Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, may I draw the

attention of this house to what I conceive to

be a breach of its privileges and refer for a moment to an article which appeared on Wednesday last, April 6, in LTllustration, a Conservative, French Montreal daily.

In order to be fair to the minister concerned, I notified him by letter on Thursday, April 7, that unless a satisfactory retraction was published on Saturday last I would bring it up on the following Monday-yesterday- as a matter of privilege. As my letter is still unanswered, as no retraction appeared on Saturday, yesterday, nor to-day, and as that paper is mailed to my colleagues, Englishspeaking as well as French-speaking, I will read a translation in order that my correction may be understood by all. The first four paragraphs are a preamble to the lies which abound in the latter; therefore I should deal with it not only paragraph after paragraph, but line after line, and almost word after word. This is what was printed after I had said "all was over":

Mr. Pouliot and Slander

Shall we believe that Pouliot, the Liberal member for Temiscouata, has at last realized that be often goes too far in his daily outbursts in the bouse.

During the sitting of yesterday, when Mr. Gordon, Minister of Labour, was submitting his estimates, Mr. Pouliot attacked him in the most injurious way.

Mr. Pouliot accused the minister of lack of tact, oi being an ignoramus, of not answering intelligently to question, etc.

But as soon as Mr. Pouliot resumed his seat he realized that he had gone too far and that he had behaved rudely.

Shortly afterwards he invited the Hon. Mr. Gordon to his office, asked for the stenographic copy of Hansard and made all corrections demanded by the minister.

The facte are as follows: The minister was gracious enough to come to my office without receiving any invitation from me. He did not demand any correction whatsoever; he simply requested me to strike two lines off Hansard, and I did not hesitate to comply with his request. What I said was not ruled out of order, but having agreed to strike it off I will not repeat it. The article continues:

Mr. Pouliot went afterwards to the press gallery beseeching the correspondents of the papers to soften his utterances in order that they should be decent, at least in the press.

I have been to the press gallery, true; but I have not besought any one to soften my utterances; I thought it fair to notify the members of the press gallery that I had agreed with the minister's request to strike those two lines off Hansard. That was the only thing I told them about it. The article concludes:

One cannot crawl more cowardly after having played the braggart.

Bankruptcy Act

It is to be hoped that in the future Mr. Pouliot will not be obliged to apologize so pitifully when he speaks in the House of Commons.

I did not crawl because I never put myself in a position, to crawl, and I did not apologize because I had no reason to apologize.

This is the second time that the same individual has published a slanderous libel against me; the first one was a circular sent six years ago to the Tory organization in my county. As it was not distributed, I did not pay any attention to it. This time I have settled the matter with him by telling him personally what I think of him. Should he offend a third time, I would not say that there would be murder because that would not be parliamentary, but there will surely be a K.O. that will be O.K. In accordance with Roosevelt's advice, we shall go to it with a soft voice and a big stick.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Hon. George B. Jones, member for the electoral district of Royal.

This is accompanied by the following letter:

Ottawa, April 12, 1932.

Dear Sir:

I am the principal partner in the firm of Jones Brothers, carrying on a general store business at Apohaqui, New Brunswick. The store is not operated by me personally.

For some time past, the Indian medical director has been in the habit of giving to needy Indians residing near Apohaqui orders for merchandise which have been filled by the firm of Jones Brothers.

Yesterday afternoon, I learned, for the first time, that in the House of Commons Act there

l Mr. Pouliot.]

is a provision against goods, wares, and merchandise being sold to any department of the public service by an unincorporated firm of which a member of parliament is the proprietor, in whole or part, and that if goods are sold by such a firm, the interested member of parliament thereby vacates his seat.

I therefore find myself in a position where I have vacated my seat in parliament. I enclose herewith my resignation as member of the House of Commons of Canada for the electoral district of Royal in the province of New Brunswick.

I need hardly say how deeply I regret that my lack of knowledge of the provisions of the law relating to the House of Commons has placed me in the unfortunate position where I am compelled to resign my seat in parliament.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

George B. Jones.

His Honour.

The Hon. George Black, K.C., M.P.,

Speaker,

House of Commons,

Ottawa.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :

Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay upon the table of the house orders in council passed pursuant to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, numbers 789, 793, 794, 795, 796, 810, 811 and 812, all relating to the payments of money under the statute.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Explain.

Mr. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the first two

clauses of the proposed bill deal with the scope or functions of the Board of Railway Commissioners and are recommendations made in the report of the royal commission on maritime claims, commonly called the Duncan report of 1926.

In numerous appeals which have been made to the Board of Railway Commissioners for a reduction of freight rates, they have been met by argument on behalf of the railway companies, that due to physical and other conditions it was very necessary for the railway companies to have tariffs or rates greater in some sections than in other sections. The Board of Railway Commissioners have, I believe, made it clear that there is no authority in the act to allow them to render decisions on broader lines such as to develop business. Section 320 of the Railway Act provides:

In deciding whether a lower toll, or difference in treatment, does or does not amount to an undue preference or an unjust discrim-

Railway Act Amendment

ination, the board may consider whether such lower toll, or difference in treatment, is necessary for the purpose of securing, in the interests of the public, the traffic in respect of which it is made, and whether such object cannot be attained without unduly reducing the higher tolls.

I have suggested the following amendment to section 320, subsection 1:

In deciding whether a lower toll, or difference in treatment, does or does not amount to an undue preference or an unjust discrimination, the board may consider whether such lower toll, or difference in treatment, is necessary for the purpose of securing in the national interest, both producing and consuming, the traffic in respect of which it is made, and whether such object can be obtained without unduly reducing the higher tolls.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the change suggested is the deletion of the words " in the interest of the public " and the substitution of the words " national interest, both producing and consuming." My argument can be better summed up by reading from the report of the Duncan commission, at page 24:

In addition, the cases which the maritime provinces have already submitted to the railway commission also raise the question of handicaps arising from the geographical position of their natural products, and their distance generally from central markets. If we were satisfied that under their present power the railway-commission could adequately deal, on appeal, with the broader aspect of the maritime eases before them, we would make no further comment. Previous judgments of the railway board, however, lead us to fear that they will not feel competent to deal with such broad considerations as are still involved in these maritime claims.

Then the report cites three cases, of which the first is the application of the district board of trade of Coalhurst. In their judgment in that case the board said:

The board under the Railway Act has no profit and loss responsibility, and its intervention in the matter of rates must, as has been indicated, be concerned with matters falling within the categories of reasonableness and unjust discrimination, and not with a policy of the development of industries through rate adjustments.

The second case referred to is that of the Imperial Rice Milling Company vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in which the board say:

The board has no power to regulate tolls, for the purpose of equalizing cost of production, or geographical, or climatic, or economic conditions.

The third case is that of the British Columbia News Company vs. Express Traffic Association, in which the board say:

It is not the board's function, as delegated by parliament, to make rates to develop business, but to deal with the reasonableness of

rates, either on complaint or of its own motion. ... As it has not been established that the rates as charged are unreasonable the board is not justified in ordering the installation of the experimental rates asked for.

The Duncan report proceeds:

The conclusion to be drawn from these extracts seems to us to be that the railway commission does not feel itself empowered to pass under its review, when appeals are made to it, the same wide range of business considerations which railway companies themselves can take into account in forming a judgment as to the extent to which they should develop trade and business.

I will pass over some of the comments I had intended to make, in order to condense my argument. The Duncan report further states:

At present the work of the railway commission is circumscribed within the two considerations, viz:-

(a) Reasonable compensation to the carrying company, and

(b) No unfair preference or unjust discrimination as between traders.

Section 320 of the Railway Act seems to give the wider powers that we have in mind to the railway commission, so far as the question of undue preference or unjust discrimination may be involved.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Surely it is not necessary for the hon. member to read that whole report in explaining his bill. Usually these explanations are very brief.

Mr. REID:

I feel it is necessary to give this finding of the Duncan commission in support of the proposals I have included in the bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. member to shorten his remarks as much as possible. I did not understand that the introduction of the bill was a controversial matter.

Mr. REID:

My argument will not take very long, Mr. Speaker. I quote again from the Duncan report:

... we feel that, if the intention was to have larger national interests in mind, the section should be made clearer, and instead of the words "in the interests of the public" (which might be interpreted as in the interests of the "consuming" public) the words should clearly state that it is national interests (both "producing" and "consuming") that are in mind. If this was not the original intention of the section, we suggest it is the intention which should now be imported into it. We feel further that a similar extension of authority should be imparted to the railway board in regard to the question of reasonable compensation. It would then be competent for the railway board to make a survey of just the very character that the president of the Canadian National Railways testified as being part of his function (as the business head of a railway); and if from public policy they felt that an experimental rate should be conceded,

Railway Act Amendment

they should be free to constitute the rate% even although it might not, at the time, or of itself, give reasonable compensation to the railway company.

That has to do with the first and second changes proposed in the bill. The third and last change proposed is in regard to the rates on grain and flour moving west. It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that in 1925 a bill was introduced to amend the Railway Act of 1919, and that bill included -amendments touching the Crowsnest pass agreement. It is hardly necessary for me to recite the history of that agreement, which has often and ably been presented in this house by many hon. members. From what I can gather, however, the reason given in 1925 for introducing further legislation in connection with the Crowsnest pass agreement was that a supreme court decision had been rendered confirming the stand, taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway, that when the agreement was first entered into in 1897 the territory covered included only those points that were in existence at the time the agreement was made. This judgment brought about a somewhat chaotic state of affairs as far as freight rates were concerned, because of the fact that adjacent towns were obliged to pay the higher regular rates.

Carried.

Mr. REID:

I think it is necessary to give this explanation, Mr. Speaker, so that the house may have a clear conception of the purposes of the bill. At that time it was argued that three courses were open to the government in regard to the Crowsnest agreement. It could have been left as it was, in accordance with the judgment of the supreme court; it could have been entirely done away with, or the third course, that followed by the government, could have been and was adopted. It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, to suggest what might have been done; the fact remains that the Crowsnest pass agreement was altered and changed. By that change the prairie provinces gained something-though they lost something as well-in having the Crowsnest pass rates on grain and flour fixed to all points east, while it was also contended that the railways gained something by the removal of the Crowsnest rates on certain commodities.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Cannot the hon. member

continue his remarks on the second reading of the bill? These motions are not usually debated at such length.