Mr. POWERS:

Yes. The effect of these rates is that we are no longer able to carry on business there.

Mr. HANSON:

Will the hon. member go

ahead! and prove his proposition? I am sympathetic, but I should like to hear from him something more than a mere assertion.

Mr. POWER:

My hon. friend's point is

absolutely well taken. Unfortunately I did not expect this matter to be brought up to-

day and I have not with me the memorial of the Quebec board of trade. It is quite clearly stated that on certain articles the rate from Quebec to Ste. Anne de la Pooatiere, eighty miles below Quebec, is about equal to that from St. John to the same point, which is about four hundred miles. I do not remember all the details, but if that is the case, and if it can be shown, then there is an unjust discrimination. No favouritism should be shown in that territory. That is the point, and it should be the duty of the government to make a more serious investigation into the matter than has so far been made.

Mr. PARENT:

I am glad the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has brought this matter to the attention of the committee. I for one, as a member from Quebec, have had occasion more than once to meet representatives of the various commercial interests of that city with a view to bringing to the attention of the government the discrimination under tvhich the city of Quebec is labouring by reason of the freight rates consequent upon the Duncan report and the act based thereon. As stated by the hon. member, it is well known that the city of Quebec has always been regarded as a part of the maritime provinces so far as traffic is concerned. Everyone who has spent a few years in Quebec will remember the time when we had a ferry which often carried full trains across from Levis to Quebec and from Quebec to Levis, in the traffic between the maritime provinces and that city. Knowing all the circumstances, and being under no doubt at all as to the city of Quebec having been all along regarded as a part of the maritime provinces in the matter of freight rates, we were very much surprised to learn that in the Duncan report only the city of Levis was mentioned; and no one -at the time protested, for the simple reason that it was inconceivable to the people of Quebec that the mention of the word Levis alone could be taken to mean anything else than the inclusion of Quebec city itself. The city of Levis is, of course, a splendid place but it is not to be compared in importance to the city of Quebec; everyone will concede that. It is well known that our commercial people have long done business with the maritime provinces, carrying on a considerable trade with them. When the word Quebec was omitted from the timetable the officials of the department and of the -railways concluded that the special freight rates did not apply to that city. It is then that the question began to attract attention, and as soon as the discrimination was realized the members representing that city, the -board -of trade and the

Supply-R ailways-C .N.R.

various interests of Quebec took action to bring the matter to the notice of the government. I may say that so far we have received a very sympathetic hearing, but that is about all that we have obtained. I am glad that the members from the maritime provinces appear to be in sympathy with our claim in this matter, and I sincerely trust that as a result of these combined efforts the government will see its way clear to giving the city of Quebec the freight rates which the maritime provinces enjoy under present conditions.

Mr. MacLAREN:

It may be true, and I think it is, that we are sympathetic with the desires of the people of the city of Quebec, but I cannot say that we are sympathetic to the point of wishing them to get what they ask for in this particular case. The minister will no doubt give due consideration to all the representations submitted to parliament, but he will find that there is a very strong and widespread objection to this application from the city of Quebec. There is one way that is suggested of helping to meet the situation and that is, instead of having the point fixed at Levis, that it be extended back some miles to St. Charles or some station nearer the maritime provinces. In that way there might be eliminated any difficulty arising between Levis and Quebec. In the meantime, while we wish our friends in Quebec every consideration, we do not propose that anything shall be done which will interfere with the Maritime Freight Rates Act as passed by parliament. There may be some way by which to meet the situation so far as Quebec is concerned without disturbing the maritime rates. But what is proposed just now by hon. members from Quebec we consider to be very injurious to the act which gives us the 20 per cent reduction.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

May I assure my hon. friend that the matter has been submitted to the various maritime boards of trade and as recently as last week ten of them out of twelve had approved of the demand made by Quebec in this respect. It is really as much in the interests of the maritime provinces as of Quebec itself that this request is being made. As the hon. member for Quebec South had said, it seems anomalous that part of Quebec harbour should be subject to the preferential rate while the other part of the harbour is not. May I say-and I am surprised that my hon. friend from Quebec South forgot to say it-that when the delegation came to submit this request the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) recognized that the grievance existed, stating that the officers of the department would try to find a means

of remedying it, perhaps without the necessity of having recourse to legislation. But he added that if legislation were necessary it would be considered prior to the next session of parliament. I may tell my hon. friend that we are far from trying to hurt or in any way impair the charter which has been given the maritime provinces; far from it. The demand made by Quebec, if opposed by those interested in maritime matters, such as the boards of trade, would not be entertained, I am quite sure. But it is with the consent and the approval of our friends from the maritime provinces that the subject has been brought to the attention of the government.

Mr. MacLAREN:

If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will carefully and judicially read the resolution prepared by the maritime boards of trade, I do not think he will be able to put upon it the interpretation which he has now given to the house.

Mr. RALSTON:

I have heard of the representations which have been made but I have not had an opportunity to listen to them directly nor have I been able to consider them fully. I feel, however, that the hon. member for Quebec South ought to accept the assurance that these representations will be considered. Speaking for myself, I do not feel that I should bind myself, or consider myself bound by these representations until all sides have been heard and everyone who is interested has had a chance to present his case. I am not sure that it is enough that the Quebec representatives have waited upon the maritime boards of trade and discussed the matter with them. Until the views on all sides have been formally put on record and considered, I think judgment should be reserved. In my opinion, the present moment is not opportune to make a declaration; we should wait until everyone has had an opportunity to present the matter. I am not sure that there is a clear view in the maritime provinces as to just what is implied in regard to the question of implementing the Duncan report or carrying out the principle contained therein with regard to special provision for freight rates.

Mr. MacLAREN:

Nor is there a general consent of the boards of trade. I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will agree to that.

Mr. CANNON:

As one of the representatives of the section of Quebec which might be affected by the matter brought up by the hon. member for Quebec South, I may say that this matter offers first of all

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

some local difficulties as between the people of Quebec and the people of Levis, which must toe settled, and other difficulties as between the people of Quebec and the people of the maritime provinces which also must be adjusted. This is a matter which certainly cannot be settled by simply bringing it up in this house arid asking the government immediately to bring about a settlement. Only recently the government has been called upon to give its attention to this matter; the Minister of Railways received a delegation; the board of trade of the city of Quebec is now in touch with the boards of trade of the maritime provinces, and I have no doubt that everyone interested will be satisfied when it is stated that the government is giving the matter serious attention. Pending the outcome of the negotiations now going on between the different commercial interests it would be useless for us in this House of Commons to attempt to bring about a settlement. This is a matter which will have to be examined very carefully and I have no doubt that in conjunction with our friends from the maritime provinces, next year we might be in a position to reach a satisfactory adjustment.

Mr. POWER:

I am afraid I must take issue with the Solicitor General as to the date at which this matter was brought to the attention of the government. It is all very well for my hon. friend to say that this is an occurrence of only recent date, but after all four months surely is a sufficiently long time even for this government. The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice will recollect that shortly before the beginning of this session they were interviewed in Quebec by a delegation from the board of trade and by the members for the Quebec district, and when the necessity and urgency of the matter was presented to them they said they would take action as soon as it was convenient to do so.

Mr. CANNON:

And they recommended to our Quebec friends that they get in touch with our friends from the maritimes and try to reach a settlement, and that is what is going on now. I do not think we are helping to bring about a settlement by this present discussion.

Mr. POWER:

I am not prepared to agree with my friend the Solicitor General; I am one of those who believe with President Wilson in the principles of open covenants, openly arrived at. I would much prefer to discuss this matter fairly and openly on the floor of the house with my hon. friends from

the maritimes in order that we may be able to come to some settlement. Had we continued to agitate in the Quebec papers I am afraid those papers would have been read by very few of the hon. gentlemen opposite; some of them would not be able to read those papers, so I thought it beet to bring the matter before the members of the house in this way as we brought it to the attention of the members of the government four months ago and again one month ago, at which time we were told that our request was receiving the consideration and sympathy of the government. [DOT]

Mr. STEVENIS:

Serious consideration.

Mr. POWER:

Yes, serious consideration. Now I suggest that we might be told that some steps are being taken, at any rate, to put an end to this situation, and it is not sufficient to tell us that because the hon. member for Quebec South rises in his place and draws the attention of the house to a matter affecting his constituency and his city he is probably disrupting certain negotiations of which he at any rate knows nothing. If I had been informed that negotiations were going on or that the work was progressing favourably possibly I might have been able to return to my constituents and tell them to be patient a little longer, but they are tired of being patient and they would like to have some assurance from the government that their claims will be dealt with.

Mr. BENNETT:

I wonder if I caught the language of the Minister of Justice correctly; sometimes I do not hear very well, but I thought I heard him mutter the words, "Et tu Brute."

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I beg your pardon; was my hon. friend asking me something?

Mr. BENNETT:

I was asking the Minister of Justice if I was right in thinking I heard him say, " Et tu Brute."

Mr. LAPOINTE:

No, that is a language I do not usually use.

Mr. CANTLEY:

It is rather amusing to find some of our friends from Quebec apparently now of the opinion that the Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed for the benefit of the central provinces. My understanding is that the Maritime Freight Rates Act arose out of a recommendation of the Duncan commission, which pointed out that we in the maritimes were handicapped by 2o0 miles of railway built or diverted for strategic purposes, and to overcome that extra mileage we were to be given a preferred rate.

Supply-National Defence

My contention is that when the western point to which those rates should apply was determined that was not done fairly; that point should have been Montreal, because as I stated before, Montreal is the gateway through which we can or must distribute our products throughout the central and -western provinces, since we have practically no trade east of Montreal. I have not the slightest objection to getting into Quebec on the same terms, but our trade with the city of Quebec and that part of the province of Quebec east of Montreal is comparatively slight. At Montreal we practically encounter the inflow from the foreign markets of Great Britain, Belgium, Germany and Europe generally and there we also meet the Ontario producers of iron and steel who ship by water. Unless we can get fair rates to the city of Montreal we will derive very little benefit from the Maritime Freight Rates Act. We are interested not at all in the traffic going east; that is not the important matter. What we are interested in is the opportunity to get into the markets of these central provinces; the eastern traffic affects us very little. I am content that we should pay any reasonable rates as far as the trade going east is concerned, but we must have an opportunity to get into the central markets.