ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, March 19, 1925.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber this afternoon at 3.15 o'clock for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
A. F. Sladen,
Secretary.

Annual report of Dominion Statistician.- Hon. Mr. Low.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 29 to amend the Criminal Code.

Questions
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to restore a wholesome safeguard which was in the Criminal Code prior to 1919 with respect to sedition. We have no definition of sedition in our code. Although we have certain purported explanations or definitions of what seditious words are, what seditious libels are, or what seditious conspiracies are; they are definitions which do not define to any great extent. But prior to 1919 there was a saving clause in the code that to attempt to change or alter the constitution by peaceful means was not sedition, and the object of the bill is merely to restore the law as it was prior to that date.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: *What were the average receipts and expenses for revenue freight per freight train mile in each of the years 1923 and 1924, in the different regions of the Canadian National Railways and affiliated companies?
What are the monthly percentages of tonnage originating in the different regions of the Canadian National Railways and affiliated companies to the total traffic of the year for each of the years 1923 and 1924?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a little difficulty in getting the information just as my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) wants it in questions 4 and 10.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are those the questions dealing with regions instead of provinces?


George Perry Graham: Yes. If we could change them to provinces the information could be more easily furnished.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to have the questions in the easiest possible form for my hon. friend. I will have them amended to read "provinces" instead of "regions."


Hewitt Bostock: Questions stand as amended.


CIVIL SERVICE INVESTIGATIONS
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):
1.	What departments, if any, have been investigated by the Board of Audit?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to table the reports made on such cases?
3.	If not, why not?
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the original answer to this question as prepared and signed by the Auditor 83
General, who is the chairman of the audit board:
Matters reported upon to the Finance department
1.	Application of the Commissioner of Taxation regarding certain salary increases.
2.	Inquiry into system of cancelling redeemed securities in the Finance department.
3.	Revision of salaries in the Post Office department.
4.	Inquiry into the accounts of the Quebec Harbour
Commission.
Inquiries which have been completed and upon which the Board of Audit will report shortly to the Department of Finance.
1.	Inquiry into the acounts of the Vancouver Harbour Commission.
2.	Inquiry into the accounts of the Canadian National Railways.
Work under way
1.	Inquiry into the accounts of the Montreal Harbour Commission.
2.	Study of general conditions in the Auditor General's office and survey of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act with a view to recommending amendments thereto, etc.
3.	Report on the Civil Service Act as administered by the Civil Service Commission.
Data prepared by the Board of Audit.
Geo. Gonthier,
Chairman.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was the Montreal Board of Haibour Commissioners overdrawn at any period during the past year to the extent of $1,500,000 in a charter bank of Canada? If so, under what authority was such overdraft incurred?
2.	Has the said bank requested payment from the Dominion government of the said overdraft?
3.	Is the government of Canada responsible for the payment of said overdraft?
4.	Is it the practice of the Dominion government to permit the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal or other boards of harbour commissioners to make extensive overdrafts?
Hon. Mr. CARDIN.
1.	Yes. Under an arrangement with their bankers, for which no authority exists than the general powers conferred on the commissioners as administrators of the harbour affairs, under the terms of their Act of Incorporation.
2.	No.
3.	The Corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are responsible.
4.	It has been the practice of all governments since the Montreal Harbour Commission was organized on present basis, in 1907, to permit overdrafts. The same policy has been followed1 in the cases of Quebec and Vancouver organized in 1913.
In the case of the Toronto Harbour Commission, there has been no advance to that corporation of public moneys. Such public money as has been expended there was expended directly by the Public Works department and no interest is being charged or collected.

Questions


RAILWAY REVENUE FREIGHT
Hon. Mr. LOW:: 


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What was the total amount of revenue freight originated and loaded at stations in the different provinces on all the Canadian railways for each of the years 1923 and 1924?
2.	What was the total amount of revenue freight originated and loaded at stations in the different provinces on the Canadian National Railways and affiliated companies for each of the said years 1923 and 1924?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.
Revenue Freight Loaded at Railway Stations in Canada (Tons 2,000 lbs.)
All Railways
	1923	1924
Prince Edward Island.	95,263	112,375Nova Scotia	6,502,523	4,691,770New Brunswick	2,425,470	2,385,135Quebec	11,678,486	11,515,705Ontario	22,770,918	21,288,553Manitoba	4.745,136	4,828,316Saskatchewan	8,043,665	6,532,582Alberta	7,987,487	8,396,552British Columbia.. ..	4,713,453	4,182,579Total	68,962,401	65,148,937
2.
Revenue Freight Loaded at Railway Stations in Canada (Tons 2,000 lbs.)
Canadian
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia.. ..
Total	
National	Railways
1923	1924
95,263	112,375
1,638,230	1,382,100
1,293,063	1,269,153
5,257,516	5,317,859
12,450,288	11,545,358
1,990,997	1,987,318
4,213,239	3,619,236
3,052,929	3,741,893
511,562	496,727
30,501,087	29,472,019


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TRAFFIC AND EMPLOYEES
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What was the decrease expressed in tons of the traffic in the following articles or commodities carried by the Canadian National Railways in the year 1924. as compared with the year 1923: Wheat; bar, sheet and structural iron; castings, machinery and boilers; brick and artificial stone; coal; merchandise; miscellaneous?
2.	What were the average number of employees of the System for the year 1923, and for the year 1924?
IMr. Cardin. 1
1.
Revenue Freight Carried By Canadian National Railways (Tons 2,000 lbs.)
Commodities	1923	1924	Increase	DecreaseWheat	
Bar sheet struc-	5,999,453	5,231,066	768,387tural iron & iron pipe. . .	709,857	425,734	284,123Castings, ma-	chinery and boilers	260,697	155,527	105,170Brick and arti-	ficial stone.	384.914	333.608	51,306Coal - Anthracite.	3,167,071	2,634,823	532,248Bituminous.	7,552,165	5,731,824	1,820,341Lignite.	101,643	102,405	762	Merchandise . . Miscellaneous	1,612,980	1,531,832	81,148freight	2,746,983	2,517,466	229,5172. 1924, 88,169; 1923,	94,107;	including hotels	
and miscellaneous operations.


BANQUE NATIONALE
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Did the Banc;ue Nationale, from the date of its reorganization in 1922 up to its merger in 1924, send regularly to the Minister of Finance, monthly and yearly statements in compliance with the act?
2.	If so, what was the state of said bank as shown by these statements?
3.	If conditions seemed serious, what attitude was taken by the Minister of Finance?
4.	Were suitable remonstrances made to the board of directors of said bank? If so (a) when, (b) in what manner?
5.	Did the Minister of Finance verify the truth of the various statements made by the Banque Nationale from the date of its reorganization up to its merger?
6.	Can he state that said statements were absolutely exact?
7.	If these statements did not appear to him truthful or complete, did the Minister of Finance take action, if so, what was done?
8.	Were all the required inspections made in compliance with the act, so as to ascertain the truth with reference to the condition of the Banque Nationale?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Solvent.
3.	4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. From the extent to which the bank had relied upon borrowings under the Finance Act in 1921 and early months of 1922, it was apparent that the institution was in a non-liquid position. Reorganization took place in 1922. A strong directorate assumed responsibility for the bank's affairs and adopted measures under which it was hoped the situation could be worked out satisfactorily. New capital was brought in, the reserve fund written down against losses, the dividend reduced and government advances repaid.
Under these circumstances, and following the course taken by his predecessor in office, the attitude of the Minister of Finance was

Questions
that it was in the public interest that every proper facility and opportunity should be given the bank to improve its position.
The bank was absorbed by another institution on the 30th April, 1924, previous to the enactment of the provisions of the present Bank Act relative to government inspection by an Inspector-General of Banks, which came into force 1st October, 1924.


Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Did the Banque Nationale pay any dividends to its shareholders from the date of its reorganization in 1922 up to the time of its merger in 1924?
2.	If so, what were the dividends paid?
3.	Did the government ascertain if the Banque Nationale was in a position to pay such dividends?
4.	Was the Banque Nationale in a position to pay said dividends?


James Alexander Robb: 1 and 2. The bank reported dividends paid at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
3	and 4. These inquiries relate to a period previous to the enactment of the provisions of the present Bank Act relative to government inspection by an Inspector-General of Banks which came into force October 1st, 1924.


COLONEL J. L. RALSTON
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What is the amount paid to Col. J. L. Ralston as chairman of the Royal Commission on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and Pensions (a) for services, (b) for travelling and other expenses?
2.	Is there any balance to be paid to him, if so, what amount?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	(a) $16,250; (b) $4,097.32.
2.	No.


ICE CREAM STANDARDS
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry & Stormont):: 1.	Are there any federal standards in force covering ice cream ?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to establish such standards?
3.	What department of the government does, or should, deal with the question of standards for ice cream?
4.	Have any of the provinces established standards for ice cream?
5.	If so, which provinces have done so, and what standards have been adopted?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Health.
4.	Yes.
5.
(a)	Saskatchewan.
(b)	Manitoba.
(a)	Standard for Saskatchewan:
Ice cream is a frozen product made from cream and sugar with or without harmless flavouring, stiffening and colouring materials, the amount of which shall be less than 2 per cent. It shall contain not less than 10 per cent of milk fat. All milk, cream and other ingredients, excepting fruits, nuts and sweets, used in the manufacture of ice cream shall, immediately before manufacture, be heated to a temperature of not less than 180 degrees Fahrenheit and held at such temperature for fifteen minutes or to a temperature of not less than 145 degrees Fahrenheit and held at such temperature for thirty minutes. All fruits used in the manufacture of ice cream shall be sound, clean and mature, and nuts shall be fresh and non-rancid.
(b)	Standards for Manitoba:
Ice cream shall be the frozen product made from cream and sugar, with or without harmless flavouring and colouring materials, and with or without gelatine gum tragacanth or other harmless stiffening materials, in amount not less than two per cent and containing not less than fourteen per cent of milk fat.
(2)	Fruit ice cream shall be a frozen product made similarly as ice cream, and containing sound, clean and mature fruit. It must contain not less than twelve per cent of milk fat.
(3)	Nut ice cream shall be a frozen product made similarly as ice cream, and containing sound, non-rancid nuts. It must contain not less than twelve per cent of milk fat.


OCEAN SHIPPING RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I would
like to ask the government, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), if the government will lay on the table of the House a copy of the instructions given to Mr. Preston prior to his undertaking the investigation in connection with the ocean freight rates, and referred to in the opening sentence of his report.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be very glad to bring
d wn anything that there is in writing. The order in council, I believe, has been tabled; if not, I shall see that a copy of it is brought down.
C. N. R.-Rouyn


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The order in
council has been brought down, I understand; I am referring to the instructions given to Mr. Preston. Would it be possible to have them brought down to-day? They cannot be very long.


Thomas Andrew Low: If there is anything in writing I shall be very glad to have it brought down.


ROYAL CANADIAN ARTILLERY-PAY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a ietter signed "Thomas Atkins," asking me to bring to the attention of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Macdonald), a report in the Kingston press to the effect that the men of the Royal Canadian Artillery did not receive their pay last Saturday.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: I did not see the report referred to, but I will make immediate inquiry.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: I would
like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) if he can advise the House of the probable date when the Grain Act or amendments thereto will be submitted.


Thomas Andrew Low: The bill is being prepared by
Mr. Justice Turgeon, and I think it will be ready shortly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- ROUYN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I called the attention of the House to a newspaper article in connection with the building of a railway line to Rouyn, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the Canadian National were interested in the project; whether they were to lease the line, operate it, or do anything else with it; in short, whether an understanding of any kind had been entered into by them. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said he would draw the matter to the attention of his ever-genial colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), who, I am pleased to see, is now in his seat, and who can no doubt give the House the information.

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): The Canadian National Railway Company think it advisable that they should have a line into that very promising territory, which I think is even more promising than the public fully understand. It is in the territory of the Canadian National. I understand from the president that they have-	[DOT]



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING

A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill No. 28, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, in
completing my reply to the question asked by the hon. member for West York, the Canadian National Railway Company, believing it to be desirable to have a line from their main line into the very rich territory spoken of in the question, have suggested to capitalists that if they would build a branch line between two points to be named by the Canadian National, one of them being Rouyn, the company would be prepared to lease that line for a number of years, provided it were constructed properly and at a reasonable price, on terms to be arrived at between the company constructing the line and the Canadian National Railway Company. In that lease I presume there would be a provision that the Canadian National Railway Company could within a term of years purchase the line if they so desired.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would my hon. friend be good enough to tell us if the government has approved of that arrangement"

Ocean Shipping Rates


George Perry Graham: Not by order in council,
but the government has practically approved of the suggestion.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: When will parliament
have a chance to pass on this matter? I understand the government believes strongly in parliamentary government.


George Perry Graham: That is true, and parliament will have every facility to discuss anything that comes within the purview of parliament with reference to this line; but the Canadian National Railway Company, under the statute, passed I think by my right hon. friend has the right to lease properties with the consent of the Governor in Council.



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: After the urgent appeals of Canon
Scott and other disinterested citizens, is it possible the government has decided to do anything to relieve the situation in Cape Breton?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I noticed in this morning's paper the reply which Premier Armstrong had sent to Canon Scott, in which he said, if I recollect it aright, that the facts apparently had not been properly represented to Canon Scott, and that the government of Nova Scotia had matters in hand. I took Premier Armstrong's reply to Canon Scott to be a most emphatic statement to the effect that the government of Nova Scotia wished to deal with the situation without any interference by any other government.



TORONTO TERMINALS RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading of Bill No. 23, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 17, 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 certain ocean rates, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Clark.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the motion
under debate reads as follows:
That to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates it is expedient to ratify and confirm the agreement between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen, K.C.B.E., as set out in the schedule to this resolution, and dated the eleventh day of December, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and that in view of the provisions of said agreement giving the government control over such rates and of the services to be performed thereunder, the Governor in Council may authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, to the said Sir William Petersen, K.C.B.E., of an annual amount of two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds in the manner and for the period provided for in the said agreement.
Then follows the specific agreement. I read this so that the House, after being carried far over the waters of controversy, may get some glimpse of the port towards which we are sailing. I think it is important that we know what is before the House in its exact terms.
One would think from much of the debate that has preceded, and he would certainly think from the speech of the Prime Minister, that the motion before the House was to appoint a committee to inquire into the north Atlantic combine, and if possible, devise some method whereby the freight rates of that combine could be controlled. The House has been told that a desire to control is all the principle we are voting for; and those who favour control are told that the only thing to do is to support the resolution. Of course, those who are opposed to control and who like high rates are informed that they will be quite logical in opposing the resolution. If a government is to instruct the House- and if its word is to be the last on the subject-as to what principle it wishes to attach to a motion, then parliament might just as well become an appendage, a mere servile register of the administration's will. I think it is better for us to assume that we ourselves can read, and that we can understand the English language; and when we are asked to ratify a contract, common sense dictates to me that the principle which we are asked to affirm is the principle of that contract. If a government, on the introduction of any resolution or bill can say, "The principle of this resolution, this bill, is merely the public welfare, and those who support the public welfare must support this measure"-if a government can take such an attitude, then of course parliament will never have any question before it at all. An object to be gained is not necessarily a principle, it certainly is not a policy; a policy is the method proposed to reach the object. Now, it is true that a
Ocean Shipping Rates

government measure, merely because it passes in the form of a resolution or in the form of a second reading, need not finally pass unamended in detail; nor has anyone ever so contended. But every self-respecting government does insist that a government measure shall pass only with such amendments as do not vitally affect the measure itself. And when a government informs the House that it is not at all particular about its proposal, that all it wants is some way of reaching the goal, and that if the House will suggest some other method it will be gladly followed, then the government simply abdicates its duties, surrenders all its functions, and becomes nothing more nor less than surplusage in parliament.
The motion before us, is such that this argument applies with double force. The resolution preceding the bill asks us to affirm that it is expedient to ratify an agreement already entered into, signed and sealed, by the administration. The records of parliament will be searched in vain to disclose any case in which any government in our history, or in the history of the British parliament or of any dominion, ever suggested that an agreement signed and sealed by themselves, an agreement into which they had entered as fair between themselves and the other party, was subject to anything at the hands of parliament save acceptance or rejection. Indeed, this was the stand first taken by the Prime Minister; and in answer to, or rather in interruption of several speakers, he declared that what parliament had before it was the duty of deciding whether to reject or to approve of the contract which the resolution embodies. In so speaking he followed every precedent. But, as the difficulties of the situation loomed up, as the clouds gathered round his government, as he looked across at the gloomy faces of hon. gentlemen to my left, he proceeded by a slow curve to alter his position. He altered it first to the extent of saying that the agreement must pass; or, if the House considered that it could be amended, the government would take the amendments to Sir William Petersen and see whether he would agree to them. In the first place, this is not a very dignified attitude for any government to assume. Every citizen having made a contract feels that he should live up to it to the extent of his power. Having agreed that the terms of the contract are fair and reasonable, he does not like to submit to the humiliation of going back to the contractee and asking for a change. Well, what is true of a citizen in that regard should be far truer of a government. But this gov-
ernment, having declared its belief that the terms of the contract before us are fair and reasonable, is prepared to go back to Sir William Petersen and to say, "A committee of the House does not like this contract, so we are ready to kneel at your feet and beg of you to change its terms". This does not define fully the position which the Prime Minister took. He said further that if Sir William Petersen refused to consent to any change in the contract then it would be for the government to stand or fall by the agreement as it is. But again, the altered attitude did not seem to appeal to hon. gentlemen whose votes he was seeking very eagerly. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) following of course the statements of the Prime Minister, made it clear that he would not consider the government acting in good faith unless the committee was free to devise some plan of control without subsidies at all-a wholly different plan or principle from that embodied in the contract. And the Prime Minister then declared that all that anyone would be voting for who voted for the contract was the "principle" that he desired ocean rates to be controlled, adding that if the committee favoured some other method and suggested it, it would be for the government to come back to parliament and, as best it could, give expression by a new measure to what it believed to be the will of parliament. In a word, the Prime Minister has declared that the government is prepared to change its policy, to the left or to the right, provided it can save its precious existence.
At times when a resolution is proposed, the House, if the case is unimportant, frequently lets the resolution pass, reserving decision on the principle for the second reading of the bill. But when the resolution is challenged by amendment then the government's policy as embodied in that resolution is at stake; and from that fate no government can escape. And that is the position which the government is in at the present time. I read the motion in order to bring to hon. gentlemen an understanding of what is meant, and I close this phase of the subject by asking this question: If the principle of government control by subsidies, in accordance with the terms of this contract if indeed this contract itself is not now before us for decision, when is it going to be, or when can it ever be? I submit that question this moment to every member of the government, sitting in front. Will it be on the first reading of the bill? Will it be on the second reading? And let us remember that the second reading is the last prior to

Ocean Shipping Rates
the committee stage, prior to the establishment of the select committee. When the second reading of the bill is before the House the Prime Minister can say exactly the same thing: "Oh, all that you are voting for is to have a special committee, and you will be given a chance to devise policies to suit yourselves." He can say that with just the same force and effect as he says it now. In other words, if the position which the Prime Minister takes is to be accepted by the House, then the House can never decide at all on the merits of this contract, or of the definite policy it proposes.
Now, it is well to inquire just what the real situation is with which we are confronted. The Prime Minister spent a considerable portion of his address in reciting conditions and circumstances which, I think, all of us know to exist; and it will contribute to definiteness in this discussion, as well as to clearness of thinking, if we can proceed to agree on what appeared to be conclusions from a large portion of his speech.
We can agree in the first place that there is a North Atlantic Steamship Conference- or combine if you wish to call it such. Nobody has ever disputed it that I have heard. We can agree that such conference or combine fixes rates on the goods its members transport. I do not know of anyone who disputes that; its officers did not dispute it before the committee presided over by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).


Mr. McMASTER:: I think it only fair to state that the officers of the lines denied that there was a conference, and the fact was only brought out with considerable difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: It will be left for the hon. gentleman to establish what he says. I have read the report and I did not read that statement. I do not think any hon. member of this House doubts for a minute that a conference exists to-day and has existed for many years, and that the rates on the commodities are fixed by conference, with one or two or three exceptions. The argument has convinced me that the grain rate is not fixed by the conference. There may be an extent to which flour and cattle rates were fixed by it or possibly are to-day,-that matter may be left in dispute, it is not material for the moment,-but that rates are fixed generally there is no dispute. It may be taken for granted also that rates have been very materially advanced since pre-war days, and that
the advance in those rates has had the effect of making difficult the export of goods; that it would be much better for Canadian industries if the rates were lower; and that possibly we would have some other Canadian industries if there were no rates at all. It can be taken for granted, as well, that repeated complaints have been made against those rates, back for six or eight years past,-yes, for longer than that,-and that those complaints are still kept up. All these things we acknowledge; it need not have taken three hours of declamation to establish them. I think we can agree further still, that the element of competition, to some degree is eliminated in respect of water-borne traffic. I do not think it is eliminated at all to the extent that it is eliminated in land transport, nor does any hon. member of this House think so. It is impossible in the present evolution of the industry to eliminate competition, save to a limited degree.
Yet, while we agree on all these things, we do not get very far towards enlightenment on the merits of this resolution; but once we agree on these things we dispose of at least three hours of the speech of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Now I state that there is not the same competition as in earlier days on the water. I make this further affirmation for whatever hon. gentlemen accept it as worth-that when the ocean steamship business develops to the extent that regular liners are established, then it is essential that there be something in the nature of conference and fixing of rates for those lines. I wonder if there is any member of this House who really believes that in evolution of the ocean steamship business to the extent that regular sailings are established, just as regular despatch of trains is established on land, it is possible to continue, save by some system of conference and uniformity of rates. I do not think the Prime 4 p.m. Minister would say so. In a portion of his speech, towards the end, he clearly indicated the contrary. It cannot be done. If you do not have some such system, you are going to have each reaching out after the big fellow's traffic, giving rebates and advantages to obtain it-this is in evidence;-and thereby discriminations are produced which are far more serious than any discriminations complained of in this debate. The little fellow as a shipper will be virtually eliminated. This uniformity of rates established for the liner ensures to all equal treatment, to all shipments from all quarters no
Ocean Shipping Rates

matter whether those shipments be large or small. Further, when we have the line transport system established, as stated in the report of the American government commission, experience has proven that there is no middle road between peace and war, and the big liner company has such advantage over the smaller that the crushing out process is sure to be successful, with the consequent establishment of a monopoly, not only in rates but in service. The element of competition even in service is gone forever. These things follow if there is no conference system; and consequently the conference system is not necessarily an evil in itself.
I do not argue from all this that as the shipping business grows and as the system evolves and these conferences become essential with the incident fixing of rates which is the main purpose of the conference, I do not argue that such thing can go on indefinitely with no superimposed control. I believe that the principle is unsound, that you can leave control solely in a conference; for while to do so is less dangerous than to suffer the absence of higher control on land-for the reason that on land competition in rates is absolutely impossible-on sea there is some competition, some very substantial competition, because of the presence of a very vast number of tramps-still sea transport should be controlled. These tramps according to the finding of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in 1913, are not a great 'factor in competition in respect of goods which must have the liner service, which for the sake of regularity are practically dependent on the liner; but in respect of a great vast array of commodities the tramp competition is effective. Consequently we have not so soon arrived at the stage in the world's affairs when there is some supervision of ocean transport rates, the stage we have reached in respect of land transport rates. I admitted a moment ago that we had had in late years very material increases in ocean rates. The Prime Minister read at great length letters from shippers showing in respect of certain commodities rather startling percentages of increase. I do not doubt that some large percentages do obtain, but I might point out to
the Prime Minister that his mathematics in some cases are out. But this is aside from the point. The only way in which we can establish what the advance has been is by such a computation as takes all rates into account; the selecting of isolated rates on tooth picks or clothes pins, on some little commodity such as those and working it out to a percentage leads to no conclusion. You ask me what does a computation of the whole field of commodities show? I had produced to me just a few minutes ago a schedule prepared from the Index of Shipping Freights. This is the official index accepted I believe everywhere as authoritative on this question. The schedule takes the average of rates, 1898 to 1913, as the basis. That average is stated to be 100. Then it gives the percentage of increases, year by year, first of all, in European waters; second in the North American area; third, in South America; fourth, in India; fifth, in the Far East and the Pacific, and sixth, in Australia. Lastly, the general average is given. I am going to read the figures for the North American area, which start at 100, the average between 1898 and
1913, a period of fifteen years:
1898 to 1913	 100
19|3	 113.09
February, 1920	 529.89
This, of course, is the war period.
December, 1920	 277.17
December, 1921	 164.07
December, 1922	 135.15
December, 1923	 132.72
Jufly, 1924	 121.87
August, 1924	 128.10
September, 1914	 138.94
October, 1924	 143.09
November, 1924	 137.32
December, 1924	 129.18
January, 1925	 134.60
February, 1925	 146.54
Thus indicating that the percentage now existing in February, even in the month when much of the tonnage is off, I understand, in the winter for repairs, over the average for fifteen years which ended in 1913, is 46.54 per cent. The percentage is, therefore, less than the figures quoted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as obtaining in relation to land transportation. The complete table is as follows:

.	Ocean Shipping Rates
European	North	South	Far East	Basis Date	Waters	America	America	India	and Pacific	Australia	Total(Average, 1898-1913)	. .. 100	100	100	100	100	100	100Average, 1913	. .. 110.03	113.09	123.37	106.29	117.38	127.89	116.34February, 1920	. .. 814.31	529.89	757.52	744.81	587.02	712.16	690.95December, 1920	. .. 268.90	277.17	244.10	256.79	286.72	347.18	280.14December, 1921	. .. 160.06	164.07	163.72	144.43	141.25	166.47	156.67December, 1922	. .. 137.09	135.15	129.19	122.61	136.08	159.34	136.57December, 1923	. .. 134.03	132.72	120.09	124.35	125.07	144.21	130.08July, 1924	. .. 123.66	121.87	121.91	120.13	144.69	121.93	120.70August, 1924	.. .. 120.45	128.10	119.94	118.97	113.31	128.19	121.49September 1924	,. .. 117.90	138.94	123.20	124.93	122.19	144.22	128.56October, 1924	.. .. 118.80	143.09	125.96	126.59	135.47	156.67	134.43November, 1924	.. .. 115.01	137.32	120.31	120.50	131.95	162.02	131.18December, 1924	.. .. 117.44	129.18	119.45	119.76	129.29	161.13	129.38January, 1925	.. .. 115.26	134.60	120.38	123.83	132.44	172.70	133.20February. 1925 	.. .. 114.92	146.54	118.04	121.95	129.99	178.04	134.91


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By whom was the table compiled?


Arthur Meighen: It is the Index of Shipping Freights and it appears in an article in the Economist of a very recent date. The table is completed to March, 1925. No doubt the figures are compiled year by year, as the years have proceeded, by officers of what is called, I think, the Shipping Freights' Association. I do not know how anything more authoritative can be obtained. If hon. members can produce anything more authoritative than this, covering the whole of shipping commodities of all kinds, I would be glad to submit to that higher authority.


Mr. GOOD:: Are the averages weighted
averages or merely averages of rates?


Arthur Meighen: They are averages of
rates. I do not know what is meant by weighted averages. They are averages of the business actually carried.


William Charles Good: What is meant by weighted
averages is the average that takes into account the relative importance and quantity of the commodity carried.


Arthur Meighen: I would presume it
would take that into account. I would not think it would be of much value if it did not. I want to read as well just one other article of evidence.


James Alexander Robb: In the rates quoted by the
right hon. member, is any distinction made between Canadian ports and American ports?


Arthur Meighen: The north Atlantic is
treated as one. I do not contend that this shows any absence of discrimination as between Montreal and New York. But as the Acting Minister of Finance has raised the point, I quote from the same journal of February 28 of this year the following words:
The fact is that the rates eastward are the same for all north Atlantic ports from Baltimore to Montreal, although insurance rates for ships entering Montreal are higher than for ships using American ports.
This, of course, refers only to eastbound traffic.


James Alexander Robb: And this year.


Arthur Meighen: 

EARNINGS FROM A &quot;PETERSEN&quot; STEAMER VOYAGE IN THE SEASON 1924 (AS PUBLISHED IN &quot;HANSARD&quot; PAGE 723) COMPARED WITH EARNINGS BASED UPON THE AVERAGE FREIGHT RATES FOR 1913 FROM MONTREAL TO LONDON

[Stage Direction]
Weight	Measure- ment	1924 Season	1913 Season	Tons	Rate	Earnings	Rate	Earnings25 loads grain	5,350	250,000	3/- qr	$ cts. 17,250 00	2/7d qr.	$ cts. 15,750,00bags flour	1,000	56,000	19ic. 100 lbs.	4,368 00	17c. 100 lbs.	3,808 00boxes provisions	300	18,000	47c. "	3,158 40	24Jc. "	1,646 40boxes cheese	100	7,000	67c. "	1,500 80	32-15 "	720 16200 stds. deals	500	44,000	70/- std.	3,220 00	47/6 std.	2,280 00canned goods	30	1,950	47c. 100 lbs.	315 84	16-88c. 100 lbs.	113 43pulp board	50	3,500	53c. "	593 60	17-09c. "	191 40iard	100	6,500	47c. "	1,052 80	24dc. "	548 80sundries	50	10,000	37c. M	3,700 00	lie. M	1,100 00Add: 420 head of cattle	
(No cattle carried in 1913; the rate taken for 1913 is based on that of 1912 season).	at 4.60 per £1 $20 per head	35,159 44 £7,643 7 1 1,826 1 9 £9,469 8 10	at 4.80 per £1 $7.20 per head	26,158 19 £5,449 12 5 630 0 0 £6,079 12 5
On the basis of the above figures the earnings for the Season 1924 show the following percentages of increase over the earnings of the 1913 season-
Without cattle	40-25 per cent
With cattle	55-75 per cent
IV e have examined the freight Contract Records and Manifests of the Cunard and Canadian Pacific Steamship Lines covering the 1913 Season, Montreal to London, and we certify that the averaged rates for that Season which are used above have been taken therefrom and that the calculations of the earnings for the 1913 Season have been correctly made.
PRICE, WATERHOUSE & CO.,
Montreal, March 9, 1925.	Chartered Accountants.
One would have thought that evidence of this kind, which agrees very closely and accurately with the tables produced in the Economist are surely of more value than a plethora of miscellaneous letters which have been written at various times, mostly long ago, by different persons in the country about matters, the actual facts as to which may never have been investigated and the circumstances respecting which are now unknown. I stated a moment ago that as the conference system develops-and it has developed to a very considerable degree-it seems reasonable and essential that there be developed with it a supervising authority, an authority competent to control the disposition of the power now vested in the conference. It does not seem reasonable to my mind that an authority which does not represent all the people should be competent to dispose of the world's water freight, and I say that without any allegation that there has been discrimination or wrongdoing or extortion of any kind in respect of such disposition; but the principle seems 
wrong that there should go on uncontrolled an authority over these very vital matters in the hands of those whose interests are not in every way the interests of the whole people.
But when we get to that point, is not the next thing we have to decide, what necessarily must be the composition, what necessarily must foe the status of any body that is to have a chance in the world to exercise anything in the nature of control? Surely any single country has not such right-and because it has not the right it never can succeed in an attempt to exercise it. I ask hon. gentlemen to reflect, has Canada alone the right to control rates in and out between this country and Great Britain? If we have such a right, has not Great Britain the same right? And how can both of us have the right to separate control? Now I pause for a reply from any hon. gentleman in this House. Have we the right to control rates between here and Australia, or to dictate to Australia what shall be charged on goods shipped from that Dominion to Canada? Have

Ocean Shipping Rates
we the right to say to Great Britain, "On the goods sent by your citizens to this country only such and such shall be the freight rates and we are going to dictate those rates right here in the Capital of Canada?" Let us reverse the position; let us suppose that Great Britain had proposed that its government would control the rates on our wheat shipped from the shores of Canada to the British market, can any hon. gentleman imagine to himself the speech that the Prime Minister of this country would deliver in this House? Can anybody conceive the compaign which would be launched in this Dominion against "Downing street domination?" Well, if Great Britain has not that right, how then can we assert the right to control rates between here and that country? In a word, we are asserting something which inherently we do not and cannot possess, and even if we had some wise method established to exercise such right, the wisest you could get, our attempt would be bound to end in failure.
Now, what kind of a board, what is the smallest circumference or power a board must possess which could even attempt to handle this situation? I venture to suggest to the House, and it is embodied in our amendment as an affirmation, that you cannot do so with any body of narrower compass than a body on which are representatives of the whole empire. Even the Prime Minister in a portion of his address said it could not be effectively done until you had a body representative of all nations of the world. Well, possibly to a degree that is true. But the shipping of this whole empire is of so vast a magnitude that it cannot be boycotted, and the people of this whole empire have among themselves the inherent right, if they choose to exercise it, to control the shipping between the various ports of the empire. Therefore the first- step of any consequence at all that is not bound to end in disaster and collapse is to establish some such body on which the whole empire is represented. Every effort should be persisted in to bring this about. I do not say that when this is done it will be the last step in the development of a system of control, there may be one beyond, but that step has a chance, a good chance, of succeeding in so far at least as traffic is concerned -between the various ports of the British Empire. .
Hon. gentlemen opposite who entered into this agreement very hastily,-and some of whom I do the compliment to say are exceedingly sorry-tell us, "Oh we cannot get any body in which the whole empire is represented to take this matter in hand so we
have got to splurge ahead and do something, no matter whait it is, in order to attract attention, in order to stir our cousins up and have them see this thing has got to be attended to." Well, what have been the attempts? According to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), the first was started in 1910. He got a memorandum from Mr. Justice Mabee, then head of the railway commission. He forwarded that memorandum to the British government, and the British government made a reply. Now, I have the highest opinion of the late Mr. Justice Mabee, but I must express the fear that I cannot be lost in admiration of his memorandum. It proceeds on the hypothesis that ocean transport is as susceptible of control by one country as is land transportation within that country itself; it proceeds on the hypothesis that competition is just as surely gone from ocean transport as from land. Both of these hypotheses are manifestly and obviously false. I do not need to go further. The memorandum says also that in a few years-it was written in 1910-England would be importing 600,000,000 or 800,000,000 bushels of our wheat. Well, as to-day, fifteen years after, there are only about 43,000,000 people in Great Britain, and all they could possibly consume would be 280,000,000 bushels, I am at a loss to know what they would do with the other 400,000,000 bushels. In a word, the memorandum is not very thoroughly compiled. It was forwarded to Great Britain with an expression of hope that some central body representative of the empire would be created to take charge of this transport difficulty.
Evidently the Canadian government of the time forgot that the whole question had just been investigated by a commission on which the government itself had been represented, and that commission's finding was that control on the water, as compared with control on the land, was impracticable, that there were very, very great difficulties to be confronted which did not appear on land at all, and that especially a control which necessarily, if it operated, would put British shipping at a disadvantage with continental shipping was something which would not redound to the benefit of any part of the Empire. These things were pointed out by the British government. Well, they seem to me very sensible. I wonder how they appeal to other members of this House. Do not the representations made by the British government in its reply sound sane and just and right. There were undoubtedly further difficulties to be overcome, and the British government suggested that the matter be still further investigated with a view to seeing if
Ocean Shipping Rates
[Stage Direction]
something could not be evolved to take care at least of the danger of discriminations. The Canadian government stopped right there. The Minister of Railways says the reason they stopped was that he knew when he was turned down, and anyway they knew the facts and needed no investigation. This was back in 1910 and such is the reason he gave the House for having gone no further. Well, if they knew the facts in 1910, why did they start to find them out again in 1923 and again in 1924? They started two investigations in the last two years.
The next step of importance taken-I am passing by the various inquiries at the hands of the British government-was an inquiry by the present hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). He made an inquiry from the standpoint of Canada and returned with a report which, put in brief, was this: that he did not believe the principle of private control under the conference system could be allowed to continue undisturbed; that there should be some higher control; that otherwise, the conference would have power at its own will, to do injustice and injury to individual concerns. While he did not allege it had done so, he did, not believe it was in principle right that the power should be solely vested there, and he suggested a tribunal which was to seek to evolve a plan. He mentioned that- the Dominions Royal Commission then sitting was the proper body. This royal commission evidently took the matter in hand, and reported against the principle of private control and in favour of some system of united control on the part of the various parts of the empire. The war was on. Through the period of the war shipping was under the British government. In 1918 the representatives of Canada brought this matter forcibly to the attention of that government. The British government acquiesced to the extent of appointing what is known as the Imperial Shipping committee on which all portions of the empire are represented and to which certain definite powers were given. These did not include powers specifically to fix rates; those were withheld; but the committee was invited to investigate and report on all matters concerning discriminations, harbour facilities, and generally the betterment of communications between the various portions of the empire. Canada was not satisfied. Sir Robert Borden in the spring of 1919 prepared a memorandum in which he strongly urged that the powers of the shipping board be amplified and that Canada continue in its effort-and he invited the support of the other dominions as well-to have vested in this Imperial Shipping Board a

power of control. This was subsequently submitted to me, when I was Prime Minister, in a letter from Sir George Perley. Sir George Perley had been our representative on the Imperial Shipping Board. Considerable good work was done by that board. He found, however, that he was not possessed adequately of the information necessary in order to bring home to the commission the duty of reporting itself in favour of being given these powers, and he asked us to consider the wisdom of having someone specially delegated to present the case of Canada, in favour of the amplification of the duties of the Imperial Shipping Board. The government of the day decided that Dr. Magill of Winnipeg was capable to do that work. Dr. Magill, however, declined. The letter in which he declined is not before us, but there was such a letter. This was during the session of 1921. At the close of the session I went to England, and immediately on my return a general election was called. Six months, or almost that, intervened between the reply of Sir George Perley and the calling of the general election. The session of parliament and Imperial conference were on and progress was not made.
The next step was the appointment of the committee under the charge of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). This committee, however, was not appointed to investigate ocean freight rates at all; the reference to the committee contained no suggestion of such investigation. The reference was general, to look into the question of agricultural conditions. I make no complaint that the committee saw fit to give some attention to this subject; I am very glad it did. The committee made several reports, and now we are told that the government bases the policy it submits to parliament upon the report of that committee. Well, one would never dream so, if he reads the report itself. The report found that there was a combine and that the combine controlled rates. Does the Prime Minister say that is the basis of his policy?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Genesis was
the word I used.


Arthur Meighen: The genesis of it? Well, the Prime Minister also said that the government's policy was wholly irrespective of whether there is a combine or not. He said his policy had no relation to the combine, that it did not matter whether there is a combine or no combine; that his is the right policy anyway. And he said it was based on the report of a committee whose only finding in this respect was that there is a combine.

Ocean Shipping Rates
Does he say now that the committee recommended any action of this kind? In so far as there is any indication in its report of the course to be pursued, that course is directly contrary to the one the government has taken. Here is what the committee recommended. It is found at page xxi of the Journals of the House for 1923:
Your committee, in view of the foregoing and of the evidence adduced before them and referred to in a previous interim report, are of the opinion that action is [DOT] desirable to control shipping rings or conferences.
What action?
It is suggested that the Canadian representatives in attendance at the next meeting of the International Institute of Agriculture should be given authority to see that the matter is thoroughly discussed, in order to discover whether an international system of control is feasible through such agency.
I wonder if there is any family resemblance between that suggestion, which at least shows that the committee had some enlightened understanding of the problem, and that which is embodied in this resolution? Then the report goes on:
In view of the fact that a very great deal of the shipping coming to Canadian ports is British shipping, concurrent action by the British authorities is respectfully suggested.
One would think that what occurred to the mind of the hon. member for Brome and his committee would have occurred to the mind of this government, but not a move was even attempted, to get British co-operation ot concurrence. I quote further:
The matter might well be made a subject for discussion and consideration at the next Imperial Economic conference.
There end the suggestions of the committee.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I mean as to the
line of policy to be pursued. What was the other one?


Andrew Ross McMaster: A little further cnseveral paragraphs.


Arthur Meighen: Where is it? I hope
that any further suggestions they made are not contradictory to those I have read?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: If they are in line with
those I have read I do not see what the purpose of the interruption was. That is what the committee recommended. Even the committee did not feel that to discuss the problem intelligently and to get to anything in the way of an expeditious and wise conclusion the facts were still well enough under command; and they recommended this:
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 recommendation, I would presume, has reference to other subjects under review by the committee, just as it has to this one. These three recommendations which the committee made the government has flouted, and they come to this House and say they base their policy upon the committee's report! This idea is a lately generated one of basing the government's policy upon the committee's report.
Mr. Preston has been referred to in this debate. The government seemed very sensitive as to the reputation of Mr. Preston, but no member of this side of the House has ever so reflected on that gentleman as has the Prime Minister himself. In March of 1924 Mr. Preston is sent over to investigate and report on this problem. That is the commission given him by the order in council. It is all the order in council says, except to specify his pay, which I venture to think was the most important part of the whole enterprise. After sending Mr. Preston over in March, 1924, to investigate and report, this government came to a policy without waiting for his report at all. The Prime Minister stands now and says that it does not matter at all what is in Mr. Preston's report; that he is not basing his policy on Preston's report in any way at all; he is basing his policy on the report of the Mc-Master committee, which recommended movement and action in directly the opposite way.
Now what is this government policy? It is embodied in a contract which we are asked to ratify. I am going to analyze this contract, not in any technical spirit; I am going to try and reveal to the House just what the effect of the contract is. I know the Prime Minister says: Well, it does not matter what is there; the government is going to do so and so, anyway. Mr. Speaker, there are a class of people in everyday life who, when they make a contract, do what they like irrespective of it, but I do not think parliament should accept with placidity the declaration of a Prime Minister that he is going to follow in those footsteps.
In the first place, though I do not consider this of major importance, the covenant of Sir William Petersen, that the terms, such as they are, on his part of this contract, will be carried out, is a covenant which Sir William Petersen can set fire to just as soon as the contract is implemented by this parliament.
Ocean Shipping Rates

By the way, one would think this government was entitled to some superior benediction, because, forsooth, it did not make a contract except "subject to the ratification of parliament." "We made it in this case," the Prime Minister says, "very clear to Sir William Petersen that the contract could not take effect till parliament ratified it. That is the course we pursued." Well, there was no other course on earth he could pursue. The government had absolutely no power to make a contract save subject to the will of parliament. No contract ever was made-not previously authorized by parliament-except subject to the ratification of parliament. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1898 brought down the Yukon railway contract, he brought it down subject to the ratification of parliament. When in 1903 he brought down the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, it was signed and sealed, and he brought it down subject to the ratification of parliament. When in 1918 the government of the day brought down the bill for taking over the Grand Trunk railway, embodying a contract, it also was subject to the ratification of parliament. All must be; the Prime Minister had no option; there was nothing else he could do. But there is this difference: In every one of those cases the government of the day, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and under Sir Robert Borden, took the full responsibility for their contract. They declared to parliament: This contract embodies terms which in our judgment are fair; those terms were signed and sealed; parliament can reject the contract if it will, but if it rejects that contract it rejects the government. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden, and the present Prime Minister each of them said: "The contract is here for approval or disapproval; it cannot be trimmed." But Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden each stood by his assertion, stood by it in the face of opposition, stood up manfully and accepted his responsibility, and staked his government on the issue. But the Prime Minister in this administration wriggled and wiggled around and tried to read what he calls a principle into the resolution. He says to hon. gentlemen: If you do not like the resolution, amend it. If you do not like the contract, amend it, and we will go to Sir William Petersen and fall at his feet and ask him to accept your will. But if you won't have anything to do with it at all, throw it out, and give us something else. In a word, go on, do anything you likj, but save our precious lives.
Now I come to the contract. Sir William Petersen, immediately he forms his com-

pany, has the government bound to accept that company. Whether it is a mere watered stock company, whether it is a mere cipher without financial responsibility, it does not matter. The government has no security at all, and no lawyer of Mr. Lafleur's standing ever in his life signed his name to a statement that Sir William Petersen has not power to release himself from every covenant by the formation of a company and the substitution of that company for himself.
I do not need to read all the introductory paragraphs. I fancy they are the intellectual harvest of the government, rather than of Mr. Lafleur. I have seen documents that eminent counsel have drawn, but I never saw any other of them preceded by a lot of political fanfare such as constitutes the best portion of this contract.
The covenants on the part of Sir William Petersen are as follows. He covenants, first of all, that he shall, either by himself or by this company:
Build, equip, provide, establish and during this contract, continue and in the manner hereinafter mentioned, operate a regular shipping service between such ports in Great Britain or Ireland or the continent of Europe, and Canadian ports as may be designated by the Minister o.f Trade and Commerce for Canada or his representatives from time to time.
Will hon. members see the limitations of that covenant? He must build, equip, provide, establish and during the contract continue in the manner hereinafter mentioned to operate a regular shipping service between ports in Canada and Great Britain or the continent to be designated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That covenant, of course, he must keep.
Then by (b) he must:
Establish and continue and maintain and operate as hereinafter set out the shipping service hereinbefore referred to free from the control of and independent of the Atlantic shipping combine or conference or any other combine or conference now in existence or which may.be operated or established upon the Atlantic ocean at any time in the future without the sanction of the government of Canada.
First, he must build, equip and operate a regular shipping service, and the government can fix the ports; second, he must keep out of
the Atlantic Steamship conference. Those are the two covenants.
The next is-it is not in very good English, but that does not matter very much:
(c) That such service shall be put in effect and maintained with ten ships as hereinbefore referred to and these shall be built and placed in operation with all possible despatch and shaill be fully completed and put in service within eighteen months from the date of this agreement (at least two of the same to be placed in service by August 1, 1925) and pending completion of the same, other ships of modern construction properly equipped and of approximately the same tonnage-

Ocean Shipping Rates
Mark that.
-shall be substituted and operated in the said service until the fleet in question is completely constructed and in operation, the said service to commence with at least six ships not later than June 15. 1925.
That is to say, Sir William Petersen in the execution of his covenant shall have in operation by June 15, six ships of about the same tonnage as those described at the close of the agreement, and he shall have two of the new ones not later than August 1, 1925. It will be observed that the ships which he may substitute do not need to be of the speed or of any of the characteristics of those provided for in the contract; they need only to be of about the same tonnage. The next covenant is this:
(d) That the control and regulation of the rates to be charged by the contractor shall rest with the government of Canada and that the government shall fix such transportation rates on all commodities from time to time.
Let me consider this paragraph for a moment -and I do so with the open invitation to any member of the House who disagrees with me to say so. Let me discuss what is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, of that covenant. It gives the government of Canada the right to fix the rates on any and all commodities. Of that there is no question. But what is its meaning? The government, in respect of any commodity-and "commodity" has a distinct meaning-can say to Sir William Petersen that the rate shall be so much on his vessels. This the government can do, and no more. Under that covenant the government cannot compel Sir William Petersen to carry the commodity at the rate fixed. He may fill his ship with other commodities whose rates are fixed to his liking. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) takes refuge in a smile. I invite him to dispute that position.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will dispute it when you get through; it is ridiculous.


Arthur Meighen: That will be safer than to dispute it now. It is quite true that if Sir William Petersen carries the commodity he cannot charge any higher rate than the government may fix. So much is certain. Now, the Prime Minister says, "We will fix the rates only on Canadian goods." Of course, if the rates are fixed on American goods then the American seller will get the benefit of our subsidies; we should then have been generous enough to bonus the American shipper by making it possible for him to get more for his product: and when the Prime Minister was faced with that horn of dilemma
he escaped by declaring that the government would fix rates only on Canadian commodities. Evidently what he has in mind is that Canadian wheat is one commodity and American wheat another. But I ask hon. gentlemen to my left, is that true? Is not wheat a single commodity? Is not barley a single commodity? Is not oats a single commodity? Is Ontario wheat one commodity and Quebec or Manitoba wheat another? And can the government fix one rate for Ontario wheat and another for the Manitoba product? It cannot. It names the commodity and fixes the rate, and that done, the government's power is exhausted. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence disputes my contention. They cannot.
The Prime Minister did say that the government would fix the rates only as regards Canadian commodities. Well, let me for the sake of argument accept that position; suppose he is right. What then? The horn of the dilemma which he is on now is worse than the other. Let me illustrate. The Prime Minister says to Sir William Petersen that the rate on Canadian wheat shall be 6 cents, let us say. We will say that the general rate on American wheat is 9 cents. Will any one suggest that Sir William Petersen cannot take the American wheat? If the Prime Minister attempted to reduce the rate on American wheat to the Canadian level, Sir William Petersen of course would be as well paid if he took the Canadian wheat. But the Prime Minister says he will not do such a thing as fix a rate in American wheat. But if the rate is fixed only on the Canadian product. Sir William Petersen is absolutely free to fill his ship with American wheat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my
right hon. friend will not feel that, because I am silent while he makes these overtures, I agree with what he says. I want him to have the fullest latitude to make his case as strong as he can, and that is my only reason for not replying to these absurd views.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose I cannot assume that, in view of-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Silence does not necessarily imply consent.


Arthur Meighen: But silence in the case
of the Prime Minister, who is never slow in interrupting, does imply that he has great difficulty in answering.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, let me
make it clear that such is not the case, for I
Ocean Shipping Rates

differ utterly from my right hon. friend in regard to the representations he is making, which are inaccurate and absurd.


Arthur Meighen: That is always the
answer of the controversialist who cannot give any reason for his position. I say that Sir William Petersen certainly must carry out every covenant of his contract. But what are those covenants? The covenants are these-that he will build, equip and operate a regular service; if he does not do that he cannot sue the government for a single dollar; that he shall not get into the north Atlantic combine; and, as well, that he must have in operation certain ships at certain dates. These are the covenants and these alone, and when he fulfils them he can demand his money from this government. Now, I am speaking in the presence of at least sixty or seventy lawyers, none of whom has been overgifted with shyness in the past. I want to know whether any lawyer in the House will contest that position.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the leader of the opposition must have overlooked sub-section (e):
Make proper provision for the carriage of perishable and partly perishable produce by means of cold storage facilities.
If Sir William Petersen is to fit his ship in such a way as to carry that sort of produce how can he fill the vessel with American goods?


Arthur Meighen: I am fair in assuming
that the best lawyer in the House has made the best reply he can. Certainly Sir William Petersen must fit his ship to carry perishable or semi-perishable produce. But I want to ask the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter): Is not Sir William Petersen absolutely free, if he desires, to operate this portion empty, or, if he does not like that, to fill it with American goods?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not if he expects the subsidy.


Arthur Meighen: What binds him in the contract to distinguish between American and Canadian goods? What binds him to cariy Canadian goods at all? There is not a syllable in the contract which compels him to do so. In other words, Sir William Petersen has the whole thing under his hands. I venture to suggest that the Minister of National Defence cannot bring me the written opinion of Mr. Lefleur, or of any other reputable lawyer, that Sir William Petersen is prevented or estopped under this contract from carrying American goods as freely as he likes and as

freely as he may carry Canadian produce. The rate on wheat to American shippers is, say, 9 cents. He may say to the American, "I will carry your produce for 8 cents." And he carries the American wheat at a rate one cent below the average level. What does that mean? It means that the American wheat is carried lower on the strength of a subsidy paid by this government out of the treasury of Canada.
It has been already argued in this debate that Sir William Petersen does not bind himself to establish any fixed number of sailings. Those are left with himself entirely. They must be "regular." Such is his convenant and no more. Once they start out they must proceed with despatch. I presume they would do so anyway, because there is no money in loitering on the water. But that is his covenant and no more. He can establish, so far as -his contract goes one sailing a year and then he has absolutely fulfilled the contract. Or he could establish two sailings a year or one a month. Let us assume that this government fixes rates which are low, say ten dollars a head on cattle, and Sir William Petersen provides a sailing or two or perhaps three or a dozen sailings a year, and the less the number of sailings he runs the less will be his loss, Petersen will get 81,300,000 a year from the government and be entitled to every dollar of it. The interest charge on six million dollars is only about three hundred thousand dollars a year, and therefore he would have a million to the good, and as long as the government cannot force him to operate a service enough to bring his losses over a million, he will be entitled to everything he can save.


Mr. JACOBS:: Would that be the spirit
of the contract?


Arthur Meighen: That is distinctly the spirit of the contract. It should not have been put that way. I admit that. When the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) draws a contract he does not leave it to the other fellow to fix the terms and therefore the spirit to suit himself.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have forgotten how to
draw a contract since I have been in parliament.


Arthur Meighen: So has the government.
This contract cannot be attributed to Mr. Lafleur. The business of the lawyer is to draft what his client desires. The government's duty was to dictate the terms to Mr. Lafleur; it was for him so to draft the contract as to safeguard what the government

Ocean Shipping Rates
said should be safeguarded. The government cannot hide behind the skirts of Mr. Lafleur. The hon. member says that my statement is not in accord with the spirit of the contract; but, I have found this in the history of Canadian politics, that when a party starts to talk about the spirit as distinguished from the letter he is pretty nearly the "chart" stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend accept what Sir William Petersen says as to the spirit and letter of the contract?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. Of course I will not. That is the hole the government is in and it should not try to pull me in too. The government is in the hands of Sir William Petersen. I hope I am able to read English and understand it myself. The hon. member says that the spirit has to be looked to. That is quite true, but the 5 p.m. spirit grows out of the letter.
When we get to this fine distinction of the spirit and the letter, just look out for the next turn in the road, when the Prime Minister will say: "The contract is really only a chart by which I am to guide myself. Its exact terms do not matter.	I have declared to
the House what the government intends to do, and no matter what the contract says it is my word that is going to go." The course the Prime Minister pursues now parallels to a degree his conduct with respect to the platform of his party in 1919, and hon. gentlemen can expect just the same end of the road-just the same reversal, the same farce. If any hon. gentleman can suggest that any further covenant that Sir William Petersen enters into modifies in any degree the proposition I have advanced, I would feel indebted to him if he would make his suggestion now. These are his covenants and these only, and these he must keep and when he keeps these covenants he gives all the sendee he promised. Then when he gives this service the government must pay or be in the position of repudiating its own engagement.
The Prime Minister devoted considerable of his time to showing that the rates for immigrants had been raised greatly, and so they have. The immigration policy of this government, whatever the last edition of it is, is having a terrible time according to the Prime Minister because of these fearful rates the ocean steamships are charging for immigrants. Now I make the statement that under this contract the government does not make provision for carrying one single immigrant. Sir William Petersen is not bound under the contract, and need never be bound, to carry an immigrant in the 84
next ten years-not one. It is true the contract says that Sir William Petersen and the government may later on agree to establish passenger service, but if they may agree, they also may not agree, and Sir William Petersen before he agrees will fix the terms he considers he wants, and if the government does not come to these terms there is no contract. On this I challenge contradiction from anyone. Ships for passenger service may be agreed to be provided, but if so Canada of course will have to pay the price.
I proceed to another phase of the discussion, and with this I think I will be through. I set out by arguing that the government of Canada by controlling rates on any small fleet of ships cannot meet with any real success in establishing control of rates generally. They cannot in the first place because inherently they have not the right to such single control. The other country cannot be asked to submit. It is true the government may contribute to rates, it may pay some of the rates out of the treasury. This is just what the present government is undertaking-this and nothing more. But if the government thought it worth while to control the rates on a certain number of boats, I ask, why did they not use the ships they already own? We have had various reasons given. In the course of the debate, during the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) the Prime Minister said the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were no good. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), whose closely reasoned, profound, statesmanlike speech I am sure the House will long remember, has made some statements on this subject. The Prime Minister did not confine his assertion simply to the interruption in the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Repeatedly he followed that course, and he was disturbed in his serenity only by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) who took an entirely different line, and claimed that the reason they could not use the merchant marine was that those merchant marine ships were rendering too great a service now. He said that the services they were rendering Canada on various trade routes were such that the government could not afford to take them off. This was the line of argument adopted by the hon. Minister of Railways, and let me do him the honour of saying-but perhaps he would not consider it a compliment to get any word of commendation from me-that circumscribed as he was, he made at least the most skilful attempt to evade this issue of any hon. member on his side.

Ocean Shipping Rates


George Perry Graham: If that be true, I have a great imitator.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has an
imitator but I do not know that I would call him great. He is sitting quite near him-


George Perry Graham: He is sitting opposite.


Arthur Meighen: -but he was not half
as skilful as was the Minister of Railways and Canals. The hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) said-and this will warrant, maybe, a diversion for the moment-that the mercantile marine was losing $9,000,000. The question of the wisdom of building the merchant marine does not come into this debate. I am not going to discuss the merits of its construction; I am prepared to leave that question just where the Minister of Railways and Canals left it and just where the Prime Minister left it after his change of faith. But I must interpolate this: The merchant marine, in 1920, made an operating profit of $1,400,000. In 1921, it made a profit of $781,000. The profit in 1920 paid interest on cost, even the war costs under which the ships had to be built. The profit in 1921 paid two and one-third per cent only. In 1922, there was a loss of $2,300,000; in 1923, a loss of $1,800,000 on operation. We have not yet had the report for 1924. The sum of $9,000,000 includes, of course, interest on cost which has to be taken into account, and depreciation. I only want to make clear the significance of the interruption of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs).
I was about to arrive at the pregnant utterances of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who stated, as reported in the Manitoba Free Press of August 11:
The using of the Canadian mercantile marine boats at cheaper rates is not practicable, because the five boats fitted up for cattle carrying are not big enough for cattle export trade of any volume. In fact the five boats together only equal one good-sized cattle carrier.
Does he contend that he is building goodsized cattle carriers now? He is building boats just the size of the mercantile marine.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Larger.


Arthur Meighen: Smaller than two of
them, slightly larger, but only by a negligible per cent, than twenty-four of them. The minister says that because of their size they cannot carry cattle successfully. But he says further that they had been built too big for the lakes and too small for the ocean, and he came along with this drivel in a speech in this House since. These vessels of the merchant marine, according to him. could not be used because they are too big for

our lakes and too small for the ocean. If the House will refer to a return brought down by the Minister of Railways and Canals on the second of this month, there will be found a schedule of the entire merchant marine vessels. In that schedule it will be found that the twenty-six ships are of a tonnage of 8,300 and over. The corresponding tonnage of the Petersen vessels is 9,000. It will be found that two out of these twenty-six vessels are 10,687 tons and 10,682 tons, and two more are over 9,000 tons. I ask the House to remember that twenty-six are above 8,300 tons. Of the remainder, thirty are from 3,341 to 5,000 tons odd. Only one is below 3,300 tons and that is the Canadian Sapper whose dead weight is 2,781 tons. These are the vessels which the Minister of Agriculture, with what I must describe as flippant fiction, declared were too small for the ocean and too big for the lakes. I hold in my hand a list of vessels which this year have traded into the port of Montreal, traded to European ports, traded even to South African ports, and sixty-seven of them are under 3,100 tons. There are boats as low as 1,149 tons trading to Meandros, Greece; boats as low as 1,290 tons trading to Copenhagen; boats as low as 1,966 tons trading to Copenhagen; boats as low as 1,096 tons trading to Antwerp. Our boats, all but one, or to be exact, fifty-six in all, are over 3,300 tons. The Minister of Agriculture, who wants to decry the property of Canada, who wants to find an excuse, for not taking the obvious course of lowering and controlling rates on their own vessels, if the government wants to control by themselves at all, declares to the people of Canada, on his authority as a minister, that boats of 8,300 tons and up are too small for ocean traffic I What is the nature of these boats which the Prime Minister says are no good? He says they are not fit for north Atlantic traffic. In 1923, twelve of them plied the north Atlantic al'l year, according to the report of the mercantile marine presented by this government, between Canada and British and European ports. In 1922, eleven of them did the same thing and at least eleven of them did so last year. These boats which hon. gentlemen tell us are no good, which the Minister of Agriculture says are too small for the ocean, which we are told are not fit for the north Atlantic traffic, are doing service on the north Atlantic right along, and indeed are doing such good service that the Minister of Railways and Canals declares that in the public interest he cannot take them off. There have been repeated attempts on the part of

Ocean Shipping Rates
hon. gentlemen opposite,-and from this I want to absolve the Minister of Railways and Canals, as I never heard him uttering nonsense of this kind-to decry the character, type, design and construction of our ships. I hold in my hand some certificates which I have taken the trouble to obtain.	The first one
that I will read is from Mr. Isles, one of the superintendent stevedores of Montreal, one of the most competent and respected, as I am sure those who know him will admit, in the whole service. Mr. Isles' statement is the most moderate of any that I have received and I will read it first:
After going over the specifications covering the ships which are to be built under the Petersen contract, I find these ships are about the same type of ship as the SS. Glentworth, which loaded here last fall. Her T/Deck capacity was 131,060 cubic feet, lower holds, 425,831 cubic feet.
This ship lifted a cargo of 8,456 tons grain equal 39,458 quarters. Only her lower holds were full with a very small margin-probably 200 tons-in the 'tweendecks, otherwise the 'tweendecks were empty.
Comparing the larger ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine such as the Canadian Constructor and the Canadian Crusier, 4,413 net registered tons each, they are about the same size .as the Petersen ships.
The Canadian Seigneur, the Canadian Pioneer and the Canadian Ranger are smaller boats, but as they would probably be easier to stow and as they carrv their cargo both in lower holds and 'tweendecks they are more adapted for the Montreal trade.
Their speed is slightly better than that of the Petersen ships.
I draw this to the attention of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), who has found terrible fault with the speed of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
They will do their work better, as from personal experience in loading the Canadian Mariner, Canadian Seigneur, Canadian Ranger, and Canadian Challenger, it is [DOT] found that these ships were easily worked and just as suitable as any ships that I have handled, their cargo gear being up-to-date, with hatches of suitable size for economical working.
The proposed corrugation or " blister " on the side of the Petersen boats will, I think, cause trouble ;n docking and undocking as it will be liable to hit the quay wall causing leaky rivets, which will be a menace and source of danger to the cargo.
This class of steamer is still in the experimental stage, and why should we subsidize experiments?
Yours truly,
David Isles.
Superintendent Stevedore.
In a subsequent note he says:
The specifications on page 28 of the proposed Petersen steamers are, in our opinion, those of the cheapest class of cargo steamer, which would not compare with either Cairnross, Cairnmona, Cairn-valona, Caimtorr, Cairnavon, Caimgowan, or Cairndhu.
All of these ships have powerful fan extractors in every hold, have an average sea speed of 12 knots, and are now being fitted with refrigerator chambers; have powerful wireless installation, direction finders, and every aid to navigation.
84i
Then he says further:
We find nothing in the specifications to provide safe carriage for perishable and partly perishable cargoes.
In the specifications which come at the end of the contract there is nothing at all to provide safe carriage for these cargoes. He adds:
In fact shippers to-day, who demand, and have got by the steamship companies, fan ventilation and refrigerated chambers, would not ship on a steamer built to these specifications.
Emigrant traffic. Neither accommodation nor provision for it. If it is not provided for at building it would never be satisfactory, and would cost ten times as much to add it.
Speed about 11 knots is useless on the Atlantic for this traffic.
The next communication I read is from Mr. Capper, marine superintendent of the Cunard line. He says:
I am of the opinion that these vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are a very good type, and equal to any other good cargo vessel on the service at present. As regards the running and working of the vessels, the records of the past two years show they are well manned and handled.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What particular vessels does that refer to?


Arthur Meighen: To the Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels in general.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, no.
Mr. ^ MEIGHEN:	It refers to all those
going in and out of Montreal, because he is a marine superintendent there and knows what he is talking about. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats run in and out of Montreal not only across the Atlantic but to Newfoundland and the West Indies. It would refer certainly to all vessels of the 8,000-ton type, and I presume to many others of the 5,000 and 3,500-ton type. Now I read this letter from Mr. Welch. He built a number of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats, and is a practical marine engineer. He says:
I have examined the abbreviated specification of the proposed vessels for William Petersen and knowing the Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats of similar tonnage, I have no hesitation in saying that the latter boats have everything in their favour, both as regards cargo capacity and speed.
Yours truly,
A. Welch.
M.I.N.A. London,
M.I.E.SL Scotland,
*	M.I.E.C. Canada.
I add to that this letter which has come to me from Mr. P. L. Miller, naval architect, and a member of the Institute of Naval Architects, England, and of the Society of Naval Architects of the United States. Writing under date of March 4, he says:
Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. FORKE:: They do not know me in
the House.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently they did not
know him. WThat was the Prime Minister's answer? The answer was this: that he supposed it was on account of the differential against Canada that the rates were so high; they were stifling business and the boats could not get traffic. So the reason the merchant marine does not make money at the high rates of the combine is because it is charging higher rates into our ports-because the rates to Canadian ports, he says, are higher than to the American. This is the reason he says the merchant marine does not pay- and the merchant marine is owned by the government which complains against the extortion. This government stands here and confesses that for three years it has kept a merchant marine under a directorate which is holding rates so high that the trade of Canada is being strangled, that our manufacturers are being stifled, that our western cattle trade is being smothered. The same merchant marine is also, he says, killing itself because its rates are so high it cannot get the business. Is that not a magnificent way to manage the merchant marine of this country? That is precisely what the Prime Minister has proclaimed.
-(An hon. Member. See p. 1248.)
Ocean Shipping Rates

Then, the Prime Minister made special reference to the cattle business. One would think from one portion of his address that the ships were to carry cattle all the time, but if they devoted all their time to carrying cattle they could not possibly carry more than half the cattle shipped. You cannot pile all the cattle over into the British market all at once. This subsidy, distributed over the cattle business, would mean a cost of about $60 a head-that is, over all this one line could carry. What an economical way to develop the Canadian cattle trade! Then, we are told that our own ships are not fit for *;he carrying of cattle. Our twenty-six ships can be fitted for cattle just 'the same as any other ships. As a matter of fact the directorate have already fitted out not less than five; at least four are running, fitted for the cattle trade, and they are carrying cattle at $20 a head. The government say, "Oh, this is doing harm to Canada, we cannot stand such a rate." The government goes to Sir William Petersen, and I just picture to myself the spectacle which was presented. Am I putting the matter one whit different from its true perspective? The Prime Minister, or say the Minister of Trade and Commerce, goes to Sir William Petersen and says: "There are our ships, we are charging $20 a head on cattle. Vv c and our fellow pirates are strangling the western cattle trade. We are throttling the Ontario cattle trade. A member of parliament gets up and says we are blood-suckers. The Lethbridge Board of Trade is up in arms. We will give you, Sir William Petersen, $13,000,000 if you will come into business and force us to reduce the rate on cattle." Will even the member for Brome suggest that that is not precisely the bargain which the Minister of Trade and Commerce now submits to this parliament for ratification? I have a certificate in my hand to show that these boats can be fitted up to carry cattle, of equal capacity with the Petersen boats which are to be built.
Has anyone answered this question in the debate:	Who is to be the arbiter to decide
which of the cattle shippers, which of the grain shippers, which of the clothes-pin shippers, which of the dairy shippers-which of all these are going to get special favours at the expense of the people of Canada? This argument would apply to merchant marine management on a low rate basis just the same as to Petersen's ships-this is precisely why we did not run the merchant marine on a scale differing from the other scales in and out of Atlantic ports. We would then have had to select special shippe.s in Canada and give them special favours at the expense of the country.

We would only have been contributing out of the treasury of Canada for the benefit of special individuals. But that is just what this government proposes to do, and besides for every dollar it gives the favoured individual, it gives Sir William Petersen two; that is the only difference. Who is to stand on the dock in Montreal and say to the shipper from one elevator. "We will give you the special low rate on wheat to-day, and say to the shipper from another: You will have to hire one of these other boats that are in the combine." Has this country any right to distinguish as between shippers? This country cannot possibly operate the government's plan without doing so; there is no way in which it can be done. Either this government or Sir William Petersen himself will be the bestower of the favours. Is the government prepared to hand over .to a man not even a citizen of Canada the right to select pets in this Dominion, and give to these pets special rates across the Atlantic? This whole thing is built on a fallacy; it is unsound from the first word to the last, and I cannot help but think that the government's only hope is to find for it a secluded cemetery at the hands of this committee. Parliament is continually being told: If you like this thing, applaud it, but if you do not like it, refer it to a committee. Such is the government's move every time when its proposals, ill-digested, come before parliament for adoption.
Hon. members, those of us who have been in the House some time, can remember that it is not many years since the chief article of faith of hon. gentlemen opposite was that the money of this country had to be spent in Canada, that no money voted by this parliament should go to help build up the shipbuilding or other industry in another land. When the government of the day in 1912-1913 proposed the construction of three ships of war of the highest scientific type ever known, by way of assistance to Great Britain under the shadow of the German menace, hon. gentlemen opposite fought it for days and weeks and months, and the chief article of opposition was that our $30,000,000 was going to be spent in shipyards overseas, and not to help -build up the shipbuilding industry in this Dominion. The government of the day felt that as we had never built anything of this type before, and as in our belief the menace was near, the only effective way was to get them built as fast as we could. We could not have established the necessary docks and all the other facilities in time. But hon. gentlemen opposite were willing to risk everything just to get those ships built in Canada. When

Ocean Shipping Rates
later in 1918 we came to the programme of constructing merchant ships in this Dominion, we took care that every one of them was built in Canadian yards, because the ships were of far simpler construction.
These ships Sir William Petersen is going to build are ships the like of which have been built in this Dominion before. They are vessels which can be built nearly as expeditiously in this country as in any other, perhaps not quite so cheaply, but better pay something more to give work to the unemployed in this country than send our money somewhere else in order to give work to the unemployed over there. The Prime Minister says: Oh, this money is not going to build ships at all; Sir William Petersen is going to provide the money to build these ships. Yes, in a way that is true, but Sir William Petersen provides the money on the faith of these subsidies. These subsidies out of the treasury of Canada are the security on which he gets his money. The money of this country in effect is to be spent in the shipyards of the old land or of Germany or somewhere over there, and according to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) the contracts are already let. The money of this country is to be spent at a time when we have tens and hundreds of thousands of unemployed, to build ships in other lands. For this purpose the government will bestow on Sir William Petersen and a company which undoubtedly will register the ships overseas, $13,000,000 out of the overstocked treasury of the Dominion of Canada.
On every count there has been failure to review, failure to consider the circumstances, failure to delve to the heart of the difficulty. There has been nothing but a hasty, ill-considered, reckless plunge; and the government hope, I suppose, because of its mere recklessness, because of the spectacular character of this legislation; that in some way they are going to attract attention to the question, and finally drift to a solution. The Prime Minister says you cannot get any arrangement for supervision as called for in the amendment. Then before he is through with his speech he says: Just let us take this plunge into the Petersen contract; just let us get beside Mr. Preston with his pebble and help him throw it into the Atlantic. In that way we will rouse the dry bones of New Zealand. We will waken Australia, and bring England to her senses, and they will all come and gather round us, and we will be able to find some sort of board or institute, which will control rates on the water. Does the Prime Minister really believe that? Do you get any further in the solution of a question by starting with a false step? If hon. members feel they do, then they ought to vote for this contract.
I go back to 1903. Did we advance the solution of the railway problem in Canada by hastily plunging into the madness of the Transcontinental? Did we? Did not we rather deter the solution? Did not we rather intensify the difficulty of the problem for a period of at least half a century?
Did we in 1922 hasten the solution of the wheat marketing problem in the west by the gold-brick legislation of that year? Did not we as a matter of fact-and I appeal to hon. gentlemen to my left-did not we really defer the solution of that problem, which now is under way, for one year, if not two? That was precisely the effect.
Did we in 1923 advance the solution of the question of high freight rates on the Great Lakes by the legislation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day? Will hon. gentlemen suggest for one minute that we did? We brought in some legislation-and in that too Mr. Preston was the moving spirit from the beginning, the same man who has wound his maladorous trail through our politics for a quarter of a century-we plunged into a piece of legislation which resulted only in this, a cost of at least $3,800,000 to our western farmers in freight rates over what the American farmer was paying who enjoyed American boats. Such was the result, at the expense of the Canadian farmer. But it was not the only result. Another result was that we forced this country to the position of bending its knee to the American boat owner, and begging him to come back into our trade and violate our law. We got nothing in the wake of that hasty legislation, save a loss of millions to our farmers and a bitter humiliation to our country.
But the government says: Take this step; plunge right in, and if you cannot say anything else for us, please say that we are courageous. The Minister of Railways admits himself they are courageous. Well if courage consists in ill-considered and precipitated legislation, then the government undoubtedly is deserving of that meed of praise. Or if courage consists in prodigality with other people's money, then the members of this administration will leave a memory which will outlive the name of Joan of Arc. Courage, forsooth, to dip into the treasury of this country in a mad expenditure of $13,000,000 to do something we can do without a dollar of this expenditure at all! This contract is to be blessed by parliament, and we are expected to vote for its ratification because, if the government in proposing it have
Ocean Shipping Rates

no other virtue, they have the virtue of courage I
No; you do not advance the solution of the problem by first taking a step in the wrong direction. You thwart the solution, you delay it; and what is more you make your country a by-word before the world. What position is this country in as respects the Great Lakes problem to-day? Are we as far ahead as we were in 1923? We have a board which is forced to sham because it is supposed to be controlling rates, but everyone knows that it has not dictated a single rate. That board in actual practice, has no more to do with the control of rates on our lakes than have the wardens of a Confucian temple in Shanghai. The government may have expected that by taking that step in 1923 they would bring the American government to attention, and that the American government would join them in some system of control. But instead the American government stood by and laughed, and after the whole farce is over, the North American continent laughs as well.
Surely this House, merely because it is told by the Prime Minister that it is a case of being either in favour of low freight rates or against them, is not going to vote for this resolution. Surely this House is not going to pass its blessing on a resolution or on the ratification of a contract in which, I venture to say, in his heart of hearts no hon. member believes. I ask, subject to correction:	Is
there any hon. member who has heard this contract approved by any respectable citizen in this country outside the walls of this House? If any one can mention a man who has approved it to his face let him say who that man is. I stand and say definitely that not one human being has ever in my hearing or by letter expressed in the slightest degree any word of favor for this contract. The House is asked in the face of the direct challenge of the amendment to declare that this agreement ought to be ratified, and its feelings are soothed by the Prime Minister who says that all we really declare, is that we should like to see something done. I appeal to this House, on the contrary to make its real will known and to say that even though the government resolution be amended in detail, it is fundamentally wrong in principle, is ill-advised, costly and futile, and deserves no further consideration at the hands of parliament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sure the House will all agree with me that mv right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), whose faculty for destructive 
and unfair criticism is among the greatest of his abilities, has to-day given us one of the best exhibitions of that quality, and that after a speech of two and a half hours he has left this important question without having given to the House or to the country one atom in the way of solution, or one suggestion as to how the present problem may be met. Hon. gentlemen who sit behind him have discussed for a number of days this question of the incubus of ocean freight rates under which this country is now staggering, and they have denied that a combine has existed. They have urged that there was no such thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I see my hon. friends are following the cue of their leader. I am however in the judgment of the House when I make the statement that such were the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman mention one member who has said such a thing?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens)-


Arthur Meighen: He did not. Will the minister quote from his words?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The right hon. gentleman now comes forward and declares that a combine does exist that controls ocean rates, and he admits that the rates have materially advanced and have rendered exceedingly difficult the problem of exporting our products. He agrees that complaints have been made and are being made in the circumstances, and that the element of competition is eliminated. And then he proceeds in his casuistic way to argue that after all a combine is not a bad thing and that when you come to deal with ocean transportation it is perhaps necessary. After a complete distortion of almost every phase of the contract which he ventured to discuss, he concludes his remarks without giving to the House one suggestion as to how the evil is to be overcome.


George Perry Graham: He ran away from his own amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Absolutely. My right hon. friend, in his dogmatic way, shortly before concluding, asserted that there was not a single man in this country who would say a word in favour of the proposition. Let me say for the information of

Ocean Skipping Rates
the hon. gentleman that I have under my hand a statement touching this question by one of the most important organs of public opinion in Canada. The Manitoba Free Press, in its issue of Monday, March 16, 1925, says:
The attempt of the interest behind the North Atlantic shipping combine to obliterate the Preston report and the Petersen contract by a converging fire of all available artillery has not succeeded. The assaulting combination has been formidable:	the
British press, the linked commercial financial and shipping interests in Great Britain and Canada which have the best reasons for not wanting the present level of ocean rates disturbed, the Canadian Conservative party and its press, with something more than a hint that the British government is also unsympathetic towards the course taken by the Canadian government. Nevertheless, all the dust that has been kicked up does not obscure the broad outlines of the situation which exists and which calls for action. There is a combine among the North Atlantic shipping lines, and the rates exacted by the combine are so high as to affect our national interest in a manner highly detrimental. No relief is available unless we provide it ourselves. This the Canadian government is making an attempt to do. If Mr. Meighen and his party and his newspaper supporters, like the Montreal Gazette, the Ottawa Journal and the Toronto Mail and Empire, think they are getting anywhere by assailing the government for what it is trying to do and advocating the policy of patient submission to the combine, as though to the divine will-
This "policy of patient submission to the combine" is what my right hon. friend argued for. And that is what his whole speech to-day amounts to.
-they are making provision for one more disappointment. The instincts of the opposition to oppose the government in all things often commits it to stupid and shortsighted policies; there has never been a more striking exemplification of this than in this instance.
Now my right hon. friend says that there is a combine. But has he offered one single suggestion as to how the evils from which the country is suffering are to be remedied? In the speech of my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark) there is an amendment suggesting in some vague way that there ought to be a conference of the different empire units to talk over the matter. But my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) scorns the idea, for he never ventured to say a word in support of it as a solution of the difficulty. So that, forsooth, so far as the regular opposition in this House is concerned, they say to the House and the country, tacitly at any rate: "Let the combine go on and interfere with the export trade of this country; let it continue to hamper the transportation facilities of Canada; we will sit tight and do nothing." That is their position.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would my hon. friend permit me to correct a statement which he made before recess? I did not catch the remark at the time or I would have interrupted him. I know perfectly well he does not wish to misrepresent me, and I merely rise to correct the statement. He stated that I had said that there was no combine. What I said was this:
I am not for the moment suggesting that there is not a combine.
Then I also said:
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, no one disputes the fact that there is a conference, or a combination of interests existing in connection with shipping. It is unnecessary to establish that; it is admitted.
I merely rise to correct what was obviously an error on the part of my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My . hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has read isolated quotations from his remarks, but I am in the judgment of the House if the trend of his remarks all through was not along the line that there was no necessity for dealing with this matter in the way the government were proposing to do, because there was not a combine in the sense in which it was charged. I would not wilfully misrepresent my hon. friend in any way. but I am quite sure that the impression which was left upon my mind and the mind of every hon. gentleman by the tone of his remarks was such as I have indicated. I am sure my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), when he announced this afternoon that there was no question about there being a combine, and then began to coo and to indulge in that kind of remarks, which he can do so easily, intimating that after all there might be worse things than combines, particularly in regard to shippers, took a very peculiar position. There were other days when he did not coo so sweetly in regard to combines, but thundered at them in the most vehement way. Hon. gentlemen who were in the House in 1913 will remember that my right hon. friend at that time thought the situation in regard to the Atlantic freight rates had reached so serious a position that he moved the adjournment of the House in order to call attention of the House and the country to its importance and made a demand that the then government which he was supporting take some immediate action to deal with it. And well might he do so, because here in Canada, with our immense undeveloped resources, unless we find an outlet for our
Ocean Shipping Rates

export trade under conditions under which we can profitably send what we produce to the older nations of the world, we have but very little hope for or confidence in our future. In exporting the products of the farm, the mines and other industries, we are in competition with the United States of America, with the Argentine Republic and with the other overseas dominions all of whom are as yet in a somewhat similar position to that in which we find ourselves. Yet my hon. friend, in 1913, realizing the seriousness of the situation moved, as is customary in cases of urgency, that the House should adjourn in order to enable him to bring the situation before parliament and the country. What did he say at that time? He said:
I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker, a somewhat elaborate table showing the great increase that has taken place in ocean rates on grain and flour. That increase cannot be accounted for by normal conditions of any kind and in my judgment an explanation can be found only in a condition of affairs such as we have been compelled to address ourselves to in other lines of industry, namely the presence of monopoly. What is the monopoly that appears to be in control in this instance? There is no attempt to keep secret the fact that there exists an understanding between the various steamship lines operating between north America and European and particularly United Kingdom ports. It is known as the Canadian North Atlantic west bound freight conference. That conference, however, took its birth not at the time that the rates were increased in this way. That conference has been an institution of very oonsiiderable strength for the last eight years. It has been doing its work in a thorough method. For the first three or four or five years of its existence apparently it devoted its energy to sweeping from ,the high seas traversed by its lines all of what are known as tramp steamers, those steamships that have operated through many years as the element that introduced real competition in freight rates over the Atlantic.
Again he says:
As I showed at the commencement, this conference has so successfully done its work that roughly speaking they have raised incoming freight rates from twenty to fifty per cent, and in some cases by even a larger percentage, in that way largely nullifying any advantage we might hope to secure from the British preference.
And yet he produced tables this afternoon from the London Economist in which the rates from this side of the Atlantic, both from the United States and Canada, were shown with a view of answering these large specific increases in rates which my right hon. friend and leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave to the House on Tuesday night. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) attempted to make it appear to the House and the country that the actual increase in freight rates in Canada. was not as great as it really is, and yet he inveighed against them at that time and said:

Furthermore it is wall known, and, I think, uncontradicted that those lines which operate from our ports to ports across the Atlantic have a distinct understanding, if not more than that, with all lines operating from Portland and the port of New York to similar ports across the ocean. All have been brought under what is known as the North Atlantic Shipping conference. They are all reaping the rewards that come from that monopolistic corporation and they all at present feel themselves bound to obey the dictates of that conference, whatever they may be. The problem that faces us is this. Is it possible, and along what lines is it possible, to succeed so as to bring to a sense of duty, to a sense of equity, this corporation? I do not think I am stating the case too strongly when I say that there is a monopoly. We have every evidence of a monopoly in the arrogant exercise of power that we have had to submit to up to the present time. I am aware that the government have been dealing with this matter; that they have addressed themselves to it with vigour. I am also well aware that it is not possible to follow the old methods of attack and hope to meet with success in an attack on this corporation. It is not possible to adopt the old weapons and hope to win. Along what lines is it possible that we may succeed ?


Arthur Meighen: Did I mention the line
in this contract?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, my right hon. friend was floundering as he sometimes is, as he was this afternoon.	My right hon.
friend at that time brought forward for the consideration of the House and the country a gigantic evil, and just as he did this afternoon, while admitting that the evil still exists, he offered to the House and the country not the slightest suggestion as to a remedy or how to deal with the matter. Then he. went on:
But we know that we have interests in ocean rates that would be adverse to the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. It would be doubtless ;n the interest of the consumers there to see that the wheat rate was kept as low as possible in relation to the flour rate, whereas the very opposite would be the better policy here-to reduce the flour rate and not continue the spread between the two. I should be glad indeed if the government of the day could find a solution for the problem in the direction I indicate. At all events, the purpose of bringing this discussion up is to draw the attention of the people of this country through this parliament to the great increase that has taken place, to call attention to the serious aspect of this matter in relation to our prosperity and to enlist behind the government the active co-operation and sympathy of the Canadian people in whatever steps they may see fit to take in order to bring about a betterment of conditions.
In 1913, there was not any step too strong that could be taken in order to satisfy my right hon. friend, and the need which, he saw, existed in the country in regard to this matter. My right hon. friend to-day is speaking the voice of this combine. He produces certificates in regard to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine which, he says, come from those w'ho are not friendly to it, but they all come from men who were

Ocean Shipping Rates
employed by ship-owners that were in the north Atlantic combine.


Arthur Meighen: There is nobody else.
The merchant marine are in it too. Where would I get them?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They are not now. We will come to that later.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) says they are.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right
hon. friend's record on this matter is certainly a circuitous one. When responsibility came to him in 1921, and when Sir George Perley wrote to him from England calling his attention to the necessity and desirability of taking some action in regard to this matter, what did my right hon. friend do? He announced that he was going to appoint Dr. Magill, and until a few days ago when he heard Dr. Magill had never made a report, my right hon. friend did not know but that Dr. Magill had made a report. My right hon. friend discovered this only three days ago.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has not
the slightest warrant for what he says. I asked the government to produce the correspondence. They stopped at my reply to Dr. Magill. I believe Dr. Magill had made a reply to that letter. I knew he did not make a report. He was not asked to make a report. He was asked to prepare Canada's case for presentation to the Imperial Shipping Board. All I asked for was his reply to my letter. If the minister does not see any difference between a reply to a letter and a report of an investigation, I am sorry for his sense of accuracy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right
hon. friend says now that he thought Dr. Magill had not made a report or he knew he did not make a report. Which was it?


Arthur Meighen: I did not speak of that
at all. I knew he did not make a report. What I said was I believed he had made a reply to my letter to him, and that is all I ever asked for.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right
hon. friend is now in a dilemma.


Arthur Meighen: Not in the least.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On this
question which was one of the most serious that he ever had to deal with and which he asked parliament to adjourn to consider, when he had responsibility and when Sir George Perley called attention to the matter, he wrote to Dr. Magill asking him to make an
investigation, and my right hon. friend never bothered his head about the matter further.


Arthur Meighen: Six months passed before the election was called. As I explained, we made no progress; but complaint does not come very well from a government which waited a year and a half after the McMaster report before even making a suggestion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When my
right hon. friend, who is such a severe critic, had the responsibility as Prime Minister of this country, after initiating a discussion of this subject in 1913, I am in the judgment of this House whether, from what has taken place here at this moment, the right hon. gentleman ever took one step in order to deal with the matter. He writes to Dr. Magill, he never inquires to find out whether Dr. Magill has made an investigation or not, and he leaves the matter there. That is where my right hon. friend stands in regard to this question. In dealing with the subject under discussion this afternoon, my right hon. friend asserts that we cannot control cur rates on Canadian exports. This is quite at variance with his attitude previously when he demanded that the government of the day should take some action in regard to it; but he was unable to advise, because my right hon. friend is usually destructive, and I am in the judgment of the House and the country if my right hon. friend ever signalized his responsibility by any constructive method or movement dn regard to any matter. To-day he says that the rates cannot be controlled. In the case of a combine, I should like to know as a business proposition if there is any way in which you can prevent that combine from operating except by creating competition for it. That is a sound and sensible proposition. If you have a certain group of people that control a condition of affairs in any kind of business, must you not find competition in order to remedy the matter in some way? If you cannot find the existing competition, must you not create that competition, which, by its entry into the field, will enable the article to be manufactured at a cheaper price or to be carried at a lower rate than that which the combine imposes?
My right hon. friend indicated that we had done nothing after the report of the McMaster committee, as it is known. My right hon. friend entirely omitted, when the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) asked him to read further this afternoon, a certain recommendation that was made at that time. That recommendation reads:
Should it appear that there are no ships or not a sufficient number of ships belonging to the Canadian
Ocean Shipping Bates

Government Merchant Marine suitable for this service then it would appear that wisdom would dictate the disposal of some of the smaller ships to enable ships of the class required to be secured.
He failed this afternoon to mention that. He read a recommendation to take the matter up at the Economic conference. The Minister of Railways and Canals and the then Minister of Justice brought before the conference committee and the Imperial Shipping committee the rates on flour and other rates which were urged upon them at that time, and as a result of their efforts a sub-committee of the shipping committee came to Canada last year and dealt with that question by way of investigation. A matter of this kind cannot be dealt with in a moment. The government have been active in considering how this great problem, so vital to the business interests of this country, might be grappled with in some way and how these results might be obtained. We have now submitted to the judgment of parliament the proposal which we have before us. My right hon. friend was very much worried because this proposal was going to a special committee. Is there any reason why it should not? Time and again, in a somewhat lengthy parliamentary experience, I have known governments to submit measures to the House and to say that, instead of the ordinary procedure which applies to government bills of going into committee of the Whole, after second readings, they propose to submit them to the consideration of a special committee in order that the whole House may be thoroughly seized of the matter. How much more on a great question of this kind would the government be justified in taking this course of submitting this measure to a special committee, so that it might be closely and completely scrutinized and we might arrive at some solution of the problem in the best interests of the people of this country? Now my right hon. friend engaged in some casuistical criticisms of this contract. In the first place, he told us that Sir William Petersen need only have one sailing a year. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is not much use discussing before the House in great detail what the legal effect of a contract may be, but this is the plain English of the contract in regard to this matter, that the contractor shall-
Build, equip, provide, establish and during this contract, continue and in the manner hereinafter mentioned, operate a regular shipping service between such ports in Great Britain or Ireland or the continent of Europe, and Canadian ports as may be designated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada or his representatives from time to time.
I had the opportunity of conferring with the distinguished legal gentleman who passed

upon this contract, I refer to Mr. Lafleur, and it is his judgment, with all due deference to my right hon. friend's experience, and it is my judgment, if it is worth anything, that that clause has only one meaning-that a regular shipping service is a continuous shipping service throughout the year. Not only that, but my right hon. friend went on to say that it was not Canadian goods that were to be carried; all kinds of goods could be carried without the government here having anything to say about it. Well, it is the a, b. c of legal construction that when you are dealing with the interpretation of a contract you look to the recitals in order to see the purpose and object expected to be secured by the operative clauses later on. And this is one of the recitals:
And whereas the government, of Canada after an investigation of the representations brought to its knowledge and after giving the same serious consideration has thought it wise to adopt such means as may he deemed expedient and necessary to exercise such supervision and control of trans-Atlantic freight rates as it is .possible for them to do and thereby as far as possible to prevent and defeat any unreasonable excess or overcharge in ocean freight rates as exercised by such ocean shipping combines or conferences to the loss and detriment of its citizens and has reached the conclusion that in order to more fully safeguard the interests of its citizens it would be well advised to enter into an arrangement whereby it may exercise such control or supervision and whereby it may improve the conditions under which the products of its citizens are exported or imported.
That recital contains the express purpose of the contract, it is a controlling clause, and not even a barrister of a year's experience would venture to assert before any court in this country that it had any other meaning, nor, I venture to say, would any judge for one moment listen to an argument that the government of Canada had no control over the commodities that were to be carried by these ships. The language in regard to the control of rates is also so clear and definite that it cannot be considered for one moment as capable of any other construction:
That the control and regulation of the rates to be charged by the contractor shall rest with the government of Canada and that the government shall fix such transportation rates on all commodities from time to time.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Might I be permitted
a question? Under this contract does the minister suggest that the government will have any control over the allotment of space? For instance, tire Prime Minister yesterday referred to the carriage of cattle. Now, under this contract will the government be in a position to control the space that will be allotted for the accommodation of cattle? If so, under what clause7

Ocean Shipping Rates


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was dealing with the question of rates and the question whether it was Canadian goods that were to be carried on these ships. I will come to my hon. friend's point in due course, but he is not going to be permitted to divert the attention of the House from the point which I am making at this time-that absolutely and beyond a shadow of a doubt under this contract the control of rates and the control of goods that are to be exported vests in the government of Canada.
Then my right hon. friend indulged in some pyrotechnics in regard to the law concerning lake freight rates. Let us be frank and understand where we are with respect to that question. A commission was appointed, composed of Mr. McLean, of the railway commission, Mr. Thompson of Saskatchewan and General Tremblay, who is connected with shipping in Quebec. That commission recommended to the attention of the House and the government the measure which we submitted in accordance with the terms of that recommendation. That is where the law came from. It was created after the fullest investigation by a commission whose members certainly were in a position to examine the subject thoroughly.
Now I propose to deal with the question generally, and to call the attention of the House to what the government has done in regard to this contract. We have chartered ten new vessels, fully equipped for our trade, and we have obtained control of the movements of these vessels, and of the rates to be charged. The contract is substantially a charter party, similar to what might be entered into by any business firm engaged in a large way in the transportation of its products. We make the charter party and place the ships at the disposal of the Canadian producer and manufacturer, with the certainty that they will be able to transport their products cheaper than they can now, and with the assurance that those products will be transported through Canadian ports. That is a summary of our policy. That is the result we obtain by the arrangement we have made, and no amount of argument can gainsay it. This talk of handing 813,000,000 out of the treasury for no return entirely overlooks the substantial results that are involved in this contract. If we had a large business firm in Canada producing some staple product of which it was able to make large sales in Great Britain or on the continent, what would it do? It would proceed to make an arrangement with a shipping firm owning and controlling a fleet of ships to carry its products. In a word, it would make a charter
party under which it would pay the shipping firm so much for the service to be rendered. That is what we have done. We pay this money in order that we may control these rates in the interests of the Canadian people, in order that these ships will sail from Canadian ports, and in order that the present condition of affairs under which our ports are discriminated against in favour of United States ports will not be permitted to continue. That is what we have done. And why should not that measure be submitted to a committee of this House?
In a speech in 1913 my right hon. friend indicated that the British interests in this matter were adverse to ours. They certainly are. Let us be frank about this. Sir George Perley says so. Writing to my right hon friend in 1920 Sir George said:
The terms of reference do not definitely give the committee-
That is, the Imperial Shipping 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.
Then again he wrote:
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.
Then my right hon. friend asked Dr. Magill to prepare a case, but never once inquired whether he had done so or not. Now, what is the situation in regard to our relation to the Mother Country in reference to shipping? My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) in the resolution which he introduced some weeks ago in favour of Canada having the power to amend her constitution, asserted, and asserted vociferously, that all we needed to do was to ask the Mother Country and she would grant us our request. My hon. friend entirely forgot the relation in which we stand to the Mother Country with regard to shipping. Section 91 of the British North America Act purports to give Canada the right to deal with navigation and shipping. But let me tell the House, we cannot deal with navigation and shipping except in a bettered way. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which was re-enacted in 1894, Canada cannot do a single thing in regard to shipping except as to shipping which is registered in this country. Let us see how that works out-and it explains some of the difficulties we have to contend with in dealing with this matter. It is quite time that this House and the country
Ocean Shipping Rates

realized the larger issue that is involved in this question. The Hon. Mr. Brodeur, late Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, whose unfortunate demise occurred a short time ago, when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries previous to 1911 took up with the British authorities the question of amendments to the existing law which would enable us to deal freely with these matters as we can deal with other matters committed to us. Australia and New Zealand, in state papers, presented to the British government a similar claim and are still pressing the matter. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, so called, British shipping, Australian shipping, New Zealand shipping, can engage in our coasting trade and we cannot do anything to prevent it, to interfere with it, even to regulate it. If, for instance, Canada desired to impose a duty upon ships built in Great Britain and brought over here, that duty would be entirely nugatory, because if the ships were registered in Great Britain they would have a right to engage in our coasting trade and we could not interfere with them in any way. Not only that: we passed in 1910 the Canadian Carriage of Goods Act under which we undertook to lay down the rules applicable to bills of lading upon export cargoes from Canada. The Furness-Withy people and others engaged in this absolutely ignore that act; they make their bills of lading as they please, because, they say, if the ships are registered in Great Britain they are not amenable to our laws; the Canadian Carriage of Goods Act does not apply. Under the Colonial Laws Validity Act we cannot legislate in regard to any question affecting for instance, the amount of money recoverable in the case of a collision at sea; nor can we make any amendments to the rules of practice of the Admiralty court unless we secure approval through an imperial order in council. My right hon. friend was quite right in 1913, and Sir George Perley was quite right in 1920, when they said that the British people were not in favour of the control of rates or of giving us anything to say in regard to that matter. The shipping interest in England is very powerful, controlling as it does, political situations, dictating legislation and generally occupying probably the strongest position of any business interest in the great Mother Country. And they do not want their rates controlled; they would not agree to any proposal looking to the control of rates in Great Britain. We might as well bay at the moon as expect them to do anything in that connection. Though my right hon. friend had two resolutions drawn on this question,-and his supporter from 
Burrard (Mr. Clark) moved one here-he knew very well that the effect of that resolution if adopted would be to negative any chance of our getting an improvement in the matter of freight rates.


Arthur Meighen: Did I not understand the minister to claim a few minutes ago that the government by appealing to the Imperial Shipping Board had actually got the flour discrimination removed?


George Perry Graham: That was done before the Shipping Board came here.


Arthur Meighen: No it was not.


George Perry Graham: Yes it was.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no-years after.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will show my right hon. friend how that was done.


George Perry Graham: It was done before they ever came over here.


Arthur Meighen: It was done since 1918,


George Perry Graham: They did not do it until two years ago.


Arthur Meighen: I know-that was after,


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Having
brought the Imperial Shipping committee to that point they went to the combine, the monopoly that my right hon. friend denounced; the monopoly to whom he said: " Please Mr. Combine, please Mr. Monopoly, won't you let up a little bit on this flour business?"


Arthur Meighen: We got it done anyway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the way it was done.


Arthur Meighen: I thought you said they would not do anything.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will make this statement, and my right hon. friend will not dispute it: The British parliament will not agree to legislation that will provide for the control of rates on British shipping. This is the way this Shipping committee, according to their own story, had the matter of flour dealt with-I quote from their report:
We are pleased to say that we were able to obtain a satisfactory undertaking from the Canadian Liner committee-
That is the graceful title which means North Atlantic combine.
-in regard to discrimination in rates against Canadian flour. This no doubt should be supported by a fur ver

Ocean Shipping Rates
undertaking on the part of the British lines engaged in the north Atlantic trade, if such an undertaking can be obtained.
It has also been suggested that this board got something done in regard to insurance on the matter being brought before them. What was done was this-a very anomalous thing: the insurance rates which have discriminated so completely against our Canadian ports and in favour of New York and Portland, as indicated by my right hon. friend and leader when he read from the report of Mr. Scott, the grain commissioner, the other day, has been changed so that the rate is somewhat lower on the hulls of vessels sailing from Halifax, but the insurance rate has not been decreased one cent upon the cargoes going in those same vessels. A very peculiar anomaly, is it not? Nor has the port of St. John, which is our larger Maritime seaport, been able to get its insurance rates reduced at all, either on hulls or on cargoes. So that the remedy suggested in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Burrard simply puts this proposal into a political cemetery whence it can never be resurrected in our time. It relegates to oblivion the idea that any relief whatever can be obtained for this country in the matter of ocean freight rates.
My right hon. friend spoke this afternoon on the question of the utilization of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and I want to discuss very frankly that phase of the subject. I have gone into that matter and I find that of the ships of the Canadian merchant marine, 23 are under 5,000 tons. Fourteen are on the Great Lakes or laid up and are therefore not available for ocean tonnage. Thirteen are used in the Pacific trade and have, I understand, been successful in developing trade on the Pacific coast, sailing from Vancouver to other ports. Fifteen are engaged an the Australian trade taking in New Zealand and other places. Six are in the West Indian trade and nine on the north Atlantic. Those in the West Indian trade are being sailed there in accordance with the treaty arrangements which were made with the West Indies.


Arthur Meighen: Twelve on the north
Atlantic.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nine.


Arthur Meighen: There were twelve in
1923. according to the report which I hold in my hand.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the information that came to me officially.


Arthur Meighen: I have the official report here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the existing situation, anyway. I do not know what it was in 1923.


George Perry Graham: What difference does it
make to the argument whether there were nine or twelve?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to remind my right hon. friend that he and his government built these ships and it was along in 1920 and 1921 that stress was being laid upon the necessity of dealing with this question of ocean freight rates. Why did he not put some of these ships on the ocean if he thought the matter should be dealt with in that way?


Arthur Meighen: Put them on the ocean? What are they on now? Were they not put on the ocean?


George Perry Graham: They were all dressed up and no place to go then.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to
direct the attention of the House to a clause in the contract to which my right hon. friend did not refer:
And it is mutually covenanted and agreed between the parties hereto that the shipping services to be established by the contractor herein will co-operate and work loyally with the Canadian National Railways system and the fleet of ships operated by that system and under its control and known as the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
The purpose of the government in regard to this matter is to ask the Canadian Government Railways, which are operating these ships, to work in conjunction with the ships that are to be constructed under this contract, so that co-operating together, and with the facilities of the railway being available for both the Petersen ships as well as our own, we shall have in reality 19 ships with which to deal with this combine.
You may ask, why was it not done before? Here was the situation. >Here was this immense deficit upon the railways, and a deficit on the merchant marine ships. Now the proposition that you are going to fight a combine with nine ships, without any reserves of strength of any kind, I am sure every hon. gentleman will agree with me, on reflection, was not a sound business one, if the matter was being handled directly by the government. We had before us the result of the experience of the United States and of Australia, both of whom have gone out of operating their ships directly. The solution of the problem rests now on the arrangement we have made
Ocean Shipping Rates

with Sir William Petersen for ten ships under charter, together with the nine ships, if not more, of the government merchant marine on the north Atlantic co-operating with the Canadian National railways, with their freight rates controlled, and their destinations controlled. In that way we shall have given to Canada, when this contract is approved by parliament, the first practical method of dealing with this vexed question in this country.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Before the minister
leaves that point, may I ask whether the controlled rates applying to the Petersen vessels will apply also to the vessels of the merchant marine, if they are to work in conjunction with them?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That would certainly be the idea and the policy of the government.


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand it is
the intention of the government to place the merchant marine vessels under the management of Sir William Petersen?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, I did
not say anything of the kind.


Alfred Speakman: May I ask one more
question in that regard? If the lower rates are to be applied to the vessels of the merchant marine as well, will not that, without the aid of a subsidy, increase the present deficit in operating these vessels?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I should
think the government would see its way clear
to supplement in connection with the government merchant marine vessels, just the same as they would in regard to the Petersen boats, although we are obtaining control of the rates on the Petersen boats as the result of a special charter.
Let us never forget what the situation is in regard to the Petersen contract. We hear a lot of talk about subsidies, but I assert this, and I venture to say it cannot be gainsaid: that what we have done in regard to the Petersen contract is simply to charter these ten vessels when constructed, and we shall have absolute control over their rates and destinations, and all such matters, in just the same way as a business firm in this country would that chartered ten vessels from the other side of the ocean. That is the sum and substance of the situation from a legal standpoint. There is no more technical and difficult subject to deal with, as a matter of law and business, than shipping and shipping contracts, and hon. gentlemen who have high status at the bar, but who have not had an opportunity of living at the seaboard,

where they would come into contact with shipping business, have-no matter what their status may be-very little knowledge of how these problems are worked out. So technical is this shipping business and shipping law that not only in the Mother Country but in the seaboard provinces of this Dominion, both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, men have given up practically all their other legal business in order to devote themselves to shipping law and shipping business. I assert, with some experience in these matters, because coming from a seaboard province I have had to deal with them, that all this talk about subsidies, all this bugaboo that is raised on the question, is simply an attempt to mislead the public mind in regard to what is a simple business proposition. This country is simply chartering from Sir William Petersen ten ships for ten years, and instead of giving him so much per ton, we are paying him a flat rate. In regard to the utilization of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships, it is both implied and expressly stated in the contract that the Petersen ships in working out the contract shall work in conjunction and unison with the Canadian Government Railway system, and with the fleet of ships operated by that system.


William Charles Good: I should like to know what
objection the minister has to adding ten ships to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and subsidizing them?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, for the simple reason that we look at the experience of the United States and Australia. The experience all over the world is that a line directly owned and operated by a government cannot be worked out successfully. But having these ships on our hands, and having the advantage of the business connections formed by an independent company which is sailing ships throughout the world, and utilizing the docks and terminals on the other side where these ships have their connections, we shall be able to utilize these government merchant marine ships in a manner we have never been able to utilize them before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend is serious, why not put all the boats under Mr. Petersen?


George Perry Graham: That would have been
reasonable in 1920, when you did not have them on any routes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will my
hon. friend say that his distinguished friend from Vancouver who sits behind him would

Ocean Shipping Rates
like to have the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships now sailing from Vancouver on the Pacific ocean taken off these routes?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really did my hon. friend an injustice. I assumed he was serious in his argument.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is a very genial fellow, and he jokes occasionally. He is beginning to be a rival in that respect to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, though he has a long way to go before he catches up with him.


Mr. SPENCER:: How many of the government marine ships will be working in cooperation with the Petersen ships?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: According
to my present advice, there are nine vessels operating in the north Atlantic which could be utilized in that connection.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If that is so, why not
put the nine vessels under Sir William Petersen, following up the minister's assertion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is very prolific of suggestions. These vessels are being run by officials connected with the Canadian National Railway system. I do not know whether they are making any mistake in running them. Probably they are running them as cheaply as they could be run anyway. My hon. friend wants us to give these ships away or to hand them over to Sir William Petersen. I do not think the Canadian people would be in favour of giving them away. But there is no reason why as a business proposition the results contemplated under this contract cannot be obtained, and I think they will be obtained, much more efficaciously along the line the government is suggesting than in the way my hon. friend suggests.
Let me say further, we have had a great deal of criticism of this proposal. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition talked for two and a half hours this afternoon on the subject, and offered not a single constructive suggestion as to how to deal with this problem. I would like to hear, and this government and the country would lake to hear, from hon. gentlemen who are criticizing this proposal some tangible suggestion that will be an improvement upon it. If you are going to leave this question to the British shipping interests, you will never solve this problem of the combine. There is only one way to deal with a combine, and that is to give it competition. I'f there is 85
any other way, when you have not legislative control, I would like to know what it is. While, therefore, the method suggested may not be absolutely the best solution that could be devised for meeting the problem, the government submits it to the House with the proposal that a special committee be appointed to go thoroughly into the whole matter, investigating it from every angle. And I am confident that after the committee shall have heard evidence and gone into the subject fully, the conclusion will be that the method suggested by the government is a sound one. Hon. gentlemen may indulge in criticism, but if the evil was great in 1913 I think it will be admitted that it is still greater to-day. The combine has a strangle hold on the business interests of Canada, and our progress in trade is hampered in consequence. We cannot make any advancement so long as these impositions are exacted against our products as a result of the operation of any combine. It is necessary therefore, in the interests of the people at large, that we make some attempt to grapple with the situation, and I submit in confidence that the committee of the House which will scrutinize the measure with every care will give it their support.


William Garland McQuarrie: I want to remind the minister that he has not carried out his promise to answer my question. I asked him a question which he said he would answer later on.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be
glad to give the hon. gentleman an answer when the House goes into committee.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: In rising to make a few remarks on the resolution and the amendment thereto it would not be amiss, I think, to express the pious hope that the subject may be discussed on its merits wthout any recourse to political controversy. I had intended to offer a word of congratulation to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on his able speech this afternoon, but I realize now that if I did so I might be treading on dangerous ground after having heard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou). I do not think that hon. gentleman would relish any remarks of that kind.
The resolution, I understand, was prompted by the report we have before us, submitted by Mr. Preston, the allegations in which are to the effect that there exists a shipping combine which has practically complete control over all trade routes. They operate by outbidding competing lines, thus eliminating competition, and they divide the territory

Ocean Shipping Rates

among themselves. I do not think there is any question as to the nature of the general allegation of the report-certainly the suggestion is there-that this combine is out to work against British companies and industries.
The Prime Minister in speaking the other night on this subject offered the suggestion that this report was not the only thing which the government had to inspire them to move in the direction now proposed. He told us that there was a vast amount of correspondence from certain sources pointing to the impossibility of carrying on trade under existing rates; these companies situated throughout Canada, it was stated, found it very difficult to do business, and possibly this was another source of inspiration leading to the present step on the part of the government. Be that as it may, I think we are justified in assuming that both arguments more or less influenced the government in the matter. Let me now consider the action which the government proposes to take to meet the situation. It is proposed to subsidize a certain company-I understand that the government objects to that word, but I know of no other which can exactly describe the proposal; the government, I say, intends subsidizing a company-which will enter into competition with the combine which is now in operation. Speaking the other night in this House in another connection, I recalled the condition of affairs in the late nineties in regard to the- railways in western Canada. I should like to refer to that matter again. In those days it was generally alleged that the Canadian Pacific Railway was a heartless company that operated simply for the purpose of extorting money from the poor settlers in the west, and it was urged that the only way by which that situation could be met was by building another road to com-* pete against it. We proceeded to do that, and it has been stated during this debate that the competition which is supposed to go on between the two railways is to keep them from reducing rates under governmental control. We have a railway commission which, it is said, actually precludes any possibility of the railways charging exorbitant rates. Now, so far as the export trade of western Canada is concerned, I think it is only fitting that we should consider the whole situation from the time the product is laid on the car in western points until it reaches its destination overseas. The portion of rail over which these goods are hauled is one step in the export business. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), discussing this subject the other night, said that what the government had in
fMr. Kellner.]
mind was to establish governmental control, and I took it that he wanted that control fixed in a way similar to the control that obtains on the lakes and the railways. I think therefore that we are justified, in considering the question of ocean rates, to refer to what has been done in other departments of our export trade.
Let us take our railways. When the Crows-nest pass agreement was reinstated recently -that is to say, to the extent to which it was reinstated-the railway commission acting on behalf of the government rejected it. Of course, it was again reinstated by the Supreme court. But at the present time the Railway Act is not being enforced by any means in its entirety. There is a clause in the act providing against discrimination, and it is hard for the rank and file of western people to see why that clause is not being put into effect. Let us take now the condition on the Great Lakes; for transportation there is an important factor in our export trade. We held an investigation into that matter a couple of years ago and passed a resolution to do away with the combine that existed in that regard. It was definitely represented to the committee that investigated the subject then that there existed on the Great Lakes a combine of no uncertain potentialities. I do not know but that the evidence submitted to that committee went to show that there was as complete a combine on the Great Lakes as on the Atlantic. If I remember rightly, in the year 1922 there was an announcement that lake rates would be decreased, and the ship owners along with the Canadian railways called a meeting in Toronto to consider ways and means of maintaining the rates. Just about the time the Toronto meeting w'as called, rumour reached them that the American roads also intended reducing rates. A meeting was then called in New York at which there were representatives of the Canadian railways, the American railways and the steamship companies, and it was agreed that the American companies should not reduce their rates. So that governmental control, so far as it applies to railways and to the Great Lakes, evidently is a control which keeps them from
9	p.m. reducing rates; and if we were to establish that sort of control on the Atlantic I doubt whether we Should be able to relieve the situation which now exists.
In all fairness, it seems to me, we should inquire the personnel of the companies who comprise the combine, inasmuch as they have definitely started out for the purpose of handicapping British industry. I do not think

Ocean Shipping Rates
the statement can be challenged that they are largely British companies, consisting of men who unquestionably are high up in social and financial circles. And it seems rather a startling suggestion that they would go out and deliberately fix rates which would handicap England and would work to the benefit of other countries. I think if we delve into this great question to any depth at all we will probably find that there is something else besides the combine which is affecting these rates.
When we get down to the Great Lakes rate portion of the route, we have about a half dozen different routes which grain coming east may take. It may go down to some of the American ports and over American railroads, or may take the all-water route to Montreal, or may take the lake and rail route. We find that each year over fifty per cent goes by the American route. I do not think there is any question that the road which will carry the cheapest gets the grain. Some evidence was submitted to the committee which investigated national railways and shipping which I think shows one reason for the great percentage of our grain going out over American routes. That evidence was to the effect that grain would follow whichever route offered the best rate. If the rates are cheaper going by the American ports than by the Canadian ports, and if we give effect to this agreement and subsidize Canadian products other than grain, would that not be an incentive for the greater percentage of our grain to go by the American routes? I think, if we are going to subsidize only Canadian products going by Canadian ports, that we are actually building up a proposition which would probably divert more grain to the American routes. With reference to the ocean transport, I have before me the evidence which was submitted to the committee to which I referred as to the results of the operation of some of the merchant marine boats. The eastbound part of the first cargo paid 830,555.37. The westbound1 cargo paid S3,314.94; and the entire cargo paid $33,869.30. I would suggest that, as far as that trip is concerned, the reason that we have a high rate going to Europe is that we have no cargo coming west. If we had a cargo both ways there is no question but that the rates going east would be very much lower. This is not the only case. A long list is given here and they are pretty much on the same line. Take for instance the one that is labelled No. 16, I believe it is the Commander. The gross earnings of that boat eastbound were $38,132.74 and westbound $1,061.38. The boat S5i
was actually coming back practically empty. It would be impossible to have a low rate coming westward with a cargo amounting to a little over a thousand dollars, and apparently the only thing we can do is to increase the eastbound rates to pay for the ballast which they must carry when they are coming west. So much for the Canadian National. I have the Canadian Pacific Railway reports here-and they are sometimes spoken of as being an authority on shipping. The reports of the merchant marine show that it is all ballast coming one way. This Canadian Pacific report reads:
The Canadian Pacific steamships, in common with all other ocean lines, have in 1922 passed through a trying period. The large amount of ocean tonnage which the owners have endeavoured to keep in commission has naturally created a situation seriously affecting revenues from transportation both as to freight and passengers.
And again in 1923 they report:
The Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited, have in 1923 continued to show improvement in service and in revenues although many factors which militate against satisfactory operating results yet prevail. The world's ocean tonnage still exceeds trade requirements and financial conditions in Europe and labour unrest in Great Britain have had an adverse effect on steamship traffic.
Taking the two together their arguments would show that this trade is unbalanced and that there is too much shipping in operation, and I do not believe that a ship subsidy is going to relieve or cure that situation. I believe we will have to get something different from that. I am disposed to think that we do not give quite consideration enough to what might be done in the matter of negotiations between the government and these companies, and I am encouraged to read in that connection an item from the Commercial Intelligence Journal March 7, which says:
Mr. A. E. Bryan, Canadian trade commissioner in Kobe, has for some months past been co-operating with western cattle raisers, the federal Department of Agriculture, and the various provincial departments in an effort to open the Japanese market to shipments of Canadian cattle. In this connection the government of Alberta sent a special representative to Japan to report on the possibilities of increased shipments to that country. His investigations substantiated the opinion of the Canadian trade commissioner that any development of the trade would be impossible at the transportation rate existing, namely $75 per head from Canadian ports to Japan. After discussion, successive reductions have since been made, to $50 per head, and to $37.50, the rate now quoted by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Pacific lines.
Now here is an instance where rates have been reduced, according to this article, from $75 to $37.50. I do not think the article is quite correct. I h:ive watched those negotiations with considerable interest, and I hope
Ocean Shipping Rates

the Minister of Agriculture will tell us some time what part his department took in the negotiations. I was under the impression the provincial government carried it out. I think the rate was formerly $100, reduced to $44 and eventually to $37.50. I maintain that that is just about as good or great an accomplishment as you can hope to achieve by starting up another company in competition with those that already exist. It is certainly worth trying. Mention was made the other night about the feasibility of taking over the Canadian Pacific Railway to work in conjunction with our merchant marine, and this new company which we propose to inaugurate. I should like to ask the government if, in the event of such an undertaking being arranged, would it be their opinion that they cou'ld use the anti-combine legislation to force the Canadian Pacific ships to come under a contract similar to that now proposed in reference to this subsidy. It seems to me there is a Canadian company that would be operating under Canadian registry, and it might be so that Canadian Pacific ships-


Mr. BRISTOL:: The Canadian Pacific ships are under British, not Canadian registry. Therefore, what the hon. member suggests coulld not be accomplished.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I made the statement on the supposition that if the Canadian government took them over, unquestionably we could change that and they would then be operating under Canadian registry. What I was particularly anxious to find out was: Would this anti-trust law, in the opinion of the government, be elastic enough to cover this? If so, it would give us a very formidable array of ships, consisting of the present merchant marine, the Canadian Pacific and this Petersen line, if this measure is carried in t'he House. I believe, to those who sit in this corner of the House, the suggestion of taking over the Canadian Pacific makes probably the strongest appeal of all. We have for a considerable number of years been believers in government ownership, and I am disposed to think that this would meet with a hearty response from those who occupy the benches immediately surrounding me. There is one danger, I presume, in considering it at the present time, and I think the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) should have delivered his speech on the electrification of railroads at the same time. Then he would have impressed the House with the danger of getting some out-of-date equipment which we might get if we were taking the railways over at the moment. I do not, however, presume
fMr. Kellner.]
there is very great possibility of our taking them over in the near future, and we shall probably not be embarrassed by that contingency.
In reference to ocean rates, I have before me a statement of the rates charged in 1923, from May to November, and I find that unquestionably the quantity of tonnage that was offered at any port was a big factor in connection with the rates. They varied all the way from six cents to nine cents during that year. I do not think there is any question that, before we solve this problem, we shall have, by some method or another, to equalize our trade. I might throw out this suggestion to the government: There has been a good deal of agitation from this side of the House, at one time or another, to make a study of European countries which have inflated their currency. I believe, if you will look over the countries that to-day are enjoying low rates, you will find that invariably they have inflated their currency to a certain extent. My argument in that connection is that, by that inflation, they are able to start an active trade in their country. Where the trade is, the ships are going, and where the ships are going, the rates are lower. So, in all probability before we shall settle this question to the best advantage, at least, we shall have to give that some consideration. In my estimation, it would certainly be worth while having a commission appointed who would be empowered to deal with this export business and who would be given the privilege of contracting for rates. When we were considering the combine on the Great Lakes, the feature which received the most prominence about that combine was the fact that two men were able to allot the entire cargoes that went on all those boats. Supposing we give a small commission that privilege in regard to ocean freight and allow them to contract for it, it would seem to me they could get a better contract than it is possible to get when every man is doing his own business.
In conclusion, I do not think, I would fee! justified in supporting the resolution from what arguments have been submitted to the House. I think the amendment is 'probably a little drastic. The suggestion might be worthy of consideration, I do not know; I have not much faith in its accomplishing anything, but I would hardly go so far as the mover of the amendment and say that the suggestion is absolutely unworthy of our consideration.


Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I am induced to intervene in

Ocean Shipping Rates
this debate because I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) across the floor if he approved this agreement, and his reply was to the effect that that was why the government signed it. I think the agreement is very prejudicial to the interests of the country. There are men of legal standing in the government, and it is impossible for me to conclude that that agreement was read over and considered by the lawyers in the cabinet before it was signed. My other reason for attempting to address the House is that I stated it to be my opinion that, in the final result, under this agreement the control of rates passed to Sir William Petersen and was not in the hands of the government. I hope to show this even to lay minds before I take my seat. This agreement interests me very much.
I was attracted to it by what is no part of the agreement at all. It is a peculiar thing that upon a commercial agreement there should be an affidavit of execution. This is not done in the province of Ontario where the agreement was signed.


Arthur Meighen: Nor anywhere else.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I thought: How did this come about? And then I noticed that the witness to the agreement and the maker of the affidavit was a judge of the Supreme court. It is suggested that Mr. Eugene Lafleur safeguarded the interests of the government in connection with this contract. I know Mr. Lafleur; I know that he is a master of the English language, and I know that this agreement was drawn by a literary sloven. It is obvious on the face of it. I also know that Mr. Lafleur is a distinguished jurisconsult, a man who understands how to draw an agreement expressing accurately the rights of the parties, and I say that this agreement was drawn by a drafting bungler. The affidavit is evidence of that. Does that affidavit serve any purpose whatever? None at all. Can any purpose ever be made of it? None at all. Sir William Petersen will never dispute the execution of the agreement and I do not think Mr. Thomas A. Low will. But supposing one or both did, you cannot prove the agreement by this affidavit. You have to call this Supreme court judge of the Yukon into the witness box and there he subjects himself to cross-examination.
I pass from this peculiar affidavit, following as it does an affidavit of execution under the Ontario statutes, relating to short forms of conveyances and mortgages, which is given a peculiar statutory efficacy, to the recitals. Notwithstanding the new law enunciated tonight by the Minister of National Defence, that the recitals control the construction of a
document, I desire to say that the draftsman who wrote these recitals had a good deal of impudence. What did he do? He made Sir William Petersen agree that he understood about the conditions of the agricultural, manufacturing and industrial people of this country; and he made Sir William Petersen say that there was a combine. Here is a man who, no doubt, has been dealing with the alleged combine at one time or another saying, "It is in the interests of Canada that this thing should be done; there are combines, I know it, and therefore I agree with these recitals." These recitals, which have nothing whatever to do with the agreement, occupy about one-fourth of it. Consequently I was naturally prejudiced against the document because I knew there was propaganda in it. It goes forth with the blazing sanction apparently of a Supreme court judge, and then there is this propaganda of the recitals. Last night the Prime Minister asked':	"What is the reason
of the propaganda that has been undertaken by the steamship companies in opposition to this agreement? How fearful they are," he said, "of the great damage to be done to them by this David's pebble that we are throwing into their ranks!" They had to answer the propaganda in this agreement, published daily throughout the country; they had to answer the Preston alleged case; and they would not have been self-respecting men unless they had done so. Anything that has appeared' in the newspapers or otherwise from the shipping interests has been to give the lie to the Preston report and to contradict the propaganda which the government itself has placed in the agreement and broadcasted so widely. I want to say at the outset that if there is any possible way of getting cheaper transportation rates on the ocean, on the land or in the air, I am all for it. No member of this House can be of stronger mind in that respect than I am, and I believe that is the attitude of this section of the House. It is absolutely unfair to impute that we are standing for the maintenance of a combine which is not in the interests of the people.
In passing, I am interested to revert to about twenty years ago, when, a government being in power in Ontario adverse to the party to which I have always belonged, and there being in charge of the administration of justice at Ottawa a minister of the party of the Prime Minister, a prosecution was undertaken, called the Plumbers' Supply Case, in which I happened to play a part. Men who were engaged in the supply of plumbers' goods were charged under, I believe, section 496 of the criminal code with forming an improper combine. The case
Ocean Shipping Rates

was heard by the late Mr. Justice Clute, and in the course of the testimony it developed that the combination was distinctly in the interests of everyone who had anything to do with the supply and use of plumbers' goods. Two of the men charged were found guilty; they practically admitted the charge; they were fined. The case was taken up with the Liberal government, and they said, " Here, this is striking where the blow should not be struck, this combine is in the interests of the people of this province;" and no further prosecution followed.
Coming to the agreement itself, as I say, I was led to examine it narrowly; and notwithstanding what the Minister of National Defence has just said, implying that you might get an agreement which lawyers might determine one way, but if they lived down by the sea where he does, or if it dealt with shipping, they would find that they were mistaken and that what they would naturally expect to follow from the words used did not follow but that the words had some other cryptic and unexpected meaning;-I say, Mr. Speaker,

and I would not assert it unless I absolutely believed it, and I am sure it would not do me very much good professionally, otherwise-that this contract has not only one " joker " but half a dozen or more, and that these " jokers " are inserted for the purpose of withdrawing from the attention of the public and of this House the actual effect of the agreement itself. I do not wish to cover the ground that was traversed this afternoon, but section 1 of the contract permits of its assignment to any German, United States or other foreign company. The draftsman protecting the high contracting party, might very well have said that the assignment should be approved of by the minister. The minister ought to know, this government ought to know, the House ought to know, the country ought to know *who are the people getting the money that the country is paying. Section (a) of clause 1 has been read before; it provides:
That the contractor shall build, equip, provide, establish and during this contract continue and, in the manner hereinafter mentioned, operate a regular shipping service between the ports designated.
I submit that there is no question at all about the legal interpretation of the phrase,
" operate a regular shipping service." The duty is placed upon the contractor of establishing the service; he therefore can say what it is to be; afterwards he operates it. What does " regular '' mean? I submit it is simply grotesque to say that it bears the meaning given to it by the Minister of National Defence. His words were, " A regular shipping

service is a continuous service throughout the year." I w'onder if those who pay their rent regularly on the first of the month think the " regular " part of it is a continuous payment and not a payment at fixed monthly intervals. The judicial meaning-and there will be no trouble to satisfy even the Minister of National Defence upon this-the judicial meaning of "regular" is "recurring or repeated at fixed times.". And it is true in the case of any service contract, as the minister can be well assured. That being so, the duty falls upon Petersen of establishing a shipping service, operating at certain recurring intervals, and when he has done that he has fulfilled the requirements imposed upon him by section (a) of clause 1. If he decides to give a monthly service, can anyone deny him the right to do so? Can the government say, "Oh, we expected a weekly service?" Petersen's answer would be: "I am very sorry, but you entered into a contract with me under which I was to establish and operate a regular shipping service. The shipping service that I have decided to establish is a monthly service. If you wanted anything else you should have stipulated for it; as you did not stipulate for it, and the duty being given me under the contract of establishing it, I am entitled to establish a service with such recurring periods as I see fit. That is my full duty under the contract, and that is all you will get." And if the government try to get back at him by saying that he may not use his boats in any other service, Petersen's answer will be: "You did not provide that I should not engage in any other service I have established that regular service and when I am not on that service I can do anything I like except work for the combine. I can charge whatever I like. I am independent of the combine; I can ply my boats in other services, get the avails from them and put them in my pocket, and you cannot say one word about it." What answer could the government make in a court of justice to a claim made by Petersen in this connection? The Prime Minister says that not five cents will go to Petersen until he fulfils the terms of his contract; that payment is after performance. But when Petersen establishes that monthly service, at the expiration of the very first month he is entitled to demand from the government the full amount of the monthly subsidy, and if the government does not pay it to him he can take his case into court and recover the money. It would have been easy to add at the end of section (a) a clause something to this effect:

Ocean Shipping Rates
-and the ships engaged in such service shall be engaged in no other service without the consent of the minister.
But that was not done. In the next place we come to clause (d). I really must repeat this, for the sake of emphasis:
That the control and regulation of the rates to be charged by the contractor shall rest with the government of Canada and that the government shall fix transportation rates on all commodities from time to time.
I submit that whoever was looking after the interests of the crown might have added something to this effect:
-and the contractor shall carry all freight offered at the said fixed rates, provided always that he has cargo space available therefor.
There is a provision that the control of rates is with the government; they are to fix prices. But. if in a bookstore the price of a book is fixed, I need not buy at that price; I can say: "I will pay so much less and you can take it or leave it," So in this case: I can employ myself on other services; it is not a hardship to me if I decline to carry at the rate you fix. If the rate is fixed at such an amount that Petersen does not want to carry, then he can decline to carry and the government will not get the service. The farmers may be clamouring for shipment of their wheat, and the government is compelled to go to Petersen and say: "We are paying you a big subsidy; we want you to carry this wheat." Petersen says, "I am not going to carry it at the price you fixed." The government may then ask at what price he will carry it, and Petersen will say: "If the government want their commodities carried they must pay me my price, otherwise the carrying will not be done." So in such cases the subsidy will be earned although the goods are not carried.
The effect of clause 3 of the agreement is to give Petersen the benefit of the maintenance of a service in excess of ten ships if he wants to establish it. The government has no control over the number of ships that he may put in the service. The contract says:
The subsidy aforementioned shall be increased or reduced as the case may be in proportion to the number of ships operated and maintained by the contractor in the service aforesaid from time to time and such increase or reduction of subsidy shall be added to or deducted from the monthly payments hereinbefore provided for in paragraph two.
You will note that Petersen is given the right, by clause 3, to increase, whereas in clause 6 the government is given the right to increase. It is important, in the interpretation of these two clauses, to remember that the provision as to the subsidy is twice stated. If it does not mean that Petersen is to have the right to increase, with an increased subsidy,
and that the government is to have the right to increase, under clause 6, with an increased subsidy, then the repetition of the provision as to subsidy is the worst kind of bad draftsmanship. It is a mere vain repetition; it has no purpose at all in the document.
As to clause 4, I wish merely to refer to two expressions. It says, "shipping services to be established by the contractor." That is the only place in the contract where the plural "services" is used. These services are to be established by the contractor, and following, as it does, clause 3-and, I submit, in explanation of and consonant with it- Petersen has the right, even against the expressed wish of the government, to increase the number of ships he has under subsidy. The word "loyally" is not a word of airt when used in an agreement of this kind. The draftsman might just as well have used the word "righteously," or "warmly" or any other expression of that kind.
The Prime Minister declared in his speech that the government had the right to say what commodities the contractor should carry. Then why insert clause 7, wherein the right of the contractor to carry nitro-glycerine is negatived? Clause 9 merely says that any voyages Petersen undertakes, in the supposed ease of the establishing of a regular shipping service of one 'boat a month, shall be prosecuted with "all possible speed and despatch."
Now, Mr. Speaker, a sad comment upon this agreement is found in the agreement of 1897 between this same gentleman and the then government,. That agreement is' found in volume 2 of the Debates of the House of Commons, of the session of 1897. Whole clauses are picked out of the 1897 contract and inserted in this agreement, but whoever was acting for the government took very good care that the clauses which would place a burden on Petersen were not taken out of that old contract and inserted in this agreement.
Let us see what the agreement of 1897 provided. It provided that the service was to be a fast weekly service. First of all, there was to be a fortnightly service, then a weekly service, and when the fortnightly service was instituted, one-half of the subsidy that the weekly service would afterwards claim was given. The terms and conditions as to carriage were to be "as the Governor in Counoil deems expedient;" that is left out of this agreement. The days and times of sailing were subject to the approval of the minister; that is left out of this agreement. The minister reserved the right, on notice, to change the time of sailing; that is left out of this agreement. The 1897 agree-
Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. CHURCH:: Robbing Peter to pay
Paul.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is worse than that.
I would say that it is taking money out of the pockets of the people of the country and putting it into the pockets of Petersen without any benefit to the country. I would apply to this resolution the words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in relation to the amendment.. And while he dharacterized the interpretation put upon the contract by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) as 'wholly inaccurate and absurd, I think we are entitled to have an expression of opinion from someone not connected with the government, not connected with any party in this House, who will give a disinterested view of the merits of the question and state exactly what the contract really means. I am satisfied as to what the result would be if such an opinion were asked. This resolution says that to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates "it is expedient", and so on. I think it is apparent to hon. members, and to all who want to act fairly on their own judgment, that what is proposed in the subsidizing of these ships will not result in any governmental control of Atlantic rates. That being so, I appeal to hon. members, after considering the contract carefully and comparing it with that of 1897, to vote against an agreement which would be so much more in favour of the contractor than was the agreement under which he made default before.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Let me at the outset make mj' position clear so far as the combine is concerned. I have never had any doubt., from the first time I had an opportunity of learning anything about steamship rates, that a combine has existed, and possibly because I happen to belong to a class that is accustomed to exploitation by all and everybody, I came to the conclusion that it was a pernicious combine. And I still believe it to be pernicious. I do not think it is in the interests of trade, or agriculture, of business generally, that the control of rates should be in the hands of private individuals, any more than I believe that the control of public credit should be a private affair. Nor have I heard any hon. gentleman in this House so far urge that a combine does not exist. Some may have inferred that from utterances in the course of heated debate, but I have not heard anyone yet dispute the fact. Anyone who would do that has hardly given the subject the study which the resolution now before the House must have suggested to him.
I find that a combine has existed on the north Atlantic for something like fifty years, commencing about the time steam was replacing sail. At that time rates began to rise and they have risen fairly steadily ever since. Investigations have been numerous, joint inquiries have been held, but in all the inquiries that I have looked into I have failed to find any single one that W'as carried to a satisfactory conclusion. I do not think this country has ever entered with Great Britain or any other country into a joint conference on these matters and come to a conclusive decision as to wdiat was the best method of controlling rates. I think that something along that line should be done; we should at any rate make the attempt. I will come to that phase of the discussion a little later.
The recent renewal of investigations has simply cast light on a subject that had become shadowed because of the lack of public interest in it. Economic conditions becoming oppressively burdensome on the people, we began to hunt around for the various causes of trouble; and so in the committee on Agricultural Conditions which sat in 1923, and of which my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) was so distinguished and ornamental a chairman, a glaring light was thrown upon the existence of this North Atlantic combine. The subject had also been referred to either in 1920 or 1921 when, before a special committee of this House investigating the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Mr. Teakle was examined. As hon. members know, Mr. 132S
Ocean Shipping Rates

Teakle was the general manager of the merchant marine, and in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) he admitted the existence of a rate conference in Montreal on which representatives of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were sitting in. We heard no more about the matter until 1923. I find, looking further back, that the Board of Trade of Great Britain had investigated this subject in 1910 when they submitted a report, the material part of which has been referred to by hon. members to my right, as well as by the Minister of Railways, and been placed on Hansard. That report was to the effect that a combine existed, and that it was advisable that there should be a joint inquiry with Canada in regard to it. In 1913 the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) , then chairman of the railway commission, was sent to Great Britain and in view of the conclusions arrived at by the Board of Trade he suggested that a joint inquiry was advisable. He attempted to have such an inquiry set on foot. It was discovered however that there was in existence a body known as the Dominions Royal Commission which I believe was investigating somewhere around New Zealand and which was expected shortly to be in Canada. He interviewed the chairman of that commission who happened to be in England, and he recommended that if the commission intended taking up the subject of a transAtlantic conference the matter could not be left in better hands. It may be noted that even at that time it was admitted that large increases in rates had taken place and that, as well, there had been a falling off in the rate of imports from Great Britain to Canada. The investigation suggested was not to be confined to the freight situation but was also to take up the whole question of passenger rates. The hon. member for West York was not successful in securing this joint inquiry for the reason I have stated. He did on his own account investigate matters to some extent and he made a very comprehensive report to the Board of Railway Commissioners on his return. The following action taken by him I only know from information through other people. Now let me point out to the House that I have never been a friend of the Tory party, and I hope I never will be a political friend of the Tory party, I have no intention I assure you, of ever allying myself with a party with the reputation and characteristics which that party has. But let me in fairness say that in my opinion Sir Henry Drayton brought back an infinitely fairer and more comprehensive 
report, and did more in England at that time, to remove combine evils than the recent delegate of this government did when ;he was in that country. At that time there existed two great evils of the combine, the children of the system. One was the " fighting ship " and the other was the deferred rebates clause called the "loyalty clause." Whether it was the result wholly of Sir Henry Drayton's intervention or not I am not sure and have not been able to ascertain. I know the United States was conducting an inquiry at that time into the same matters; but it is enough for us to know that during the year in which Stir Henry Drayton reported to Canada those two great evils were removed so far as North Atlantic conferences were concerned. What was this " fighting ship "? It was sort of privateer, especially built for the service required of it, that of competing with any lines on trade routes on which non- conference ships were operating with the effect that the non-conference 'line of ships was either driven out of business or forced into the combine. That was a most unfair form of competition. That is gone. At least no trace of it was found by the chairman of the Agricultural Conditions committee in 1923. The "loyalty clause" was simply an arrangement with the shipper that if he would give all his business to a conference boat, it did not matter which line of boats, provided the boat was in the conference, he received a ten per cent rebate of the cost. That was regarded as a most unjust and unfair form of competition and in restraint of trade. Those two evils have been removed so far as the north Atlantic is concerned.
The report we have before us, and upon which undoubtedly public opinion is expected to develop in support of the subsidy, is of little value. Everything that is in it that is material to the case was discovered by the special committee on Agricultural Conditions, and indeed by previous investigations. I wonder why the government appointed Mr. Preston. I know nothing about him. I have nothing to say about his character. I know nothing of his political career, but the question occurred to me as a fair and impartial examiner of this matter, why appoint Mr. Preston? Were there not plenty of qualified men within the ranks of our own civil servants, men who had experience, men in the Trade and Commerce department, in the Customs and Excise department, in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, men in various other departments, who had technical knowledge, and whose time was being paid for in any case? I have never heard any hon. gentlemen

Ocean Shipping Rates
opposite explain why it was necessary to go outside the service, and by so doing hand the plum to an outsider, which plum undoubtedly would have helped to stimulate the brain and the initiative of members of the civil service itself. Not only that, but I submit in passing that it would have accorded much better with the avowed policy of economy on the part of this government had it made an appointment from the civil service.
As far as the report itself is concerned, I cannot afford to waste much time on it, for the reason that has already been stated quite frequently that the recommendation of the government is not based upon that report, but that it is based upon the report made by my hon. friend the chairman of the Agricultural Conditions committee. Let us therefore consider the contract itself, and although I cannot attempt to give it the deep legal examination that hon. members to my right have given it, I can view it in the light of the ordinary man of the street, the business man. Ten small boats are going to be used by this government to control rates. I want hon. members now to imagine the export trade of Canada, a huge trade, then to imagine the capacity of ten boats, and ask themselves this question, how much of the total trade of Canada can ten boats carry? Certainly a very small proportion of it. How much of any single commodity can ten boats carry? Probably a large quantity of any single commodity. But the government may set rates till it is black in the face, and it cannot fix the rate for traffic unless it can establish competition. There is no use whatever in the government stating that this contract is to enable the government to control rates. The government cannot control rates unless it controls enough space to handle sufficient of each of the commodities shipped from Canada to create competition in the rates charged on those commodities. I hope that is clear, because I want to be fair in this matter. I welcome an interruption at any time, if I am not fair.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Would the hon. gentleman concede that these ten ships might potentially be a factor in reducing rates?


Edward Joseph Garland: Potentially? Well, my imagination could even soar that far, but it would be a little strain upon it.


Harold Putnam: The 'hon. gentleman is
fairer than I thought he was before I asked the question.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad I have convinced my hon. friend opposite
that I am fair. I may strain his imagination before we get through.


Harold Putnam: I merely admitted symptoms of fairness in my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is one other point that occurs to me as a result of the interruption. The subsidy is to be paid annually, we presume, for ten years-SI,350,-000. But we will assume that one or two more boats are added and that we are paying two million dollars per year for ten years, making twenty million dollars; and at the end of ten years we decide to stop the subsidy-where are we? We have spent twenty million dollars, and Mr. Combine rears his head as strong or stronger than ever before- at the end of ten years of experimentation and an expenditure of twenty million dollars. It is ridiculous for hon. gentlemen in any part of the House to talk about smashing the combine. Combines cannot be smashed. They can be absorbed but cannot be smashed. Under the present competitive commercial system, a combine is a natural growth, and things that are natural cannot be destroyed even by subsidies. Now imagine the situation: Here is a combine. To what extent it would control rates even I have no power to demonstrate to this House. But I will use the words of Mr. Preston himself:
The North Atlantic steamship combine is only one section of the steamship conference now endeavouring to control all the great shipping interests of the world. . . . The object in all cases is the same. It is not unreasonable to infer that it is the control of the ocean commerce of the world, fixing freight and passenger rates solely in the interest of those controlling the vast tonnage and shipping traversing these waterways.
And ten boats of moderate tonnage are setting out to smash a combine with all those interlocking interests powerfully supporting it on every hand. The thing does not appeal to me as being reasonable. I am anxious that control of rates be established. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House is not. I would desire to see effective rate control established to-morrow, and if I thought for one instant that this subsidy would give effective control of rates in the interest of all Canada, I would even overcome my natural instinct against subsidies and support the government on it.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What would the
hon. member suggest to control rates?


Edward Joseph Garland: I will come to that a little later if the hon: gentleman is patient. It is ridiculous to talk of smashing a combine of this size by creating a competitive system with a subsidy and ten small
Ocean Shipping Rates

boats, very ordinary boats, indeed. A moment ago I asked a question: Who was going to benefit? We have to export annually from Canada overseas, principally by the Atlantic ocean, an enormous quantity of grain and a fairly large number of cattle, so far as the agricultural population is concerned. I am going to make this a sectional matter for just a moment, because hon. members opposite have turned their faces to this corner of the House and made appeals to us on the ground that this would help agriculture, help the cattle business, help the grain business, and hon. members to my right have attempted to show us that it would not help either of these. Wheat is out of the conference altogether. It is subject to competition, so subject to it that the fluctuations in cargo space for wheat are very striking. An examination of the rates during last year will reveal a spread of all the way from nothing to thirty-four or thirty-five cents a bushel. Thirty-five cents, I think, was the limit. The Prime Minister states that he is going to control all rates. I want to ask him if it is his intention to control the rate on wheat. If it is, I want to register my unalterable opposition to his so doing, unless it be a maximum rate subject to fluctuations below. What would be the situation we would be in? We would be in much the situation that we suspect we are in as regards the railway commission at the present time. We have a strong suspicion that rates on grain should be lower but are not lower because the rates on other commodities must be low. If this government control of steamship cargo rates is going to involve also the control of rates on wheat, in other words to take the wheat rates out of competition and place them at some lined level, I regard that as a most sinister proposal. Let me call the attention of the government to the remarks of Mr. Preston on this very matter, at page 22 of his report:
The fluctuation in the cost of transporting wheat between Montreal and Liverpool may be seen in the following schedule, compiled from reports published by the Dominion Statistical Bureau.
Note the following:
The range of freight charges on wheat from five cents to thirty-five cents per bushel offers a problem to which profitable consideration may be given, if possible, of securing more stable freight rates.
The whole report was written with a view to breaking the stable freight rates of the combine and creating competitive rates, and Mr. Preston suggests in this part of it that wheat and wheat alone should be subject to stable rates. I do not like the look of it, and if the government proposes to fix wheat rates and by raising, even a little, the average price for transporting wheat to Liverpool or any-

where else, in order to afford lower rates on other commodities, I am absolutely opposed to it.
Let us take the cattle situation just for a moment. I find that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were invited to handle cattle, and they refused to do so on the ground that the traffic was not profitable. We are told, however, that the traffic must be profitable because the rates are so high. That may be true, 'but I have not yet, nor has the committee on Agricultural Conditions-and I hope my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) will correct me if I am incorrect-received information that cattle rates are exorbitant. That they are too high for the business, I admit, but that the steamship lines are charging exorbitant rates on cattle has not yet been proved. If any hon. member wishes to dispute the statement, I await the disputation. If not, we will proceed. The Canadian Pacific will not handle the business at all and does not want to. We will presume there is no money in that business for the Canadian Pacific. I will take the report of the select standing committee on National Railways and Shipping of last year, and I will ask hon. members to look at pages 8 and 9 where Sir Henry Thornton is being examined:
By Mr. Jelliff: Q. That does not cause you any additional expense?
That is referring to the tearing out of any structures for the transportation of cattle.
A. No. Now, to go on with these various items of expense. Simmered down it amounts to this; it makes the cost of carriage per head $17.48. and the revenue per head at the present rate is $20, leaving a profit to the company of $2.52 per head.
That is Sir Henry Thornton's evidence last year.
Bv Sir Henry Drayton: Q. Does that include all the items you have mentioned?-A. Yes.
Q. And does that include a fair proportion of the fuel and other expenses of the voyage?-A. No, it is the bare cost of handling the cattle. We have not charged anything for operating the ships against these cattle. Perhaps we should.
Q. It really puts itself in this position, that the difference between $17.48 and $20 will apply on the general cost of running the boat?-A. That is it.
Q. And you find out afterwards whether you have made a profit or a loss?
Hon. gentlemen will note this answer by Sir Henry Thornton:
A. It does not require a very wide flight of the imagination to see what happens, especially if you charged interest on the cost of the vessel. While 1 do not want anything that I say to be misinterpreted as an effort in the direction of propaganda for increasing cattle receipts, at the same time, generally speaking, $20 per head on cattle to the United Kingdom is not considered a high charge in the shipping world.

Ocean Shipping Kates
When we have evidence of that kind before us. we wonder at the temerity of hon. members who appeal to us, almost plead with us to support this subsidy 'because it will reduce, they say, the rate on cattle ten dollars per head. The suggestion, I submit, is absurd, although nothing would delight me more than to see such a reduction. Why do I not think it a possible solution of our cattle industry's troubles? In the first place, last year we exported about 63,000 head of cattle. Only ten boats would be handling this traffic and they can carry only a limited number of cattle, about 500 on an average per boat.


Mr. HOEY:: Four hundred and twenty.


Edward Joseph Garland: We will put it at five hundred. The ten boats will have to handle the bulk of that business in three months because our cattle are ready to export during August, September and October. July, August and September are the better months. If we can get the cattle off then, what do we hit? We hit that period when the grass-fed beef of Ireland and Scotland are going on the British market; we reach the market at the worst time of the whole year; we hit a falling market. That is one reason, in my opinion, why the transportation of live cattle to Great Britain is not a practical solution of the troubles of the cattle industry of western Canada.
Another reason that I offer is that Mr. Petersen cannot handle our cattle. He is going to have to handle 63.000 cattle in three months. Why do I say that? Because, Mr. Speaker, if he has to handle our cattle at a loss- and he will have to if Sir Henry Thornton is to be believed-then he will have to handle all the traffic, because nobody else will handle any of it. That must be obvious. If he is go:ng to handle all of it, then the government will have to undertake another responsibility- the responsibility of orderly organizing the coming forward of the cattle so that they will reach the boats at the proper time to be shipped and in proper condition. It is a difficult problem to handle.


Robert Alexander Hoey: They can provide more boats.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, and
up goes the subsidy; and it will go up and up inimitably. I say again, it is absurd for the government or anyone else to claim that they can reduce the cattle rates $10 per head unless at the cost of the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. CARROLL:: It is said that the cattle
trade cannot stand a rate of $20 a head from here to the Old Country; that is, it does not
pay. If this rate is not lowered in some way, our cattle trade with the Old Country is gone, as I understand my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, not
quite gone. You see, we are in rather a peculiar position in regard to the cattle trade, we built up a tremendous breeding stock during the war period; Mr. Fordney comes along with his little tariff, implemented subsequently, and our chief market in the United States is cut off. That is where the government should turn its attention, that is where our real market lies, in the United States. If a fraction of this proposed subsidy were spent in propaganda in the United States-
I do not know the ethics of the matter so far as the government is concerned-it might help to open up that market, which would be a real solution. Another possible solution I would offer is, that if the government wishes us to continue shipping beef to England, we can ship it, I think, profitably as chilled beef, but I do not think we can ship it on the hoof and make a profit. I simply submit this in fairness to the Prime Minister. He was very enthusiastic the other day about the possibility of reducing rates on cattle.


Mr. MARTELL:: Would the hon. member be satisfied with the government simply carrying on propaganda for the purpose of getting into the United States market?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I
should like them to try and get in there as well.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But the United States
having control of their own market, how can the Canadian government get in there?


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
hon. gentleman mean because the United States has control over its fiscal policy?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh yes, I
quite admit that; but I do not admit that this government can from any reasons of stilted pride afford to lie down on this job of attempting to secure reciprocal trade. I think that is one of the principal duties before the government, and in that of course will lie to a great extent a solution of many of our troubles, but especially so far as cattle are concerned.
Now, I have submitted a proposal with regard to the cattle industry that may at least hold some promise. I should like to ask another question: Why did the government pick out the Petersen firm for this subsidy? That has puzzled me from the very outset.
Ocean Shipping Rates


Harold Putnam: Perhaps he read about
Noah's monopoly on tonnage.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes; and I have also read about Samson and the Philistines.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend permit me right there? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company got a charter from the Dominion parliament, under certain terms and conditions, to do certain things. Why should we interfere with them unless they are violating the criminal laws of the country? Having got their charter in accordance with the conditions pertaining at that particular time, have they not the right to manage their own affairs?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not contended otherwise, Mr. Speaker-not yet; I may before I get through. Up to the present all I have suggested is that the government might have gone to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company before approaching Sir William Petersen and tried to come to some terms with that company, which, after all is largely our own. Hon. members have often referred to it in glowing terms as one of the great assets of Canada, a splendid thing, a thing of which we should be proud.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Would my hon. friend
confiscate the property of any person or any corporation which has obtained certain rights from the federal parliament or from any legislature of this country? If the government of Canada want to make an agreement have they not the right to go to any firm or corporation they wish? If they do not go to the people that my hon. friend thinks they should go to, then is there any reason why those people should be compelled by act of a legislature or of this parliament to enter into such an agreement? In other words, does the hon. member approve of the principle of holding the big stick over people who have charters from the parliament of this country7?


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
ask my7 hon. friend to be so good as to allow me to dissect the several questions he has put, and to reply to them to-morrow. I could not hope to answer them to-night, and all at once.
The Prime Minister in the early stages of his speech the other day said, referring, to the resolution before the House:
The resolution is the first necessary step to be taken by the government preliminary to the introduction of a bill to give the government control of ocean rates. The
Ocean Shipping Rates

resolution relates to the control of ocean rates; that is the principle underlying it, and lion, members in voting upon the resolution are passing on the important question whether or not in their opinion the government should undertake to control ocean rates. Whether the method which the government is taking to control ocean rates may be effective or not is a subject which,
I think admits of debate.
I think so; I will agree with the Prime Minister there. There is no doubt about it; but if it does admit of debate, of discussion, of alteration, or possibly of total elimination, why are we asked now to vote upon it? The Prime Minister says we are simply voting on the question of control. If I could convince myself that that was all we were voting on, I should be only too pleased to vote with the government. But this House is governed by certain rules

and mind you, I think a good many of those rules could be amended. I do not like some of them-they hamper us; they are restrictive from the point of view of modern business methods. For example, there is one rule that prevents me from expressing my real opinion on this matter.
As I understand it, the motion before the House is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the Whole on a certain resolution. The amendment before the House is that the Speaker do not now leave the chair but that the House resolve itself-and so on; I need not quote that. Frankly, with all kindness to my friends to my right, I do not think they have 'been very constructive. I do not think there is anything in the amendment which I could support, with the exception, and this is my personal opinion, on the evidence so far produced, that this report of Mr. Preston's and the policy of the government are ill advised, costly and futile. To that extent I can agree with the amendment. But as to the proposal which it offers, cooperation in joint inquiry with other portions of the empire-well, I hate to think that we lack sufficient intelligence to find a solution before such a conference could decide upon the subject. So that so far as the amendment is concerned I am, afraid I shall have to vote against it.
As to the motion itself, what does it say? That the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the Whole on this resolution-and I will ask hon. members to listen to the opening words of the resolution:
Resolved, that to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates it is expedient to ratify and confirm the agrement between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen.
If the resolution simply read:

Resolved, that to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates it is expedient that this whole question should be referred to a select standing committee for consideration and recommendation-
-then we could vote for it. But it goes further than that; it states specifically that the control which the government says it wants to secure is control by virtue of an agreement between this government and Sir William Petersen. Now the Prime Minister, whose kindness in the matter I appreciate, told us that we did not necessarily bind ourselves to the subsidy in voting for the resolution. I cannot for the life of me see how he can excuse us from voting for the subsidy if we vote for the resolution, and if any hon. gentleman opposite speaks after me I will be very glad indeed if he would release my mind from this understanding, because I would be only too willing to support the government in further prosecuting their investigations in the hope of arriving at a solution. But as it stands I am hampered. Suppose we accept his statement, that this is a motion that the House now resolve itself into committee of the Whole. Once we get into committee of the Whole, where are we? We are in a trap absolutely, those of us who do not think this is a practical proposal, those of us who are opposed to subsidies in principle. We are in a trap which can only be opened for our escape by the government itself. And what is the trap? The trap is this, that the second reading of the resolution determines the principle of the resolution; that is as I understand it. The second reading of the resolution w'hen passed carries the principle of the resolution forward into the bill, which will be brought down later, and is again concurred in. True, I may oppose it in committee; I may vote against it, but the vote is not recorded; it is simply a counted vote. Effective opposition to the proposal can hardly come in committee of the Whole.
There is one suggestion I have to .make to the Prime Minister, and I do so with all kindness because I am anxious to support him in his investigation into this whole question of control. Will the Prime Minister or will the government make this offer to us? Will he give me an undertaking that the following will be his attitude? That if we go into committee of the Whole this question will not be pressed to a second reading of the resolution in committee of the Whole, when the principle would be determined, but that the government will after a certain formal debate has taken place, move that the debate be adjourned? Then we will find on the order paper next day Item No. 16 or Item No. 18, or whatever it may be, "House again

Ocean Shipping Rates
in committee of the Whole on a certain resolution". Next day the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce could rise in his place and move that that item be struck from the order paper, and that this whole question be referred to a special committee. I offer that to the government as a solution, as a way out of its dilemma and a way out of ours. I am anxious to support the government, but I cannot tie myself to the principle of this hopelessly futile subsidy to ten small ships.
Were I permitted to move an amendment to the amendment, were I even permitted to move an amendment after the amendment now before us had been disposed of, I would move one in terms not dissimilar to this:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved:
That it is advisable that a select special committee be appointed to make inquiry into the question of steamship transportation, it having been alleged that a combine exists known as the North Atlantic Conference ; and
That it is advisable to afford opportunity to all interested parties to submit their view's upon the subject matter of the inquiry to the said committee, with particular regard to the possibility of discovering the best method for effectively controlling steamship rates by the Dominion of Canada;
And that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records including what minutes and evidence and reports of previous investigations may be considered necessary, and to examine witnesses under oath and to report from time to time.
That, Mr. Speaker, would be my amendment if I had the power to move it. I have not the power to move it now under the rules. I do not wish to embarrass the government. I wish to co-operate with them in this matter, and I cannot move it very well on second reading of the resolution without embarrassing them further. I ask now, if the government are honestly anxious to arrive at a solution of this problem, that they either take this step or any other that appeals to them that may save themselves and ourselves from the position in , which we find ourselves, and refer the whole matter to a committee. I am quite sure many hon. members on the other side of the House-I look at the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master), I look at the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler)-and many others who would be only too delighted to see some such solution of this question put forward by the government. I make this suggestion with the sincere desire to cooperate with the government.
Before I take my seat I wish to express my regret that when the Prime Minister was speaking he did not read the whole of the report of the special committee on Agricultural Conditions. I also must take this opportunity of telling my hon. friend from 86
South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that he was incorrect and unfair when he said that the special committee had reported without discussion.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: If my hon. friend will permit me, I am sure he does not wish to misrepresent me. I think I made it perfectly clear in speaking on this motion that I did not censure the committee in any way.
I merely pointed out that in so far as I was concerned I had not heard the report, and I was not present when it was passed.
As far as the question put to the Prime Minister was concerned, I still think there is an error in the report of what I said. If you will compare it with the words I used in speaking on this motion, you will find that I made it perfectly clear that this report of the committee was passed on one morning several weeks after the evidence had been submitted to it, that I was not present at the committee meeting, that I had not heard the report read, and did not know anything about it until after parliament had prorogued.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am quite willing to accept the hon. gentleman's explanation, but the fact of the matter is that an impression was left upon the House to the effect that the special committee had hurriedly jammed through their report without discussion. There is no doubt that was the impression left. Now in fairness to the chairman of that committee, who in my opinion is one of the fairest minded men in the House of Commons, I wish to quote from the report of the committee, at page lvi: This report is dated Wednesday, June 13, 1923. I quote:
Chairman submitted to committee for approval a suggested further report to the House on ocean freight rates. After discussion of same, clerk was ordered to have sufficient copies typed forthwith to supply each member of the committee with a copy.
Again on Friday, June 15, 1923, I find this:
The fifth interim report-that of ocean freight rates -was again taken up and discussed, and laid over until the next meeting of the committee.
Again on Monday, June 18, 1923, I find:
Chairman read redraft of proposed report to the House on ocean transportation.
Discussion followed.
On motion of Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Munro, the draft report as read by the chairman was adopted, and the chairman ordered to present it to the House as the fifth interim report of this committee.
I do not put this on record in any carping spirit of criticism, nor with any desire to reflect upon the hon. member for South Oxford, but simply because my impression and the impression, that others who heard him speak gathered from his remarks was that no discussion had taken place on the report. I do

Ocean Shipping Rates

not think it was the hon. member's intention to create that impression.


Donald Sutherland: I attempted to point out while the Prime Minister was speaking that the report of this committee was not read when it was submitted to the House, and consequently the members were not familiar with it. When I spoke on this motion, I made it perfectly clear that the chairman of the committee had done everything possible to get all the evidence that was available and I asked the Prime Minister to read the seventh and final report which indicated that owing to inability to digest the evidence taken it was advisable to have the committee reappointed.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Prime Minister referred to this report of the special committee on Agricultural Conditions and he quoted at some length from Mr. Lubin and other witnesses. But he did not quote all; let me quote some more that he might have referred to. At >page 20 the following appears:
The question of ocean freight is a world problem and one of very great importance to all countries. As a world problem it cannot be settled satisfactorily by any one nation nor by any one interest acting alone.
Mr. Lubin was then quoting from Mr. Hippwood, the assistant secretary of the Marine department. He goes on to quote Mr. Alexander, the chairman of the committee of the House of Representatives on merchant marine matters:
It is true that our government would be impotent to enforce reasonable rates or stabilize rates on farm products in international trade in the absence of an international agreement. It is an international problem and can only be solved by international agreement.
I wish the Prime Minister had not left these quotations out.


Mr. IRYINE:: Why not vote for the
amendment then?


Edward Joseph Garland: We come now to page 21, where we find that the committee reported as follows. Part of this has been already put on Hansard, but it is so important as to warrant repetition by way of emphasis:
Your committee, in view of the foregoing and of the evidence adduced before them and referred to in a previous interim report, are of the opinion that action is desirable to control shipping rings or conferences.
It is suggested that the Canadian representatives in attendance at the next meeting of the International Institute of Agriculture should be given authority to see that the matter is thoroughly discussed, in order to discover whether an international system of control is feasible through such agency.
In view of the fact that a very great deal of the shipping coming to Canadian ports is British shipping concurrent action by the British authorities is respectfully suggested. The matter might well be made a subject for discussion and consideration at the ner.t Imperial Economic Conference.

Meanwhile it would appear wise to recommend that the government through one of its departments-we suggest the Department of Trade and Commerce-should entertain complaints from shippers of unfair or oppressive treatment by ocean carriers and should hold investigations publicly or privately into such complaints.
This last recommendation is the only part of the report which the government would appear to have carried out; the government certainly has entertained complaints of all kinds from every one in the matter and I congratulate them in that respect. At the bottom of the page we find the following:
The Canadian people are the owners of 67 ships. Some of these are of fair though not large size. Your committee suggest that a certain number of these ships might be selected to be operated in conjunction with our National railway lines, that the freight rates on such steamers could be established on the cost of carriage plus a reasonable profit based upon the real, as opposed to the cost, value of the ships. If these ships are of the size and type which can be economically and efficiently run in conjunction with the National railways (and on these points your committee have taken no evidence) the following desirable objects would be obtained. The National Railways would be enabled to grant through bills of lading on a transportation system by land and by water altogether under their own control; the Canadian people would be able to obtain transportation facilities at reasonable and known rates; the service thus given on the ocean would tend to maintain rates on a reasonable basis and would act as a deterrent to the charging of unreasonable rates by other lines; and finally the knowledge obtained by the government as to the actual cost of ocean transportation would aid it in determining whether rates charged by other lines are fair and reasonable.
Should it appear-
And it was really amusing to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of National Defence quote this.
Should it appear that there are no ships or not a sufficient number of ships belonging to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine suitable for this service then it would appear that wisdom would dictate the disposal of some of the smaller ships to enable ships of the class required to be secured.
I have asked several of the members of the committee the meaning of that sentence in the report and there is no question as to what it signifies. If these boats were too small for the service or were not efficient, the suggestion was that they should be sold and that other boats, government owned, should be purchased in their stead.
Now let me offer a suggestion as a constructive proposal-and I offer it humbly as coming from a junior member. If the government wishes to meet the problem there are two principal things which in my opinion it can do. First of all, it should endeavour at once to secure a joint inquiry, international in its scope, into the question. There are several ways in which that could be taken up. The British Board of Trade may be ridiculed by hon. members opposite as hope-

Tax Collections
less, but I venture to suggest that they would receive a friendly hearing. At least I should like to have their report after a real conference had been held. Again the government might take up the matter with the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome with a view to seeing what could be done or the government could take steps to bring about if possible an international conference under the League of Nations. So that there are several ways in which action might be taken. Secondly, I urge that in the meantime something be done, and I do think that the government should take some steps in the matter. What should those further steps be? There are two methods by which immediate relief might be brought to the present situation. One would be to amplify the present merchant marine service by adding to it ships constructed in Canada. The government could help the employment situation by building ships of its own. Why not capitalize this subsidy and issue bonds that would necessitate the payment of annual interest equal to $1,350,000, and so have enough money to build all the boats needed to augment the present Canadian Government Merchant Marine service and provide a really competitive force on the Atlantic? I offer that suggestion to the government. I understand that the capital so invested would provide about 21 new boats, efficient and up-to-date, instead of ten. But if the government does not want that, there is an abundance of empty tonnage on the market of the world anxiously awaiting a purchaser. Buy what tonnage may be needed and use it to control rates if you think you can break the combine that way. The second method is this: The government might take into consideration the possibility of getting the present Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian Pacific Railway boats to work in harmony in some attempt to create competition in Atlantic rates.
For the life of me I cannot understand how any government or any body of men can imagine that ten small boats, or even twelve or fifteen, of the tonnage specified in the agreement, can hope to make the least impression upon a combine of such an immense and powerful character nor affect rates unless those ten boats carry only a few commodities of a special kind at special rates. They can unquestionably establish competitive rates on the commodities which they carry in large enough quantities, but this would not be the case with other commodities. I regret therefore that unless the government can make some intimation, such as I suggested in the 8&i
earlier part of my remarks, and not press to a vote the second reading of the resolution, I shall be compelled to vote against the motion.


Donald Sutherland: Will the hon. member permit me to direct his attention to what I really did say on that occasion?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
question the hon. member's intentions in the least. Possibly he did not mean what he said.


Donald Sutherland: This is what I
said:
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 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.


Edward Joseph Garland: I envy the hon. member his opportunity of frequently getting home.
On motion of Mr. Vien the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Friday, March 20, 1925