Mr. CHEVRIER:

The table follows:

On the morning of March 30 the board of transport commissioners handed down its decision under order No. 70425 pertaining to the railways' application for an increase of 30 per cent in freight rates within Canada. The order referred to authorized an increase of 21 per cent in freight rates. On coal and coke an increase of 25 cents per ton was authorized. No increase was permitted in rates on grain and grain products moving between points in western Canada.

Here are shown the range of the increase in final freight costs per retail sales unit, for twenty-one different commodities transported from their principal sources of supply to eight representative centres of consumption in Canada. The commodities selected are, in the main, important items in the cost of living budget. Other items were selected in order to illustrate the situation more fully. The information shown does not necessarily represent increases in retail prices w'hich may occur as a result of the increase in freight, but is merely indicative of the limited extent to which laid down costs will be affected by the proposed increase.

RANGE OF FREIGHT INCREASE IN CENTS PER RETAIL SALES UNIT For Commodities Transported From Their Principal Sources of Supply To Important Consumption Centres tn Canada

Commodity

Tea

Coffee (roasted)

Milk

Butter

Cheese

Eggs

Apples

Refined sugar

Salt (refined)

Beef

Fish (salted or cured)...

Potatoes

Canned goods

Men's suits

Men's shoes

Shirts

Bath tubs

Coal stove

Electric stove

Chevrolet car

Lumber

Retail sales unit Quebec Montreal Halifax Toronto Winnipeg Regina Calgary Vancouver Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L. Carload L.C.L.cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts. cts.00 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 00 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-00-7 1-1 0-7 1-1 0-7 1-1 0-7 1-1 0-5 0-7 0-5 0-7 0-6 0-9 0-7 0-8Low 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-0 0-00-5 0-7 0-3 0-7 0-5 0-7 0-3 0-7 0-3 0-5 0-3 0-5 0-4 0-6 0-3 0-70-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-10-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-10-1 0-1 0-3 0-5 0-5 0-7 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-3 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-40-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-5 0-6 0-1 0-10-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-5 0-6 0-5 0-70-1 0-3 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1High 0-5 0-8 0-5 0-8 0-8 1-3 0-5 0-8 0-5 0-9 0-1 0-2 0-4 0-7 0-5 0-70-1 0-1 01 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-2 0-2 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-10-3 0-7 0-3 0-7 0-3 0-7 0-3 0-7 0-2 0-3 0-2 0-5 0-2 0-2 0-1 0-10-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0High 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-2 0-2 0-0 0-00-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-0High 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-1 0-5 0-1 0-3 0-2 0-50-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0High 0-3 0-5 0-3 0-5 0-3 0-6 0-3 0-5 0-2 0-4 0-1 0-3 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-50-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-4 0-3 0-4 0-2 0-3 0-0 0-0High 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-5 0-3 0-5 0-4 0-6 0-3 0-70-8 1-5 0-3 0-9 0-6 1-1 0-5 0-8 0-4 0-6 0-8 1-7 0-4 0-9 0-6 1-1High 0-8 1-5 0-9 1-7 0-8 1-5 1-1 2-0 2-4 4-4 2-0 3-8 1-3 2-3 0-7 1-40-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-3 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0High 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-3 0-1 0-1 0-3 0-6 0-4 0-6 0-5 0-7 0-2 0-90-7 0-7 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 2-7 2-7 3-5 3-5 4-5 4-5 5-0 5-01-0 1-0 0-6 0-7 1-2 1-2 0-8 0-7 2-7 2-7 3-5 3-5 4-5 4-5 5-0 5-00-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-4 0-2 0-2 1-1 1-6 1-5 2-1 1-8 2-7 1-9 2-90-3 0-5 0-4 0-5 0-6 0-8 0-5 0-6 1-1 1-7 1-5 2-2 1-9 2-8 1-9 3-00-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-4 0-4 0-5 0-5 0-6 0-6 0-5 0-50-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-7 0-4 0-5 0-5 0-6 0-6 0-5 0-5350 51-3 28-0 42-0 39-7 59-5 16-3 25-7 79-3 123-7 109-7 168-0 137-7 212-3 123-7 249-514-1 22-7 28-3 36-7 22-7 28-3 15-6 25-5 96-1 150-0 133-1 204-0 167-3 258-0 167-3 254-7High 45-3 73-7 38-0 56-7 53-9 80-7 45-3 65-1 101-9 158-7 136-0 212-5 172-7 266-7 167-3 311-732-5 45-5 22-7 32-7 43-3 61-7 15-1 21-7 88-8 145-3 121-3 192-8 151-7 244-7 182-3 294-7High 43-3 62-8 34-7 50-0 48-7 69-3 30-3 43-3 88-8 145-3 121-3 192-8 151-7 244-7 182-3 294-7733-3 656-0 533-3 546-7 786-7 786-7 240-5 240-5 1,748-0 1,748-0 2,339-7 2,339-7 2,973-9 2,973-9 3,126-7 3,632-7High 733-3 656-0 533-3 546-7 786-7 786-7 240-5 240-5 1,748-0 1,748-0 2,339-7 2,339-7 2,973-9 2,973-9 3,126-7 3,632-7116-7 116-7 116-7 186-7 163-3 116-7 0-0 High 630-0 630-0 746-7 618-2 385-3 396-7 350-0 0-0

* >

TJ

ta

Freight Rates

Freight Rates

Mr. CHEVRIER:

1927. In that judgment will be found the reasons for these discrepancies. The reasons are so extensive that there is not time in a debate such, as this to go into them fully. But let me say briefly, and speaking generally, that the general level of rates in eastern Canada on general merchandise and other commodities is somewhat lower than in the prairies and in the so-called Pacific area, namely, west of the Crowsnest, British Columbia, Oanmore and Ed.son, Alberta, the rates are somewhat higher than on the prairies. There are, however, numerous exceptions with respect to various special rates which have been published. Lower rates in eastern Canada are compelled by water competition, a combination of water and motor truck competition, as well as rates established by the United States lines. The different rates have been brought much closer together under various decisions of the board at different times since 1914.

In 1925, in the decision referred to a moment ago, the board undertook a complete investigation, the largest one of its kind, into the rate structure in this country. This lasted

for two years, and a decision was rendered in 1927. Some mention has been made in the house of the time it will take for the board to complete this investigation. In order that there will be no further misunderstanding on this question may I say that I conferred with the chief commissioner of the board and asked him how long in his opinion it would take to complete this investigation. He said that because of the circumstances which had changed in the economy of this country from the time that the judgment was handed down in 1927, it would require an absolute minimum of six months in which to complete the investigation, and that it would probably be completed within a year.

I have this further to say as to the time within which the board can dispose of the investigation into inequalities. Just as soon as the provinces have indicated their readiness to submit their case to the board, the board will move immediately to the region or the province which is ready to present its case. I am informed, I believe reliably, that already in the province of Alberta preparations have been made for a presentation to the board

preparations extending over a period of several months and in fact almost a year.

The charge has been made that while the investigation is being carried on the. people of this country will have exceedingly high rates inflicted upon them. I believe it was the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who said that the rates would be exceedingly high, and I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) used the expression "unusually high", because, of the inequality.

Does the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar know of any group, any individual, any association, any board in any province which, in the. last twenty years, or since the, decision of the board in 1927, has signified any intention to the board of making an application to it to do away with inequalities?

Mr. COLDWELL:

I know there has been constant criticism of the inequalities from boards and all other sources.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

There may have been constant criticism-

Mr. COLDWELL:

And may I say it was in every brief presented by the various governments.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

There may have been criticism, but the point is, has there been an application? And really, if there has been criticism without the application, the board could not be seized of the inequalities. Let

Freight Rates

me quote from page 44 of the judgment of the chief commissioner. He states:

_ What was presented to us was, to a considerable degree, o-f

The board is of the opinion that if the interested parties desire to have these questions dealt with under proceedings upon complaint, they should be handled in accordance with the board's rules and regulations and more specifically in accordance with rules 2, 3 and 4 thereof.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Not at all; not necessarily.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

My hon. friend cannot argue himself out of that position, which I think follows logically from the request he makes.

Mr. COLDWELL:

It does not follow.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

Does any hon. member of this house think that is a desirable thing, that we should have railway amalgamation in this country? I doubt if any hon. gentleman would take that position.

Now I want to say a word about the contribution to the debate by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). The hon. member has made many excellent contributions in this house, and he has made some that were not so good. In fairness to him I have to state that his was really a constructive contribution to the debate. He attempted to deal with the matter not from the political but from the economic angle; and he dealt with two of the very serious sore spots in his part of the country, the mountain differential and the transcontinental rate. As the house knows, the mountain differential is brought about by the fact that in calculating rates, one mile in the mountain region is equal to one and a quarter miles in the prairie region. Here let me pause for a moment to state what has been done in the past with respect to the mountain differential. It used to be that one mile in the mountain area equalled two miles in the prairies. Following various investigations conducted by the board from time to time, that was reduced until now a mile and a quarter on the prairies equals one mile in the mountains. By virtue of at least two decisions of the board that differential was reduced first from two to one and three-quarters and then from one and three-quarters to one and one-quarter miles. The judgment of the board in 1927 dealt with that very matter, and that judgment is specific as set out in 33 Canadian Railway Cases, at page 127. Since that time economic conditions in this country have changed materially, as no

one knows better than hon. members who come from the British Columbia and prairie regions. Since conditions have changed it may well be that when the board of transport commissioners ends its investigation it will come to the conclusion that having regard to all the circumstances, including the changes .in the economy of this country, the time has come when the mountain differential should be made to disappear altogether; and if that should be the decision I am sure no one will have any fault to find with it.

The hon. member for Calgary West also dealt with the matter of the transcontinental rate, which, as is well known, was established to compete with water transportation via the Panama canal. The hon. member suggested that perhaps a remedy could be found by virtue of the decision in the Spokane case. I have considered that decision with the officers of my department, and I am informed that it is no longer in effect; that it has been eaten away by various exceptions and provisions, and that because the general effect of the decision has been reduced by those provisions and exceptions in various judgments of the interstate commerce commission it could not be made to apply with equity to Canada, because if any attempt were made to apply it here it might well result in a benefit to one region but a great disadvantage to another.

One hon. member suggested the appointment of a royal commission, and I think it was the hon. member for Calgary West who said that in his opinion some other body should undertake this investigation. I say to the house that if we were to appoint a royal commission or other body to investigate the inequalities of the freight rates structure in Canada this is what would happen. The royal commission or other body would come to the government and say, "We are ready to proceed with the case. Give us the technical assistance; give us the experts." We would have to reply, "We know of only two groups of people in this country who are able to give you the technical evidence and assistance you require, and those two groups are to be found in the board of transport commissioners." Those groups are, first, the bureau of economics of the board of transport commissioners, and second, the traffic experts of that board, the one composed of a personnel of forty and the other of a personnel of twenty. That being the case what would be the use of asking four, five or six men, not nearly as conversant with this question as are the members of the board of transport commissioners, and who to my mind would not have the same knowledge of the circumstances as the board, to carry out such an investigation? I say to the house

Freight Rates

therefore that the members of the board, four of whom are from provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, are better qualified and equipped to deal with this question than would be the members of a specialized board or commission of some kind or other.

I return to the point made at the outset, that in 1903 parliament vested in the board the duty and responsibility of fixing rates for this country. To take that responsibility away from the board set up at that time I do not think would be a step in the right direction.

In his contribution to the debate the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said at page 2656 of Hansard:

As I understand the question in British Columbia, it is not that we object to an increase in freight rates if that increase is necessary, but we object to the fact that the decision made at this time perpetuates freight rates which we have considered for years to be inequitable. That is the point.

And a little later on:

Let me say again that, as I understand the position of the people of British Columbia, they are not opposed to an increase in freight rates as such. They are opposed to the maintenance of an inequitable freight structure.

Is that not exactly what we are doing? Is that not exactly the decision of the government? It has declined to stay the order, for the reasons mentioned; and it has ordered a thorough and complete investigation into the rate structure by the only body competent and efficient to deal with it immediately and with dispatch.

It has been said that this board has not the powers to deal with the matter of the investigation ordered by the government. I say to the house it has. There are contained in the various sections of the Railway Act all the powers required by the board of transport commissioners to make a thorough and complete investigation of the freight rate structure. In fact, in conversation with the chairman recently, I was informed by him that he was of the opinion-and so did his brother commissioners-that there was nothing in the Railway Act which hampered them in any way in dealing with the inequalities or the so-called discrimination which may exist in this country. What use would there be in further defining the powers of the board, in further instructing or directing the board as to what they should do in the investigation, if they themselves are of the opinion that they possess all the power that is required to remove these inequalities?

The same position obtains so far as the maritime provinces are concerned. That is why I submit it is impossible to make a decision over night-in a week, a month, or two months

-in a case of such importance; because if the board were to move to British Columbia and dispose of one matter there without weighing the position in the maritimes, I submit with deference to the house that the board could not then render a decision which would seek to equalize the freight rates from one end of the country to the other.

One must keep in mind the fact that there are two statutory rights having to do with freight rates. The first is the Crowsnest Pass agreement, which this investigation will not touch, and those will remain as they are. The other is the 20 per cent subsidy under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, in the territory east of Levis, which also will remain as it is, by virtue of this investigation.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

They are statutory rates.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

As the hon. member says, they are statutory rates.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

Parliament alone can deal with them.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

And they cannot be interfered with without an amendment to these statutes. But what I wanted to make quite clear was that there would be no misunderstanding with reference to the investigation.

I believe I have almost completed what I had intended to say. It has been suggested to me that perhaps I have omitted one pertinent feature in the discussion, and that is the application made by the brotherhoods for a wage increase. That is where my friend, the leader of the C.C.F. party, has placed himself in a most anomalous position.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Not at all.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

On the one hand he seeks to protect or to defend the farmers of the prairie provinces from an increase, by asking the government to refuse to allow the increase to go into effect. On the other hand, what is his position with respect to the members of the railway brotherhoods? What is the position of the railway employees? I deal now only with the increases granted in the year 1947.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Has the minister read the reference from the conciliation board? The railway brotherhoods recognize that this has nothing to do with it, and the C.P.R. says it requires all the revenue for purposes other than wages.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

I say to the hon. member that because of his attitude he has placed himself in a disastrous position.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Oh, nonsense.

Freight Rates

Mr. CHEVRIER:

I say that, fully conscious of the fact that you cannot say to one section of the country: You are not to have an

increase, and to another section: You must get the benefit of the judgment.