385

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications \lQth Day. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BRODEUR— cont. to go to the St. Lawrence or to go to Halifax or St. Johns than they would charge to go to Portland, for example, or New York or Boston. As far as Boston and New York are concerned, of course, they are a little lower than Canada is; but that is not an objection as far as the summer trade is concerned. Take the case of Portland. Portland is just a short distance from St. Johns. However, the insurance rate which is charged on a boat plying to Portland is less than the insurance rate charged for a boat going to St. Johns. This discrimination which exists between the insurance rates charged for boats going to Canada and for boats going to the United States is very seriously detrimental to us, and is detrimental to the encouragement of trade between Great Britain and Canada. Mr. BUXTON : That is hardly a question of the shipowners and a combination; that is a question of and the insurers. Mr. BRODEUE : Yes, that is what I say. Mr. BUXTON : I would suggest that you should communicate with Lloyd's or we will do so, if you will communicate the facts to us. Mr. BRODEUR : I only wanted to raise the matter here with the expectation that you might use all your influence with the insurers in order to have this clause struck out of their insurance policies. Mr. BUXTON : We should be very glad to do anything, but I think it would be better for you to see Lloyd's yourselves. Mr. BRODEUR : I think you would have more power than we would have. Mr. BUXTON : We will do anything we can. Mr. BRODEUR : We have been spending large sums of money to improve our route, our ports, and our shipping, and I do not know why they should continue to charge such unfair rates, especially considering that, just a few miles below, certain ports enjoy better rates of insurance than are charged as far as Canada is concerned. On the whole, I favour the motion moved by Sir David Graaff. Dr. FINDLAY : I do not want to address myself to this matter, but may I ask whether the additional words suggested will not practically nullify the intention which Sir David Graaff has ? I think it will be admitted that none of the operations to which he is alluding would then come within the prohibition intended by this resolution, because they would not be in restraint of trade. Mr. BUXTON : If I may say so, as the resolution stands, without amendment, it practically implies that all Shipping Conferences are necessarily disadvantageous. I say that is not the view necessarily which is held here, and the words I have proposed to add are " in so far as such Conferences are in restraint of trade." Sir David Graaff's argument was that they did operate in restraint of trade in South Africa both with regard to the question of freights and the question of facilities, and in other respects I only used the expression " in restraint of trade " because it is a common term for anything of that sort. Dr. FINDLAY : I think it has been fairly well understood in point of law that those words would not permit this resolution to hit the cases which Sir David Graaff has mentioned.