my mind at Jeast it has very little to do with the question under consideration; the facts which Mr. Preston has submitted are what we have to Consider at the present time. Are the statements made by Mr. Preston borne out by the facts as they are? That is what we have to consider now, that is the extent to which we must take his report into consideration. No doubt it may turn out that Mr. Preston has attempted to prove too much; and it seems to me on the face of the report that sometimes it might have been better if he had stated the case a little more mildly. Had he done so he would perhaps have re-
Ocean Shipping Rates

ceived a little more attention and been more readily believed1. At the same time, I am not disposed, as some members of this House are, to discount the report. It is possible that the statements contained in it may be proved to be not so very far astray after all.
We are met however by a straight denial on the part of the steamship companies of some of the facts stated in the report. We have Sir William Noble of the Cunard line making the statement that any action by this House to take into consideration some of the allegations made might well alienate the sympathy of the steamship companies. This is a serious state of affairs indeed, and I would call the attention of hon. members to the threat; the very fact that this House should attempt to investigate the proceedings of the combine will "alienate the sympathy" of the steamship companies from the people of the country! Well, I do not think for one moment that these steamship companies are in the business for their health or for the benefit of the people: they are in the business for what they can make out of it. I am not afraid therefore that we shall lose their sympathy or that any damage will accrue from any investigation we may make into the manner in which these companies carry on their business.
I want to say now a few words about the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and before proceeding I would read a short extract from the Ottawa Journal. I read this paragraph to refresh my own memory and those of other hon. gentlemen:
If the King government thinks an Atlantic combine exists, let it use and subsidize its own ships to fight it. Canada to-day has a merchant marine of 57 fine ships. Two of them are of gross tonnage exceeding 7,000; twenty-three of tonnage over 5,000; one of tonnage over 4,000; fifteen of tonnage over 3,000; fifteen of tonnage over 2,000; and one of 1,766 tonnage.
Their total tonnage is, roughly, 220,000 or 125,000 tons more than the ships to be provided by Petersen. What a farce, therefore, to have this Canadian government tonnage with insufficient cargoes or rusting at docks, while proposing to bonus an outsider with millions for fewer and no better ships?
That does seem a rather serious charge to bring against the government under the conditions that now exist; but we want to get all the information we can regarding the Canadian Government Merchant Marine before passing judgment. I listened with a good deal of pleasure to the speech delivered the other day by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) in the course of which he discussed the question of shipping. Perhaps that hon. gentleman is more fully informed on this subject than any other hon. member who sits on this side. Unfortunately, however, I was unable to be present during the delivery

of another speech, that of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) which the House heard yesterday afternoon, and as I have not been able to read his speech in Hansard I have not the benefit of his remarks on the subject. I consider the hon. member better informed on shipping matters than most of the hon. gentlemen that sit on his side, and for that reason I regret not being in possession of the facts he submitted. However, I have several statements in regard to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine which I should like to read.


Mr. DUFF:: Will the hon. member allow
me? He quoted from the Ottawa Journal a statement in regard to the tonnage of certain ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The Journal was not fair to the merchant marine, who have two ships of
10,000	tons, twenty-three of 8,500 tons, and, if I remember rightly, about twenty-five of 5,500 tons.


Mr. CALDWELL:: But that is dead weight and not carrying capacity.


William Duff: I have quoted the carrying
capacity; dead weight capacity is carrying capacity, is it not?


Robert Forke: I am not going to enter into any controversy on that point because I do not know much about it.


William Duff: I simply wanted to point
out that the Journal was not fair to the merchant marine. I am accused of always knocking the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and I simply desired to show how fair I am in correcting the Journal's figures.


Robert Forke: I am sure we are all glad
to have the correction. Now, I have taken some extracts from correspondence in connection with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and I want to refer to a letter from Mr. R. B. Teakle to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in which the statement is made that the smaller ships are not at all suitable for carrying cattle; they could carry about 138 head in the big ships, but this was not worth while when expense was considered. There is also a letter from the Minister of Agriculture to Sir Hemy Thornton, of March 15, 1923, with the reply that the steamers were not suitable as cattle carriers. Extensive repairs would be needed, the approximate cost being $32,000 per ship, and from October to May they were liable to be flooded during storms. I have also a memorandum prepared by the Minister of Agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: From whom was the
last letter sent"

Ocean Shipping Rates
Mr. FORIvE:	That was from Sir Henry
Thornton in reply to the Minister of Agriculture, who had written on March 15, 1923. He said that the steamers were not suitable as cattle carriers.


Arthur Meighen: What steamers?


Robert Forke: The Canadian Government
Merchant Marine.


Arthur Meighen: It could hardly refer to
all of them, for several of them are carrying cattle now.


George Perry Graham: But they are not suitable for the purpose. They cannot carry cattle at a fair rate and make a profit.


Arthur Meighen: They all claim they cannot carry cattle at the present rate and make a profit.


George Perry Graham: I am telling you what Sir Henry means-that none of them was suitable for carrying cattle; which is true.


Arthur Meighen: He did not say that at
all.


Robert Forke: Another memorandum prepared by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture states:
It has been contended that smaller boats were not suitable lor the cattle trade. This is demonstrated by the serious loss of cattle from the Commander in October. 1921, when she lost 57 head from a load of 280 cattle.
The following extract is hardly along the same line, but I think it will be interesting to hon. members. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) stated):
If the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were not in the conference they might get cargoes east, but for a cargo to come west they would have to compete with the entire North Atlantic Steamship Conference, and would come back empty.
This correspondence in connection with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is not very encouraging. During the four sessions I have been in this House I have listened to a good many discussions regarding our fleet, Mr. Speaker, and I have not yet been able to determine just exactly what traffic the ships are suited for. I think it is about time we decided whether we have something that is of value to the country in transporting our products overseas, or whether our merchant marine is always going to be a liability. Of course, I realize that the boats were built at a time when shipbuilding costs were very high, and that consequently we may have no reason to expe'Cft any return upon the capital expenditure, but it seems to me it would be well for us to ascertain just
exactly what traffic these boats are suitable for and utilize them accordingly, so that they may earn at least enough to pay operating expenses. It is very unfortunate that the present condition should be allowed to continue. I shall refer to this subject again when dealing with the Petersen contract.
Turning again to the cattle trade: I have not the exact year, but the year previous to the passing of the Fordney tariff by Congress,
I find we exported to the United States 500,000 head of cattle; in 1923 our exportation dropped to 65,629 head; that same year we exported to Great Britain 39,856 head. So our total exportation for 1923 was something like 105,000 head, against 500,000 exported to the United States alone before the Fordney tariff went into effect, showing what a tremendous blow that was to our cattle industry. However, we have no reason to complain against the action of the United States government; if they saw fit to erect a tariff barrier against our cattle, while it was a serious blow to Canadian stockmen, yet it was the United States' own business, and we have to find another market to take our surplus cattle. That is why it is so important that transportation rates both on land and sea should be as low as possible in order that we may reach the markets of the Old Country. During the last few years, I find there has been a very serious increase in rates to Great Britain. From 1904 to 1912 the ocean freight rate was less than $8 per head. At that time the rail rate from Winnipeg to Montreal was $7.26, and the ocean rate thence to Liverpool $7.30

a difference of only 4 cents. Last year the rail rate from Winnipeg to Montreal was $10.20, while the ocean rate to Liverpool had increased to $20. This is something I have considerable difficulty in understanding, although there may be satisfactory explanation from the shipping companies. No one in this House will contend for a moment that railway operating costs have not, increased enormously duriug the last few years-wages, materials and equipment have increased very greatly since pre-war days

and yet we find that although from 1904 to 1912 the freight rate from Winnipeg to Montreal and the ocean rate from Montreal to Liverpool were nearly the same, today the railways carry cattle from Winnipeg to Montreal for about one-half what the shipping companies charge to transport them to Liverpool. Now then, why has the ocean transportation charge increased so tremendously as against the comparatively moderate increase in railway transportation charge during the past few years? So far I have never
Ocean Shipping Rates

received any adequate explanation for this great disparity.
At this time the question naturally arises: If there is a combine, will the proposal contained in the resolution offer a satisfactory solution? I wish I was able to answer the question offhand. But I do not know. However. it is worth considering. We have seen that the high cost of ocean transportation from Canada to Europe has for a number of years caused a great deal of disquietude to those who have had control of the administration of this country, but unfortunately all the activities that have taken place from time to time have brought no benefit to our exporters and importers, and consequently it is about time we woke up and tried to do something to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am not prepared to endorse offhand the proposal contained in this resolution. I am aware that a great many objection^ can be urged against some of 'the details, and of course we expect that whatever attempt is made to combat any conference or combine will meet with the most strenuous opposition from those interested in the continuation of high ocean rates. We can well understand that the government is undertaking something that entails upon it a tremendous responsibility. If this parliament undertakes to fight a combination so wide in its extent as the North Atlantic Steamship Conference it is undertaking a pretty heavy task and will have a bitter fight on its hands. At the same time I do not feel like giving up and saying we can do nothing. I do not think we should fold our hands and say, "We will let matters take their course and everything will come right in the end."
I do not wish in any way to reflect upon the British government, but I saw a statement in the British press not long ago to the effect that Sir William Petersen will be able to get no assistance in the way of financing from the Trade Facilities Act of Great Britain. Then, I noticed a reference in the Morning Post-a very respectable paper, Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows who knows anything about British newspapers; a paper which, I am sure, would not look with any degree of encouragement upon any such proposal as that which is now before this House-says:
This arrangement is a sinister attack upon the unity of the Empire.
Just think of it; the idea that any parliament would dare to investigate such an arrangement as is supposed to exist in connection with the north Atlantic shipping combine! It makes me just a little suspicious when the Morning Post takes up the FMr. Forke.]
cudgels on behalf of that conference and claims that any criticism of their conduct is an attack upon the unity of the empire. It is also stated-I do not know what truth there is in it-that the large financial interests are not too friendly to the move that has been made by the present government.
Be that as it may, we cannot an-4 p.m. ticipate that in connection with this matter the government will get much assistance from that source.
A good deal of criticism has been levelled against this proposal, and I could myself, I think, point out the inadequacy of the attempt being made by the government to fight such a large combination. I would almost be inclined to give up in despair; to believe that anjr attempt in this direction would be futile, that nothing could be accomplished against the large interests concerned. But it is interesting to note the effort that is being made to refute the charges levelled against the north Atlantic shipping conference. Gentlemen connected with these companies are waxing eloquent and going to a great deal of trouble to explain how vicious and how wrong this movement really is and 'to state that there is no ground whatever for any of the allegations made respecting high freight rates. Well, I cannot understand why they should bother themselves very much about this matter if the step which it is proposed to take could have no effect whatever upon future conditions with respect to ocean transport.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They are doing it for exercise.


Robert Forke: I cannot see the reason for all the fuss, if there is nothing in it. An hon. member to my right-I do not know who it was-made a reference the other day which seemed to indicate that there was a connection between a wheat pool and a combine; at least he suggested that a pool was in the nature of a combine. I am willing ts admit that to some extent it is, but if you will allow a momentary digression, Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain the difference between a pool such as is operated in connection with the marketing of wheat, and a combine for the raising of prices or for any other purpose. A pool has never been undertaken for the purpose of raising prices. Last fall it was stated in the public press that the pool in wheat was responsible for raising the price of wheat during the last few months. I do not for a moment agree with that view; I do not think any pool can raise the price of wheat. The idea of a pool in the marketing of wheat is this: The wheat is threshed in large

Ocean Shipping Rates
quantities and then marketed during the period from the middle of September to perhaps the middle of December. It is thrown upon the market all at once, in enormous quantities. The millers can use only certain quantities of wheat at a time, and as a rule they buy the wheat just when they want to use it. Consequently someone has to step into the market and buy the large surplus of wheat that is thrown upon it at that time. Naturally the man who buys that wheat has to speculate upon what the price will be in the future. He has to take into consideration the tying up of his money for that period, and he is not likely to take any chances; he is not likeiy to pay the highest price. The idea of a pool is to put the wheat on the market, not all at one time but just when it is required by those who are using it for milling purposes -to feed the market according to the requirements of the millers, thus bringing into action the law of supply and demand. The result is that it is quite possible for the producer to get a better price, and the consumer does not have to pay any more for the wheat than he would have paid otherwise. That also eliminates the speculator who would come between the producer and the miller who buys the wheat for grinding purposes. That is the difference I would make between a pool and a combination that can be used to enhance prices.
I do not think the members in this part of the House have ever been enamoured of subsidies. The experience of Canada in the matter of subsidies has not been a pleasant one. There is even now before the House a matter affecting a large corporation which has received an enormous amount of money from this country in subsidies. I have no hesitation in saying that it is a blot upon the fair name of this Dominion; it is a festering spot, and I am sure every loyal Canadian is ashamed of the conditions which have been brought about under the guidance of that corporation. That condition has not the effect of making us fall in love with the idea of paying large subsidies to any corporation. However, if it can be shown that a subsidy will be of real benefit I do not think I would be wedded to any particular course simply because it was an academic consideration. We are living in a practical age; we have certain conditions to face and we must meet those conditions as best we can. As to the subsidy that is proposed in this case, whatever may be said for or against it, it is for no particular class, for no particular people. If in the interests of any, it would be spent in the interests of all the people. I think, perhaps, the class
of shippers who would most benefit by a reduction in ocean freights through this special arrangement which the government is trying to make with the Petersen interests would be the package shippers.
I have suggested that the remedy that is being offered seems to me almost inadequate to meet the situation. I am told that nearly one thousand boats cleared from the harbour of Montreal during the last season; and in that connection I am quite willing to accept the figures of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who pointed out how many trips the ten boats of the Petersen company could make during the season. It does seem to me that it is almost too small to make any particular dent in the arrangements that now exist with respect to ocean shipments. However, I am quite willing to investigate this matter; I am willing to give the government the credit for at least making an attempt to do something to better the existing conditions. I know very well what the feeling would be to-day in western Canada-speaking for myself and also, probably for most of the members who are with me on this side of the House-if it were to go out that we were against any attempt to meet the existing conditions and to deal with this conference, if we were simply to lie down and say that nothing could dedone. We are anxious and Willing that some investigation should be made; and I feel perfectly certain, if this matter goes before a committee, if we can get a proper investigation such as we ought to get-the privilege of summoning witnesses and of putting them on the witness stand under oath- that whatever comes of it we will at least be in a position to know something of the facts of the case. Then, knowing the facts of the case, having got all the information we possibly can-and I think the Prime Minister has made the promise that no obstacles will be put in the way of getting the fullest possible explanation in regard to the whole affair- being in possession of all the facts of the case, we shall then be in a position to vote intelligently upon the matter. I do not want to stand up here and assume a hostile attitude in regard to this arrangement although I may be somewhat critical, because it seems to me that we are up against a proposition that is tremendously big and that we may have some difficulty in combating it. However, I would say let us make an attempt to deal with the matter anyway; let us have an investigation and find out what we can. Having done that I think most hon. members will be enabled to give an intelligent vote when the proper time comes.
Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, everyone must regard the situation with which we are confronted in this country as a very serious one indeed. The difficulties with which the government have to contend at this stage in our career are also very great. A number of years ago we became responsible for heavy liabilities which are increasing as the years go by. The war undoubtedly entailed many obligations. The conditions which prevail to-day, seven years after the close of the war, are not at all satisfactory, and the outlook is not at all encouraging. Therefore it behooves every loyal and patriotic citizen of Canada to do everything possible to bring about a better state of affairs. The country has great resources, many of them as yet untouched. We are in a very fortunate position in having a cjuntry so richly endowed by nature. Nevertheless the responsibilities which devolve upon us are such as to demand our most serious attention. I can assure the government that anything I may say this afternoon will not be said with any idea of embarrassing them in any way; I shall be influenced by the belief that frankness of speech is what the situation demands.
I do not feel like allowing a vote to be taken on this question without expressing my own views with respect to it. We have heard a great deal about the solution now proposed by the government for some of our difficulties embodied in the Petersen contract. Transportation, is of necessity bound to have an important influence in connection with the problems of a country so vast as is Canada. Ocean transportation is of special importance owing to our great agricultural production and the need of finding a market abroad for veay much of our bulky surplus [product. It has been said, and I think truly, that we have provided railway facilities in advance of the times; and one of our great problems to-day is to know what we are to do with such a great railway mileage throughout the country in view of our sparse population. I am not sure but that it would be wisdom on our part to close up many of the existing railways and eliminate the existing competition for traffic by some arrangement between the government railway system and the Canadian Pacific Railway There is nothing to be gained by an attempt at competition such as we witness every night in the trains which pass out of this, the capital city a/nd elsewhere. We see one train lined up on the tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railway and another on the tracks of the Canadian National, both westward bound, competing with each other for

traffic, both leaving at approximately the same time. It would be much more in the public interest if one would leave several hours in advance of the other, or, better still, if this competition could be lessened. This kind of rivalry for traffic and not in service in the same territory does not appear to me to be good business. I know the Minister of Railways is conscious of the difficulties which underlie a solution of this problem; but the need is so great that even he must be convinced that something will have to be done soon to bring about a better condition of affairs.
The contract with Sir William Petersen now before the House must have been a great surprise to the people when it was [announced. Announcement has been, made in the past of other projects which might be compared to the present one. Hon. gentlemen will recall the announcement in 1903 or 1904 of the determination to build the Transcontinental railway. The people were repeatedly informed that the actual cost in cash to them of that project would not exceed thirteen or fourteen million dollars at the outside. This was the estimate of the total cost of the enters prise to the country which was given to the public, and a great many, people in Canada accepted the statement. Now when we look back-not so very far back because twenty years is not a very long period in the life of a country-what do we find? Was the cost to the country of that railway confined to thirteen or fourteen million dollars? No, but a debt of half a billion dollars has been placed upon the shoulders of our people as a result of the carrying out of this much vaunted project which dazzled the imagination of many people twenty years ago. We should not forget facts such as this when we are asked to commit ourselves to an undertaking such as the government has now placed before us. An analysis of the arrangement as dose and as keen as is possible will therefore be in the public interest because under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves we cannot afford to experiment with any proposition which is in any way open to doubt. Before committing ourselves to such an enterprise we must be reasonably assured that the expenditure sought will accomplish the results which its promoters claim.
That being the case I wish to point out the steps which have been taken by the government in order to arrive at a solution of this matter. Two years ago a special committee of this House was appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions. Nineteen members

Ocean Shipping Rates
were appointed on that committee. They held something over eighty meetings, and they did not devote, or could not possibly devote, much attention to anything else. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) was appointed chairman of that committee. He is not in his place this afternoon, but as a member of that committee I want to say that he devoted his whole attention to obtaining information regarding the work which that committee had been appointed to perform. He devoted1 himself very assiduously to his duties, and I believe he did not very often attend the other committees of the House; it was impossible for him to do so; as chairman of that committee he was not as free for other activities of the House as were other members on that committee. The hon. member for Brome, when speaking the other day on the question now before the House, referred to some evidence given before that committee and also to a statement made by a previous speaker that he did not take their report in perfect faith, that the finding of the committee was not so definite that it should be accepted without some further information. He argued that that was a reflection on the members of the committee, that the patriotism of those members was impugned by the reference which had been made to the work of the committee, because, he pointed out, the report of the committee was a unanimous one. I do not wish to take exception to anything that was done by the committee, but I can say that, so far as I am concerned, I never saw the report referred to nor heard of it until after it was printed, long after parliament prorogued. It appears a meeting of the committee was held when this fifth report on ocean rates was brought before the committee on a Monday morning, the 18th June. Parliament prorogued about a week afterwards. A fourth report was submitted and adopted on the morning of Monday April 23, when this matter was referred to in a general way. So far as the fifth report on ocean rates was concerned, I never saw it and never heard of it until it was printed after the prorogation of parliament. I was not present at the meeting at which it was passed. It was called on a Monday morning, near the end of the session, and that may account for my absence. I did attempt to attend the meetings of the committee as well as I could. During that session I was a member of another committee in connection with redistribution, and it was impossible for me to always attend both committees. In the seventh and last report of this committee, to which I referred last night, when the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duffl weis speaking, hon. members will find that the committee admitted the impossibility of digesting the evidence which was taken before the committee in the time at their disposal. In this their last report they say: Your committee have held eighty sittings on forty-five separate days, have heard the evidence of one hundred and three witnesses and have had two hundred and twenty-three exhibits filed with them; but have not been able to make a complete inquiry into the matters submitted to them under the order of reference.
In view of the important and widespread information collected during the sittings of your committee and the impossibility of digesting and properly weighing the evidence in the time at their disposal before prorogation, your committee respectfully recommend that a similar committee be appointed at an early period of the next session of parliament.
This resolution was carried and is the last report of this committee, from which you will see that the committee did not deal with the evidence obtained except in a general way that could not be considered as final. The view of the committee was that a similar committee should be appointed at the following session. What happened at the following session? Did the government act on the report of this committee? Did they appoint a similar committee? During the following session were they anxious that this evidence which had been obtained should be analyzed, supplemented and made available in concrete form for the members of the House? No; they allowed the session to pass without anything being done in that regard. I have one volume here containing the evidence, and there is another volume as large as this one, containing somewhere in the neighbourhood of twenty-two hundred pages of evidence and other matter. The committee was appointed to investigate agricultural conditions. But what about the question of transportation? Transportation might be connected, and undoubtedly is vitally connected, with agricultural conditions. But this committee was appointed for the purpose of investigating agricultural conditions; and while it is true they did devote considerable attention to railway and ocean transportation, there was nothing final or conclusive in what they did in their respect.
I am pointing this out because the government a few days ago were contending that this agreement which they have made with Sir William Petersen has been based upon the findings of this committee appointed in 1923. It is true that a year ago they appointed an investigator or a commissioner- I do not know whether he was a commissioner or not, at any rate he was appointed by order in council to investigate, or assist the
nos
Ocean Shipping Rates

The Minister of Finance: If the claim has not already been filed, I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) will find it too late.
This naturally caused some comment in the House. I have here a question that was put on the order paper by the then member for West York, Mr. Wallace, inquiring whether there had1 been a; communication with Mr. William Petersen with regard to the signing of the contract in 1897, and also whether Mr. Petersen was a German. The Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day, Sir Richard Cartwright, replied that he had not heard of any such rumour, but he understood that Petersen was a Scandinavian. It may be of interest to know what Sir William Petersen's origin is, because I understand that no reference is made to this in Who's Who. In the years that followed, there was a lengthy debate on the Petersen-Tate contract with the government. We find the subject dealt with in 1897 and 1898-several times in the latter year-and in 1899; in different volumes of Hansard, all the way down to 1903, when the refund was made to Petersen, Tate Company In the present instance Sir William Petersen possibly felt that it would' be better, in making a contract with the government, not to put up any deposit; it would save the inconvenience of having it returned to him later on if hie did not fulfil his part of the contract. It is rather remarkable that he was released from his contract with the government for the Atlantic fast steamship service the very year that Mr. W. T. R. Preston was sent to England by the government to take charge of the immigration service. Before the end of that year, that is to say, in November of 1899, the North Atlantic Trading Company was organized, and after it had drawn $360,000 out of the treasury in bonuses for the people to whom I have referred, who were coming out to this country, the items contained in the Auditor General's report for this purpose caused an inquiry to be made by the parliament of that day, with the result that those who were identified with the organization of the North Atlantic Trading Company were brought over here from England1 to give evidence before a committee of parliament. Mr. Smart, who was Deputy Minister of the Interior, when the contract was made, but who afterwards resigned and went into the employ of the North Atlantic Trading Company, was also brought over but he refused to divulge who comprised that company. Mr. Preston was also brought over and he too refused to say who constituted the company to whom this $360,000 had been paid. Motions were moved in the House to have these gentlemen brought
before the bar of the House amd compelled to give this information, but these motions were voted down by the government supporters of that time.
In 1906 Sir George Foster, then member for North Toronto, moved in the House to have the contract cancelled, and during the debate that ensued on his motion he was informed by Mr. Oliver, the Minister of the Interior, that the contract had been cancelled. The minister was asked when this had occurred and the information disclosed that it had taken place about two weeks before the time of its debate. No satisfactory explanation was given for the cancellation. They had a contract with the government extending over a period of ten years, eighit years of which had still to run, when the contract was cancelled. When the first arrangement was made in 1899 it was not even by order in council;	the	arrangement	was made onthe strength of a letter from the Deputy Minister of the Interior addressed to the North Atlantic Trading Company, and Mr. W. T. R. Preston accepted the proposition on behalf of the government. The North Atlantic Trading Company ceased to function in 1906 and a motion was made the following year to have a further investigation made. But this was burked also1 by the government.	I	am referring	to	this matterbecause	there	has been	a	strong suspicion in the minds of some people that some of the steamship companies in some way obtained a rake-off in connection with the immigration which came to this country at that	time.	I believe that	Sir William
Petersen has been cabled to to come here in connection with the inquiry thait is to be held, and it may >be that he can throw some light on the operation of the North Atlantic Trading Company at that time.
I do not wish to labour the matter further, and I would not have referred to it again out for the stand I took on this matter a year ago when I made on the floor of the House statements which have so far gone unchallenged. No attempt has been made to refute a single statement I made in connection with this matter either a year ago or during the present session. There are members of the government who must have some knowledge of what occurred in those years, and I hope that before the end of this debate some of them will undertake to give an explanation as to why, of all the men in the Dominion of Canada, this particular individual, W. T. R. Preston, should be selected to submit a report on a question of such importance as the one under consideration. I pointed out a

Ocean Shipping Rates
year ago that I was conscious of the fact that transportation was one of the biggest problems we had to deal with in this country. Excessive costs of transportation are absorbing the profits of business, and this fact and the high wages paid, together with other conditions of an adverse nature, are responsible for the exodus of many of our agriculturists from the farms and for the general unsatisfactory condition of affairs that prevails. But, nothwithstanding all protests and the motion I moved in this House, this man was selected and his report, bearing date December 31, 1924, has been submitted to parliament. The contract with Sir William Petersen which is now under consideration was made twenty days before the Preston report was submitted. I noticed in the Manitoba Free Press, a few days ago an intimation that the contract was entered into during the summer-quite a long time ago. This journal says:
As to Sir William Petersen, his difficulties seem to be the result of the change in government which took place in England last autumn. The contract with the Canadian government was entered into in the summer when the government of Ramsay MacDonald was in power. The Labour party in England received Sir William's overtures for assistance in very friendly fashion, and it is said he had arranged for an advance under the Trade Facilities Act before the contract was signed.
Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), instead of assuming a defiant attitude when addressing the. House on this question might have been frank in his statement, and I am confident, if he had, a good deal of this discussion would have been avoided. But he pursued the very unusual course of stating that the government were not accepting responsibility for the contract, although he said it was a cast-iron one. Cast-iron is not a very flexible commodity, you cannot make any impression on it by squeezing, you oannot pare it; you can only alter it by breaking it. The minister stated he was going to ask that this cast-iron contract should be submitted to a special committee of this House. It is most unusual for a government to submit their policy to a special committee and be unable to alter it if deemed advisable. I do not think any hon. member has ever heard of such a proceeding before. My hon. friends to the left may say, "Oh, but this is the democratic way of doing things." Well, it may be democratic according to their views, but I venture to say that it is not in accordance with British parliamentary practice and procedure. All that this contract lacks is the ratification of parliament. Having entered into the contract, why do the government not assume full responsibility, submit it to the committee of
'	72
the Whole House and have it. dealt with in the usual way? The majority of hon. members will not be in a position to know what is going on in the special committee, and the whole scheme will all have to be gone over again, for each member of the House is entitled to know everything about this contract as well as the members of the select committee to be named. Does the minister not know, do the government not know, what arguments they have to advance to justify the ratification of this contract by the House? Is It necessary to inform the House through a special committee, to call witnesses before tihat special committee, and then put all the other members of this House to the trouble of seeking information from the members of the special committee? It has always been customary in the British parliament to place the fullest information on any subject before the people's representatives. But it is significant that the government have apparently abandoned the W. T. R. Preston report, and they are not today even relying on the report of the special committee of two sessions ago, on agricultural conditions, for the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) last night took great care in the latter part of his address to point out that the contract was entered into as the result of some other information which the government had obtained, not because of any information they derived from those sources first referred to. That being the case, why do the government not submit the contract to the House? Then if conditions such as those referred to in the Manitoba Free Press and elsewhere are responsible for a change in the contract, let the government make a new contract with Sir William Petersen, if necessary, and submit it to the House in the usual way. Why all this humbug about a special committee taking evidence and hearing argument, if the government are not going to' make a change in Hie contract? I venture to state that, in view of the nature of the contract, if it is -referred to a special committee it will not come back to this House in time to be dealt with this session. And I think the government would now welcome such a fate for the measure. Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) attempted to deal with this question. And how did! he dbal with it?


George Perry Graham: Splendidly.


Donald Sutherland: Well, if any members visited a vaudeville show in the city last night they missed a 'treat in this House, because had they been in attendance they would have seen a real vaudeville entertain-

Ocean Shipping Rates


Arthur Meighen: Was there any complaint as to the quality of the ships?


Donald Sutherland: No.
How many shipments did that cover?-A. Well, unfortunately after the rate was reduced we did not get an}' shipments.
What could the traffic manager of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine do under those circumstances? He cuts the rate by fifty per cent, yet the traffic goes to the other people. He was asked:
Q. Why did it go by other lines?-A. Thj shipper's privilege.
Will the government undertake to coerce people to send their shipments by these subsidized boats if the rates are reduced? Well, here was a reduction of fifty per cent, yet they did not get the traffic.
Something was said before this committee also with regard to cattle, and the explanation was that the government boats would require some alterations to make them as efficient for the carrying of cattle as some other boats were. There is no reason why that should not be done. It is true that- the mei

72i
chant marine did not devote much attention to carrying cattle, because, as Mr. Cunningham pointed out, there was not any money in it; they had to be carried at a loss. Mr. Cunningham also showed that this conference had exercised no control whatever over grain of all kinds, flour and cattle; these were outside the scope of the confer-5 p.m. ence. And we are asked to believe to-day, on the basis of the reports and everything that is being said, that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are a party in a combine to increase rates. The Prime Minister was asked why they had not taken the merchant marine out of the combine and made it compete with them.


Arthur Meighen: Was there any evidence given at the hearing to the effect that cattle, grain or flour were under the control of the conference?


Donald Sutherland: I could not answer that, but according to Mr. Cunningham these shipments were not under the control of the conference.


Arthur Meighen: Who is Mr. Cunningham?


Donald Sutherland: Traffic manager of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. A tremendous amount of evidence was taken, much of it of a contradictory nature. That is why the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the committee were anxious that the committee be formed at the following session, and if the government had done the proper thing, the thing that would have commanded the confidence of the people, they would have acted on that recommendation. Had the same committee or a similar committee been appointed last session there would not be the suspicion there is in the minds of the people to-day with regard to this agreement entered into without competition-an agreement which, while supposed to have been made on the report of the commissioner, was, according to its face, entered into twenty days before his report-had even been mailed to the government.
The government are in a very favourable position to deal with ocean rates owing to the fact that we have a great system of government railways. These railways are under the control of the railway commission and they can utilize the boats of the merchant marine in a way that would not be possible if the country were not operating this extensive system of railways. Why subsidize another line of boats and have it enter into competition with and
Ocean Shipping Rates

help to destroy the usefulness of the government merchant marine? It seems to me that that would be the effect of the government's proposal; I cannot gather any other deduction from it. Here we have sixty boats, many of them double the capacity of the boats that it is proposed to subsidize. In view of the increasing liabilities in connection with our railway system I think the government should be very careful about entering upon the enormous expense involved in this proposed scheme.
I started out by referring to what the Prime Minister said in the debate on the Address in connection with this matter. It was also referred to in the Speech from the Throne where it was said:
With regard to ocean freight rates, action is being taken to overcome the restraints on export trade due to the exactions of the powerful steamship combine known as the North Atlantic Steamship Conference.
Note the words "due to the exactions of the powerful steamship combine known as the North Atlantic Steamship Conference". I do not think the Minister of Railways will argue that a conference is not almost a necessary thing in connection with the operation of steamship lines. If a combine does exist then I think steps should be taken to deal with it; but I venture to predict that the arrangement proposed by the government will not accomplish anything. Some few years ago the government passed legislation for the regulation of rates on the Great Lakes; but afterwards had to abandon it and almost beg American shipping companies to come in and ignore it. They had to draft a provision to indemnify these companies in any action that might be brought against them for violating a Canadian statute. The statement made by the Prime Minister during the debate on the Address was as follows:
This House will be favoured shortly with a report which I think it will find illuminating on the subject of this combine and its control of rates across the Atlantic.
W'hat report was he referring to?	Was it
what is known as the Preston report, or was it not? I think some one should make that point clear. He goes on to say:
Hence we contemplated the step referred to in the Speech from the Throne which will be announced in detail to parliament in due course, and which we hope will be a further factor in helping to solve our great national problems. We hope so far as our effort in this regard is concerned, that the Canadian government will not have to battle alone, but that it may look to the governments of all the other self-governing dominions, and to the government of the Mother Country itself, to co-operate with us in fighting this great combination that exists on the Atlantic, to the detriment not only of Canadian trade but the trade of Australia, South Africa, New Zealand-

And so on. I wish to point out that as the debate progressed it was quite apparent that the Prime Minister has changed his mind considerably with respect to this being a cast-iron contract. It is liable to be changed if it goes to a committee. I think the government should explain why it is necessary for them to change their views with regard to this matter and, that if Sir William Petersen is not prepared to carry the contract or an amended contract, they will take the House into their confidence to that extent. I have repeatedly stated, in connection with the estimates submitted to the House, that it seems to be absolutely necessary to practically pry any information out of the government on any question where sums of money are to be voted. The present arrangement is one that involves a large sum of money, much greater than most people realize, too large an expenditure for the people of this country to make under present conditions unless the absolute success of the enterprise is assured.
I do not intend to speak at further length on this subject. I have endeavoured to touch on a few of the difficulties which the people have to settle in their own minds as to the sincerity of the government in this matter. I think the people are justified in being suspicious of the government's attitude from the beginning. The very fact that they refused to appoint a committee at the last session of the House would indicate that they did not attach much importance to the work that had been done by the special committee in 1923. The fact also that the government appointed a commissioner to investigate or who was supposed to investigate, this matter, a man whose reputation was not such as would justify the government in entrusting such an inquiry to him, is also suspicious. For Mr. Preston is well known for his connection with election scandals and other suspicious transactions which transpired in the past, things that might well have been forgotten were it not for the determination of the government to keep him in the forefront by identifying him with arrangements of this kind. I should like to know what special qualifications this party ever had to justify his appointment to such a position in connection with this contract? Surely the government cannot afford to sit dumb and have these challenges hurled at them time and time again?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I will answer that question if the hon. gentleman wants to know. Mr. Preston was appointed for this purpose because he was a good mouser.

Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. SPENCE:: Kindly explain that.


Donald Sutherland: I do not understand.


William Richard Motherwell: Does not the hon.
gentleman know what a mouser is?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


William Richard Motherwell: I say Mr. Preston was appointed because he was a good mouser -m-o-u-s-e-r.


Donald Sutherland: We are getting a
little information, anyway, after a long delay. We now understand this man was appointed because he was a good " mouser." According to my observations of the feline tribe, a mouser generally eats the mouse when he catches it. I would hardly expect the Minister of Agriculture to be serious. Because he is a good mouser! Some hon. members of this House may be curious to know a little more about this expert mouser. He has been nosing around here so long that his scent must be very keen. I have an index here to a few of the references which have been made in the House of Commons to this expert mouser. It does not go back beyond 1899 but in volume three of Hansard of that year at page 6938 a reference is made to him. At page 8570 there is another reference. I am not going to mention the matters that were referred to, but they are all connected with the suspicious activities of this expert mouser. Again in volume three of Hansard, page 8570, occurs another reference. A question was asked as to what salary the government were paying this mouser, and the answer was $3,000 per year and expenses. That was the time, it will be observed, or shortly before it, when he was engaged in the work of bringing " those 100 families of foreigners out to those close constituencies in Ontario." And when he was connected with the North Atlantic Trading Company and that company were receiving five dollars per head for the Doukhobors and other immigrants from central Europe. In the same volume three, at page 8574 hon. members will find a reference to the money that was being spent on this same individual. In the same volume at page 8574 and 8575, the same year, we find another reference. Then at page 8578 to 8618 we find a lengthy debate in connection with the matter at that time, and the motion was that Mr. Preston's services be dispensed with. A debate followed and the motion was defeated. A further reference will be found at page 8618 and a further reference at page 10,214, The motion was that he should be dismissed on account of his conduct in the West
Elgin and other elections. That motion was defeated, as will be seen at page 10,217. In 1901 we find an inquiry by Mr. Wilson as to Mr. Preston's return to Canada, why he came and1 so on, and a further reference at page 4820. In the same year, 1901, at page 4819, a, reference to his operations will be found. There is a further reference also to be found at page 4819 to page 4842 in the Debates of 1901. In 1903 the matter again cropped up. At page 10,712 and 10,713 a further reference to him will be found. In volume five, 1903, at page 11,184 and at page 12,220, references are made to Mr. Preston being in court and being sued by the Canadian Employment Bureau. Then in 1904, volume four, page 6014 and 6015, Mr. Clarke, the member for Toronto, called attention to a letter in the Times, London, June 18, 1904, with regard to the difficulty between Lord Dundonald and the Canadian government signed by Preston, and a debate followed, pages 6551 and 6552. In 1904 volume four, at pages 7817 and 7818 we find a further reference. In 1905, volume one, page 452 there is an inquiry with regard to salary, expenses and other matters. In 1906, volume three, page 4451, we find a motion by Mr. Monk that Mr. Preston be summoned before the House for having refused to answer questions regarding the North Atlantic Trading Company. Hon. members will find the debate between that page and page 4535. There is a reference to the matter also on page 4534. In 1909, volume four, page 5656, Mr. Borden inquired:
When was Mr. Preston removed from Japan to Holland ?
To which Sir Wilfrid replied that he was assigned to Holland within the last month.
Now it was necessary, in view of the scandal connected with the refusal of these government officials to divulge who had received the $360,000 to cancel the contract, and1 Mr. Preston was sent out to Japan, just as far away as they could send him, and he again got into difficulties in Japan.
In 1909, volume four, page 6657, we find a reference by Mr. Reid and Mr. Ames to complaints of Mr. Preston's conduct while in Japan, and in the same year, volume four, page 5999, Mr. R. L. Borden referred to complaints as to the conduct of Mr. Preston in Japan.
Then in 1907-08, volume one, page 360, Mr. Foster inquired:
(1)	When did Mr. Preston leave the immigration work in England ?
(2)	(a) What has he since been engaged at? (b) Where? (c) What salary? (d) What expenses?
Mr. Frank Oliver replied as follows:
Ocean Shipping Rates

(1) October 26, 1906 (2) (a) and (b) : Was appointed Canadian trade commissioner to CKina, Japan and Korea, August 31, 1906.
Assumed office October 27, 1906-(c) $3,948,39, $2,702.48, including $1,034.70 living expenses at Cape Town.
Then in 1909, volume one, page 186 of Hansard, January, 27, 1909, we find a question by Mr. J. D. Reid, as follows:
Has the Kobe foreign board of trade of Japan forwarded a memorial to the government protesting against the actions of Mr. Preston?
Then we have the reply by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the affirmative. They had protested against them. We have a further question by Mr. Reid as follows:
Is the government aware that the Japan Weekly Chronicle in its articles declares Mr. Preston is really outrageous in his statements and insinuations against foreign merchants and asks for his recall?
And Sir Wilfrid Laurier answered no.
Mr. Reid asked if the government had taken any action, and Sir Wilfrid replied no.
Then in 1909, volume one, page 480, Feb-bruary 3, 1909.
Again in 1909, volume two, page 3991, April 5, 1909, Mr. Ames inquired:
(1)	Does Mr. Preston still occupy the position of Canadian trade commissioner in Japan?
(2)	Has he been requested to return or has leave been granted to him?
(3)	Has the government in contemplation the transfer of Mr. Preston, if so, where?
(4)	Will the government lay on the table protests from the Kobe foreign board of trade and the Yokohama board of trade re actions of Mr. Preston?
In the debate which followed it showed he had been transferred to northern Europe.
Then in 1909-10, volume one, page 1547-49, December 15, 1909, Mr. Monk made a statement regarding Mr. Preston's connection with the North Atlantic Trading Company and debate followed.
In Hansard of 1909-10, volume one at page 656, we find Mr. McKenzie's motion for copy of judgments in connection with Mr. Preston's suits instituted while in Japan.
In Hansard of 1919, there is a reference to statements published in the press over the name of Mr. Preston re soldiers lying in Flanders Field for no other reason than that they voted for the Liberal party. My hon. friends opposite will remember the insinuations-they were not charges-that were made in the old temporary parliament buildings and how they claimed that they were going to investigate those things when they came into office. Why did they not do so? Why were these slanders made by their representative overseas at that time not investigated when they were placed in office and had the opportunity? Preston was the man who was responsible. The hon. member for North

Renfrew, a year ago when I took this matter up, asked why Mr. Preston had been arrested. I will tell my hon. friend to-day that I did not know then why he was arrested. He was arrested for going into military encampments and interviewing the soldiers where he had no business to be without permission. He was arrested as a suspect and locked up, 'but was released when he explained who he was-an agent of the Liberal party. He was mousing around again.
In 1922, Mr. Guthrie asked for facts in connection with an item of SI,509.95 for rent of house leased by Mr. Preston in England prior to 1911.
There are further references to Mr. Preston in the following Hansards:
1921. Volume 4, page 3383.
1923. Volume 1, page 206.
1923. Volume 1, page 247.
1923.	Volume 2, page 1362.
1924.	Volume 1, page 734.
Surely some mouser! I have not referred to these matters because it is any pleasure for me to do so. I could not say that I ever saw the gentleman referred to until he was pointed out to me in the gallery in this House a few days ago, but I did hope that the cleaning-up process which we had in Ontario in 1905 would forever put an end to such scandals as we had then in this country prior to that time. If the government hope 10 have the confidence of the people of Canada in any scheme that they may have or any measure they may wish to lay before parliament, they will have to appoint someone of a different calibre and with a better reputation than Mr. W. T. R. Preston has. They cannot evade the responsibility in this matter.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, I am
sure the House will not expect me to deal at any great length with the ancient feud between the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and Mr. Preston. The hon. member has referred to the cost that Mr. Preston has been to this country. I think Mr. Preston's salary would shrink into insignificance when compared with the cost of Donald Sutherland on Preston in parliament.


Donald Sutherland: Might I explain to
my hon. friend that I have here a volume of the Senate Hansard to which I did not refer at all? I touched upon only what took place in the House of Commons.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is keeping
that until he gets to the Senate, when I suppose he will read everything on Preston that is in the Commons Hansard and everything

Ocean Shipping Rates
that is now in the Senate Hansard and that will be when he gets there. The time, however, is not propitious yet. I will say just this: I leave Mr. Preston to take care of himself. I think hon. members when they meet him in the committee will find that he is quite capable of doing so.
Mr. MEIGHEN ,The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will help him.


George Perry Graham: He will not require even
the help of the able Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for South Oxford read a letter purporting to 'be written by Mr. Preston in reference to the distribution of votes of immigrants. It sounds almost like a page out .of the War-time Elections Act when, by legislation, the votes of our boys were partitioned out through the Dominion of Canada where they would do the most good to the Tory party. What Mr. Preston, even if the letter be correct, said in that letter, is not a circumstance to what was done in the Wartime Elections Act. The letter was the opinion of one man, while t'he degradation of the electorate of Canada was the combined effort and concerted legislation of a party. I am through with my hon. friend.
This question of transportation, of course, as all hon. members know, is a difficult one and not a new one. I often think, sitting quietly, that the reasons for some of the difficulties of industry, particularly agriculture, are deeper even than transportation, with this explanation only, that exorbitant cost of transportation is one of the nibblers at the success of the agricultural industry. Hon. members have all noticed, when a man brings to town a load of hay, not pressed, just in the ordinary old hayrack, loose, with a binder on top, that every hungry horse along the road takes a nibble at the load of hay. There are people who are sufficiently charitable to their horses and uncharitable to the man who is selling the hay to drive up a team and let them eat at it all along the road. It just strikes me that a comparison can be made there with the different processes that are nibbling at the products of the farm, the mine, the forest and the fisheries from the time those products leave the hands of the producer until they get into the hands of the consumer. In years gone by our great grandfathers took a bag of grain in on horseback to the old-fashioned mill and got back a certain quantity of flour and a certain quantity of the by-product. It was said even then that our friends the millers took quite a bit of toll. A little later the wheat was drawn in and ground and flour taken home with a team-a little advancement. Up to that time
there was only one toll. Following that, the wheat was drawn into town and was traded for flour-two tolls. Later on the wheat was brought in and sold and the money was used to buy the flour-another toll added-middlemen in different capacities. This has now reached the point they tell me that when many of our good friends take their wheat into town, they take home not flour, but bread. So that everyone gets a crack at this load of wheat before it reaches its destination. I am taking wheat as an example. Let us follow it from the time it leaves the home of the producer; elevator, percentage; out of the elevator on to the train, percentage; Winnipeg sale, percentage, broker; down to the ship on the Great Lakes, broker; insurance, broker. So that by the time you have got it over the ocean and have paid the freight rates you have paid out a lot in percentages; and when you want to sell the grain finally there is another broker to be considered. I have come to the conclusion therefore that the great trouble with our trade in Canada-and probably it is the same in other countries- is that we have not yet solved the problem of getting the product of the producer to the home of the consumer without incurring a great deal of expense in the transition.


Robert Forke: We are getting there out in the west.


George Perry Graham: I was going to refer to
that. You have a wheat pool in the west which has been accomplishing a good deal. But after a visit to Europe, after you have seen what Australia and other countries are doing, you must admit that the wheat pool solves the difficulty only at one end of the route; and in my humble judgment there should be some way by which the Liverpool, the Antwerp, the Hamburg market, and the prices which the farmer gets in the west might be more comparable than they are at the present time. We send our product over there; we have several associations all doing good work. But that product has to be handled through another process of brokerage, or whatever you may call it, before it is really sold to the consumer. The same thing applies in a measure to flour, perhaps in as great a measure. This is only a hint I throw out before coming to the discussion of ocean freight rates, because ocean freight rates form one incident, and a not inconsiderable one, of the-taxes that are placed on the products of Canada, as of other countries, from the time they come from the soil until they reach the home of the consumer.
In 1903 the question of freight rates by land was taken up in a very practical way,
Ocean Shipping Rates

and what is known as the Board of Railway Commissioners was appointed. Before that time everything depended on the state of mind of the railway companies as well as on t'he extent of competition. I am a full believer in the work done by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I believe that we should have been in a much more chaotic state in this country had we not had some authority to which to refer our railway problems. The United States has had an interstate board with, I believe, less authority perhaps than is the case in Canada. They have problems which perhaps are more difficult to solve than ours owing to the fact that their state incorporation and control of railways in the various states is more marked than is our provincial control; for although it is not here a matter of statute, it has become largely a matter of practice that steam roads should be under the Board of Railway Commissioners. But after the Board of Railway Commissioners had settled down to work and had established a basis of rates, the people discovered that no matter how fair a rate might be by land, say from the west to the east or vice versa, it was within the power of the ship owners by increasing rates on the ocean, to nullify all benefits the people might receive by a reduction in the cost of land carriage. For example, if one company owned a railway and a steamship line as well, it made no difference very materially to that company where the rates were placed on land, so long as they could place the rates on the ocean at a point that would make up for all that they lost in railway carriage. And what was applicable to companies owning both a railway and a steamship line was applicable generally, inasmuch as other railways would have traffic arrangements with ocean vessels, by which the two carrying systems could so adjust their rates that, no matter how you might control the land rate, the ocean rate could be so fixed as to wipe out any benefit that the shippers might otherwise receive.
That was found to be the case; at least that was the situation in 1010. In that year I had the privilege of taking up this question of ocean freight rates with the then chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the late Mr. Justice Mabee. Anyone who knew Mr. Justice Mabee and knew of his work as head of the railway board will agree with me that he was a strong friend of the public, and endeavoured to render decisions which, while not being unfair to the companies, would at the same time afford all the relief possible to shippers. I am going to quote at some length from a memorandum prepared by Mr. Justice Mabee on this ques-

tion, because I want to make it clear that the statement that this subject of ocean freight rates is new is not by any means correct. The problem has been wrestled with by governments for the last fifteen years, but this is the only government that has had courage enough to tackle it. This memorandum was prepared by Mr. Justice Mabee at my request and forwarded to the British government, and I shall read it because I believe it contains information which, coming from a man like him, will be of deep interest to the shipping public and to every bon. member of this House. On February 18, 1910, I wrote the following letter to the present Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) then Secretary of State:
Dear Mr. Murphy:
I enclose a memo made by the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, at my request, in reference to joint action between the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada respecting the regulation of ocean rates.
Will you kindly bring this to the attention of the home government, so that consultation might be had on the subject, as I deem it very desirable that steps should be taken to control these rates, for reasons which are set out in the memo.
Yours truly,
Geo. P. Graham.
Hon. Charles Murphy, M.P.,
Secretary of State.
The memorandum in question is as follows:
Memorandum showing the necessity for legislative control over ocean rates and facilities between Great Britain and Canada.
For many years in England, in the United States and in Canada, the principle of governmental control over railway rates and facilities has been in active operation. These countries found it necessary, in the interest of the public, to establish tribunals with statutory authority to control the rates or tolls that railway companies charge the public for the carriage of traffic. The legislation in the three countries differs in detail, but the English act forms the basis of the others; the tribunals have different names, their jurisdictions vary in many details, some having wider powers over a greater majority of subjects than others, but over the control of freight and passenger rates upon railways there is a common field of jurisdiction.
In Canada the Board of Railway Commissioners has under the various acts affecting it, namely, 3 Ed. VII, Cap. 37. 6 & 7 Ed. VII, Cap. 38, 7 & 8 Ed. VII, Cap. 61 & 62, 8 & 9 Ed. VII, Cap. 31 & 32, jurisdiction over almost all matters relating to railways (except incorporations), as well as telegraph, telephone and express companies.
The jurisdiction of all these controlling bodies is limited to the land, or land and inland water movement; in other words, the moment that export traffic reaches the seaboard of any of these three countries, government control over its movement is entirely lost.
First, as to the existing conditions regarding the transportation of traffic from Canada to Great Britain; take the shipment of grain from Winnipeg to Liverpool via Montreal and the St. Lawrence route. The all rail haul from Winnipeg to Montreal is 1,414 miles; the distance from there to Liverpool via Belle Isle is 2,760 miles, and via Cape Race, 3,007 miles.

Ocean Shipping Rates
Under the present law, when these shipments reach Montreal, control over the rates and conditions of transportation is lost, the result being that for two-thirds of the total distance the traffic moves at the rates the ocean carriers choose to make. If this grain moves from Winnipeg via Fort William or Port Arthur to Georgian bay ports, and thence rail to Montreal, the inland movement is some 200 miles shorter and control over the through shipment that much less.
If it is wise to control the transportation upon land, why is it not in principle equally wise and in the public interest to control the ocean movement? If the public derives any benefit from the control of the rates affecting the land movement of the above traffic, that being one-third of the distance, it is fair to assume that it would derive much greater benefit if the rates from Winnipeg all the way to Liverpool were under control.
In this connection it may be noted that the government has expended nearly $11,000,000 on the St. Lawrence ship channel; over $1,000,000 on the Montreal harbour; has loaned nearly $11,000,000 to the commissioners of the Montreal Harbour Board; and has large annual outlays for lighting and buoying the St. Lawrence route, and all these expenditures have been and are being made that the cost of carriage along the St. Lawrence route may be cheapened by the elimination of the dangers of navigation. In the last annual report of the Montreal harbour commissioners, it is stated that the St. Lawrence river from the ocean to Montreal is acknowledged to be the best lighted and buoyed ship channel in the world.
It is said that some $750,000 has already been expended upon surveys for the Georgian bay ship canal. It is contemplated spending $100,000,000 or more upon this work. To what end? Cheapening the cost of getting the output of the west to the seaboard. The government is being pressed to take over the control of the elevators at the head of lake Superior; to cheapen the Welland canal; to press along the construction of a line to Hudson bay; all these to what end? Cheapening the freight rate to the seaboard. To what use, if all control over or regulation of the carriers' charges is to be lost the moment the traffic reaches that point? A road to Hudson bay must and will be built. Take Regina as a central point for the shipment of grain and cattle to a Hudson bay port; control over the rates and facilities would exist for about 800 miles, and no control for 3,000 miles upon shipments to Liverpool.
Contracts have been let for the construction of elevators at Vancouver, and within a few years vast quantities of wheat from points as far east as Regina will find their way to the English consumer via Vancouver to Salina Cruz, thence over the Tehuantepec railway (189 miles) to Puerto, Mexico, and thence to Liverpool. The distances over this route are, Regina to Vancouver, 1,127 miles; Vancouver to Salina Cruz, 3,054 miles; Salina Cruz to Puerto, Mexico, 189 miles; Puerto, Mexico to Liverpool, 4,800 miles. Here is a rail haul of 1,316 miles, 1,127 in Canada, the rates over which are under control, and 189 in Mexico, and a water route of 7,854 miles. It is likely no effective control over the portion of this route through Mexico could be worked out; but the portion between Vancouver and Salina Cruz could be-probably the portion of the route between Puerto, Mexico and Liverpool could-as to all grain shipped from Canadian ports- also be brought under a controlling tribunal.
After the completion of the Panama canal Canadian grain from British Columbia ports will go all water to Liverpool the distance to which from Vancouver is, via the Panama canal, 8,800 miles, and the rates over the whole of this route could be controlled, apart from canal tolls, if any.
All that has been said about the movement of grain applies to all traffic moving from Canada to Great
Britain, and with still greater force upon all traffic coming from there to Canada, because if from an interior point the rail route there is so much shorter than in Canada.
Applications are continually made to the Board of Railway Commissioners for reduction in freight charges upon export traffic, such as cheese, butter, bacon, cattle, grain and so forth, and every reduction made on the land haul gives the ocean carrier an opportunity to add that to his charges. In a few years' time frort 600,000,000 to 800,000,000 bushels of wheat alone will be exported from Canada to Great Britain, and with all the	return traffic	that	such an	exportbusiness means it	will be a sorry day for the	peopleof Great Britain and Canada if it is to be left to the ocean carriers to say what they are to be charged for the	ocean portion	of	the route.	The
time to obtain control over the rates upon this traffic is while it is comparatively in its infancy, and not after enormous development has taken place and shipping trusts of all kinds have grown up. Had the United States established a railway commission thirty years before they did, they would never have had the abuses they have, since its establishment, been endeavouring to cure.
Express traffic is increasing rapidly.	There are
demands from all over Canada for reduction in express tolls. Take this illustration-a package is sent from England to Winnipeg by the Dominion Express Company, which	is owned by	the	Canadian	Pacific
Railway Company. This package comes over the Atlantic in a Canadian Pacific Railway steamer to Montreal; thence over the Canadian Pacific railway to Winnipeg. What is the use of reducing the toll from Montreal to Winnipeg when all the express company requires to do is to increase the ocean toll to take up the difference? The same may be said of practically all traffic between the two countries to-day.
An international tribunal, consisting of the English Railway and Canal Traffic Commission and the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, or certain defined members of these commissions, could, by joint legislation, easily be empowered to control all these matters. Many details would have to be provided for, but there is no doubt acts could be framed applying the general principles of railway rate controlling legislation to ocean carrier. They are in effect common carriers. Most of them are incorporated in Great Britain or Canada. Very large sums are annually expended for their benefit in harbour improvements, lighthouses, buoys and	so forth.	They	may easilyform monopolies; it is charged that they have many times done so. Great Britain is dependent upon her food supply from abroad. This supply will increase yearly from Canada. The imports to Canada from there will increase yearly; so surely it is in the interests of the people of both countries that the ocean rates upon all this traffic should be under some controlling tribunal.	Nor	should it	be to	the disadvantage of the	ocean	carrier.	Recently rates onwestbound traffic	were	increased	25 per	cent; the
carriers said they were losing money; the shippers raised much complaint. No means exist for ascertaining if this increase is proper. If ocean carriers were compelled to file tariffs and could be brought before a tribunal to show the necessity for increase, if the increase were proper it would be allowed; in which event there should be no dissatisfaction. As it is, the carriers may be compelled to increase rates, and thus incur much adverse criticism, notwithstanding they are in the right. If, on the other hand, they are in the wrong, some power should exist to control them.
This is a memorandum sent me by the late chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, Mr. Justice Mabee, and if I re-
Private Bills

member 'correctly, an order in council was passed and this was forwarded to the British authorities.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker? At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAHILL (for Mr. Marler) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, respecting a patent of The Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.
Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member define to us the merits of this bill?


Mr. CAHILL:: I was asked to have the
second reading of the bill moved so that it could go to a committee. I am not prepared to say anything further about the bill.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member certainly has not said very much about it. Sometimes these bills are very objectionable. It seems a small enough matter to extend a patent, but the law provides a definite period for the life of a patent and the House should not be asked to give a second reading to a bill for extension unless it knows the special circumstances that entitle these men to special treatment.


Frank S. Cahill: In view of the objection,
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the bill be allowed to stand until the mover (Mr. Marler) is in his seat.
Motion stands.



CONCRETE SURFACING MACHINERY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOUCHARD (for Mr. Chevrier) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, respecting a patent owned by the Concrete Surfacing Machinery Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As there is nobody to
explain the bill, it will stand.
Motion stands.



MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MICHAUD (for Mr. Casgrain) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, respecting The Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada.
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I would raise
the same objection to this bill that was offered 
in respect to the other. Here are two Marconi bills; and the greatest merger on this continent is now being consummated in New York, embracing all the American telegraph and telephone companies, all the wireless companies, all the cables, all the Marconi systems. In fact, I do not know where it does not go. The capitalization is to be a billion dollars?


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member will
allow me: if the mover has an explanation to give he might give it now, and then the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) may follow.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The object of the motion for the second reading, I understand, is to have the bill referred to a committee as soon as possible.


Mr. GORDON:: I understand from the
mover of the bill (Mr. Casgrain) that there is no variation of powers; the object of the bill is solely to change the name of the company.


Arthur Meighen: It does more than that. It reduces the par value of the shares; and further powers are given to the company- it may engage in the business of telephone communication as well. It confirms a certain by-law; I presume that is the by-law reducing the par value of the shares. It also gives the company certain powers with respect to increase or reduction of its capital in the event of a two-thirds vote.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands. I may say I have noticed that when private bills are called, hon. gentlemen in whose names the bills stand, with a few exceptions, are usually absent. I have to see that the rule is enforced, and I would remind hon. members who sponsor bills that they should be in their seats to explain them.
Motion stands.



OCEAN SHIPPING RATES


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. T. A. Low (Minister of Trade and Commerce) to ratify and confirm a contract between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen providing for the establishment of a subsidized steamship line on the Atlantic, and government control of certain ocean rates, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Clark.
George Perry Graham: At six o'clock I had just concluded reading a lengthy but interesting memorandum by the late Mr. Justice Mabee, then chairman of the Board of Railway Com-

Ocean Shipping Rates
missioners, pointing out the wisdom of forming, if possible, a joint tribunal for the control of ocean rates so that traffic could be controlled from the point of production to the point of consumption, including both land and water transportation. I might follow that up by reading a copy of the order in council dealing with the matter:
The committee have had under consideration a report, dated February 21, 1910, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, submitting a memorandum prepared by the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. at the request of the Minister of Railways and Canals, pointing out the necessity which exists for governmental control over charges made to the public for the carriage of water borne traffic, similar to that' which is now exercised over railway rates.
The committee recommended that Your Excellency may be pleased to forward this memorandum to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the expression of a desire on the part of Your Excellency's ministers that this important subject be brought to the attention of His Majesty's government, with a view to the establishment of a joint tribunal for the regulation and control of ocean rates.


William Findlay Maclean: Was there an answer to that communication?


George Perry Graham: 
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell
me, how did a memorandum come to be sent over by Lord Grey and comment made upon it? Apparently it was never referred to in the advice given Lord Grey by the cabinet.


George Perry Graham: I do not know. In Lord Grey's communication it states that it was handed to him by Mr. Grigg.


Arthur Meighen: It is a strange thing.


George Perry Graham: He was representing Great Britain in Canada, as trade commissioner. I am simply giving the records. Here is a resolution from Toronto, and of course this must be orthodox:
Whereas information has been given to the Toronto Board of Trade that it is proposed by the North Atlantic Westbound Freight Conference to materially increase the transportation charges for ocean freights from British to Canadian ports; and
Whereas the Canadian government, with a view' to bringing about closer relations with Great Britain, has given a customs preference of 331 per cent for British goods-

Be it resolved that an urgent appeal be addressed to all Canadian shipping companies to resist any proposed increase, as the effect of such increase must tend to divert to the factories of the United States, trade which the preference was designed to encourage with Great Britain and further be it resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Marine, with the urgent request of the Toronto Board of Trade for the co-operation of the government at Ottawa to preserve to the people of Canada and Great Britain the benefits of the preference as it' now exists.


Mr. SHEARD:: What is the date of that
communication ?


George Perry Graham: It is about 1909.


Charles Sheard: I was not in the House
then.


George Perry Graham: Hon. members will note
that the board of trade at Toronto wanted to convert the heathen elsewhere, and so fearful it was lest the British preference might be interfered with by high ocean rates that it sent a copy of this resolution to other boards of trade. This resolution continues:
It is resolved also to send copies of the resolution to the boards of trade of the cities of Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax.
That Was the attitude taken on ocean rates by the representative of the British government. Let me go back a little. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) asked me a question and I am not sorry that he did. Now I will reply to that question, and in this connection I want to link up with this the amendment of the opposition, to which my hon. friend from South York is supposed to pay allegiance. I hope he will not. Here is the reply that came in response to a communication by the government and prepared by the late Mr. Justice Mabee. Remember, the distinct recommendation was not for investigation, not for sidestepping, but for a board of joint control of the various parties interested. Here is the reply:
I am directed by the board of trade to advert to your letter of April 1, transmitting copy of a despatch from
the Governor General of Canada, on the subject of the proposed regulation of ocean freight rates, and asking for an expression of the view's of the beard on the proposal made by the Canadian government for the establishment of a joint tribunal for the control of these rates.
With reference thereto, I am to observe that, as Lord Crewe is aware, the question of the control of ocean freight rates and of the operations of shipping combinations is full of difficulties. The whole matter of shipping rings was quite recently investigated by a strong royal commission, on which the self-governing dominions were represented. A copy of the report of the commission is enclosed herewith.
The royal commission considered, inter alia, the suggestion made in South Africa that a board of control should be established comprising representatives from all the interests concerned, including the colonial government, but they came to the r^Husion that it

Ocean Shipping Rates
was neither practicable nor desirable to invest any external body with power to fix rates of freight by compulsion (Cf. pars. 318 and 319 of the report, Cd. 4668, 1909). At the same time the commission made certain recommendations with a view to the establishment of means of conciliation.


William Findlay Maclean: Who says that?


George Perry Graham: I will give the signature
in a little while.


William Findlay Maclean: Who made that statement?


George Perry Graham: The royal commission. At the same time the commission made certain recommendations with a view to the establishment of means of conciliation. The resolution continues:
The Board of Trade do not think that the considerations which have resulted in the control of the railway rates and facilities apply with equal force to the control of shipping rates and facilities. In the case of the former the government has granted certain monopoly privileges which, owing to the fact that the ocean is a public highway, could not be granted to shipping conferences. It also appears undesirable in the interests of imperial trade, to hamper British shipping companies in international competition by restrictions which it would be impossible to impose upon their foreign competitors.
While for the above reasons the board would see great difficulty in the establishment of a joint tribunal for the control of ocean freight rates, they direct me to call Lord Crewe's attention to the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings in paragraph 332 of their report, that, to meet the possibility of cases arising where public interests may be greviously affected either by the checking of a trade or by its more or less permanent diversion, the Board of Trade should have the power to appoint competent persons to investigate the matter. There seems no reason why His Majesty's government should not discuss with the Canadian government the question of holding a joint inquiry into the rates charged and facilities afforded by the shipping companies engaged in the trade between United Kingdom and Canadian ports, either on the lines of the recommendation of the royal commission or on the lines of the inquiries provided for in the Combines investigation bill which it is understood has passed through the Canadian legislature.
1 have, etc.,
R. C. Heron-Maxwell.
The Under-Secretary of State,
Colonial office.
Mr. MjACLEAN (York): They did' not care much for the preference.


George Perry Graham: And I must read another letter by Lord Crewe to Lord Grey, in reply, I presume, to Lord Grey's communication which I read a few minutes ago. It reads:
With reference to my despatch No. 224 of the 31st of March, and to Your Excellency's despatch No. 90 of the 28th February, I have the honour to transmit to you. for the information of your ministers, the accompanying copy of a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Marine department of the Board of Trade expressing the views of the board on the proposal to establish a joint tribunal for the regulation and control of ocean rates, together with a copy of the report of
the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings to which reference is made by the Board of Trade.
2. Your ministers will see that the board discover difficulties in the establishment of a joint tribunal for the regulation of ocean freights but suggest that there might be a discussion of the question of holding a joint enquiry into the rates charged and facilities afforded by the shipping companies engaged in the United Kingdom-Canada trade. You will no doubt furnish me in due course with the further observations of your ministers upon the question.
I have, etc.,
Crewe.
Hon. members having heard this, I wish to read to the House the amendment of the opposition. Mark you, we asked in 1910 for a joint tribunal. It was refused, the reason being given that it was impracticable. If it was impracticable in 1910, it is more so now, because the ramifications are greater. It was admitted by Mr. Grigg that there was a combine on the Atlantic, and as proof of that combine, he cited the fact that when the Elder-Dempster line had been sold to a member of the North Atlantic Steamship Conference, rates went up by leaps and bounds. He named the commodity and be asked, as representing the British government, that something be done. The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, through a letter addressed by myself to the then head of the Board of Railway Commissioners, outlined a proposition. I have read the reply which, to put the case mildly, was an absolute refusal to have a joint board. What does the amendment of my hon. friend say? This is the amendment of the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), speaking for the opposition:
I therefore move that Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved: That effective control oif ocean rates can be exercised only with the co-operation of all portions of the empire, and by a body on whioh all are represented, aind the contract made by the government with Sir William Petersen, based on the report of W. T. R. Preston, is ill-advised-
And so forth. This amendment asks us in this parliament in the Dominion of Canada as representatives of the people to pass a resolution requesting the British government to do something which they refused to do in 1910. Is that going about the matter in a practical way? I can tell hon. members now my private opinion of what it is worth, namely, that this country will never get any control over ocean rates foy a combination made up of the different parts of the empire. We are here to look after the interests of the Canadian people, and if this plan that is now proposed fails, this government is going to endeavour to get some other plan that will not fail. I say it advisedly again that there can be no efficacy in this amendment which asks the British government to form a body,
Ocean Shipping Rates

which the British government was asked to form years ago when the situation was not nearly as acute as it is at the present time, and which that government refused. Great Britain is greatly interested in shipping. It controls to a large extent the shipping of the world, and I say this not with any prejudice, that the great mass of the people in Great Britain are interested in the success of the greatest industry they have, that is shipping, and they are not interested in the decrease of the rates which that shipping gets.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister say, as regards the document that he read embodying the policy of the British government, whether this is the first time it has been published?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure, but this
is the first time I have published it. I have been asked: The British government askdd for a reply to your last document, what reply did you make? I made no reply whatever. I know when I am turned down.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has this document
been on the departmental files ever since?


George Perry Graham: This document has been with the Board of Railway Commissioners and I have been digging assiduously for a few days to find out things. My memory served me fairly well as to where these things were, but I wanted the documents themselves. I have been asked, as I said before, what reply I made when the British government asked for a reply to their document suggesting an investigation. I made no reply so far as I can find, and I think my memory serves me well at the same time, because we were after something to control ocean rates, not something to investigate. We had the proof from different parts of Canada, from our shippers, that they thought ocean rates were too high, and we wanted to devise some scheme to control ocean rates, as I outlined this afternoon. We did not need any further investigation. I say frankly that I considered the suggestion to make further investigation just another method of side-stepping the whole question and getting away from the one thing we were after.


William Findlay Maclean: Why did you not reach for the big stick?


George Perry Graham: We think we have one now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Preston?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friends opposite are investigating Preston all the time instead

of investigating ocean rates. I am trying to stick to the subject.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why did the minister send him over if the minister knew all about it before?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows that his friend the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) would have been out of a job if we had removed Preston from the scene. I am going to stick right to this text of mine because it is very illuminating, and my hon. friends will discover that they were in it up to their ears and were endeavouring to do the same thing in their minds. The British government refused to appoint a joint board. We say now that it is futile, foolish, to fish out an amendment asking them to do something which they have refused to do and which this House knows they have refused to do.
But all the virtue was not in the Liberal government. Occasionally there are spasms of lucid intervals with our friends. When the people of Canada, through a misconceived notion, changed governments, the successor to Mr. Justice Mabee had the same idea that Mr. Justice Mabee had, that there should be some way of controlling ocean rates in line with the authority and machinery provided for the control of rates by land. So, the hon. member for IVest York (Sir Henry Drayton) very wisely, and I will not say following up what his predecessor did, but following along the same line, came to the conclusion that some method should be devised to control ocean rates. The hon. member for West York and I discussed the matter in a friendly way several times. The government of that day, through an order in council, sent the hon. member for West York, then head of the Board of Railway Commissioners, to London, to see if he could accomplish something. I will read the order in council authorizing him to proceed. This is dated July 23, 1943. That was before the war:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 15th July, 1913, from the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, with reference to the question of the regulation of ocean freight rates.
The minister observes that this subject engaged the attention of the Canadian government in 1910. On the 26th February of that year a minute of council was passed advising that this matter should be brought to the attention of His Majesty's government with a view to the establishment of a joint tribunal for the regulation and control of ocean rates. In the month of August following, a despatch was received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies enclosing a memorandum from the Marine Department of the Board of Trade in which it is set forth that:-
" There seems no reason why His Majesty's government should not discuss with the Canadian government the question of holding a joint enquiry into the

Ocean Shipping Rates
rates charged and the facilities afforded by the shipping companies engaged in the trade between United Kingdom and Canadian .ports, either on the lines of the recommendation of the Royal Commission or on the lines of the enquiries provided for in the Combines Investigation Bill which it is understood has passed through the Canadian legislature."
It does not appear that any action was taken upon this suggestion.
The minister, conceiving the time to be opportune for renewing the consideration of this important question, recommends that H. L. Drayton, Esquire, Chief Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners, be authorized to proceed to England for the purpose of discussing with .the Imperial authorities the question of governmental control of the charges made by the shipping companies to the public for the carriage of ocean-borne freight.
The committee, concurring, advise that Your Excellency may be pleased to forward a copy of this minute, if approved, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the information of His Majesty's government.
All of which is respectifully submitted for approval.
Rodolphb Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Ijp to that time we were all of the same mind; it did not need any Preston report nor the report of any committee to convince the government of 1911 as well as the one succeeding it that something ought to be done with ocean freight rates. And they sent the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) overseas to look into the matter. I saw the hon. gentleman the day he was going and he was full of enthusiasm, but I suggested that he would come back with the same information that I already had. He went over and did his best, and I am not going to discuss anything that occurred or did not occur. But no board wras formed for the control of ocean rates, nor has there been any up to this day. I want to be fair, and I will observe that there are difficulties. As has been pointed out, the ocean is not like the right of way of a railway; if you make it too hard for ships to come to one port they can go to another. The difficulties therefore are great. But it does strike me that if Canada had had the sympathy of the British Board of Trade, part of the British government, in endeavouring to arrange fair ocean rates, a tribunal could have been established that might have had some effect at least. And the very fact that a combination had been formed from various parts of the empire, having in view the control of ocean rates, would have had the effect perhaps of obviating any necessity for action at all looking to the control of rates.
The question has been asked, and I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is somewhat enthusiastic about it-Why do you not use the merchant marine? Well, I will answer that question in due course. But before I take it up I want to refer to another matter, because I do not want to attribute anything to my right hon. friend's government which should properly be attributed to that of his predecessor. I find some correspondence tabled the other day, and in it there is a letter from Sir George Perley to the right hon. the Prime Minister of that day, now leader of the opposition, pointing out that excessive ocean rates exist, or at any rate that the people believe they exist. Let me read the first paragraph:
London, S.W., 4th January, 1921. Dear Mr. Meighen,-You will remember that during the past ten years the question of ocean freight rates has been discussed many times, as they often seemed higher than wa3 reasonable, and some of us thought that a way might be found for controllng them by a body similar to our railway commission. I am sure that you have been approached many times on the subject and I had occasion to look into it a good deal when carrying on the Trade and Commerce department in Ottawa in Sir George Foster's absence. Not long after we came into power, while Acting Prime Minister, I arranged with Sir Henry Drayton to come over here and try and find out the feeling here on the subject.
Now listen.
He came back not feeling very hopeful about the possibility of getting anything done in the direction of freight rate control but he will be able to tell you about this himself.
The reading of that confirms what I have stated. The second attempt, yes, the third attempt did not get us anywhere, no matter what party was ini power on this side of the line.


Arthur Meighen: What was the third attempt?


George Perry Graham: This is the third attempt about which I am reading now. To proceed: Nothing was done about this question during the war but on April 29, 1919, I received the following cable from Sir Thomas White who was then Acting Prime Minister.
Sir Thomas White evidently thought there was need of action. I am just reading portions of the letter.


Arthur Meighen: It is not long and hon.
members would like to have it all.


George Perry Graham: Very well, I will read it.
Canada much concerned about ocean freight rates- Enquire and cable whether British government would co-operate with Canada in giving effect to report of Royal Commission on Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions empire as presented to Imperial parliament in March, 1917-this report finds that it is not desirable that operations of steamship companies carrying passengers and freight between Canada and England should remain longer without government supervision-most important to obtain official position of British authorities respecting matter." This I at once communicated to the Colonial Secretary here and I spoke to Sir Robert Borden about it when I was in Paris a few days after receiving it. In the reply from the Colonial Office they drew attention to a despatch which had been sent to the Gov-
Ocean Shipping Rates

ernor General on December 9. 1918, and which contained suggestions for the constitution of an Imperial Investigation Board for the purpose of reviewing questions relating to maritime transport and to the development of the sea communications of the empire.
Sir Robert Borden had evidently been giving the matter his careful consideration and in May, 1919, he prepared a memorandum "respecting necessary control of ocean freight rates and the disposition of available shipping", of which you will find a copy attached. This memorandum, which suggested in effect that the control of ocean rates and disposition of shipping should be placed in the hands of a commission, composed of representatives from the various parts of the Empire, was transmitted to Mr. Lloyd George and to the Prime Ministers of the other dominions.
Canada had acquiesced in the suggestion for the appointment of the Imperial Investigation Boad but in view of Sir Robert Borden's memorandum further consideration was given to the matter and eventually the Imperial Shipping Committee was created on the lines of the Colonial Secretary's despatch to the Governor General of Canada of October 11, 1919, by an instrument under the hand of Mr. Lloyd George dated June 15, 1920, copies of both of which you will find attached.
As the question of the control of freight rates had been one of much interest to Canada I rather felt that, if it were to be taken up seriously before this committee, someone with technical knowledge and understanding of commercial shipping questions should be here to assist me in my capacity as the representative of Canada on this committee. I put my views forward fully to Sir Robert Borden in a letter dated December 9, 1919, and, after this had been considered at Ottawa, Sir George Foster wrote me suggesting that Mr. William Phillips, who is the European manager over here for the Canadian National Railways, might act in the capacity of an adviser, on account of his knowledge of Canadian conditions and of shipping matters in general. I arranged with Mr. Phillips accordingly and he has been both courteous and helpful. I took him with me to the first meeting of the committee and I arranged that he could attend in my absence, although he is of course a busy man. Yesterday we had a long talk on the subject and reviewed the position as it has developed so far. The committee has held some 14 or 15 meetings, of which six have been devoted to "Ship-owners' liability by clauses in bills of lading", and the majority of the others to evidence given by representatives of various port authorities on questions relating to port facilities, control and development.
On July 29 last the chairman of the committee wrote me (copy of letter enclosed) saying that the committee desired to be furnished with up to date information regarding dock and harbour accommodation and other maritime transport facilities and would be glad to have before them as full a statement as possible of the views of the Canadian government on the questions falling within the scope of the terms of reference.
This letter was referred to the Department of Marine in Ottawa and I have a reply from them saying that the information asked for is being prepared and will be forwarded shortly, but that, so far as they know, the Dominion government has no statement to make.
The reason that I am writing you at the present time is in order that you may consider and decide whether you wish to bring' before the committee the question of the control of freight rates. I understand that this was the chief ground on which the Canadian government favoured the appointment ^ of the committee, but this question has so far received but slight attention, as the committee has occupied itself mainly in the discussion of subjects which, while no doubt important, have but little bearing on this point.

Let me interpolate, that that will be the result of every meeting you have of a committee of that kind: it will discuss everything but the question of ocean freight rates.
The terms of reference do not definitely give the committee authority to consider the possibility of controlling freight rates, but I explained fully to the committee at their first meeting the interest which Canada took in that question, and that it was largely in view of Sir Robert Borden's memorandum on that point that the committee had been created. The instrument of appointment gives the committee authority to inquire into and report " on all matters connected with ocean freights and facilities," which appears to be sufficiently broad to cover the question of control of freights.	_
Then you will see that one of the clauses in Sir Halford Mackinder's letter of July 29 is as follows:
" If your government should think it desirable now to nominate witnesses the committee would be glad to have information as to when they would be available to give evidence." The present therefore would appear to be an opportune time to take up with the committee the question of the control of ocean freight rates if you think it advisable to do so. I realize quite well that the position is not quite the same now that it was before the war. In the first place, there is at the present time a plentiful supply of ships and therefore freight nates naturally tend to adjust themselves on a reasonable basis. Then there is of course the fact that the Canadian government now owns quite a large number of ships and is therefore in that way able to exercise a certain amount of control regarding rates. These facts may influence the views of the government on the subject, but in any case I -would suggest that the question be considered and a decision arrived at as to whether you care to press the matter before the Imperial Shipping committee on the basis of the memorandum prepared by Sir Robert Borden in May, 1919. If you should decide to do this, I think you will agree with me that someone with full technical knowledge and who understands commercial shipping questions should prepare the Canadian case carefully and then come over here to appear before the committee and to give evidence regarding it. As such a large amount of tonnage is owned in these Islands they are perhaps naturally not very anxious about the control of freight rates and therefore, if you decide to bring the question before the committee, I do not think it possible to give too much time or attention to the preparation of our case.
Will you kindly consider this matter and advise me as to your wishes.
Yours sincerely,
George H. Perley.
Now, if I had read that letter in the first place it would have saved a large portion of my speech, because Sir George Perley, in mild language, absolutely states the case as it is, that there is not much sympathy in Great Britain for the practical control of ocean rates. It is so simply on the face of it.


Mr. MORRISON:: Does the minister mean to tell us that the manufacturers of Great Britain have no particular interest in low ocean rates? Have they not just as much interest in securing low rates as the shipping companies have in maintaining high rates?

Ocean Shipping Rates


George Perry Graham: I would not go that far.
But there are so many of them and so few of us. As a matter of fact, the greatest industry in Great Britain is shipping; the success of Great Britain depends largely on the profits of its shipping, and from the government down most of the people are shareholders in the shipping companies of Great Britain. In a word, the vast majority of the people have, directly or indirectly, investments in the shipping of Great Britain, and on the success of that shipping depends to a large extent the industrial prosperity of Great Britain. They are not like we are in Canada at all.


Mr. BIRD:: I was wondering whether the
minister had considered the possibility of the British government retaliating against the proposal of the Canadian government, and what would be the result of such retaliation?


George Perry Graham: How would they retaliate?


Thomas William Bird: After reading the British debate on the Petersen contract it seemed to me that Mr. Guinness had already fired the first shot, and that that might be the ominous beginning of war between the British government and our own.


George Perry Graham: I would not have such a
poor opinion of the British government as that. Of course we have in this country people who would retaliate to the limit against the United States on the tariff, but a good many of us think that that action would not do us any good. I am not inclined to think there would be any retaliation. On the contrary, I fancy Great Britain rather likes to see her sons overseas show a disposition to look after themselves.


Thomas William Bird: I am not suggesting any such
strife, but it is a point that has troubled me considerably, and I was wondering if the minister could forsee its probable consequences. As he says, the shipping profits are very vital to the public of Great Britain, and it is therefore only natural that the government should rally to the defence of the shipping interests. When the British government withdrew the subsidy to the Petersen firm, it seemed to me indicative of a possible development of strife between the two governments.


George Perry Graham: We cannot foresee what
will happen, but I do not imagine that the British government in all its might would endeavour to crush out the Dominion of Canada's trade, because the trade of Canada is as 73
vital to Great Britain as the trade of Great Britain is to Canada, and Great
9 p.m. Britain is not likely to overlook the British preference in our tariff. But we have to look out for ourselves so far as we can. Let me refer for a moment to the supposed action of the British government with regard to Petersen. It has been said that the withdrawal of the British subsidy would prevent Sir William Petersen from going on with his contract with us. He says not. But if Sir William is prevented from doing so, he will not get a cent, and it will not cost us a cent. But we are going on in an earnest endeavour to bring about a state of affairs that will let the shipping companies of the world on the Atlantic and the Pacific know that Canada wants to get a square deal for her people.
Now, here is a letter, dated February 16, 1921, from the right hon. leader of the opposition, who was then Prime Minister:
Dear Sir George Perley,-After consideration of your letter of January 4, we have decided that the question of the control of ocean freight rates should be placed before the Imperial Shipping committee at an early date. We also agreed with your suggestion that the case from the Canadian viewpoint should be carefully prepared, and Dr. Magill, of the Grain Exchange, Winnipeg, has been asked to undertake the task. As soon as his report and recommendations are received they will be considered and transmitted to you for your guidance.
I understand Dr. Magill did not undertake the work.


Arthur Meighen: There was a letter asking him to undertake it.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: There was also a reply
from Dr. Magill, but apparently the government cannot find it.


George Perry Graham: Dr. Magill sent a telegram the other day stating that he had made no report. I would imagine he sent an acknowledgment of the invitation.


Arthur Meighen: It was in the correspondence.


George Perry Graham: There we are right up to
1921 and not a blow struck for reduced freight rates. I think the correspondence I have read from Sir George Perley himself is absolutely convincing that no relief is to be expected in control of ocean rates through co-operation of the various parts of the empire, without anything I have said being taken into consideration at all.
Now I come to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. It has been asked: Why do you not use the merchant marine? My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition in
Ocean Shipping Rates

his interruptions this afternoon intimated that that ought to be the course to be pursued. Let me refer 3rou again to Sir George Perley's letter. Sir George Perley in pointing out the difficulties of this ocean control, called the attention of the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition to the fact that they now had a merchant marine in Canada that could in a measure control the rates. Why did they not do it? I notice that no one is speaking too loudly. The opposition ask-and those who have given the least study to it ask the oftener-why we do not use the merchant marine for this purpose now? Well, my right hon. friend, as was pointed out to him by Sir George Perley, had a brand new merchant marine, with the paint not yet dry on it-the ships being turned out; not a trade route established the removal of which would embarrass anyone-ships out there at anchor. And Sir George Perley was saying: "Why do you not put them to work to bring down freight rates?" But it was not done.


Arthur Meighen: They were all running.


George Perry Graham: Some of them were not finished until quite a while after the war. But here were these boats, free to be turned loose on the north Atlantic to reduce rates; and when the high commissioner asked the Prime Minister of the day to do it it was not done. They belonged to the north Atlantic conference and they were put on other routes; they were not used to break the freight rates on the north Atlantic. Now we are asked why we do not do it. There are two or three reasons, and I may help my right hon. friend out of the hole a little before I get through.


Arthur Meighen: I am not in it.


George Perry Graham: Badly. It is a great thing to feel happy-


Arthur Meighen: I am glad I am not in the government's hole.


George Perry Graham: And my right hon. friend
will not be for ,a great many years. At present the merchant marine ships are on established routes, that is, the ships that are capable of carrying large cargoes at reasonable rates. This government came in and found these ships. We were not responsible for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine which cost three or four times as much as it would now; but there the ships were, with a heavy capital expenditure, .and they had been handed over to the Canadian National Railways just a short time before. They were not in charge

of the minister who built them; Ithey were shifted over to another department. Unfortunately I was put at the head of that department. The management of the Canadian National Railways have been sending these ships over different routes throughout the world, getting away as far as possible from keen competition, because they could not in some circumstances compete with the faster ships or ships better adapted to -certain cargoes. New trade routes have been worked out that are of benefit to the Dominion of Canada. I asked one of the members from British Columbia !the other day, when he was talking about taking the ships off routes that were not paying-he did not say anything like that in 1921 when there were practically no routes established-I asked him if he would allow us Ito take the ships off the route that had been established between eastern 'Canada and1 Vancouver, and he immediately said no. These ships at the present moment are not paying but we are developing an interprovincial trade by water to the benefit of both extremes of the Dominion of Canada, and in a short time I believe they will bring a profit to the merchant marine as well as great good to the country.


Mr. LADNER:: If the minister will allow me, I suggest that he may develop the ends and choke the centre through the custom house regulations at New York.


George Perry Graham: Now my hon. friend is running away to the Customs department. These ships do not need the Customs department. My hon. friend would want us to ship goods via American bottoms to New York. Well, we are trying to develop an all-Canadian route with the merchant marine that does not have to go to New York.


Mr. CLARK:: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but I would remind him that I myself advocated last year just such a service as he is now speaking of, and it was advocated by others also. It was promised by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) who is unfortunately not in his seat. But will the minister tell the House when this service between Vancouver and eastern Canada by water was established? I understood him to say it had been established; am I correct?


George Perry Graham: Surely.


John Arthur Clark: When was it established and what does it consist of?


George Perry Graham: I am not prepared to give those details. But it is carrying all the traffic that is offered and is prepared to increase the number of sailings as the traffic increases.

Ocean Shipping Rates


John Arthur Clark: When was that service established?


George Perry Graham: Some months ago.


John Arthur Clark: Are there regular sailings?


George Perry Graham: Whenever there is freight there are sailings.


John Arthur Clark: That is, there are no regular sailings?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that My hon. friend can say it if he likes. We are trying to establish-


John Arthur Clark: I do not want the minister to misunderstand me; I am only asking for information with regard to the service that my hon. friend is referring to. Of course, if he does not want to give the information, all right.


George Perry Graham: That is not a good way to put it. I might put it in such a way as to suggest a little surprise at my hon. friend living in Burrard and not knowing the steamship sailings, but I do not want to say that; we are trying to discuss this without manhandling each other. I say the Canadian merchant marine has put on a service between eastern and western Canada via the Panama canal and is prepared to increase that service as the traffic is offered. Then we have other sailings from Vancouver; we have sailings to the Orient, sailings to Australia. Who is to say we ought to take these ships off and put them on the north Atlantic, even if they could be used to reduce freight rates on the north Atlantic.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are they not paying?


Mr. GRALIAM:: At the present time
some of them are; still, would my hon. friend take them off? I am pointing out that we are not in the same position to put the merchant marine on the north Atlantic to reduce rates as was the previous government, which had them before any trade routes were established. Unless we take the ships off routes some of which are paying, others developing Canadian trade, others bringing trade to the Canadian National, we cannot do it. Unless the members of the House from various parts of Canada will say, "Yes, take these ships off the routes in our locality," then we have not any ships left of any consequence, even if they were suited for use on the north Atlantic in this connection.
Now, let me go a little further. As to this Petersen contract, let me make it clear that Sir William Petersen is offered so much money if he gives a certain service under
government control. This is not a subsidy to a steamship line to run on certain routes, as subsidies are commonly granted; it is a certain amount per year to Sir William Petersen, the chief object of which is to establish the principle of government control over ocean freight rates. Is it worth while paying something for, or is it not? You say it is an experiment; I say it is an experiment. You come back to me and say there is no combine; I say I do not care whether there is a combine or not: Are the freight rates too high? Let the government get control by means of this contract and we will soon find out how much too high they are. And as to that experiment, it is worth to the farmers of western Canada and the farmers of Ontario more than we are paying to Sir William Petersen under this contract.


Mr. SPENCER:: Would my hon. friend
not include the manufacturers of eastern Canada as well?


George Perry Graham: I am going to include
them; you see, I was taking them in sections. I say it is worth more than we are paying for it, to the farmers of the east and of the west; but added to that, it is worth just as much to the manufacturers of eastern Canada to have some control over rates. I have correspondence on my desk pointing out where manufacturers have been unable to fill their orders in the Motherland on account of the increase in ocean rates.
This plan is a departure from existing conditions. We tried to get control through a joint board, but the attempt to get that plan has proved futile; and the suggestion of the amendment is only laughing in the face of the Canadian people. Now there is some other way, if there is a way, and it is one that the government of Canada required a great deal of courage in undertaking, because there are people who do not believe in bounties, although they would like this to go through. There are people who do not believe in doing anything to interfere with the existing conditions on the ocean. Then there are people who are prejudiced against government control of any kind, so that the government needed great courage in undertaking this arrangement. I want to say again that this is only an experiment; but unless some government has the courage to try and experiment we will never get any further than we have during the last fifteen years in the matter of control of ocean rates. One of the members for Vancouver the other night asked me the question if this contract would apply to the Pacific trade. I say now, thinking the other members of the govern-
Ocean Shipping Rates

ment will agree with me, that this is an experiment, and that if it proves successful, as we hope it will, it will apply to every port in the Dominion of Canada and to every cargo that comes to this country.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister put
boats on the Pacific in the same way and under the same conditions?


George Perry Graham: What I tried to say was
that if this proves successful-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
surely does not hope- it will not prove successful?


Arthur Meighen: It is not a state of hope in my mind at all, it is a state of certainty.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend is
a pessimist. We will let it go at that.


Arthur Meighen: I am, in this matter.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend is a
pessimist in respect to anything the Grit government attempts to do.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: I do not complain; some of us are bom that way. My hon. friend (Mr. Ladner) asked if the government will put boats on the Pacific in the same way and under the same conditions. I could not say absolutely. It might transpire during this experiment that we could do better in the case of a future contract in some other way; but the best that can be done to control rates on the Pacific, if this proves a success, will be done by the government of Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the government any
information with respect to rates on the Pacific now?


George Perry Graham: As far as I am concerned I have never had any complaints as to rates on the Pacific. The great fear I have found, from correspondence we have got, is that the government are going to take the ships of the merchant marine away from there.
I want to say before I sit down that I do not care whether there is a combine or not; that is not the question before this House. You would think to hear some hon. gentlemen speak that the question before the House was "Who is Preston?" "Who is Petersen?" "Has anybody got a combine?" The question before this House is first "Do we think the rates are too high on the ocean?" Everybody expresses the fear that they are. What is the cure? Somebody proposes the merchant marine though they never used the merchant

marine when they had it. Others say something else. The government, after a study of the case, believes this is one good plan to establish the principle of government control of ocean rates, and if it proves to be a success then the government will be prepared to proceed a step further. I make the prophecy before I sit down, that before this is all through, the leading shipping companies that sail the ocean will be prepared to make terms with the Dominion of Canada.


William Irvine: The minister who has just taken his seat has been as interesting as he usually is, if not as convincing as usual. This debate has been conducted at very great length, and it would appear that it will go on for some time yet. The duration of this discussion would apparently indicate the importance of the subject. It is not only important because of the particular instance with which we are dealing. It is important for another and greater reason. Just as the last century witnessed a very keen competition, which in our present time has culminated in large combines and trusts, so the age in which we are living will witness efforts being put forward on the part of all governments in all countries to secure control over these combines and trusts, in order that the advantages which may be derived from combines may be secured to the people without allowing these combines to reap an undue reward at the public expense. It is because of the importance of the subject in this regard, as well as from the point of view that it actually implies the subsidizing of a private company without any very apparent reason, without any return from that operation, that I rise to speak on this question; also to explain the position that I and my colleague are forced to take on the issue; and further to present what I believe is a viewpoint that is, at least, a little different from any that has so far been put forward, whether that be a virtue or the contrary.
The first question to be considered is whether we have a combine or not. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says it does not matter. Although the whole proposal has been based upon the assumption that there is a combine the minister now tells us that it does not matter whether there is one or not. But the government appointed a gentleman to investigate this matter and he has presented a report for the edification of members of parliament; a report which is calculated to demonstrate that there is a combine, and that the contract into which the government desires to enter is the way to break that combine. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I

Ocean Shipping Rates
have not come to the conclusion that there is a combine by the reading of the Preston report. If I were to take this report seriously, apart from the flat statement of the author, I would come to the conclusion that there is no combine at all. He says in one part of the report, quoting a letter from a manufacturer whose name he does not give:
I have representatives of the steamship companies calling on me every week, who are complaining about the small amount of freight that is offered.
He would have us believe that there are shipping companies in a combine and in a conspiracy against Canada; and that the agents of these companies in Montreal had been grumbling to the shippers because there was no freight for their empty ships. Surely this combine would not grumble over the lack of business, nor bring ships in hopes of obtaining a business that had been killed by its own design. Then if hon. members will turn to page 18 of the report they will find a table of figures which is supposed to show that very high rates have been charged against the Canadian and British trade, and particularly during 1924. This table is given to prove that .there is a combine and that that combine is engaged in a conspiracy against British and Canadian trade. He shows us by this column of figures that in 1924 the freight was very much higher to British ports from Canada than to ports in Europe. But if hon. members will turn to the column of figures in 1923 they will find that the situation is reversed, so that if Mr. Preston had issued his report in that year he would have had to have said "Yes, there is a combine but that combine is in a conspiracy against the European trade in favour of Britain and Canada." So that I think it was fortunate for the government that this report happened to be made in 1924. I do not conclude as to a combine on the strength of this gentleman's word.
There is another reason why I would doubt the existence of a combine, if I were to depend upon the information which this report gives or which the government has given, and that is the proposal that has been put forward to defeat it. That in itself would appear to argue that if there is a combine it is no't very well combined, and that it is noit very large, for the proposed ten ships would not break a very large combine. However, I believe there is a combine, first because of my understanding of the nature of the processes that have been going on for the last century in our industrial and commercial life. The competition which has taken place in the industrial and commercial fields has led inevitably to combinations of
fairly equal forces for mutual benefits. In other words, co-operation which has been adopted as the policy of the farmers of this country, which is adopted largely by the labour organizations of this country, has been adopted long since by large corporations in competition with each other. Yes, combines are the natural outcome of the processes which have been going on for the ladt century. But if we required any special evidence of this we Would have to go to the report of the Agricultural Conditions committee of last year or to the report of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). However, the minister has just assured us that they had sufficient evidence of the proof of a combine in 1910. If the government had that proof it is not clear to the House, and I do not think it will be clear to the people of Canada, why they, in 1924 appointed another gentleman to make another investigation of something of which they already had all the proof which they required. That is of course a minor point, but so far the government has carefully fought shy of dealing with that point and it would appear that there is some reason for thus evading an explanation beyond that which has been vouchsafed to the House. I conclude then that there is a combine.
The next question is, Should the combine be broken and its development arrested in this way? I hasten to answer that question emphatically in the negative, notwithstanding the apparent enthusiasm of the Minister of Railways. It is very true that the next step from a combine is a monopoly, but then monopoly is the fruit of the system that the government supports. It is the natural ripe fruit of the system which the Canadian government advocates, which is endorsed by modern civilization, and if we are not prepared to eat the fruits we should not be prepared to scatter the seeds. Monopoly is the next step after a combine, and a combine is the result of a competitive system. We cannot escape the fruits. We have to pick them. No little ten-ship organization of the Minister of Railways is going to set back the great tide of a century. It might sound well to say it, but sociologically, historically and scientifically it is absurd, and even if it were not an absurdity, it would certainly not be the policy to follow. Combinations represent progress. Let me just mention some of the things which may be effected through combinations. No one will deny that a combine will render to any country an improvement in service. In the particular case before us, that of shipping, it will result in a more regular service, in a
Ocean Shipping Rates

higher standard of service, and' it will also result in the elimination of duplication, and to that extent should lend itself to a reduction in freights. It will stabilize the whole enterprise. It will lead to a stabilization of rates and also to a stabilization of business, for if a business man has to buy large quantities of goods in Europe, and feels that the freight rates are so much to-day, may be twice as much next month, he is hampered in his business. But when he knows that freight rates have been thoroughly regulated, and that he can count upon them being in a stabilized condition it gives him more confidence in the conduct of his business. Then, a combine is conducive to a uniform rate to all merchants, thus giving the smaller merchants an equal opportunity with the larger merchants, and tends to develop trade in places where otherwise it would be impossible to have it developed. So I say that without some such arrangement as combinations, even in the case of shipping, the whole trade would be demoralized and shippers would not obtain good service, nor would workmen engaged in shipping have a living condition. The Minister of Railways recognizes this principle, or did recognize this principle when speaking this evening. He pointed out that it had been begun in western Canada, that the wheat pool to which he referred was the first step, a combination of farmers in the selling of their produce.
The next thing according to the minister as a step towards the reduction of the cost of living was the appointment of the railway commission, and the appointment of that commission was made in order that it might stabilize rates. Here are the two principles. He recognizes the combine principle and he recognizes the controlling principle, but not the Atlantic combine principle. If the government were to go out to meet the needs of the farmers in the west in so far as they would be met by the wheat pool, anid practise the same principles they are trying to practise in regard to shipping, what would they do? They would' go out and bonus some individual in Winnipeg to start a little elevator all by himself in order to break the wheat combine; but they did not do that. And the farmers had more sense than to do it; they formed a large combine to put the thing over, as they say in popular parlance. But when it comes to the Atlantic it appears the Minister of Railways forgets about the principle exemplified in the wheat pool, he forgets about the principle of controlling rates by commission such as was appointed1 by the government of Canada in respect to railways, and
[Mu Uvine.]
he says, "We are going to bonus some private company to break the rates for us. We are going to buy one of these individuals out of the combine to see if we cannot break the combine." I repeat that if he could break the combine it would be a very serious matter indeed. It would be turning back the wheels of progress, but as I have no fear of that occurrence, I do not require to express any fears in regard to the continuation of the evolutionary process; rather I would express fears for the government in undertaking such a proposition. I will deal later in my remarks with the method of control, all that I am contending for at the present time is that combines are necessary, combines are not necessarily evil; but combines cannot be broken, and even, if they could be broken it would be very bad business.
The next point is that the government has decided to break the combine. The government has decided to turn back the wheels of progress and has decided to accomplish the impossible. In this regard some hon. mejnbers on the government side have laid claim to *an amount of courage which should be credited to the government for this great feat. If there is any courage in this regard, that courage is certainly shown in the government risking its life on a policy so ill-advised. II think however that the lack of enthusiasm which has been so evident on the part of government supporters of this resolution speaks a great deal better for the government than the alleged courage does.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman explain how the government has risked its life? I thought that was just what it was taking care of.


William Irvine: That is a very fine question, and I, perhaps, ought to take a moment or two to answer. The government, in my opinion, is risking its life in this way, that if the expenditure is permitted- and this seems probable-there cannot possibly come from it any return that will be visible to the Canadian people. If then this government has had the courage to dip into the treasury of an already overtaxed people for SI,350,000 annually to bonus a private company on the other side of the ocean, for which subsidy there is no return, that takes a little bit of courage. Of course I know this is not what it appears to be to the government. The government, I imagine, thinks that before the next election will be too soon to speak of the fruits of this investment; that it will be able to say to the westerners: Behold, we are the great little government

Ocean Shipping Rates
that went forth with the Preston report in one hand and with one million dollars odd in the other and challenged the great leviathan that controls the seven seas. That sounds fine in an election campaign. I do not know of anything that could sound better.
The next thing, I imagine the government think in this regard is this. They know perfectly well that freight rates are due to come down just as everything else is due to come down, and it is probable that by next fall there may be a drop in freight rates from perfectly natural causes. Then they will be able to say: Do you not see what we did? Do you not see what a little bit of courage has brought about? Did we not bring that large combine to its knees? Why, look at the freight rates! That may be the idea of the government. But after all, my faith in the common sense of the Canadian people is greater than to think they will give many votes on the strength of that. Again, we might be mistaken there. It is just possible that the government might be able to get this over once, but the reaping day is sure to come.
The government has decided to attempt this reactionary move and it claims courage in its attempt. But I should like to see the government try out its courage on something that is a little nearer to its hand. Has the government enough courage to break the combine on the Great Lakes? There is a combine right next door to it. Canadian ships are carrying Canadian goods to American ports more cheaply than they are carrying, them to Canadian ports, and this government, with its superabundance of courage and with the right to tax the people to get millions for an overseas company,-would it not show a little bit of courage in breaking that combine? I have been suggesting not the breaking of a combine, but the control of a financial monopoly in Canada. I have never seen any evidence of courage on the part of the government with regard to that question. We have a combine in Nova Scotia that this government or the government of Canada has helped to build by subsidizing to the extent of ninety millions of the Canadian people's money. That combine at the present time is a very serious menace to the life and happiness of a great portion of Ithe people of Nova Scotia, and calls have come time and again from those people for assistance, but the government seems to have no courage at all. Even the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) who, I am sorry, is not in his seat, lacks that courage which is claimed for his government, when that problem is put before
him. He says he can do nothing in that regard, no matter how much courage he may have secretly hidden in his bosom, because there is a British North America Act. And yet I notice that he is bringing into this House a bill which practically sets forth all that my colleague and I have ever claimed so far as the authority of this government is concerned in dealing with that condition in Nova Scotia. I will not quote that bill; the time will come for that; but I want to point out clearly that there is no evidence of this Courage which the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) wanted to claim for his government for having taken this step to subsidize the Petersen company.
But since the government has selected this particular feat as the exemplification of its courage, I want to examine it from two points of view. I want to ask something about the method that the government is employing, and second, what results might with reason be anticipated? If hon. members on the other side of the House argue that they are not trying to break up a combine but to control, then I would say that if the effort that they are about to put forth is going to be at all efficient, it can have no other effect than to break up the combine, because what they are going to do seemingly, if they are going to do anything, is to buy these ships and to reduce freight rates on these ships in order that they may reduce rates generally or, at least, reduce rates on that particular line. It will be agreed surely that unless they reduce rates all around, this scheme will be a colossal failure. But they can reduce rates all around only by forcing each shipping company back to competition in rates, and to go back to cutthroat competition in rates would mean the breaking of the combines, so that is really what they are trying to do. This is not desirable and it is not practicable. Let us look at the method further. I am opposed to the method because it implies granting a subsidy to private companies. There may be occasions when it might be permissible to grant a subsidy. Personally, I am opposed to the principle, and I am very much opposed to it in the case before us. Not only am I opposed to it as a principle, but I am opposed to it because of the past history of the application of the principle in Canadian life. Look for a moment at the subsidizing of the Canadian Northern. We subsidized and subsidized it until it fell into our laps, a culmination which, perhaps, was the best part of its whole history. But nevertheless, that for which we subsidized it never materialized. Then the subsidies which have been granted
Ocean Shipping Rates

to the Canadian Pacific, as was pointed out by some other hon, member, are now a futility in the Supreme court. Other instances of failures as regards subsidizing private companies, failures in the sense that they have never produced that for which the companies were subsidized, are too-numerous to mention. The principle involved in this method of subsidizing a private company and also the experiences which we have had by the application of such a principle are sufficient in themselves to condemn this resolution.
But what are the practical results which we may hope to get? I notice that the government supporters of the resolution have not had very much to say about that. They would rather leave that to fate. They appeal to the faith of the House with respect to what we may hope to reap from this outlay. But let me examine briefly the phase of the subject. I have so far pointed out that if the government were successful in securing the reduction of freight rates in the whole north Atlantic trade, it could be so only by breaking the combine, and to break the combine is a reactionary movement. All that any government should attempt in the case of a combine is to safeguard the efficiency in services which that combine makes possible, and to see to it that no monopoly shall operate at the expense of the people. But no government should ever undertake to break up that which natural laws have established. Let us follow this question further. It is not likely that the combine will be smashed, so that we need not worry very much on that score. But what are the likely results if this scheme is put into force? Certainly the world* combine is not likely to be beaten so easily. There are some 500 ships in the north Atlantic combine alone, and that is only a little brother. The whole world combine is involved, however, and is it reasonable to suppose that this combine, finding its existence threatened on the north Atlantic, will be absolutely docile and sit quietly by, making no attempt to protect itself? Why, ten ships could make no appreciable difference to the world combine, but the shipping companies see in the present effort a reactionary movement and it is only natural to suppose that they would take steps to oppose it. It is not likely, however, that the combine will sit quietly by. If the combine is as strong as Mr Preston and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), make it out to be, it will not stand by silently while its privileges are being wrested from it by such a small force as ten ships on the Atlantic. Is it not rather a strange situation in which we find ourselves 
at the present time? The government is asking us to spend SI,300,000 odd to break a combine which we are helping to maintain by retaining in it sixty of our own Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships, operating at a loss. The Canadian merchant marine ships, according to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) are still in the combine, and the Prime Minister tells us that the combine is so strong that if our ships withdraw from it they will be swept from the seas. Now, if sixty ships cannot afford to withdraw from the combine for fear of destruction how can the government explain the possibility of operating ten ships independently of the combine? These are some of the questions which the government has carefully avoided even so much as referring to. It is possible that the Prime Minister in his undue sensitiveness on the subject found himself at a disadvantage in being called upon to speak rather hastily; but his words will be found in Hansard. According to him the ships of the Canadian merchant marine are in this combine which he is going to tax the Canadian people in order to break, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine cannot withdraw from the combine with safety. If that is not an absurdity then I do not know what is. But that is the position which the government brings forward for the approval of parliament.
And here is another probable result which was suggested by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). If this combine is as strong as Mr. Preston's report alleges and as the Prime Minister states, if it is so strong that we dare not take our own ships from beneath its protecting care, then is it not reasonable to suppose that the combine will say to the government and to Sir William Petersen, "Keep your ten ships for the Canadian trade and we shall wait until you have grown tired of trying to do business with them." How long would it be before the government, under these circumstances, would be wiring to the combine to come to the assistance of Canadian trade? What could ten ships do if all other shipping companies were to withdraw from Canadian trade? It must be borne in mind that the combine, according to the government, is world-wide, and therefore would be in a position to boycott Canada.
Now if the government will persist in its futile attempt to break up the north Atlantic combine, surely the most effective and the easiest way to go about it would be first of all to withdraw from that combine the sixty ships belonging to our national system, and to employ them in Canadian trade. I thought

Ocean Shipping Rates
we were going to get some information from the Minister of Railways as to why it is that use is not being made of the Canadian merchant marine in the Atlantic trade as a means of reducing freight rates. But did any hon. gentleman gather from the minister's remarks the reason for the ships of the merchant marine not being made use of? The minister says that this government is not operating them in this trade because the other government did not. That was the logic of his remarks. ' Time and time again hon. members on the government side have insisted that the merchant marine is not properly equipped for the Atlantic trade. That is the statement; but we know from the facts that a large number of these ships have both the carrying capacity and the speed, which are the two most important things in any freight carrying trade. Possibly they might need a bulkhead here or there or some alteration of a minor character, but these are not prohibitive reasons for not using the merchant marine. I suggest therefore that if the government is sincere in its efforts to reduce freight rates it should put the whole fleet of the merchant marine into the north Atlantic trade, and1 if necessary add ten more ships. If this were done some results might be obtained!. But the government may say that it would cost a great deal to do this; we might be told that the government would not in this event be able to balance the budget next year any more than they can this year if anything of the kind were done. Hon. gentlemen may argue that way if they will. The fact remains that the Canadian people will have to pay the bill in the long run whether a private company or the government itself undertakes the expenditure. In the case of the latter the people will at least have their capital at the finish, whereas if the present proposal is persisted in there will be nothing to show but the receipts of the Petersen company. But whether the government allows a private company to build these ships or whether it builds them itself, there will be no difference to the Canadian people, who in either case will have to pay for the ships, inasmuch as it will be out of the freight rates charged that the ships will be paid for. So that as a matter of fact the cost will be collected from the people no matter who builds the ships. Any excuse along that line is therefore not intelligent.
It is argued moreover that even if the freight rates cannot be reduced generally as a result of the Petersen fleet of ten vessels, there would be a reduction of rates on the goods carried by those ten ships. Let us grant this point for the sake of argument; let us assume
that freight rates on the ten ships will be lower than those generally prevailing. Well, that is the greatest success than can be hoped for from the venture. But is it characteristic of the Petersen company that they will enter into an engagement with the government or with anybody else for that matter to carry on a shipping business at a loss. It is not very likely. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that we are going to pay that company for all the services we are to get in return. I am going to assume that we pay them this million and three-quarter dollars annually, I am going to assume also for the sake of argument-being very liberal with a rather illiberal government -that we are going to get back in reduced freight rates $1,300,000. Now, what have we in return? We have been at all the trouble and expense of collecting $1,300,000 from the pockets of the Canadian people, passing it to the private company, and then collecting it again from the Canadian people in freight rates. And that is supposed to be a reduction in freight rates!


Mr. LOW:: Two or three times that amount


William Irvine: The hon. minister interjects that we are going to get two or three times that amount. I think if he will go over his figures a little more carefully he will discover that I have given the very highest possible return. Merely because 'he makes the assertion that we are going to get two or three times that amount is not at all conclusive so far as I am concerned, and 3 am confident that he will have to furnish much better evidence than he has so far adduced before he will convince the House that we will not give to the Petersen company dollar for dollar,-that inasmuch as we are only giving them $1,300,000, we will not get any more from them in return by way of freight rates reduction. That, then, at the very best is all that we can hope for, and it simply amounts to our taking a dollar out of one pocket, slipping it into the other pocket, and then trying to hypnotize ourselves that w-e have actually made some money.


Thomas Andrew Low: If I was of that opinion I would drop the resolution at once.


William Irvine: I am sure the hon. minister would, and I hope before I get through he will have arrived at that opinion, to drop the resolution is one of the things I am going to urge the government to do. But for the present I am trying to show that the utmost to be expected from this proposal is the reduction of freight rates to some extent in connection with the ten ships that the government proposes to subsidize; there is no possible hope of any other result.
Ocean Shipping Rates

My next point is that while combines are the necessary outcome of the system under which we are living, monopolies must be prevented. Since we cannot turn back the wheels of time and progress by reverting to cut-throat, competition, as we would have to do if we followed the policy of the administration, we are forced to contemplate some method of controlling a combine so as to prevent it from becoming a monopoly. Now, let there be no misunderstanding so far as I am concerned. I am just as well aware as the government is that ocean freight rates are high; I am just as well satisfied as the government is that they might be a little bit lower; I am also just as well satisfied as the government is that the people of Canada, and particularly the people of the western provinces, are desirous of securing cheaper transportation rates-all these things are frankly admitted. Merely because I am opposing what seems to me from every angle to be almost an absurdity, and what certainly gives no promise of being anything but an utter futility, I do not want it to appear that I am content with the ocean freight rates as they are, I do not want people to imagine that I would welcome a great combine or a powerful corporation or a monopoly controlling freight rates, I am just as anxious to see rates reduced, perhaps a little more so than the government is; but the reduction desired can only come about by a control which will have to be much more authoritative and much more fundamental than anything that the government has so far suggested. The amendment which has been moved by an non. member of the official opposition (Mr. Clark) at least points in the direction of an adequate control. It is not as positive as I should like to see it, it is not as specific in regard to the time within which action should be taken as I should like to see it, it does not go as far as I should like to see it go; but it at least has a stronger appeal to me

and I think to my colleague (Mr. Woodsworth)-than the proposal which I have been criticizing. It will be apparent also to the House that if I had a better proposal- which I have the conceit to think I have- the rules of the House, so celebrated and so acceptable, prohibit me from embodying my proposal in an amendment to the present amendment. Consequently my colleague and I are in the position of having either to vote for what we believe to be an absurdity or at best a futility or for an amendment which does not go as far as we would desire. We are forced to vote for the amendment because it points towards a control which we believe to be the only practical solution. It may be that 
it will take a longer time to gain our ends if we take the course indicated by the amendment, but when such control is secured it will be efficient.
The Minister of Railways is very emphatic in his opinion that because an attempt to secure control of ocean freight rates by the co-operation of the dominions with the Mother Country in 1910 was a failure, that therefore it is going to be a failure now and forever more, and he predicts with a sweeping prophetic enthusiasm that nothing may ever be expected to come out of any such proposal. I want to be as enthusiastic and as sweeping in my prophecy that nothing will ever come out of this pigmy of a proposal brought forward by the govern-
10 p.m. ment. There are hon. gentlemen in this House who have protested in times gone by that they did not want to vote for a subsidy, and I hope that if they be led into voting for this subsidy they will remember the criticisms which they have directed against other hon. gentlemen in preceding parliaments who blundered in this regard. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that ten years from now-yes, a shorter time than ten years-there will be hon. gentlemen in this House who will condemn us for having voted a subsidy for such a proposal as this.
Control of a world combine is only possible by a world force: that world force can only be secured by the co-operation of the nations affected to secure the alleviation desired. If that attempt fail, then we should have to think of some other way to effect our purpose. But we are told that although this method proposed by the government may not get very far, at least it is trying, yes, it is trying to do something, and at least it is immediate in its application. So far as I can see all that is immediate about it is the expenditure of $1,300,000. That is very immediate-more immediate than is comfortable for the people of Canada; but the reduction of freight rates is remote, and so far the government has advanced no vestige of reason calculated to interest anybody who has been thinking about the matter and to arouse in him the slightest hope that any very beneficial result will crown the enterprise.
Now it would appear to me that when we have admitted the existence of a combine and when we have admitted high freight rates, we will have to admit something more than that. This parliament, it seems to me, will have to admit that Canada, by virtue of her geographical position, by virtue of her climatic conditions, by virtue of the whole nature of her industrial life, must institute a different

Ocean Shipping Rates
kind of policy than the one that is being followed at the present time. The policy at the present time would appear to be a policy of shipping out of the country as much as we possibly can; if we have not ships to carry our goods ouit, pay somebody to provide ships for that purpose-rather than a policy by which we will be able to approach a little nearer to a condition of self support. I will not develop this point at the moment, because I anticipate there will be an opportunity later for dealing more specifically with a general policy for Canada. But I will say this: that if the government had half as much courage as some of its members claim it would come forward with a policy that would depend less upon the caprice of shipping companies on the north Atlantic and much more upon the intelligence and the industry and the economic ability of our own people.
Now, it is argued that we should let this Petersen contract go to a committee; that if the proposal only arrives at a committee, although it has no sense in it now it might perhaps become sensible then. That is the argument that has been adopted by some hon. members. I do not hold that opinion. I see no intellectual virtue in a committee. That, however, is not really the question. I want to make it very clear that we are not voting, as some hon. members seem to think, to investigate the whole question of freight rates and combines and the proposals which might be put forward as a result of the knowledge we might thereby gather; that is not the question before this House. The question is whether we are going to endorse a specific agreement no letter or word of which we are permitted1 to alter in any particular. I want to cite in this connection the position taken by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), a position which I took to be a very strong one and which that hon. gentleman will have to hold, it seems to me, since there has been no change in the situation since he made his speech. He says in regard to this very point:
A bill after it has had its second reading is accepted in principle, the principle of the bill is accepted when the House agrees to its second reading. So that parliament, having accepted the principle of the bill in this instance, the bill itself could not be subject to any severe modifications on the part of a special committee.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made some remarks in regard to that which I will quote If anyone objects to my interpretation of them. The interpretation which I put upon his remarks is simply this: That we can have a committee after the House has
endorsed the principle which the committee is supposed to decide upon, we can send for Sir William Petersen and some other people and some changes may possibly be made, provided that Sir William Petersen and the government agree to them. The idea was to hold out the hope to those who have taken a very strong position that if the matter went to a committee something better might come out of it. But I want to point out here that if the Prime Minister was really sincere in that position, the easiest way out of the difficulty is to drop the proposal entirely and bring in a new one which would embody what he proposes to be willing to grant. Then there would be no difficulty about anybody voting. We will all vote for an investigation, because we desire it; we will all vote for a method of reducing freight rates, because we need it. That is not the question however, the question is whether we are to give the endoisation of this House to the principle embodied in a document which no committee, which not even the House, has the right to amend. That, as I understand it, is the situation, and so far as I am concerned, -and I think I speak also for the leader of the Labour party (Mr. Woodsworth) in this regard-I shall not be able to vote for the government's proposal. I shall support the amendment.
There is one more point I want to note: Parliament seems to have a strange psychological reaction on some people. I am not now reflecting on any hon. member; I have no doubt that if we could "see ourselves as others see us" perhaps I would be noting my own psychological reaction instead of that of other people. But the fact remains that hon. gentlemen have stood up and made what seemed to be very excellent proposals with regard to the reduction of freight rates. I refer in particular to the outline of a scheme that was put forward in the House last evening by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler), which was to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway and join it up with the Canadian National; to utilize the present merchant marine and to belt the world with our own lines of transportation. That was, to him, a better way; that was the real way; that was the way that he said we would ultimately have to accept. He also protested that he was not in favour of the principle of subsidizing. Yet, like many other hon. gentlemen, he said, in effect, "While I am not in favour of subsidizing; while I know there is a better way, I am going to vote for the subsidy-x am going to vote for a secondary way in which I have very little faith." That is
Ocean Shipping Rates

the strange psychological reaction which I have noticed. My own, may, as I say, come out in some other regards, but it is not going to come out in this. I am opposed to subsidies in general; I am opposed to this subsidy in particular; and I am going to vote against the resolution. If all hon. members who do not believe in subsidies and who do not believe in the ultimate rewards from this particular agreement, will do the same, then the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have to withdraw his resolution and obey the real 'will of parliament. That will, judging by the expressions of hon. members, would appear to be that a special committee should be appointed to make a complete investigation of the whole question of combines and ocean freight rates, and also recommend to parliament some practical scheme to control the shipping combine. But we cannot hope for this if we vote for the resolution.


Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the very important question that is now being considered by the House, and in doing so may I make one reference to the remarks of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine). He began his address by asking if there was a combine in north Atlantic rates, and immediately gave his conclusion that there was a combine; and he left the impression that there was no proof, or nothing that we could base a conclusion upon, to show it, that there was a monopoly. I will refer to that a little later in my remarks when I touch upon an investigation that was made by the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings. But let me follow his logic a little further. He told us that it was a mistake, that it was turning back the wheels of progress to break combinations, to destroy combines; and in the next breath he chided the government for not trying to break the combine on the Great Lakes, for not trying to tear down the financial institutions of this country, and for not interfering with the trouble in Nova Scotia. I do not think, Sir, it is necessary for me to follow further the remarks of the hon. member for East Calgary.
Now, Sir, in approaching the discussion of this question I wish to review the history of efforts to deal with ocean transportation and to control freight rates during the years that have passed1 in order, if possible, to throw some light upon this very important subject. My colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals in his speech this afternoon and evening went fairly extensively into the attitude of the government of Canada on the matter and the correspondence which this 
government has had with the Imperial authorities. Perhaps I may be permitted to add to the information which he gave the House by reviewing, to some extent, the investigations that have taken place under different governments that were interested in endeavouring to get some measure of control in this matter. Because, Sir, the principle involved in the present arrangement is whether the Canadian government is justified in endeavouring to secure control to some extent over these rates. That is the undoubted principle involved although some hon. gentlemen have endeavoured to thrust that fact into the back ground and to lead (the discussion into other channels.
Now let us go back a few years and consider what investigations have been made. I think the first was undertaken at the instance of the British government in 1906 when they appointed a Royal Commission on Shipping Rings. That commission isipent neatly three years in investigating the matter and as a result of its inquiries two reports were presented, a majority report and a minority report. In brief the conclusions submitted in the majority report were that a conference existed and that it controlled freight rates in British shipping particularly in the north Atlantic trade; that although the conference was a benefit in many ways, nevertheless through its agency steamship owners were able to effect collective bargaining, a thing which they could not otherwise hope to arrange; and as a remedial measure it was suggested that the shippers and exporters from other countries should unite and form themselves into a counter combination so that they might be able to combat the influence of the shipping rings. The further recommendation was made that the board of trade should be empowered to endeavour to promote a settlement by conciliation where a conflict of interests existed between ship owners and the conference. In my opinion the suggestion for a union to bring about a counter combination was an utterly futile proposition, because it was impossible to unite in any such arrangement shippers and exporters from the other countries of the world from whom the shipping rings secured their traffic. I think those gentlemen knew the idea was impossible to realize when they suggested it; and the further idea to employ a conciliatory method was, so to speak, a case of damning with faint praise the proposition to exercise control.
The report of the minority not only confirmed the finding of the majority that there was a combine or conference but went

Ocean Shipping Rates
further and stated that an actual monopoly existed. I should like here to read a few clauses from the findings of the minority report to show just what conclusions were arrived at:
The conference system with the deferred rebate-* the natural evolution of a highly organized trade dealing with customers for the most part scattered or disorganized-has created on almost all the chief ocean routes a monopoly, the limitations upon which are in many cases illusory, and which generally tend to decline.
The minority also arrived at this conclusion:
It has been successful in raising or keeping up rates.
The public have, as a rule, to pay higher rates of freight than they would pay in an open market.
The system tends to inflate the amount of tonnage and consequently the amount of capital invested upon which interest has to be paid.
I want the House to notice particularly the latter conclusion because the condition to which it refers is partly responsible for the state of affairs from which we are suffering to-day,-the result of the control that has been exercised by unduly inflated rates has encouraged more than the required amount of capital to be invested in shipping lines and we to-day have more ships than there are cargoes available for them which the report states tends to decline. The minority report, as did the majority report, also recommended power to be given to the board of trade to try and bring about a settlement by conciliation. However, the recommendations reflect very much the viewpoint which is held in Great Britain, and which was so well referred to by the Minister of Railways in his speech, that we in Canada need not expect our interests to be looked after by the Imperial Shipping Committee, or any other body appointed by the British government in the matter of the contrdl of rates. There was a reservation in the minority report made by Sir David Barbour which I think is worthy of notice:
For example, it has happened in the past, and will happen in the future, that the members of a shipping ring have miscalculated the prospects of trade, and have provided more ships than the trade really requires or can employ.
In such cases there will be a very strong temptation to pass the loss on to the public and the existence of a monopoly affords an easy and convenient means of so doing.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the situation revealed by the extracts I have quoted resembles the very situation that we in Canada are in today: The ocean rates are high, and they are controlled and kept up by the influences behind the North Atlantic Steamship Conference, and they are kept up to a point which is necessary to enable those who are interested in the shipping companies to get
a return on an investment greater than the trade conditions call for. I will demonstrate that a little later on in my remarks. I think I have shown that the British investigations disclose that there is a combine or a monopoly, that it inflates rates to an undue figure, and that they are kept at that high point by the power which the combine is able to exercise through collective action.
I think it is only necessary for me to make a passing reference to other investigations in Great Britain. The inquiry made by the Dominions Royal Commission was referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in introducing the present resolution, and was again dealt with in considerable detail by the Minister of Railways and Canals in his speech to-night. I shall not repeat the statements of my colleague, but will content myself by mentioning one outstanding point which I think bears directly on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark). That is that in 1910 the British government refused to consent to any measure of control when asked to do so by the Canadian government, the British authorities suggesting further investigation. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who went to Great Britain two years later in the hope of finding the British government in such a frame of mind that they would consent at least to some measure of control, made a report. I have that report in my hand1 and I will read one or two sentences from it to show that really my hon. friend must have mellowed down when he was in the Old Country, because among other things he made a recommendation for further investigation. He said:
With this end in view I endeavoured to obtain the appointment of a joint commission to make a thorough and complete investigation of and to report on the methods and practices, and rates and charges of ocean carriers doing business or from time to time doing business, between ports in the United Kingdom and ports in the Dominion of Canada.
I further impressed upon the Imperial authorities that it was the desire of the Canadian government that the investigation should be entered on in the near future, and if possible a report made so as to enable any necessary action to be taken by that government at the ensuing session of parliament.
Hon members will see that after the British government had- refused to take action and wanted further investigation, the hon. member for West York fell in with their viewpoint, and so recommended when he came back to Canada. It is simply carrying on an interminable investigation, which is the object of the amendment moved1 to this resolution by our hon. friends opposite. I think, Mr. Speaker, that with the information in
Ocean Shipping Rates

the hands of the government, the time has come when people of this country desire that the government shall act with the precision and carefulness that are necessary in all matters of this kind. I wish to more fully emphasize the conditions that exist; because after alll, in facing this question, we must face it in the light of the answer to the question; does a condition exist such as we believe, and if so, have we any better method or proposal to suggest than that which is put forward by the government at the present time? I submit that up to the present, Mr. Speaker, no suggestion of a constructive kind has been put forward to take the place of the one proposed by the government. I do not think, after considering all the circumstances of the case, that any better proposal can be put forward by one of the overseas dominions acting alone than thq resolution at present before the House. Before dealing with that matter I want to cite to the House the result of an investigation that was held by the government of the United States in 1913. They were troubled, as Canada has ibeen, with high freight rates; they desired to keep the Atlantic clear for American commerce, and they felt the pressure of control exercised by the shipping companies, with the result that they referred the question to the standing committee on Merchant Marine pnd Fisheries of the House of Representatives at Washington. I will just read the reference made to the committee on the 18th June 1912:
That the committee be empowered and directed to make a complete investigation of the methods and practices of the various ship lines both domestic and foreign engaged in carrying overseas or foreign commerce, to investigate whether any such shipping lines have formed any agreement, understanding, working arrangement, conferences, pools, or other combinations among one another for the purpose of fixing rates and tariffs, or of giving and receiving rebates, special rates or other special privileges or advantages, or for the purpose of pooling or dividing their earnings, losses or traffic, or for the purpose of preventing or destroying competition.
That is the very thing in which we are interested in the proposal we are now considering in this chamber. This committee began their sittings in January, 1913, and took evidence from the steamship owners, from the commission merchants, from the exporters and business men along the Atlantic coast who were directly and personally interested in ^American exports and imports. I say further by way of explanation that I have not been able to find that the committee made a report to the House of Representatives, but they did submit the evidence for the consideration of the House, and I will cite a few of the

main paragraphs from the evidence thus submitted. Let me first refer to some evidence that was submitted1 by a gentleman in New York, with regard to the control exercised :by European lines over the American Brazilian lines. The gentleman who was giving evidence was Mr. Sydney Story, vice president of the Pan-American Mail Steamship Com-ipany of New Orleans. He said:
There is no doubt in the world that there is a great war being waged against the commerce of our country by our aggressive commercial rivals. When I was in Brazil last, negotiating with the government for aid to this American effort of ours from New Orleans, it was openly stated on the streets by the friends of the Euroipean lines who control the monopoly of transportation between North and South America that our line would not be permitted to exist; that we would be run out of the trade in from four to five months.
That is the evidence of a gentleman who was negotiating with the steamship lines trying .to make an arrangement between Brazil and the United: States. Further evidence was given by a New York agent of another Brazilian steamship company, Mr. Joseph J. Slechta. He said:
So, as regards most of the trans-Atlantic business, you must bear in mind the fact that Brazil has for one hundred years been very largely dependent upon the development of her commerce, entirely upon her foreign commerce, and if she were to discriminate, or to take any really very severe measures against these lines, their boycotting would hurt the country very seriously. And that is the situation with which they are confronted, although, I must advise the committee at this point that upon receiving your summons the other day I cabled the situation to my head office, and received the reply that their own government was taking steps to effectively put the combine out of business. I asked for further details, which I have not received, although I am momentarily expecting an answer about it.
That evidence shows two things which probably might be taken into consideration by us, and that is that Brazil had been struggling for many years, a hundred years perhaps, to overcome the effects of the unfair control thus exercised, and that the government in the end, after a hundred years of attempt, had to try to break the monopoly ,by granting a subsidy to other lines to come in and operate. Perhaps it would be interesting for the House to hear a little from the evidence of William Harris Douglas of the firm of Arkell & Douglas, exporters in New York city, who gave evidence stating very clearly his opinion in regard to a monopoly. Mr. Douglas said!:


The Chairman:: Tell the committee what, if anything, you know about conditions of the trade-the relations between the ship lines with whom you transact business.
Mr. Douglas:	The American carrying trade, as we
all know, is monopolized by the foreign steamship owners. It is a combination of the English and Ger-

Ocean Shipping Rates
man and other nations. They have their established lines from our ports running in all directions, you might say, and they cover the world. These lines are largely in combination between themselves, and their ramifications extend to Hamburg and London, and they exchange their conferences in Europe, because there is the head and front of the combination in America, and the idea that the ocean is free is one of the fallacies of the American nation. The control of the ocean to-day, of all oceans, is a stronger and more pronounced and determined monopoly, you might say, than any intercolonial trade in our states; that is, by railroad or water transportations. They absolutely dominate the entire situation.
I might cite other evidence of that nature, but I have cited these extracts to show the tenor of the evidence given by those who are interested in American trade. Some of the commission merchants went on further to show how completely they were under the control of the combine, how trade was suffering, and also why, in their opinion, the government agency was the only power that could break this combine or take any steps towards doing so.
Another feature which we might note is in regard to the methods that were put forth by the steamship companies in the earlier days, ten or twelve years ago, to get control of the lines that were outside of the conference. Evidence is submitted here which clearly shows that there was an organized effort, and that wherever a line was put on to compete with the conference lines, fighting ships were sent in to carry freight at a lower rate. In the end these lines were put out of business or absorbed by the line which went in the first place to provide the fighting ships. By that method used in those years of driving any independent line into the conference or out of business, they were able to get control which extended its effects to the commerce of both Canada and the United States and, indeed, to the commerce of all overseas dominions and foreign nations.
There is further evidence given by leading shipping men to show that all countries had to assist their steamship lines by means of subsidies or money assistance in order to keep their channels of commerce free. I think I may briefly say that the result of the investigation by the committee of the House of Representatives at Washington was that the American government endeavoured to provide ships of their own, but it will be noted from the remarks that were made by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) this afternoon, and by following what was done by the American people with their merchant marine, that it has proved of no avail to control Atlantic rates with ships owned exclusively on this side of the water.
Perhaps I might say, just in passing, that another obstacle met by our merchant marine in trying to get control of Atlantic trade is the fact that the port facilities and harbours are controlled by those who control the Atlantic lines, and unless you get some measure of control in the Old Country you have very little effect in trying to fight the lines from this end. You cannot send ships over there and have them come back empty. Unless you get in with the shipping interests in the Old Country who control the ports, port facilities and brokerage houses, you have not much chance of getting freight coming back. We feel that in the proposal that is here offered that weakness will be overcome, by reason of the fact that the person with whom the contract is made is in a position to over come the weakness on the British side.
Let me say a word further in regard tc criticisms that have been offered as regards the merchant marine. We have been criticized from different parts of this House for not using the merchant marine to break the combine. I do not wish to give my opinion, but something has been said as to the suitability of the merchant marine for ocean traffic. I will show in a few minutes who benefit most from the proposal that is being put forward in getting control of rates. But first let me read the evidence which was given before the special committee of this House on agricultural conditions that sat in 1923 by a leading cattle broker in the city of Montreal, and I think his evidence will bear me out. This is the evidence given by Mr. Duncan A. Campbell of Montreal, who is a cattle broker and whose business it is, as stated in the evidence, to secure space and make shipments of cattle for his clients in this country:
Q. You have placed in my hands, Mr. Campbell, a statement of animals carried on board the Canadian Commander, the Canadian Hunter, the Canadian Trader, the Canadian Ranger, the Canadian Raider, the Canadian Victor, and the Canadian Rancher.-A. For the season of 1921?
Q. In the season of 1921 ?-A. Yes.
Q. There was in all carried 2,830?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. With a loss of 95, making a loss ratio of 3.35 per cent?-A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the committee whether that is 8 large or small ratio?-A. I told the gentlemen here, that we can insure cattle-well, to go back a little further, that you may have all the information in connection with insurance. When, after the close of the war, I went to New York to get insurance, the best rate I could get was one and a half per cent. I was first quoted two per cent, but I succeeded in getting one and a half per cent. Afterwards, I got it down to one per cent, and then three-quarters. During the month of May and the early part of June last year, it was three-quarters. We then got a rate of five-eighths of one per cent. That is an all-risk policy, covering the animal from the moment he walks aboard the steamer until he walks ashore down the gangway on the other side. An animal whicv f- unable to walk
Ocean Shipping Rates

ashore on the other side is taken over by the insurance company and the shipper is paid the full amount of his policy. For instance, if the animal is insured for $150, the owner of the policy gets $150.
Q. The full amount of the policy?-A. The full amount of the policy.
Q. This is a heavy list then?-A. Yes, this is 3.35, and the other is .621.
Q. What is the matter, Mr. Campbell?-A. These are not good cattle carriers.
And I want the House to note particularly this statement:
The chief reason is that the decks on these steamers are three feet high, as high as this table. With a deck of that height, cattle are carried on both sides, cattle are placed on top of them, and there is no place that you can brace the deck to, because the deck fittings come over the side fittings, and when a wave strikes it, they smash, the cattle fall into the hold of the ship, or are knocked into the winches. In one boat we had a big loss; there was a big storm, and the whole upper deck load of cattle was washed overboard.
Q. They cannot be altered any way to make them suitable?-A. During the months of May, June or July, or the first of August, these would not be very suitable, but in a pinch they would do.
Q. Is there any practical way in which these ships of the government marine can be altered to make them .suitable for carrying cattle?-A. No.
The most important thing for many of our farmers, especially those of central and western Canada, is the cattle business; and what has been said in regard to cattle is equally true of other kinds of freight so far as the construction of these ships is concerned. Mr. Campbell went on further in his evidence to show that the type of ship built during the war was not such as could be used to good advantage in .the Atlantic trade owing to the large hatches and low sides. It is not necessary for me to go further into that question, but I think that the experience of the past few years, both on the part of the late government as well as on the part of this government, in connection with the management of the merchant marine, shows no hope of our
being able to control Atlantic freights through the operation of the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
Something has (been said on the subject of open rates on cattle, grain and flour. I do not want to spend too much time quoting, but evidence was given before the committee on Agricultural Conditions by Mr. Cunningham which will be found on pages 220 and 221, showing that the rates on wheat, flour and cattle are agreed upon at .New York as well as by the liner committee at Montreal. You may call them open rates if you like, but the evidence is that none of those who sit in at the conferences change the rate without notifying the others, and the rates are not made public any length of time in advance. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to know in advance just what the rates are going to be.
Let me refer now to another phase of the subject, the necessity for Canada as an exporting country to have some measure of control over the rates. Our export; trade during the fiscal year 1924 amounted to $1,045,351,056, of which total the sum of $360,057,782 went to the United Kingdom. Of that $360,000,000 odd the products of the farms of Canada acoounlted for $287,008,560; in other words, 80 per cent of the total exports to the United Kingdom went from Canadian farms. With that ratio of export trade going from the farms of Canada I submit that it is very essential, from the farmer's standpoint, that some measure df control be exercised if possible by the government over the rates at whidh .farm produce is carried. I have here a table of rates showing the increase which has occurred in every case, and with the permission of the House I Shall place it on Hansard:



CANADA-UNITED STATES EXTRADITION TREATY

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in the approval of the convention between His Majesty and the President of the United States of America for the purpose of enlarging the list of crimes on account of which extradition may be granted with regard to certain offences committed in the United States or in the Dominion of Canada under the convention concluded between Great Britain and the United States on the 12th July, 1889, and the 13th December, 1900, and the 12th April, 1905, and the 15th May, 1922, which was signed at Washington on the eighth day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, by filling in the blank space therein with the words "Senate and."
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Monday, March 16, 1925