April 17, 1923

REPORT PRESENTED


Annual Report of the Trade of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922.-Mr. Robb.


FRENCH TREATY

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CLARK


On the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) for the second reading of Bill No. 23 respecting a certain convention of commerce between His Majesty and the President of the French republic:


CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. * On Wednesday last I spoke to the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) with regard to the resolution that has stood in my name on the order paper since the 15th February, and discussed with him the possibility of bringing that resolution forward by amendment to a motion to go into supply. I spoke to him in order to meet his convenience and that I might give some members on his side of the House two or three days' notice of my intention to move such amendment. The minister advised me that he would see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). On the following day- that is, last Thursday-I wrote the minister the following note:

Have you discussed with the Prime Minister a suitable day for me to move my resolution on a motion to go into Committee of Supply? Could you agree to next Tuesday?

Railway Rates

His reply, endorsed on my note, is in these words:

The government has no objections to your bringing it up on Tuesday next.

Thereupon I advised members in accordance with my undertaking that my understanding was this resolution would have right of way to-day. On Friday I noticed it was stated that the French treaty would probably be taken up to-day, but it was certainly my understanding and the understanding of the other members whom I advised that nothing would come on prior to a motion to go into supply which would prevent my moving an amendment to such motion.

I allowed my resolution to stand on various occasions at the request of the goyemment before the date that government business was given precedence over private members' resolutions, and did so on the faith of undertakings given me by the government that a day would be found for the discussion of the resolution; but each time I have had an opportunity to bring it forward something has intervened to make it impossible for me to proceed. To-day of course it may be said that I can go on after the French treaty is disposed of, but obviously the whole day will probably be taken up with this particular business-my information is to that effect- and consequently consideration of my resolution is again postponed and the convenience of members on both sides is interfered with. I certainly feel that I am entitled to a statement from the government that either a day will be set aside for the discussion of my resolution as a private member's resolution or that on a given date an amendment to a motion to go into supply nothing will be allowed to intervene in the nature of government business.

Topic:   FRENCH TREATY
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CLARK
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

I do not know what happened in regard to the motion of my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, but so far as the French treaty being set down for to-day is concerned, there can be no misunderstanding. Several questions were asked as to the time when it 'would be brought forward, and a few evenings ago it was definitely stated that in all probability this treaty would be brought up on Tuesday, and last night it was more precisely stated, so there can be no misunderstanding with regard to the time. If there has been any misunderstanding on the part of my hon. friend with regard to his motion I am very sorry, but it is not within my knowledge.

Topic:   FRENCH TREATY
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CLARK
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has stated the case exactly except for the inference he drew that nothing was

to intervene on a motion to go into supply.

I received a note from him asking if he could go on with his resolution on Tuesday. After consulting with the Prime Minister I informed him that the government had no objection to his bringing it up to-day. As a matter of fact there has been no attempt to shut off his resolution at all. But we ought to do everything possible for the convenience of the House generally. I am of opinion we will have plenty of opportunity to take up my hon. friend's resolution after the French treaty is disposed of. I certainly want to carry out any arrangement made with my hon. friend, for I would not wish him to think that I am attempting to sidetrack him in any way. .

Hon. Mr. ME1GHEN: Mr. Speaker, an undertaking that this resolution may be gone on with on motion to go into Committee of Supply involves that the government will not put any other motion in between or it involves nothing, because the member has the right to move his amendment on going into Committee on Supply without any concession at all from the government. Now, in view of the fact that he did so understand for to-day, and I think rightly so after the answer given by the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) by note to him, it seems to me the government should undertake that next Monday or Tuesday there will be no government business put ahead of supply in order that the hon. member may go on on an amendment to supply. I do not think there is any chance at all of his getting time for his resolution to-day after this French treaty resolution has been debated.

Topic:   FRENCH TREATY
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CLARK
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING:

Rather than there should be the least misunderstanding in the matter I will withdraw the motion for the second reading of the French treaty and let my hon. friend go on. I will move immediately that the House go into Committee of Supply.

Topic:   FRENCH TREATY
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CLARK
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to withdraw his motion? Carried.

Motion withdrawn.

Topic:   FRENCH TREATY
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CLARK
Permalink

EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES


On the motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply:


CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):

Mr. Speaker. . the amendment I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tol-mie) is as follows:

That in the opinion of this House all unfair and

unjust discrimination against British Columbia as

Railway Rates

exemplified in the "Mountain Scale" of freight rates should be rescinded, and the special reduction made by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on the basic production of the prairie provinces be extended to the basic productions of all other provinces of confederation.

In presenting this resolution-

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

When the hon. member a few days ago moved a similar resolution, I felt that under British parliamentary practice matters sub judice could not be brought before the House. The question was discussed by several hon. members on both sides after the hon. gentleman had agreed to postpone the consideration of his resolution. Many representations were made to me as Speaker from both points of view-that the subject matter of the hon. member's resolution should be considered as a question sub judice, and, on the other hand, that it should not be so considered. I invited the opinion of some of the oldest members of the House. I invited the opinion of the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), and of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I asked for the opinion of the present Chairman of the Board of Railway - Commissioners, Hon. Mr. Carvell, and I also had the benefit of the views of two or three of the most experienced members of the House-because it is paramount to determine whether the Privy Council of Canada should be considered as a tribunal. The question has impressed me as sufficiently important to justify a formal ruling, which I give as fol-, lows:

On the motion that I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply, Mr. Clark (Burrard) moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Tolmie (Victoria) :

That all the words after the word "that" be struck out, and the following words be inserted instead thereof:-

"In the opinion of this House all unfair and unjust discrimination against British Columbia as exemplified in the 'mountain scale' of freight rates should be rescinded, and the special reduction made by the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates on the basic production of the prairie provinces, be extended to the basic productions of all other provinces of confederation."

This question is now before the Governor in Council on an appeal from a decision of the Railway Board which established, by a General Order bearing No. 366, dated 30th of June, 1922, certain scales of rates known as the "mountain scale," in British Columbia, on a higher basis than that charged for the same class of goods moving between points in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, known as the "prairie scale."

tMr. Clark.]

By petition dated the 1st of December, 1922, the Attorney General of British Columbia appealed from the said order to the Governor General in Council, praying that the same rates be charged on goods of like character from and to all points in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario as far east as Port Arthur.

The question was partially heard by the Governor in Council on the 3rd of February last, and it was announced that further hearing was postponed until after the prorogation of the present session of parliament.

My attention has been drawn to the circumstance that whilst this appeal is pending the question must be considered . sub judice and therefore should not be debated in the House. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, No. 234, says:

Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule (our rule 19) it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:

"(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending."

May, page 296, says:

Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.

The precedents cited by May cover instances where individual rights are concerned and relate chiefly to election petitions. I have very fully scrutinized those cases. The point at issue may be briefly stated in the following proposition: Is the Governor in Council, in the exercise of his powers to review the decisions of the Railway Board, vested with a judicial rather than an administrative or executive function?

In the interpretation of the functions of the Governor in Council, one must bear in mind the provisions of the British North America Act, section 9 of which reads as follows:

"The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to be vested in the Queen."

Section 11:

"There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the government of Canada to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."

Section 13:

"The provisions of this act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."

There seems to be no doubt from the above citations that the Privy Council of Canada is vested with executive powers only and has no judicial authority whatever. We must realize that the Canadian government has no

Railway Rates

other powers than those conferred directly or indirectly by that Imperial statute called the British North America Act.

In England, there is a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but there is no similar institution in Canada. Prior to the year 1903, the Privy Council of Canada had full control over all matters now dealt with by the Railway Board. Section 8 of the Railway Act, 1903, which created the board, says:

1. The railway committee of the Privy Council is hereby abolished, and, in lieu thereof, there shall be a commission, to be known as the board of railway commissioners for Canada, etc.

2. Whenever by an act or document the railway committee of the Privy Council is given any power or authority, or any duty is cast upon it, in regard to any company, railway, matter or thing, the power or authority so given, or the duty so cast upon the said committee, may or shall, as the case may be, be exercised by the board.

These provisions have been carried into'sec-ions 9 and 32 of the Railway Act, 1919.

The board itself is a court of record under section 9 of the act, but it has disposed of the case of the freight rates which is now out of its purview and engaging the attention of the Governor in Council.

The Privy Council has specifically reserved to itself the power to revise the board's decisions as to questions of facts. Subsection 2 of section 44 of the Railway Act of 1903, which is now subsection 1 of section 52 of the Railway Act 1919, reads as follows:

Thb Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application, and any order which the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto shall be binding upon the board and upon all parties.

Subsections 2 and 3 of section 52 provide

for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada upon a question of law or jurisdiction.

It is therefore evident that the powers of the Governor in Council have not been abridged as to questions of facts, and they remained exactly the same after as before the creation of the Railway Board. They are simply administrative or executive as heretofore, just as if the Railway Act had never been passed.

The Ministers of the Crown are seized with the appeal for the purpose of advising His Excellency thereon. Their advice may be rejected and is not in the nature of a final judgment. Todd says, in Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies, p. 40:

In the ordinary exercise of his constitutional discretion the Governor is unquestionably competent to reject the advice of his ministers whenever that advice should seem to him to be adverse to the public welfare, or of an injurious tendency.

The question as it now stands before the cabinet, is not, in my humble judgment, sub judice as this legal term implies. It is being considered by the government under administrative powers which the Governor in Council did not delegate or alienate when the Railway Board was created. The fact that the cabinet hears counsel representing both sides of the issue does not constitute it a tribunal. The ministers are at liberty to take all the information required before arriving at a decision upon which they will base the advice to be tendered to His Excellency the Governor General. They may be guided by considerations of public policy quite foreign to the brief. Their decisions which take the form of orders in council and are signed by His Excellency, when accepted, are not, properly speaking, judgments, the ministers' functions in this regard cannot therefore be said to be in any way judicial. They are purely administrative.

One of the traditional rights of parliament is its expressive power. Any grievance, any complaint, any notion can be aired in parliament. It would be a breach against the ancient privilege of the freedom of speech, so essential to every legislature, for the Speaker to prevent a debate on a matter because it is being considered by the Governor in Council, and particularly in the present case, the hearing of which is being postponed on account of the session and will only be resumed after prorogation.

Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, Vol. 1, page 414, says:

Freedom of speech in parliament is an essential part of the liberties of Englishmen. This privilege was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and it includes a license to discuss all matters affecting the public welfare, whether the same have been commended by the Crown to the consideration of parliament or not. From the time of Edward III to our own day, parliament has freely exercised the right of tending advice to the sovereign, unasked, upon matters the final determination of which appertained to the sovereign alone. . . . The two Houses of Parliament collectively represent the whole community, and are the Great Council of the nation, while ministers are merely the council of the prince. They are, therefore, entitled to approach the sovereign with advice or remonstrance upon all affairs of state, and in regard to every grievance under which any subjects of the realm may be suffering.

I have given this point of order a great deal of attention. I have weighed the views expressed on both sides with care and concern. If there should be a doubt lingering in my mind-but there is none-I would give the benefit of that doubt in favour of the broad principle of the supremacy of parliament in all matters of public policy.

Railway Rates

I have .come to the conclusion that the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Clark) is in order, and I rule that debate thereon is allowed.

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

In my presentation of

this resolution I hope to be able to show to the House that so far as British Columbia is concerned we are not seeking any sectional advantage, but rather the removal of a sectional disadvantage from which the province of British Columbia has suffered since confederation. I also hope to be able to show that by the elimination of this sectional disadvantage the general trade of the country will be stimulated, and that immigration which we so much need will be thereby encouraged, and made posible by reason of the fact that settlers will be able to market their produce at reasonable rates, and be able also to purchase their necessities at reasonable rates.

I also desire to make it quite clear that my aim is to effect this correction by constitutional means, relying upon the fairness of the people and of rthis House, rather than upon threats that British Columbia will withdraw from confederation.

I also want to make it quite clear that I am not animated by any spirit of unfriendliness towards the Canadian Pacific Railway. I feel that we are fighting for a principle, and that we differ in principle from the Canadian Pacific Railway. I lay no blame upon them for fighting for their principles, but we propose in so far as it is in our power, to bring home to the people of this country that we have been suffering from a sectional disadvantage, the removal of which is in the interests of the whole of Canada, and which the interests of British Columbia absolutely demand if that province is to go forward and succeed.

It may be said that it is a strange thing for a member of this party to move a resolution dealing with freight rates after the stand that we have taken with regard to keeping our railways out of politics, and having regard to the fact that there is a judicial body seized with the power of dealing with the question of freight rates.

At the, last session of parliament the government dealt with freight rates. At the outset I want to say and I say it with all frankness that if the government is prepared to withdraw that legislation I am prepared to withdraw my motion. In other words, I am prepared to go before the Board of Railway Commissioners and argue this case if the board is left free and unhampered by this House. But my point is this: At the last session of parliament this House undertook to fix the freight rates on two specific commodities namely, grain and flour, for three specific

provinces. This House has gone into the ratemaking business. The result of that legislation was' to accentuate the discrimination which already existed against British Columbia. We were already suffering from discrimination by reason of the mountain scale, and the reduction of the rates on these two basic commodities merely served to accentuate that discrimination.

It may be of interest to know that British Columbia is supported in the stand it has taken by no less authority than Sir Henry Thornton who, speaking before the Board of Trade of Vancouver on January 18, of this year, said in regard to freight rates:

If I were in your position I would adopt the same attitude as you have adopted and advance the same arguments. It does seem to me that whatever rates are to be applied on the transportation of grain from the prairies to the West should be based upon sound economic and scientific principles.

And he went on to say that the agreement known as the Crowsnest pass agreement did not embody, in fact, any sound economic or scientific principle, but was merely a matter of expediency based upon the situation which existed in 1897. He characterized that agreement as "a horse-trading proposition between the Dominion government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company."

For the purpose of rate making Canada is divided into three divisions-the East, the prairie, and the Pacific. The East embraces all of Canada as far west as Fort William; the prairie, the country from Fort William to the mountains; and the Pacific that portion of Canada west of the mountains. The eastern rates are the lowest; the prairie rates are the next lowest; the mountain rates are the highest. The eastern rates are the lowest because of the factor that enters into rate making in that portion of Canada, namely water competition. For the principles of rate making I refer to the judgment of the Board of Railway Commisioners of June 30, 1922, the last decision. In that judgment the board says it found "that in the main the rate structure of eastern Canada was justified on the basis of water and rail competition." These are the words of the Commissioners. Now then just what is the exact position of British Columbia in regard to rates? That also I will give you from the board's last judgment. These are the words of the Commissioners :

Under the western rate case-

Which was in 1914-

-a basis of one and a half for one was adopted on the Pacific standard tariff.

Railway Rates

That meant that one and a half miles on the prairie would equal one mile in British Columbia. In other words, for the same money you could haul the same commodity on the prairies three hundred miles and in British Columbia only two hundred miles. That was the situation. The judgment of the board last June corrected that to some extent in these words:

The rates on the new "Pacific" standard mileage tariff are to be constructed by applying to the "Prairie" standard tariff, li miles for one mile.

In other words we can to-day haul a commodity in British Columbia one hundred and fifty miles as against two hundred miles on the prairie for the same rate. That is the situation to-day, and that is the discrimination of which we complain-a discrimination that we say is unfair and unjust and should be eliminated.

I do not propose to quote figures giving the details of rates for the very good reason that I would be wasting the time of the House by so doing. I could quote rates which would show this discrimination, but nothing can be clearer than the general principle laid down in that judgment. I do not think it needs elaboration but I will say this: I could give you illustrations-and I have no doubt that members of this House in reply to me "will use illustrations to the effect-that British Columbia has rates from Vancouver, and other coastal points, to the far East-and when I say "the far East" I mean Montreal and Toronto-a distance of 2,800 miles which are very favourable, which are more favourable than rates on similar products from the Maritime provinces for an equal distance. For instance, I can quote you rates on canned goods and fish from Vancouver to Toronto which are less than the rates from the Maritime provinces upon the same products for an equal distance which appear favourable to us. The fact remains, however, that it costs us more money to ship those very commodities on which the rates would appear so favourable from Vancouver to Winnipeg than from Vancouver to Toronto or Montreal-it also costs us as much, or more, to ship those commodities from Vancouver to Calgary as it costs us to ship them from Vancouver to Montreal. That is what we say is not scientific. That is what we say is preventing us from getting into those provinces which arc our markets, namely Alberta and Saskatchewan. We have in Vancouver to-day six or seven hundred manufacturers who are clamouring for a market. Their only market is an export market; we are unable to get into the prairie market of Alberta and Saskatchewan by reason of that mountain scale, of that discrimination which exists against us. And yet the Canadian Pacific Railway Company tells us that we are being treated fairly; not only that but that other parts of Canada are being discriminated against by reason of the favourable rates given to us.

Another instance of that might be given in the case of rice. We can Ship rice to Toronto cheaper than we can ship it to Winnipeg or prairie points. The reason for that is to enable the rice mills to meet the competition from New Orleans. All these things, I maintain, have no application to the general principle defined in the judgment referred to. That one and a quarter miles on the prairie is the same as one mile in British Columbia is the thing we complain of.

Mr. Carvell, Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, in a recent letter to the Associated Boards of British Columbia points out-and he also points it out in this judgment-that from 80 to 85 per cent of British Columbia traffic was carried at commodity rates, and that in the movement of the staples of British Columbia at commodity rates, the effect of the mountain scale is not apparent in many cases. I have given the House some illustrations of where, on some of our basic commodities, this discrimination is not apparent, but in every instance that discrimination is not apparent where the shipment extends over a long distance, it becomes apparent the very moment you examine shipments of our commodities into the prairie provinces where we want a market, and where we insist that we are entitled to a market, if trade is to flow in its proper and natural channel. I wish to quote from that letter which I referred to and I may say that it is difficult for me really to bring up such a letter in the House, because I am absolutely opposed to the principle of criticizing the members of any judicial body, but I think it is only fair to our province that I should quote from this letter, because it has been published broadcast throughout the country. In this letter Mr. Carvell says:

Mr. Oliver fails to realize that in the class rate schedule for all points from the coast, east of the boundary, 134 miles are eliminated from the actual mileage across the mountain, and if these are counted it would then bring the class rates practically down to the prairie level.

I point out that is true so far as it goes, but he does not mention that the same condition exists between Fort William and Winnipeg, and has existed for many years, and that it has nothing to do with this question whatsoever. It is based on an entirely differ-

Railway Rates

ent principle, and does not deal with and has no relation to this question of discrimination. The letter continues:

As I view it, the whole question is one of whether the coast wholesaler who can bring his good3 in by water will be able to send them further east and thus . displace the business which has heretofore been done via Winnipeg.

I do not know what he means by that, unless he stands on the principle that he is not going to see anything done which will interfere with the flow of trade to Winnipeg and the business now handled by the wholesaler of Winnipeg. That is an extraordinary principle on which to make rates, if that is the principle. Then he says:

So far as the present programme of the province of British Columbia is concerned in freight rates, it is much more political than real.

That statement I object to most emphatically, because, irrespective of party in British Columbia, the whole public-100 per cent-stands for the removal of this discrimination, and we have fought as hard as we know how, ever since the board was constituted to remove that discrimination. We fought before that board in 1906, again in 1910, again in 1914, we have been fighting since 1920 till to-day, and we are still fighting before the Privy Council and this House for the removal of the discrimination.

The first contention of the province of British Columbia is that by the terms of union Canada undertook to build a railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, and there was nothing in that agreement upon which British Columbia came into confederation which would indicate that there was going to be any discrimination in rates over that road. I would refer members of this House to the original negotiations between Earl Granville and Governor Musgrave, in which it was stated:

That the establishment of a British line of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is far more feasible by the operation of a single government responsible for the progress of both shores of the continent than by a bargain negotiated between separate, perhaps in some respects, rival governments and legislatures.

And the extracts from the terms of the union itself reads as follows:

Whereas the construction of a line of railway through British territory across the continent of North America, which, in conjunction with existing railways would afford uninterrupted railway communication between the Atlantic and Pacific seaports of the Dominion of Canada is a work of vast importance, not only to the political and commercial interests of Canada, as tending to the closer union of its several provinces, but also to the British Empire at large, as affording rapid and direct communication through British territory, Australian and Asiatic possessions and opening up for colonization an almost unlimited extent of fertile country.

,

Hon. members should note that this was for the closer union of the provinces. I ask you, do you expect closer union with British Columbia if you discriminate against that province? I also draw your attention to the fact that it is an Imperial project. Are we in British Columbia to pay additional rates by reason of the fact that this project was Imperial in its nature and for the closer union of the provinces of confederation? I merely draw attention to these terms. I think, perhaps, others will elaborate the point, but I draw attention to it for this specific reason: the Board of Railway Commissioners in their judgment of June 30, 1922, refused to consider that argument. They said that-

In the present application, various additional contentions were advanced. Emphasis was laid upon the implications alleged to arise from the steps culminating in confederation.

They say that this case is analogous to a case of Attorney General for British Columbia vs. C.P.R. in which it was held that under the terms of the contract with the Dominion government for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway dated October 21, 1880, the only party who could make any complaint as to the non-observance of the terms of union was the government of Canada. I present that argument because the Board of Railway Commissioners have refused to consider it, and here I have an opportunity of presenting it to the government of Canada for it? consideration.

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink
LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. CARROLL:

Do I understand the hon. member now to be criticizing the judgment of the railway commissioners?

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink
CON
LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. CARROLL:

Does he know an appeal has been taken to the Privy Council on that question?

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

The judgment of the Speaker indicated that I did.

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink
LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. CARROLL:

Would the hon. member suggest that it would be a fair proposition in this House that the Privy Council should vote on this question before they have taken the whole evidence into consideration.

Topic:   EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Permalink

April 17, 1923