1931-04-23

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister), for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) presented the report of the special' committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house as follows:
[Stage Direction]
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messieurs
Anderson
(High Park), Beaubien,
Burns,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
[Stage Direction]
Dupre,
Elliott,
Esling,
Gagnon,
Gardiner,
Gray,
Hanson
(York-S unbury), J acobs,
Lapointe,
Lawson,
Lennox,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), MaeNicol,
Marcil,
MePhee,
Mercier
(St. Henri), Morand,
Ralston,
Spencer,
Stinson,
Sullivan,
Thompson
(East Simcoe), Turnbull.-29.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson
(High Park), Beau'bier,
Bell
(Hamilton),
Beynon,
Bothwell,
Bradette,
Bury,
Butcher,
Cantley,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
Chevrier,
Dorion,
Dubuc,
Dupre,
Edwards,
Esling,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser
(Cariboo),
Gardiner,
Geary,
Gershaw,
Hackett,
Hanbury,
Hanson
(Skenna),
Harris,
Heaps,
J ones,
Kennedy
(Peace River), Lacroix,
Laurin, MacDonald (Kings, P.E.I.), MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, McGibbon, McIntosh,
McLure,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont), Moore
(Ontario),
Nicholson,
Pouliot,
Price,
Rogers,
Ross,
Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Shaver,
Simpson
(Algoma West), Smith
(Cumberland),
Speakman,
[Stage Direction]
Select Standing Committees
Stewart
(Edmonton West),
Stitt
(Nelson),
Totzke,
Turnbull,

[Stage Direction]
Ahearn,
Anderson
(Halton),
Arsenault,
Barber,
Barrette,
Bell (St. Antoine), Boucher,
Bowen,
Bowman,
Brown,
Chaplin,
Chevrier,
Cormier,
Cowan
(Long Lake), Denis,
Deslauriers,
[Stage Direction]
Dumaine,
Dupre,
Edwards,
Ernst,
Fournier,
Gobeil,
Gott,
Hall,
Irvine,
Urquhart,
Vallance,
White
(London),
White
(Mount Royal).-60.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lafleche,
Larue,
Lawson,
Luchkovich,
Maclnnis,
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), Maloney,
McDade,
McGregor,
McMillan
(Huron South), Merrier (Laurier-Outremont),
Moore
(Ontario),
Myers,
Peck.
Pettit,
Robitaille,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Spence,
Sullivan,
Tummon,
Verville,
Wilson.-50.
(Quorum 20) No. 3
(Quorum 15)
[Stage Direction]
STANDING ORDERS Messieurs
Anderson
(Halton),
Arthurs,
Baker,
Bell
(Hamilton),
Bell
(St. Antoine), Blair,
Cahan,
Deslauriers,
Fontaine.
Fraser (Northumberland, 0.),
Hay,
LaVergne,
Luchkovich,
McKenzie
(Assiniboia),
Mereier
(St. Henri), Munn,
Plunkett,
Rowe,
Thompson (Lanark), Woodsw'orth.-20.
(Quorum 8)
Anderson (Halton), Baribeau, Belec, Boulanger, Br asset, Buckley,

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Campbell,
Charters,
Desrochers,
Dubois,
Edwards,
Embury,
Esling,
Factor,
Fortin,
Girouard,
Gott,
Gray,
Hay,
Heaps,
Howden,
Lucas,
MacLean
(Prince),
Maloney,
Marcil,
Matthews,
McKenzie
(Assiniboia), Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Munn,
Murphy,
Peek,
Perley
(Qu'Appelle),
Perras,
Pickel,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Rheaume,
Rinfret,
Roberge,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Short,
Simpson
(Simcoe North), Spankie,
Spencer,
Spotton,
Stewart
(Lethbridge), Taylor,
Tetrault,
V erville,
Wilson,
Wright.-54.
[Stage Direction]
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messieurs
Anderson
(Halton),
Arthurs,
Baribeau,
Beaubien,
Beaubier,
Bell
(Hamilton),
Bcynon,
Bothwell,
Cahan,
Coote,
Cowan
(Long Lake), Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay), Donnelly,
Dubuc,
[Stage Direction]
Duguay,
Dumaine,
Duranleau,
Fournier,
Fraser
(Cariboo),
Fraser (Northumberland, O.), Garland
(Carleton),
Geary,
Girouard,
Hanson
(York-Sunbury), Ilsley,
Jacobs,
Lennox,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Mackenzie,
(Vancouver Centre), Macphail (Miss), Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Ralston,
Robinson,
Ross,
Rutherford,
Senn.
Smith
(Cumberland), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Smoke,
Speakman,
Stanley,
Stewart (Leeds), Swanston,
Taylor,
Weese,
White
(Mount Royal). Willis.-50.
(Quorum 15)
[Stage Direction]
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs
Baker,
Black (Halifax), Bothwell, Bowman, Casgrain,
Chaplin,
Donnelly,
Dorion,
Embury,
Ernst,
Euler,
Fafard,
Gagnon,
Ganong,
Geary,
Hackett,
Hanson
(York-Sunbury),
sso
Select Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Harris,
Hepburn,
Howard,
Hurtubise,
Irvine,
Jacobs,
Laurin,
I awson,
Loucks,
MacMillan
(Saskatoon),
Matthews,
McGibbon,
McPhee,
Mercier
(St. Henri), Mullins, . Perley
(Qu'Appelle),
Pettit,
Power,
Raymond,
Rinfret,
Robinson,
Robitaille,
Rogers,
Rutherford,
Ryekman,
Sanderson,
Smoke,
Spencer,
Stevens,
Sullivan,
Vallanee,
White
(Mount Royal), Woodsworth.-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Barber,
Bertrand,
Blair,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bowen,
Boyes,
Brown,
Burns,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Coote,
Donnelly,
Dubuc,
Duguay,
Dupuis,
Garland
(Bow River), Gobeil,
Gott,
Goulet,
Hay,
J ones,
Loucks,
Lucas.
McGillis,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), McMillan
(Huron South), McPhee,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Motherwell,
Mullins,
Myers,
Perley
(Qu'Appelle),
Pickel,
Porteous,
Rowe,
Sauve,
Seguin,
Senn,
Shaver,
Simpson
(SimeoeEast),
Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Spotton,
Sproule,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Stewart
(Lethbridge),
Stirling,
Swanston,
Taylor,
Thompson
(Lanark),
Totzke,
Tummon,
Vallanee,
Weese,
Weir
(Melfort),
Weir
(Macdonald),
Willis,
Young.-60.
(Quorum 20)

[Stage Direction]
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Beaubien,
Br asset, Cantley, Cardin,
Dickie,
[Stage Direction]
Dupuis.
Duranleau.
Ernst,

Messieurs
Ganong,
Hanson (Skeena), Ilsley,
Johnstone,
Larue,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald
(Kings, P.E.I.), Maclnnis, MacLean,
McDade,
McLure,
Pouliot,
Plunkett,
Price,
Quinn,
Reid,
Rhodes,
Ross,
Short,
Speakman,
Stitt
(Selkirk), Thauvette, Urquhart, Veniot.-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Beaubien,
Belee,
Bell
(St. John-Albert), Beynon,
Boucher,
Bradette,
Buckley,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay), Desrochers,
Dickie,
Duguay,
Esling,
Fraser (Northumberland, O.), Garland
(Bow River), Gershaw,
Gordon,
Hurtubise,
Ilsley,
Johnstone,
Kennedy (Peace River), Maedougall,
Nicholson,
Parent,
Plunkett,
Roberge,
Simpson
(Algoma West),
Smith
(Cumberland),
Stanley,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Stewart
(Lethbridge),
Stinson,
Stitt (Nelson), Tetrault,
Weir
(Macdonald).-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Arsenault,
Bell
(St. Antoine),
Bell
(St. John-Albert), Black
(Halifax),
Bourassa,
Bury,
Ferland,
Gordon,
Hackett,
Hall,
Heenan,
Howard, -Johnstone,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lacroix,
Maedougall,
MacNicol,
Macphail (Miss), Matthews, McGibbon, McIntosh,
McMillan
(Huron South), Morand,
Neill,
Nicholson,
Parent,
Perley (Sir George). Reid,
St-Pere,
Stanley,
Stitt (Selkirk), Veniot,
White (London), Woodsworth), Wright.-35.
(Quorum 10)
Arthurs,
Bouchard,
Coote,
Cormier,
Harris,
Lafleche,
No. 12 DEBATES Messieurs
Maedougall, Marcil, Rinfret, Stirling, Sutherland. Young.-12. (Quorum 7)

Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Members on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Barber,	LaVergne,
Bertrand,	Marcil,
Bourassa,	McGillis,
Boyes,	McGregor,
Butcher,	McIntosh,
Carmichael,	MacMillan
Charters,	(Saskatoon),
Chevrier,	Peck,
Cotnam,	Perley (Sir George),
Dubois,	Pouliot,
Factor,	Quinn,
Ferland,	Rheaume,
Fontaine,	Short,
Fortin,	Rinfret,
Fraser	Smoke,
(Cariboo),	Stirling,
Gagnon,	Thauvette,
Girouard,	Thompson,
Guthrie,	(Simcoe East),
Hepburn,	Thompson
Irvine,	(Lanark),
Jones,	White
Lafleche,	(London),
Larue,	Wright.-44.

[Stage Direction]
(Members on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Ahearn,
Barrette,
Black
(Halifax),
Bourassa,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Garland
(Carleton),
Hanbury,
Howard,
Howden, Lafleche, Maephail (Miss), Neill,
Ryerson,
Senn.
Spankie,
Spence,
Sproule,
Wilson.-20.
the necessity of the re-election of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to
amend the Senate and House of Commons Act whereby it will be unnecessary, if the bill becomes law, for members of the government who have been selected for cabinet preferment to submit themselves to their constituents for re-election. This bill has been before the house on several occasions but so far has gone no farther that the second reading. I may say that since 1926 it has been the law in Great Britain. Also it is the law in New Zealand and in a number of the states in Australia. I commend it to the careful consideration of the house.


Mr. STEVENS:: The prayerful consideration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Would the hon. member
supply the house with a copy of the bill; as yet we have not seen it.


Mr. RINFRET:: I may say that it is also
the law in the province of Quebec.


Samuel William Jacobs: It may be the law in the
province of Quebec, and still be good law, nevertheless.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. BENNETT moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the select standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Were tenders received for an air mail service between Sudbury, Ontario, and Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	If so, who tendered and what was the amount per mile of each tender?
3.	What was the estimated mileage to be flown between Sudbury and Winnipeg?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 2. The following tenders were received in May, 1930, for an air mail service between Pembroke, Sudbury and Winnipeg: Dominion Air Transport, Ltd., Toronto, SI.05 per mile; Western Canada Airways, Ltd., Winnipeg, $1.08 per mile.
3.	877 miles.


BILL TO OBVIATE NECESSITY OF RE-ELECTION UPON ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, to remove

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed between September 1, 1930, and March 1, 1931?

Questions

2.	What were the reasons assigned for each dismissal, giving the name of each postmaster dismissed and the location of the post office?
3.	How many dismissals were made after investigations were held on chargee of political partisanship?
4.	Wliat are the names of the postmasters dismissed after investigation on the charge of political activity?
5.	What postmasters were dismissed on the recommendation of the sitting member of constituency on the charge of political activity?


Arthur Sauvé: In view of the fact that it
will take some time to prepare the answer for this question it is recommended that it stand as an order for return.


POSTMASTERS-POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Were questionnaires sent to postmasters touching political activities?
2.	If so, what questions were asked in such questionnaires?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. When charges of political partisanship against postmasters are received, the persons charged are communicated with by the department and are given an opportunity of denying the charges by making a solemn declaration on a prescribed form.


AIR MAIL SERVICE-TORONTO-WINNIPEG
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Has an air mail service been established between Toronto and Winnipeg?
2.	What route does this service follow?
3.	Were tenders called for this service, what are the names of those wrho tendered, what was the amount of each tender and who obtained the contract?
4.	Is such route wholly on or over Canadian territory? If not, how many miles are on or over Canadian territory, and how many miles are on or over territory of the United States?
5.	What is the total mileage flown by this new route?
6.	Under what agreement are mails originating in Canada and destined to points in Canada carried by air through United States territory, as to: (a) safety of same; (b) insurance for delivery at destination in Canada?
7.	Are such Canadian mails in charge of Canadian officials while traversing United States territory?
8.	In ease of an accident to the air plane carrying such mails, which would prevent continuation of flight, what arrangements exist for the transportation of such mails to their destination in Canada?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2 to 8. See answer to No. 1.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. RALSTON:: Was federal money paid to the following projects, and, if so, how much in each case: (a) IMr. Veniot.l
project for an expenditure towards sewers in the town of Pictou; (b) project for expenditure towards road-building or maintenance in the town of Westville, Pictou county; (c) project for expenditure towards building a bridge in the town of New Glasgow; (d) highway maintenance or construction in the vicinity of Woods Harbour, Shelburne county; (e) project for expenditure in connection with the Alma-Sylvester bridge, Pictou county; (f) diversion of road, Marshy Hope, Pictou county?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In connection with this
question I should like to observe that when it was called yesterday it was allowed to stand. Notwithstanding that, it appears in Hansard to-day as having been answered, no doubt due to the fact that the answer was sent to Hansard without having been passed in the house. That is not correct procedure; questions should be answered formally in the house.


AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Has an organization been formed to assist agriculture in Canada with an amount of money available for assistance to farms?
2.	If so, what amount of money is available for this fund?
3.	By whom is the money advanced for this fund?
4.	Is this assistance- available to all sections and provinces in Canada?
5.	If not, why?
6.	What amount is to be given to each applicant?
7.	How is the fund to be handled and what constitutes a legitimate applicant?
8.	Is the fund in operation at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a question which can be answered only from hearsay. It is entirely too vague to be answered clearly. There are many such organizations in Canada. The hon. minister would have to have something definite to work upon.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. 9 stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PURCHASES FROM THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Is the government aware that the Canadian National Railways manufacture their cars, bolts, hinges, radios, keys, and many other articles, used in their railway system, in the United States?
2.	Is the government aware that many of the said articles show the commercial mark "Made in U.S.A.?"
3.	Is it the intention of the government to remedy this state of affairs by having the Canadian National Railways manufacture said articles in Canada?
Mr. MANION:: The Canadian National Railways do not manufacture in the United States cars, bolts, hinges, radios, keys, or other articles used in

Questions
their railway system. Its equipment requirements for United States lines are purchased from car and locomotive builders in the United States. Radio and receiving sets purchased by the railways are manufactured in Canada, at Toronto and Montreal.
The policy of the government and its instructions are that the requirements of the railway shall be filled from Canadian sources, and the Canadian National management states that it is the practice of the railway to purchase in Canada all equipment, materials and articles which can be manufactured in this country. All contracts for locomotives, car equipment, buildings, etc., provide that Canadian materials must be used in their manufacture and construction, and the railway management state that considerably over ninety per cent of its total purchases are from Canadian manufacturers and wholesalers.


FAILURES IN CANADA
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	How many failures were there in Canada in each of the following months: September, October, November and December, 1930?
2.	What were the total liabilities of the said failures for said months?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. January .. .			.. .. 261
February ..			.. ..205
March .. ..			.. .. 201
April				.. .. 194
May				.. .. 166
June				.. .. 178
July				.. .. 169
August .. ..			.. .. 159
September .			.. .. 192
October .. ,			.. ..216
November ..			.. ..222
December ..			.. ..239
2. January ..			$8,661,000
February ..			4,210.506
March .. ..			4,310,085
April				5,025,102
May				2,600,755
June				2,405,794
July				2,540.47S
August .. ..			5,518,164
September .			2,081,447
October .. .			4,017,101
November .			3,295,951
December	 GLASS IMPORTS			4,202,599


Mr. REID:: 1.	How many firms are there throughout Canada who import glass? 2.	What are their names?	3. Does one "	'Hobbs"	control	or own anypatents on glass 22110-564	making	machines?	4.	How many factories manufacturing glass were in operation up to September, 1930?5.	How many factories manufacturing glass are in operation at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe No. 17 was
passed as an order for return. It will have to be, anyway.



ST. FLAVIEN, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that tenders have been asked for renewal of the contract for carrying the mail on rural route No. 1, of St. Flavien, in the county of Lot-biniere?
2.	If so, who recommended to the department the calling of tenders?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Wilfrid Laliberte.



MAIL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Are the contracts for the transportation of mail always granted to the lowest tenderer?
2.	Are there any cases where tenderers recommended by friends of the government, have the advantage of seeing the tenders and altering their own so as to obtain the contract, in preference to political opponents?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, if found competent and sureties offered sufficient.
2.	No.



LOTBINIERE COUNTY-POSTMASTERS, DISMISSALS

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that in the county of Lotbiniere postmasters have been threatented witli dismissal?
2.	Were inquiries held in each case?
3.	What was the result of said inquiries?
4.	By whom, in each case, was the request of dismissal made?
5.	What is the name of the investigating commissioner who proceeded in eac-h case?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Charges of political partisanship have been received in the case of six postmasters in the county of Lotbiniere and each postmaster has been advised of the charge and given an opportunity of denying such charge. Each postmaster has also been informed of the terms of the Civil Service Act providing for the dismissal of government employees who have engaged in partisan work.
2.	Inquiries have been held in three cases. In the other three inquiries are pending.
3.	The charges have been found proven.
4.	Wilfrid Laliberte, K.C., Victoriaville,

5.	Alfred Powell, N.P., St. Ferdinand, P.Q.
Questions



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-MR. MCWORTH

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Did the Post Office Department employ Mr. MoWorth, underwriters' operative, for six months in the city of Montreal?
2.	If so, what salary did Mr. MeWorth receive per month?
3.	What was the occasion for his employment?
4.	To whom was he directly responsible?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Mr. McWonth was employed by the Post Office Department for seven months, from the 17th January, 1927.
2.	$350 per .month.
3.	General situation of postal service in Montreal as regards the protection of the mails.
4.	To the general superintendent of postal service.



INTERPROVINCIAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the value of all material purchased by the Post Office Department from the Interprovincial Equipment Company, each year from 1914 to date, inclusive?
2.	What is the amount of travelling expenses to Robert Hill, mechanical equipment employee of the Post Office Department for each of the years, 1928, 1929 and 1930?
3.	What is the amount paid by the Post Office Department for padlocks for tie sacks in each year from 1914 to date, inclusive?
4.	From whom were they purchased?
5.	Have they proved to be efficient and satisfactory?


Arthur Sauvé: 1. Prior to 1924-25-Nil.		
1924-25		. .$	12,428 64
1925-26			115,876 09
1926-27			92,246 70
1927-28			102,374 26
1928-29			83,823 84
1929-30			115,213 89
1930-31 to date			55,430 01
2. Calendar year 1928..		.. ..$ 767 32
Calendar year 1929..		.. .. 565 80
Calendar year 1930..		.. .. 903 78
3. Prior to 1924-25-Nil.		
1924-25		.$	12,428 64
1925-26			52,113 27
1926-27			87,539 76
1927-28			86,023 07
1928-29			68,263 25
192,9-30			84,150 00
1930-31 (to date)			53,439 10
4.	Interprovincial Equipment Co., Ottawa.
5.	Yes.



ROBERT COTE

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Was Mr. Robert Cote, advocate of Quebec, appointed commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship against postmasters? 
2.	If so, what is his remuneration?
3.	When and where in the county of Belle-ohasse has Mr. Cote held inquiries?
4.	Was the said Robert Cote a conservative candidate in the county of Bellechasse in the provincial election of May, 1927?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Twenty dollars for each full day's attendance or occupation in connection with the work of the Commission, plus reasonable moving and living expenses where he has to travel for the purpose of executing the commission.
3.	22nd January, 1931, La Durantaye; 2nd February, 1931, Faucher; 9th February, 1931, St. Damien de Buckland; 11th February, 1931, St. Neree Station; 27th February, 1931, St. Philemon.
4.	No official information in the Post Office Department.



ST. RAPHAEL DE BELLECHASSE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Was Adelard Dallaire dismissed as postmaster at St. Raphael de Bellechasse for so-called political partisanship?
2.	Was he replaced by F. Antoine Labrecque?
3.	Was said Labrecque appointed by the Civil Service Commission after making application and passing examination, etc.?
4.	Were there other candidates for the position, and who were they?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	The postmaster at St. Raphael de Bellechasse was dismissed for active political partisanship.
2.	F. Antoine Labrecque was placed in temporary charge pending an appointement by the Civil Service Commission.
3.	No. Vacancy will be advertised in the near future and the commission will be requested to make a permanent appointment.
4.	Full list of candidates not received but the following have made application, Messrs Abraham Godbout, Geo. Tanguay, Honore Roy.



HONFLEUR, QUE., RURAL MAIL SERVICE

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Has the establishment of a rural mail service from the post office of Honfleur, in the county of Bellechasse, been decided?
2.	If so, what was the date of said decision?
3.	Were tenders called for said service?
4.	At what date were the tenders opened?
5.	Who was the lowest tenderer?
6.	Was a contract given to the lowest tenderer ?
7.	If not, why?
8.	Is this rural mail service now in operation?
9.	If not, why?

Questions


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. No.
3.	Yes.
4.	August 1, 1930.
5.	Philippe Marceau.
6.	No.
7.	8 and 9. The department has not fully decided to establish the route.



POSTMASTERS


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Is the government aware that two days previous to October 20. 1930, the date of the provincial by-election which was held in the county of Bellechasse, all the postmasters of that county received from the Postmaster General a letter charging them with political partisanship at the federal and provincial elections. without giving the name of the party making the charge, nor any detail with regard to the charge, and asking them to prove their innocence under pain of being summarily dismissed without any further proceedings?
2.	Did the official of the department who forwarded these letters act under instructions of the Postmaster General?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



PIIIPPEN, SASK., POSTMASTER

Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: 1.	Who recommended the appointment of W. L. Olson as postmaster at Phippen?
2.	When did his duties as postmaster commence?
3.	What condition was found to exist in the operation of said post office (the inspector's report to be included in the answer) ?
4.	Is he being relieved of his duties?
5.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
2.	September 20, 1920.
3.	The post office was inspected on December 3 last, when a considerable shortage was found in the postmaster's accounts. There were also indications of other serious financial irregularities (the inspector's report is being given to Mr. MacMillan).
4.	Yes.
5.	Shortage and other financial irregularities.



HURON VILLAGE, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	Has a new post office been established at Huron Village, Lorette, Quebec?
2.	If so, who was appointed to the position of postmaster, and at whose recommendation?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ovide Sioui. Recommended by Mr. C.
N.	Dorion, MP.



H. J. BOULAY-PUBLIC PROMISES

Sir EUGENE FISET:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to implement the following public promises made by its candidate in the county of Rimouski, Mr. H. G. Boulay, if his leader came to power, namely: (a) to reduce the salary of Sir Henry Thornton to $15,000 per annum, (b) to reduce the salaries of all vice-presidents and other high officials of the Canadian National Railways, including general managers of divisions, by 50 per cent, (c) to provide on all dining and buffet cars, pullman parlour ears, first and second class ears, being operated between Ottawa and Montreal. Montreal and Halifax, only employees who speak fluently French and English?
2.	Has any request been received by the Minister of Railways and Canals, or by Sir Henry Thornton, or any other high officials of the Canadian National Railways, from Mr. H. G. Boulay, asking that a large portion, if not all, of the sub-staff and railway employees employed on trains operating between Ottawa and Montreal. Montreal and Halifax, be compelled to speak both French and English?
3.	If so, what action does the honourable minister or the executive of the Canadian National Railways intend to take?
4.	Has the Board of Railway Commissioners any jurisdiction in the choice of the sub-staff and railway employees of the Canadian National Railways?
5.	Has the board the power to compel the railway to employ only employees speaking both languages ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Speaker,
this question is not a correct one.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It would be
improper to make promises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; I think the
question should be dropped out.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I would suggest it be
allowed to stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question dropped.
MR. w. w. CORY


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Is it the fact that Mr. W. W. Cory, C.M.G.,
Deputy Minister of the Department of the Interior for over 25 years, was retired from such position by the government on January 31, 1931?	.	,
2.	If so, is it the fact that he was given but two months' salary upon such retirement and was then placed on superannuation?
3.	What was Mr. Cory's age on the date of such retirement?
4.	What was the reason for his retirement?
5.	What notice, if any, did he get of the government's intention to retire him?
6.	Does the government intend to recognize the long and faithful service of over 31 years
Questions

in the federal government's employ, and accord to him the same treatment as was given to the late Sir Joseph Pope, Under Secretary of State, when he was retired under superannuation from the government service?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1 to 5. Order-in-Counoil P.C. 19/161 dated 32nd January 1931, containing information asked for has been tabled.
Question 1 to 5 are answered but I submit that No 6 is not a proper question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered except as to
No. 6.



FOREIGN-BORN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How many foreign born are in the employ of the federal government in Canada?
2.	What are their names, occupations and salary?


Mr. CAHAN:: This question should stand
as an order for return in any case because it means a very lengthy inquiry and a long return. I would ask the hon. member what is the meaning of "foreign born." Does foreign born mean born outside of Canada, or doe3 it mean born outside the British empire? Unless the hon. gentleman amends his question and states exactly what he means, it will be impossible to obtain a return of this nature.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Passed as an order for
return.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. member
amend his inquiry?


Mr. POWER:: Look the other way.


Ernest Lapointe: The question is put by a member on the other side.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I imagine the hon.
member means by the term "foreign born" people born outside of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is perfectly obvious that the question cannot be answered; the evidence is not forthcoming.



LOUIS FRANCOEUR

Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	When was Louis Francoeur, described in the summary of proceedings, Imperial conference, part 1, page 13, as assistant private secretary to the Solicitor General, appointed to that position, and at what salary?
2.	Did he act as such prior to the Imperial conference ?
3.	Did he act as such since the end of the conference?
4.	Is he still employed on the staff of the solicitor general?
5.	Was he appointed merely to attend the Imperial conference with the solicitor general?
6.	What amount did he receive for salary and travelling expenses?

7.	Is he the same Louis Francoeur who is editor of a weekly newspaper in the city of Quebec called Le Journal?


Mr. DUPRE:: 

TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT-DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURE

Mr. VENIOT:: In the matter of temporary appointments to the civil service' pending a permanent appointment under the certificate of the Civil Service Commission, what is the mode of procedure adopted by the various departments of government ?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A uniform practice is authorized throughout the various departments of the government, as follows: when a vacancy occurs the department sends a requisition to the commission to fill the same. If there is an eligible list established in the commission for this class of vacancy, an assignment is made forthwith. If there is no list of eligibles, the commission advertises a competition for the purpose of establishing an eligible list, and in the meantime the department is granted local selection for temporary employment pending the filling of the position permanently as a result of the competition. A temporary certificate is then issued by the commission covering the temporary appointment until the permanent assignment is made.
In the past there has been abuse by the departments in connection with these acting appointments. The Civil Service Commissioners have reported on it in their annual reports from time to time and in the report for the calendar year 1928, at page 8, reported as follows:
"Acting appointments:
"In their last report the commissioners drew attention to the practice, which has frequently been found to exist, of placing officers in vacant positions in an acting capacity for considerable periods of time before asking the commission to take steps to fill the vacancies either by promotion or by open competition. When the competition is finally held, the

Questions
temporary incumbent of the position has obviously an unfair advantage over the other competitors. The commission accordingly requests that requisitions for appointments or promotions be filed at as early a date as possible, so that when the position in question becomes vacant there will be no necessity for an acting appointment, but the new appointee will be ready to take over the duties."
In their annual report for 1929, the commissioners reported as follows on page 10: "Certificates necessary for acting appointments :
"In previous reports, the commissioners have had occasion to call attention to the delay on the part of departments in installing in office persons who have been certified for appointment, and the practice of retaining in their places persons for whose employment no legal authority exists. This difficulty has now been overcome, to a great extent, in one department at least, a ruling having been received from the law officers of the crown to the effect that a temporary certificate from the commission was required in the case of all persons placed in charge of revenue post offices, pending a permanent appointment. Under present procedure, the department, as in the past, installs a temporary incumbent in office as soon as a postmastership becomes vacant; but application is made immediately to the Civil Service Commission for a certificate of temporary employment for the person placed in charge, and the position is immediately advertised. The result is a greatly reduced delay in the making of the permanent appointment, and the installation of the properly certified candidate as soon as may be after the issue of the permanent certificate."
In order to expedite matters in connection with the filling of such vacancies as postmasterships, lightkeeperships and so forth, an arrangement has been arrived at between some of the departments and the commission, which permits the department to advertise the vacancy as soon as it occurs and to immediately advise the commission regarding its action, furnishing a copy of the poster. This practice is not always adhered to promptly.
When the establishment of a permanent position is pending, or when the outgoing incumbent of a position is given retiring leave, the commission is advised by the department and thereupon assigns temporarily the candidate, whose name being next on the eligible list, will automatically be permanently appointed when the permanent position is
established, or when the position officially becomes vacant through the expiration of the retiring leave of the late incumbent.
When the commission makes an assignment to a department, provision is made under Section 24 of the Civil Service Act for a probationary period during which time the deputy head of the department may ask for an extension of the period of probation or reject the assignee entirely. In the event of final rejection the candidate next on the list is assigned. In the absence of available eligibles a new competition is required.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I furnish the
answer as supplied by the Civil Service Commission in the exact terms in which it is drawn by that commission, but it is an answer for which I do not take personal responsibility.


Peter John Veniot: That is not a question to
be answered by the Civil Service Commission. I want to know what is the practice in each department.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood question 45 was answered.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the
hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) says he gives the answer as supplied by the Civil Service Commission, and is not responsible for it. I am not asking for an answer from the Civil Service Commission. I want to know what is the practice of each department in filling temporary positions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman finds
the answer not sufficient for his purpose, he can put the question again.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to take up
the time of the house but I think we ought to know-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) has not yet had an opportunity of examining the answer; when he does so he may find it is complete; if not, the hon. Secretary of State says he can repeat the question.


Peter John Veniot: I want an answer from the department that it should come from, not from the Civil Service Commission.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member gets the information he desires it does not matter where it comes from.


Peter John Veniot: No, Mr. Speaker, it is the
principle involved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
larger question involved I think, Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt for a moment. There has

Questions

to be responsibility on the part of the government for every answer given. A minister of the crown can not relieve himself of responsibility by saying that the answer he is making is that of a commission. He may not be satisfied with the answer, but he has to take responsibility for it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I take responsibility for giving the answer in the house; but certainly I am not responsible for all the acts and measures of the Civil Service Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind hon.
members that if they wish to discuss the government's action in answering questions they can do so on orders of the day or at some other appropriate time, but certainly the answering of questions ought not to be interrupted in this way.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to discuss
the action of the government at all, Mr. Speaker. I rise to explain why the question should be answered by the minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member would
be out of order.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-RAILWAY BARGE

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Did the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners recently purchase a railway barge?
2.	If so, was this barge purchased in the United States?
3.	Who arranged such purchase?
4.	What are the dimensions of this barge?
5.	When was this barge originally constructed ?
6.	What was the purchase price?
7.	What was the cost of towing this barge to Vancouver?
8.	What was the cost of insurance on the said barge?
9.	From whom was the barge acquired?
10.	Was the barge acquired from an American
corporation or through an agency?
11.	In whose name was the barge cleared through the American customs?
12.	To whom was the insurance on the barge paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, No. 46
raised a question of some importance, with respect to which the late administration took what many thought to be the correct view. The Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners is an independent body over which the government of the day exercises no jurisdiction, except as to the auditing of its accounts. It will be recalled that the minister then in charge of measures dealing with harbour boards indicated that the committee on public accounts might investigate the accounts of all

harbour commissions if it was thought desirable. This question involves asking for information from another source and then, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, passing it on to this house on the responsibility of the government. The view taken by the late administration, with respect at least to one of the harbour commissions, was that they could not be expected to make answers to questions when they had no knowledge or means of knowledge that were not open to others as well to make that answer. If the question stands in its present form the government would accordingly answer:	The government is without information. That is all it could say. As I have already said, this was the view taken by my predecessors in office with respect to a similar principle relating to the Quebec harbour commission, if my memory' serves me. Yesterday I mentioned it only casually.


Mr. CARDIN:: If I may make an observation on what the right hon. Prime Minister has said, Mr. Speaker? I remember that several questions dealing with harbour commissions were put by hon. members when the late government was in power; we would communicate with the harbour commission concerned; and on receipt of the information we would table it as an answer to the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) will remember that an effort was made on one occasion-I cannot fix the date-to secure certain information with respect to the Quebec harbour commission. The minister met it- I thought very fairly

by saying that with respect to the harbour commissions of Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver, and I think, Three Rivers, the accounts published by them would be audited, that the Auditor General would certify them, and that the public accounts committee, if it so desired, might deal with those accounts. I can turn up my friend's words in Hansard. That gave us a power of investigation and control that we had not previously exercised. But with reference to this question, the minister, as I have said, can write a letter to the harbour commission of Vancouver for the information, but that commission is not bound to answer. The answer I would give at the present moment would be: The government is without information. That is all I could say with respect to it.


Mr. DUFF:: They can give the information voluntarily.

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: Why not let the matter stand until a reply comes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.


Ernest Lapointe: No, it stands.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the Prime Minister answered the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that that was the only answer that could be given at the moment. I am quite content that the matter should stand for further investigation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Forty-six stands.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-HASTINGS MILL SITE

Mr. REID:: 1.	Did the Vancouver harbour commissioners enter into an agreement with any engineer, or engineers, in regard to the cost of a new pier on part of the property known as the Hastings mill site?
2.	If so, what were the names of the engineers consulted ?
3.	Was any agreement entered into as to the payment by percentage of estimated cost?
4.	What was the total estimate of cost of the principal designs submitted by the said engineers concerned?
5.	Have any amounts of money been paid these engineers on this account to March 31, 1931?
6.	Have any efforts been made by the Vancouver harbour commissioners to terminate such agreement?
7.	Have any attempts been made by the Vancouver harbour commissioners to settle the matter out of court?
8.	What is the basis and amount of proposed settlement?
9.	Are any of the engineers concerned paid for any other service by the Vancouver harbour commission ?
10.	If so, what are their names, service rendered, and amounts paid to each up to March 31, 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is in the same category as No. 46, only it is a question that, in part, was discussed in the house at a previous session when the estimates of the harbour commission of Vancouver as settled by statute, were under consideration. A partial answer could be given.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OF TRUCKS

Mr. LUCAS:: 1. How' many trucks have been purchased for mechanization of batteries by the Department of National Defence?
2.	How- much did each cost?
3.	Where were these trucks purchased?
4.	How much has been spent on these trucks as repairs, during the one year of service?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	14 Leyland six-wheeled chassis; 14 bodies therefor; 9 Crossley war department type sixwheeled chassis with technical bodies.
2.	4 Leyland chassis, at $7,926 each; 10 Ley-land chassis, at $7,368 each; 1 body, at $1,517.60 each; 3 bodies, at $650 each; 10 bodies, at $612 each; 9 Crossley war department type six-wheelers, at 84,79727 each; f.o.b. Ottawa.
3.	The Leyland chassis were purchased from Messrs. Leyland Motors, Limited, Toronto. One body was purchased from Messrs. Ottawa Car Mfg. Company, Ltd., Ottawa; three bodies were purchased from The Robert Elder Carriage Works Limited, Toronto; ten bodies were purchased from Messrs. Coady Bros., Toronto; the Crossley six-wheelers were purchased through the High Commissioner for Canada from Messrs. Crossley Motors Limited, Gorton, Manchester, England.
4.	$2,829.99 during the financial year terminating March 31, 1931, or an average of $123.04 per vehicle.



CHARLES-EUGENE LEVESQUE

Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Was Charles-Eugene Levesque, returned soldier, of St. Paco me, in the county of Kam-ouraska, Quebec, appointed by the Civil Service Commission as postmaster of St. Paeoine in 1929?
2.	Did the Post Office Department approve the nomination so made- by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	If not, for what reason?
4.	Was an inspector's report favourable to Mr. Levesque made to the Post Office Department?
5.	Was the inspector's recommendation in favour of Mr. Levesque not accepted by the Post Office Department, and for what, reason?
6.	Was the complaint made by some one against Levesque, and if so, by whom?
7.	Was an inquiry held following Mr. Levesque's request to the- Post Office Department to give way to the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, and if not, why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, on December 12, 1928.
2.	No.
3.	Rejected by Postmaster General as unsuitable.	.
4.	Mr. Levesque was given a favourable rating in the inspector's report.
5.	See answer to No. 3.
6.	No record of any complaint.
7.	No. Mr. Levesque's re-appointment could only be considered in the event of a vacancy.
Trade with Cuba



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. REID:: 1.	How many firms are there throughout Canada who import glass?
2.	What are their names?
3.	Does one "Hobbs" control or own any patents on glass making machines?
4.	How many factories manufacturing glass were in operation up to September, 1930?
5.	How many factories manufacturing glass are in operation at the present time?



REPUBLIC OF SPAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are called perhaps it is expected that I should communicate to the house in a formal way the recognition by His Majesty's government in Canada of the provisional government in Spain. Hon. members will be aware that in the first step towards the return of constitutional government, municipal elections were held throughout Spain on April 12, being the first election since the establishment of the dictatorship in 1922. They resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Republicans in all the larger centres. A republic was proclaimed at Madrid with Senor Alcala Zamora as provisional president, and at other provincial centres. No resistance was offered by the supporters of the monarchy. The King of Spain left the country without formal abdication. The new government appears to have established its authority without disturbance. Following consultation between His Majesty's governments, recognition of the provisional government of the republic of Spain was accorded in notes delivered by His Majesty's ambassador at Madrid on April 22, on behalf of His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Recognition has also been accorded by some seventeen other countries, including France and the United States.
PEACE RIVER OUTLET On the orders of the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: May I ask the right hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Bennett) if he will now implement the promise he gave me during the special session in regard to announcing the government's policy in relation to the construction of the Peace River outlet?


Richard Bedford Bennett: While that matter very properly belongs to the Department of Railways and Canals, I am not unaware, Mr. Speaker, of the discussions which have taken place in this house since this session began. The report upon which action in any event must be predicated is not yet available to the government to enable us to determine what action should be taken or what direction it should take.
TRADE RELATIONS WITH CUBA On the orders of the day:


William Duff: (Antigonish-
Guysborough): I am very pleased indeed to see the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Macdonald) back in his seat after his trip to Cuba where he was sent by this government to consult with the authorities of that island in regard to the duties on fish and potatoes. I quite understand, of course, that the Prime Minister may not be in a position to-day to give either the house or the country any information with regard to the negotiations between his government and the Cuban government, but in view of the fact that a large number of people in the maritime provinces are very much interested in this important question of the excessive duties on fish and potatoes, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, at the earliest possible opportunity, he will give the country any information he is able to give with regard to that matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The very reasonable suggestion of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) will be acted upon. The hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Macdonald) has in the course of preparation a report which will embody all the information which in the public interest, having regard to existing conditions to which the hon. gentleman referred, may be reasonably given to the house, and this report will be laid upon the table at an early date or made verbally in this chamber.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if it is true that the Canadian National Railways contemplate changing the terminus of the Gaspe railway from Matapedia, Quebec, to Campbellton, New Brunswick.

Montreal Hjrbour


Robert James Manion: I think it is the intention of
the Canadian National Railways to make that change. That is among the changes which they have notified us they intend to carry out in order to cut down the expenses of the railway. I may save time by adding that I have received very many protests in regard to this action, which I have passed on to the railway. So far as I know, however, that is their intention.


Mr. J. F. POULIOT (Temiscouata):: May I ask the minister, in connection with the same matter, if the railway men of Riviere-du-Loup will be affected thereby?


Robert James Manion: I am sorry but I have not any information on that point.


Charles Marcil: Could the minister tell me when that change will take place? Has the date been fixed?


Robert James Manion: I understand, speaking from memory, that it will take place on the 26th of this month, which is three days from now, but I am not positive as to that. I understand most of the changes are coming into effect on that date, but I should say that to-day I received a telegram from some people there asking that a stay of ten days be granted them, which request I passed on to the president of the company. The proposition was that the town of Matapedia would like to appear before the railway company and argue the question, and they stated that if it were proved to their satisfaction that this change was necessary, they would agree to it. For that reason the change may be delayed.



MONTREAL HARBOUR


[Stage Direction]
-FINANCIAL SITUATION
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to authorize the Montreal harbour commission to proceed with the construction of the wharf it proposed to build at Windmill Point in the harbour of Montreal? In order to help the Prime Minister to recall the case, the construction of this wharf was part of a program which was made public several months ago, and which included the construction of a wharf in the upper Montreal harbour as well as a wharf at this point in the lower harbour. Since the first part of that undertaking has been carried on and a contract let to the Canadian Foundation Company for the construction of the wharf in the
upper part of the harbour, I should like to know from the Prime Minister if he will permit the Montreal harbour commission to go on with the second part of their program, which includes the construction of this wharf at Windmill Point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not understand what the hon.
gentleman means by asking if the Prime Minister will permit something to be done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can explain if the right
hon. gentleman wishes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman may be very glib at explaining hearsay, but it might be well to confine ourselves to the facts in this case. The Montreal harbour commission is a body corporate which from time to time receives authority to borrow money, which money is secured for it by the federal government, involving the credit of Canada. At the moment, because of a bridge which was recently constructed, and for which the Montreal harbour commission pledged its credit,	a	situation has	arisen which	is	reflected	in	the estimates	for this year.	I suppose the hon. gentleman realizes that the result has been to create a financial condition with respect to the harbour commission which never has arisen before, and it involves a reconsideration of the whole problem of that port, for if the Dominion of Canada is to be called upon to raise sums of money to pay deficits	resultant from	the building	of	thebridge,	it	changes the	whole aspect	of	the
relation of this parliament to that harbour.
I need hardly say that the matter is engaging the very serious consideration of this government, as would be the case with any government called upon to face a condition which it did not create, involving the provision of nearly $1,000,000 per annum to care for a deficit over which it has no control. Until that matter has been finally determined and some conclusion arrived at that will enable this government to deal with that staggering situation, I am not in a position to answer the hon. gentleman's question, further than to say that the Prime Minister does not permit; the Prime Minister, in his position as Minister of Finance, is very greatly perturbed about a situation which he inherited and with which he must deal, and about which the hon. gentleman should be the last man in this house to ask a question.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of the observations which have been made by the right hon. Prime Minister I think I am entitled to say just a word. All the reasons which have
Salmon Fisheries Regulations

been advanced by the right hon. Prime Minister existed when the contract was given for the work in the upper part of the harbour of Montreal. If the reasons were good for delaying the work in the lower part, they were good for delaying it in the other section of the harbour of Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry to question my hon. friend's statement, but I can assure him that the government was not as fully aware of the situation that exists, until within the last few weeks when it received the reports it did from the auditors with respect to that condition. I may ad'd, now that my hon. friend has raised the question, that the city of Montreal claims, with respect to the approaches to that bridge, that there are arrears of taxes amounting to $283,000, and1 they say that they propose to offset those taxes against the payment which they were to make upon the interest on the securities of the bridge. I may also add, what the hon. gentleman already knows, that even the titles to the properties have not yet been vested either in the harbour commissioners, the bridge or the crown; and that knowledge has only been brought to the attention of this administration in consequence of the audit which is now being carried on and is not yet completed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That could not be the reason why the work was stopped in the lower end of the harbour, because it was stopped three months ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was stopped at the time when it was concluded to be desirable to have a report from an eminent engineer on all harbours in this country. And I do recall that the hon. gentleman himself at one time considered this highly desirable. In view of that opinion, which certainly at that moment was my own, now that the government is in i position to do so it has employed the services of one of the most outstanding firms of engineers in London, some of whose staff are now on the ground. A very earnest effort will be made to try to secure the best possible layout in the various harbours to carry on the trade and commerce of Canada. The work that was stopped in the winter was stopped because of the necessity for ascertaining the facts before it should be resumed. But since then the further information which has come to hand as a result of the work of the auditors has introduced a much more serious question into the whole matter and one with which we must be able to deal; because a million a year is a very large sum of money in the budget of any harbour commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The last reason is much better than the previous one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad that either of them is good.



SALMON FISHERIES REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Marcil: In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) whether it is possible for him-in view of the position of the Minister of Fisheries-to make known as soon as possible the attitude his government intends taking regarding the contemplated changes in the regulations concerning salmon fisheries in the Baie des Chaleurs, as I have received a large number of protests from both sides of the bay respecting such change being made at the present time, which would be very detrimental to the men fishing in that section of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret that the illness of the minister makes it impossible for him to be in his place to-day, but he did mention to me that, owing to the early season, he had under consideration the whole question of licences in connection with salmon fishing in that section of the waters of this country to which the hon. gentleman refers, and I am quite satisfied that as soon as the minister's condition will permit him to be out he will make known the changes, if any, that are contemplated and will lay the regulations on the table of the house.



CUSTOMS TARIFF CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the special session of parliament the Prime Minister promised that at this session an apportunity would be given to consider and discuss in detail the changes that were then made in the tariff. Could my right hon. friend indicate to the house at what time that opportunity will be given? I am asking the question now because I think it is advisable that the opportunity should not be delayed until too late in the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The opportunity to which the right hon. gentleman refers will be afforded when the budget is brought down.

Dominion Census



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
before the orders of the day are called may I ask the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) whether the statement published by "LTllustration" of Montreal, on the 21st is correct; whether it is the intention of the government to increase the number of the Civil Service Commissioners to five and whether the dismissal of Messrs. Tremblay and MacTavish has been discussed. I have no objection to the Secretary of State giving his answer in English.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would ask the hon. gentleman to put his question on the order paper, when I shall provide the answer.



SURVEYS OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. MoINTOSH (North Battleford) : In the regretted absence from the house of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) may I ask the Prime Minister a question. The question is as follows: In the preliminary survey of the national ports situation, just what ports are to be affected by or included in that survey?
Richard Bedford Bennett: The five ports are, Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver.


William Duff: Not including Churchill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, not at the moment, because that harbour-


William Duff: Is in cold storage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -is being built on plans recently prepared by an engineer.
Mr. MeINTOSH: That was the point I was leading up to. I understand, then, that the survey will not at present include Churchill, western Canada's ocean port.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman should have made that observation in the sense in which he means it. Churchill was not included in the ports of which the engineers were asked to make a survey at this time, because the work is being carried on under the plans prepared by a firm of engineers doing business in London, England, as is the consulting firm at the moment, and they have not been asked to pass upon the plans of their confreres.



DOMINION CENSUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Are returned men, who are unemployed and are fully capable, given the preference in the selection of enumerators for census work? There is a second question along the same line, that I wish to ask the minister. It is based on a letter I have received, stating that a returned soldier in my district, who has a wife and four children to support, and who has earned approximately one dollar a week since last September, having made application for a position as enumerator, was told that he was on the wrong side of the fence to obtain such work. The question is:	If
I supply this gentleman's name will the minister see that his application receives fair consideration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the first place, the question should be put on the order paper, so that I can consult the officers of the department having the matter in hand. Further than that, I may say that in all appointments, so far as we are aware, every consideration is given the returned man. But it does not follow that in every instance the returned man will be appointed. If the hon. member will place his question on the order paper I will make inquiries and give a suitable answer.


Charles Gavan Power: May I put a question on
the same subject? Are returned men being given the preference for positions as census enumerators or are they not? I am asking now about enumerators.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will
possess his soul in patience his question will be answered together with the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie).


Robert McKenzie: This is
an urgent matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These appointments are
not going to be made for some little time yet, so that my hon. friend need not worry in that respect.


Mr. BROWN:: Perhaps when the minister
is giving that information he might tell us how many defeated candidates-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Immigration Inspection


John Livingstone Brown: -are census commissioners.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman
might put that question on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION INSPECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I want to discuss briefly a matter of concern-and I use the term literally-to a large number of people of United States and Canadian citizenship. It is a subject that I hesitate to bring up on the floor of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: If I am out of order, I will
discuss the matter as a question of privilege and I will use my authority for that. Furthermore let me say that if I am out of order I think the Speaker will so rule, and if he does so rule, I will resume my seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Eccles James Gott: No person asked the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to sit down. The question I propose to discuss briefly, if I am not out of order, is in regard to a system of examination of people entering Canada, an examination, I may say, bordering on the insane. 1 want to place on record, if I may-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: I do not want to move the
adjournment of the house to get this on record. We are proud of our port, the port of Windsor.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That may be so, but it
does not constitute a question of privilege, nor a matter for discussion on the orders of the day.


Eccles James Gott: May I place on record a letter of complaint?	*


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Probably not.


Eccles James Gott: Then I shall discuss the question at a more opportune time and probably at greater length.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Naturalization Act.
He saidl: In introducing this bill a few days ago, I suggested that it was not a bill which involved any partisan discussion, but was one which interested members on both sides of the house and in respect to which the government desired to have the best advice possible after careful consideration. In introducing the bill
FMr. Brown. 1
I called attention to the fact that section 13 of the Naturalization Act, chapter 138, Revised Statutes of Canada of 1927, provides that:
The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.
On that occasion I pointed out that it was obviously impracticable to regard a woman as having her alien husband's nationality if, according to the law of his country, she is deemed to be an alien in his country or elsewhere.
We have at present expressed certain exceptions in section 13 of the Naturalization Act. We have provided in subsection 2 that:
Where a man ceases during the continuance of his marriage to be a British subject, it shall be lawful for his wife to make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to remain a British subject.
That exception we have still retained in subsection 3 of this bill. Subsection 3 of the existing section 13 is retained in subsection 5 of this bill with a slight change in the wording to make it conform to the terms of the proposed new amendment.
This amendment of the existing law in Canada is rendered more urgent in view of recent changes in the law of the United States of America. Until a short time ago the law of the United States was similar to the law which prevails in this country. Section 1994 of the act of the United States congress of February 10, 1855, provides that:
Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be 'awfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen.
That was the same principle which was embodied in the English law and introduced info our own Naturalization Act as the law of Canada.
Section 3 of the act of the congress of the United States of March 2, 1907, provided that:
Any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.
That was the English law and the law of Canada. Those two provisions were in strict conformity with the original provisions of our law. But those two sections were repealed by sections 6 and 7 of the Cable act, which was enacted by United States congress on September 22, 1922. The Cable act enacted in section 2 thereof:
That any woman who marries a citizen of the United States after the passage of this act, or any woman whose husband is naturalized after the passage of this act, shall not become a citizen of the United States by reason of such marriage or naturalization, but, if eligible to

Naturalization Act
citizenship, she may be naturalized upon full and complete compliance with all the requirements of the naturalization laws.
That act contains certain exceptions, to which I shall now refer, in favour of speedier naturalization, which were further provided for in a subsequent amendment by a law of the United States congress passed on July 3, 1930. The Cable act of 1922 also provided that:
A woman citizen of the United States shall not cease to be a citizen by reason of her marriage unless she makes a formal renunciation of her citizenship before a court having jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens.
A woman who was a citizen of the United States upon her marriage with a British subject, thereby attained a dual nationality. With respect to that I am not for the present concerned. A woman, on the other hand, who was a British subject, upon her marriage with a citizen of the United States, thereby became stateless. She thereby lost her status as a British subject under our law without attaining the status of a citizen of the United States under the law which prevails in that country. So intimate are the social relations existing between Canada and the United States, and so frequent are the marriages of Canadian women to United States citizens, that the enactment of the Cable act by the United States congress has rendered many Canadian women stateless. A woman, who is a Canadian national, and who marries a citizen of the United States, does not now, by reason of such marriage become a citizen of the United States, although she thereby loses her status as a British subject.
There are at present hundreds of Canadian-born women who have lost Canadian nationality and who are no longer British subjects by reason of their marriage with citizens of the United States, although by such marriage they do not acquire United States citizenship. Such a woman-there are many hundreds of them in Canada, because if you will look at the statistics of marriage for the last few years you will find that many American citizens coming into our country and taking charge of large industrial institutions or being actively employed in the industrial life of this country, have married Canadian women- such a woman can no longer leave this country. She cannot obtain a passport from the United States authorities, because she is not a United States citizen; she cannot obtain a passport to go abroad from the Department of External Affairs of Canada, because she is no longer a British subject.
This matter was considered by a select committee of the parliament of the United Kingdom which was appointed in 1923 to consider the nationality of married women
who were formerly British subjects. Before that committee the representative of the British Foreign Office deprecated a change in the law which would result in varying nationalities in the same family, varying nationalities of husband and wife, varying nationalities also because the children under British law take the nationality of the father and not of the mother. The representative of the British Foreign Office before that committee expressed apprehension that such a change would inevitably lead to a demand for a change in the nationality of the children which, as I have said, now universally follows the nationality of the father. The British Foreign Office also urged the desirability of consulting and acting in concert in this matter with the self-governing dominions, and urged that no substantial change in the British law should be made without consultation with the dominions, and then only if the representatives of the dominions should concur in such change.
In order that the house may be aware of the varying arguments produced on that occasion I shall quote from the report of that committee, which by a majority vote approved of this particular section of the report, although as to the whole report there was a division of opinion.
Ernest Lapointe: To what committee is
my hon. friend referring?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To the special committee
of the parliament of the United Kingdom which met in 1923 to consider the effects of the enactment of the Cable act upon the nationality of women who before their marriage with Americans were British subjects. I am quoting from the report simply in order that the house may understand the arguments pro and con, because I do not regard this as a party measure; I think all measures of this kind should be generally accepted by the house. Section eleven of the report contains the following:
The committee as a result of this inquiry have come to the conclusion that a ease is not made out for a complete reversal of the principle governing the present law. They recognize the growing demand of many women anil of organized women's societies for equal rights with men in every respect, but they cannot overlook the fact that by marriage a woman is merged in the unlit of the family, and that within the family iit -is at present the husband who is head, who bears its legal responsibilities such as the maintenance ot the wife, the children and the home, and whose occupation in most cases is the decisive factor as to where that home is to be established, and who among other things gives his nationality to the children. It is their opinion, therefore, that in this important sphere of family life the nationality
8.%
Naturalization Act

of the husband should be the governing factor and determine the nationality of the wife. If two ride a horse one must ride in front.
The committee then proceeded to deal with one particular case, and to report specially thereon as follows:
There is one special ease, however, where in the opinion of the committee amendment of the law is required. It sometimes happens that through divergence in the larvs of states a woman finds herself through marriage deprived of the nationality of her parent state and not invested with the nationality of the state whose national she has married, e.g., a British woman to-day who marries a citizen of the United States under British law' loses her British nationality, but by virtue of the operation of the Cable act she does not acquire the nationality of the United States. This position of statelessness is undesirable and should be obviated by an amendment of the law to the effect that the woman shall not lose her original nationality if she does not acquire that of her husband under the law' of his country.
In the end the special committee of the parliament of the United Kingdom were equally divided with respect to the whole draft report from which I have quoted these two sections, which fairly express the ideas which prevailed in the minds of the majority of that committee.
This question came before the Imperial conference of 1026, and that conference deferred definite consideration of the matter of nationality of married women until the expert committee on inter-imperial relations might have an opportunity to report thereon. That committee met in October, 1029, and Canada was represented on the committee by the Minister of Justice in the late administration (Mr. Lapointe). After consideration that committee took no definite action. It is suggested to me that the reason for deferring definite consideration was due to the fact that on that occasion the government of the United Kingdom recommended that the matter be considered at an international conference on the ground that it was a proper subject for international agreement. Subsequently, at the Hague conference of I960, at w'hich Canada was represented, all the governments of the British commonwealth signed the Nationality convention, which was considered by that conference, and which contains the following articles:
Article 8. If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality on marriage with a foreigner, this consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring the nationality of the husband.
Article 9. If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality upon a change in the nationality of her husband occurring during marriage, this consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring her husband's new nationality.
[Mr. Calian.}
Article 10. Naturalization of the husband during marriage shall not involve a change in the nationality of the wife except with her consent.
These articles of the Hague international convention which met early in the year 1930 were considered at the last Imperial conference. Hon. members will have noticed that fact from the reports of that conference which have been laid upon the table of the house. The report of the Imperial conference of 1930 contains the following reference to this subject under the heading "Nationality of married women."
Careful consideration was given to the subject of the nationality of married women. All the members of the commonwealth represented at The Hague conference of 1930, signed the Nationality convention there concluded, and will, it is assumed, introduce such legislation as may be necessary to give effect to articles 8-10 of that convention. The conference was satisfied, however, that any proposals for the further modification of the principle of the existing law would fail to secure unanimous agreement. It followed that the conference was unable to make any recommendation for the substantive *amendment of the law on this subject except to the extent stated above.
This bill has been introduced to amend section 13 of the Naturalization Act, so as to incorporate therein the exceptions so approved at the Imperial conference, and to conform to those three articles of the Hague convention of 1930.


Ernest Lapointe: Will similar bills be introduced in various parliaments?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The governments of the
dominions were requested to introduce bills to carry out those provisions.


Ernest Lapointe: Practically the same as these.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand each government was requested to introduce a bill to carry out those provisions.


Ernest Lapointe: Practically the same as these?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may say to the hon. gentleman that the bill before this house has been considered by the law officers of the Dominions Office in England. Since it has been introduced in this house there have been a few changes of verbiage which have 'been suggested and which I shall bring to the attention of the house at a later date. However in England they suggested no material amendments whatever since this bill was introduced. As there is a constitutional convention or understanding that amendments to the Naturalization Act defining the status of a British subject shall be made only by common consent of the dominions, the provisions of

Naturalization Act
this bill, as I repeat, have been restricted simply to carrying into effect the amendments which were agreed upon by the several dominions. I refer to such amendments as have now received approval in principle of the representatives of governments of the dominions, as well as the government of the United Kingdom. I think my predecessor in office will bear witness to the fact that when I assumed the office of Secretary of State there was a large volume of suggestions and recommendations from various women's associations throughout Canada for such an act as this. Those suggestions were not proceeded with for the reason that it was deemed advisable to have, first, an international agreement and, secondly, to have a common interimperial understanding with respect to the proposed amendments. These amendments are confined simply to the carrying into effect of the articles of the Hague conference which have been agreed upon by all parties. Since the bill has been introduced and distributed it has been discussed at length in many journals throughout the country. I have received a number of letters from various womens' organizations recommending that this principle, if I may so term it, be carried into effect. In their letters and resolutions they have not discussed with me the exact terminology of the bill, but there seems to be a general consensus of opinion, especially in the minds of women who take an active interest in public affairs, that such amendments should be made to the Naturalization Act of Canada. I repeat, I am simply submitting the bill for the careful consideration of members of this house. I think there might be some slight improvements made in the terminology, if the bill goes before a committee. To-day however I am merely dealing with the principle to which we have given effect in drafting the measure which is now submitted to the house.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: May I be allowed to ask the hon. gentleman one or two questions. I would like him to elucidate one or two points. As I read it subsection 2 states:
A woman, having been a British subject, shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject upon her marriage with an alien, except upon condition that in consequence of such marriage she acquire the nationality of her husband.
How would the hon. gentleman deal with the case of a woman acquiring by letters of naturalization the nationality of her husband in a foreign country? I refer to a British born woman.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My answer to that question is that under our law the moment a British 22110-57
subject acquires a certificate of naturalization under any foreign law and thereby becomes a subject or citizen of any foreign country he or she immediately thereupon ceases to be a British subject.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Would not subsection 2
have the effect of precisely curtailing that right of the woman to acquire another nationality by naturalization? It says here that a woman, upon certain conditions:
Except upon condition that in consequence of such marriage she acquires the nationality of her husband.
. . . remains a British subject. Therefore, under this section, if pleaded literally, her naturalization under the foreign law would not be acknowledged.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say to my hon. friend that I think the committee is the proper place to discuss that subject.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite true.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Furthermore although I
drafted this bill in conjunction with permanent officials of the Department of External Affairs I intend to suggest a very slight change in the first clause. My hon. friend will understand that upon reflection one may foresee technical difficulties which might arise. In the committee however I would prefer to entertain a discussion of such details.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite true. My other
question is this:	In the preparation of the
bill has consideration been taken of what will happen with regard to the children?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under our law there is no doubt whatever that the children follow the nationality of the father. We have not interfered with that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker I do not intend to speak at length on the second reading of this bill, but I wish to say that I fully approve of the principle involved. Without referring particularly to the bill may I be permitted, in a very courteous way, to express regret that the practice of presenting bills followed in former sessions, has been discarded. It was the custom to place explanatory notes opposite to the sections of the bill giving in a summarized way the reasons for the proposals, and when a section was repealed to reproduce the text of such section. In the case of a new bill it was the practice to underline the new words in order to distinguish them from the paragraphs retained from the former act or bill. I think that might make the discussion of such technical matters as this easier for hon.

Naturalization Act

members. I am not speaking for myself; I have the documentation on these matters. I think the ministers themselves will find when they come to discuss the bill in committee that with the information I have referred to printed on the bill the discussion will be more relevant to the subject matter; otherwise questions will be put that have no bearing on the proposed amendments. I admit that in this instance the former section is practically repealed; in fact the whole section is changed and the words retained are not very material. But my remarks apply not only to this bill but to all bills introduced by the government, and which do not contain the explanatory notes and underlined changes as was the practice under the former government. I think the whole house will bear me out in my submission that this was a good practice and that it should not have been discontinued.
As to the bill itself, the Secretary of State has given the whole story of the change, and I think he has given it accurately. The question was raised in this house while I was in charge of the Department of State by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail), who made a motion in the session of 1927, asking the house to resolve that a woman of British nationality residing in Canada should not lose, or be deemed to lose, her nationality by the mere act of marriage with an alien, but that it should be open to her to make a declaration of alienage if she so desired. At the time I intimated, speaking for the government, that this was in full accordance with the policy of the government, but gave the reason-now given by my successor-that the delay then in taking action was due to the fact that the British citizenship recognized by the Naturalization Act is not confined to Canada but is empire-wide, and consequently there must be some degree of uniformity throughout the empire in order that British citizenship should be recognized internationally. The conditions for the obtaining of British citizenship were agreed upon by the different dominion governments and the government of the United Kingdom; that is, as to the number of years of residence, the character of the applicant, knowledge of official languages in the different parts of the empire where naturalization was sought, the desire to remain permanently within this or that part; there were also other matters such as this one regarding the status of British women marrying aliens, a status which was not altogether decided at the time. There was a series of conferences bringing no definite result. In 1926 it was decided, as the hon. Secretary of State has indicated, to leave the
[Mr Rinfret.]
matter over for an international conference, and later on for agreement between the different parts of the empire at the Imperial conference of 1930. I understand from what has been said this afternoon that an agreement has been finally reached, and that this bill incorporates the essentials of the agreement. I am glad to see the matter has been adjusted. I claim to be a feminist in my own province; there I am fighting the cause of feminism, and we hope that eventually success will crown our efforts. This I regard as another victory for the rights of women, and I think it will cure the very unsatisfactory condition of things that prevails where a British woman by marrying an alien loses her citizenship and does not acquire that of her husband.
But before I resume my seat I should like to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to another part of the Nauralization Act which might perhaps be amended at this time. In the interpretation section of the act will be found a definition of the word "disability", which I think is very unhappily phrased. It might have been warranted by the act as it now stands, but I do believe it should be changed if we adopt this bill. Paragraph (f) reads:
"Disability" means the status of being a married woman, or a minor, lunatic, or idiot.
The idea, of course, was to group together without what I may term any degree of relativity the different causes for disability. I think we should do away with this definition. It does not at all appeal to my sense of gallantry, and I think with the adoption of this bill it will become superfluous.


Ernest Lapointe: It had better be put into two sections, anyway.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have not read through the bill to the extent of seeing if there remains any such disability with respect to married women, but I do submit to my hon. friend that if the disability of married women is removed by this measure, then, surely we should amend the definition.
The bill will be examined in committee, but with the principle of changing our act in order to meet the agreement arrived at in 1930 I am very fully in accord, and it was always the policy of the late government to work towards the achievement of such a position.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to delay the proceedings. I am quite in agreement with the principle of the bill, especially with regard to such Canadian women as marry American

Copyright Act
citizens, who, as the minister has stated, lose their British nationality and do not acquire that of their husbands. I can say that perhaps with great force because a condition of the kind arose in my own family; but of course that does not touch the question. My purpose in rising is to make an inquiry. I observe that under the bill a British woman marrying the citizen of a country which does not itself give her citizenship does not lose her British nationality. I wish to inquire whether, if she marries a citizen of a country in which she would acquire the national status of her husband, under this bill she might by her own act retain her British nationality?


Mr. GEARY:: Look at paragraph 3.


William Daum Euler: I do not think that covers it. I understand very well that a British woman marrying an alien does not lose her British citizenship if she does not acquire the citizenship of her husband; but if she does acquire his citizenship, can she by any act of her own retain her British status?


Ernest Lapointe: In any case, it seems to apply to only paragraph 3, that is, when the husband ceases to be a British subject during the marriage and not when the marriage takes place.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I remind hon. members that the house is not yet in committee.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I presume my hon. friend will give attention to the proposal I made, with regard to the definition?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly. I may say there have been a number of suggestions made by very learned lawyers in regard to this matter, and I should like an opportunity of considering them. The house may be assured that I will present them for consideration when we go into committee.


Ernest Lapointe: May I call my hon.
friend's attention to the fact that there is no explanatory note, as required by the rules of the house, in connection with this bill, and I see that the same thing occurs in connection with most of the bills which are on my file. These explanatory notes are required by the rules of the house, I understand, and they are very useful in the consideration and study of the bills.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That objection was raised by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), but I do not think there is any such rule. We are providing in this bill an entirely new section. I was under the impression that the law clerks were required to prepare the explanatory notes; perhaps I was under a 221X0-574
misapprehension. It may be my duty to do that, but I will look into it again, although in this case we are simply providing a new section.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I make this suggestion? We are noit all lawyers in this chamber, and many private members who have not studied law find these explanatory notes very valuable. I know nothing about law, and if a short explanation appears I think it facilitates matters.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think it is only just to my hon. friend the Secretary of State to say that his speech this afternoon upon the bill was the best explanatory note we have had for some time on these questions. I think he should be given credit for that.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Copyright Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss this bill at length upon the second reading; I will merely make a few explanations. Every member of the house is well aware that in 1886 an international copyright union was established for the protection of literary and artistic property. A convention in that year was signed at Berne. This convention was revised at Paris in 1896 and again at Berlin in 1908, where the nations of Europe particularly were represented.
Then came a protocol which was signed at Berne in 1914, revising in certain particulars the anterior conventions. The original Berne convention of September 9, 1896, was signed by Great Britain on behalf of Canada and the other dominions. It was not until January 1, 1924, that the protocol signed at Berne was accepted by Canada on the initiative of the late government. The revised convention of November 13, 1908, however, was signed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only on its own behalf. Canada was represented on that occasion and it was ratified on behalf of Canada on April 10, 1928. This convention was again revised at Rome on June 2, 1928. Canada was represented at Rome by Hon. Philippe Roy and Mr. John Desy, another gentleman from the office of the Canadian government in Paris, who signed the Rome convention on behalf of Canada.
The present bill has for one of its objects the granting of authority to the government of Canada to procure the ratification of that
Copyright Act
[Stage Direction]
convention on behalf of the Canadian government. The time in which ratifications may be deposited at Rome expires on July 1, 1931. In order that Canada may adhere finally to the Rome convention it is necessary that certain definitions of our own act should be amended so as to bring the enforcement of the Rome convention within the terms of the principal clauses of our own act.
Then another matter is dealt with. My hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret), my predecessor in office, will recollect that while he was in office he received numerous protests from the various governments of Europe, from representative societies of authors throughout the world, and even from the Dominions Office in London, suggesting that section 40 of our act requiring compulsory registration of assignments of copyright could not possibly be carried out. That section requires that assignments of copyright should be registered by producing duplicate original copies. As a matter of fact many such assignments were made in one copy only; the assignors are long since dead, and it has been impossible therefore to prove title by such registration. Section 40 came up for decision in an Ontario case, that of the Canadian Performing Right Society versus the Famous Players Canadian Corporation, which case was carried to the privy council for decision and in which final judgment was rendered in 1927.
When I was in London during October and November, various delegations called upon me insisting that section 40 of our Act could not be complied with. They stated that if it were complied with it would bankrupt the societies which attempted to comply with it, and that it was not in strict conformity with the provisions of the Berne convention. For instance, it may not be known to hon. members that we have the Canadian Performing Right Society, which is organized under the Companies' Act, and which has its head office in the city of Toronto. That company controls between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 copyrights, in respect of the right to perform those works. The registration by that company under section 40, involving a payment of $1 for each work registered, would impose a tax, as they call it, or would involve the payment of from $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 into the copyright office, a sum which I may say we would be very pleased to receive. But two sessions ago my predecessor introduced a bill to amend section 40, which received very general approval, I think, but which was not enacted owing to press of other work at the close of the session. I propose to repeal section 40 and to abolish compulsory registration of

copyright in Canada. But in doing so, there are certain conditions forced upon my attention with which I think we should deal. For instance, it is well known that Canadian authors find it advantageous to them to assign their copyright rights to American publishers. These assignments are made so as to cover not only the teritorial district of the United States, but some of them, by having sections introduced in the printed forms, as you see them sometimes on the back of an insurance policy, imply an assignment of the author's rights not only in respect of the territorial district of the United States but in respect of Canada as well. In fact, some of them which have come under my observation assign the author's rights in respect of the entire territory from the gulf of Mexico to the North Pole.
But our authors are sometimes not lawyers, sometimes not very practical business men; and in cases which have been brought to my attention they have, after making assignment of their rights for the whole continent to the American publisher, made a subsequent assignment of their rights to a Canadian publisher, which is confined to the territorial district of Canada. In that case there are conflicting assignments. It seems to me that those who wish to ascertain who has real title should be able to go to the copyright office in connection with the department of the Secretary of State and ascertain with whom they must deal with respect to such copyrights. I have therefore retained in the bill the provision that where an author assigns his right to copyright, and that assignment is registered voluntarily, at the copyright office, so long as that registration is extant it shall prevail over any other unregistered assignment which he has made. If any other assignee thinks that he has prior rights, then he can go to the courts and contest the issue and have that prior registration removed. AVe must protect the Canadian public to this extent, that if there are divergent rights which are irreconcilable in their terms, then the one who first registers his right shall, so far as the public is concerned, be deemed to have title.
There are certain other minor amendments made in the bill to bring it into closer conformity with the Rome convention. For instance, the Berne convention, and now the Rome convention also provides that in case of a joint authorship the copyright shall extend fifty years from the date of the death of the last of the joint authors. By, I suppose, some inadvertence we provided in our act that copyright should extend for fifty

Copyright Act
years from the death of the author who died first, and very considerable technical objections have been made by foreign governments and authors in foreign countries to this provision. We are now attempting to make our law conform to the convention to which we have subscribed.
Another important feature of this bill is found in the last section. This new section is introduced for the purpose of regulating the exercise of their monopoly by associations, societies and companies which carry on in Canada the business of acquiring, assigning and licensing performing rights in which copyright subsists. I have drafted that clause in ample terms with a view to its being considered by a select committee of this house in order that both parties to the controversy may have sufficient opportunity to present their views. I am overwhelmed with petitions and complaints from one end of Canada to the other that such performing right societies should be regulated. The general tenor of these complaints is this: that an author as an author should have a complete monopoly with respect to his work; that is, a monopoly created by statute. But when a thousand authors or the authors of a million works form a society and vest in that society title to all their works, then such monopoly, which can exist only by virtue of a statute, should be regulated with respect to its fees and lharges, exactly as a telephone company night be regulated.
I am simply giving the gist of the complaint. I am not saying that the Canadian Performing Right Society exacts fees and charges which are exorbitant. But their contracts must be signed by the hotel companies, because they cannot perform a musical work in any hotel, from the Atlantic to the Pacific unless they have a licence from the performing right society. And it is alleged that the contract so far pressed upon their attention is a contract, not for the right to perform a single, individual work, but a contract to perform the whole two million or two and a half million works which this society controls.
I have received protests from representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to their radio performances, and protests from the Canadian National Railways as well. I have received protests from nearly every large radio broadcasting concern in Canada. There must be a general discussion before that select committee as to the special measures to be taken to prevent a monopoly of that character from making undue exactions from the Canadian people.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just received a
protest from a parish priest with regard to presentations which are made for charitable purposes. Would it be possible to amend the act to provide that no fee shall be paid in the case of performances given for charitable purposes?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is one clause dealing definitely with that aspect of the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am making no charge or
complaint against the Canadian Performing Right Society. But it is represented to me that in many districts in Canada which are more or less isolated-for instance, in northern Ontario and in certain parts of Quebec-community centres are formed, usually about the parish church, or around the local band or community choir, and during the winLcr they hold three or four entertainments 1o provide funds for a community hall, perhaps, or to maintain some other community undertaking. They charge fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five cents for children and sometimes as high as fifty cents for adults, and the fund so raised is used for community purports. There is hardly one of these entertainment;] that does not perform through the village choir or through the village band, two or three or more of these musical works, the copyright to which is vested in a Canadian or foreign copyright society or association. I do not know about the truth of the charge, but it is suggested to me that from time to time, when such community entertainments are held, persons who are or who purport to be agents of such societies intimate to the village choir or to the village band that unless they pay performing rights fees to such a society, they will be haled under our law before a magistrate, or they will be brought up in court and compelled to pay. With that in view I have introduced a clause which may be too broad, but which is the clause to which I just referred my hon. friend. It is clause 11 which reads:
Nothing contained in the Copyright Act nor in this act shall be construed to prohibit the performance of any musical works in which copyright subsists by churches, colleges, schools, or by philanthropic, charitable or fraternal organizations, provided the performance is given for religious, educational, benevolent or charitable purposes.
That may be too broad. It has been suggested to me by some who are interested in performing rights that I should introduce there the words "provided the performance is given gratuitously," but such matters must be dealt with by the select committee after
Copyright Act

hearing the evidence. Therefore I submit the bill for the favourable consideration of the house, and if it passes its second reading I shall move that it be referred to a select committee, of which the names of the members comprising it have been agreed upon by the whips of the several parties.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Inasmuch as this bill is going before a special committee, I shall not endeavour to discuss it to-day. I wish, however, to point out that the second reading of a bill always involves the adoption of a principle. There are two schools of thought regarding copyright and from that duality comes the whole difficulty about having the proper distinction. One school of thought, which is the European school, is that copyright is a right in itself; that whenever a writer has composed, or a painter or whoever he is has created a work, he has the full ownership of that work in using the copyright. That is the conception adopted by all European countries which formed the convention in Berne, later on confirmed in Rome, whereby in every country in that union the mere fact that a person was the composer or writer of a book gave him the fullest rights as to all the copyright privileges that might be attached to it.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the claim of the authors.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. The other school of thought is what I shall call the United States school of thought, which says that copyright is a privilege -and can be enjoyed only if it is registered. In the United States of America a copyright will not be recognized unless it has been properly registered. From that duality arises the whole difficulty to which the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) has alluded, and protests, sometimes from the north and sometimes from the south, have always accompanied any attempt to legislate in regard to this matter.
Whilst I was listening to my hon. friend I thought he was endeavouring to write my own biography. It is true that as a member, and later on as a minister, I tried to introduce and I did introduce legislation, the latest bill being I think in 1930, doing away with section 40. My bon. friend is right when he says that a whole group of societies and institutions were once elated over the fact that the government had decided to introduce a bill of that kind; but when he said that it was due to pressure of work that the bill was dropped or not proceeded with, he did not give the complete story. There were protests from innumerable societies, church societies, charitable institutions and also performers and

publishers, representing that we were going too far and that it was not fair to them to grant copyright without any registration whatever.
The point I wish to make to-day is that we shall have to make our choice. We must have in this country copyright legislation which will be clear-cut. Either we shall adhere to the convention of Rome and do away with registration, or we shall withdraw from Rome and have our own registration. We have been hesitating-and I will take my share of the blame for that if parliament so desires- we have been going from one point to the other, listening to protests first on one side and then on the other. I surmise from this bill, which is somewhat more extensive than, but in principle very much along the line of the bill which I introduced last session, that the policy of the present government is to have our copyright legislation in conformity with the decisions reached in Rome. It is on that understanding that I shall agree to the second reading of the bill being passed to-day, -but I know very well when we get into committee we shall hear representations from all sides and every effort will be made by the usual people who come around when copyright is being discussed, to prevent the bill from coming back from the committee and the committee from reaching a final decision. I hope the government intends to proceed with the bill to the fullest extent. It is hard to say what the Senate will do with it later on.
I wish to insist upon this point, because it has been the whole crux of the difficulty in the past; we must make up our minds whether we wish to deal with copyright as the European countries do and do away -with registration, following the convention strictly without any reservation, or not. If we wish to follow the convention, I believe there are in the bill certain sections which we shall have to drop in order to put our legislation into full conformity with the decisions of Rome.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We do not recognize the decisions of Rome.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I say: If we fail to do that, then we shall have to withdraw from the convention and have our own registration, a very improper course, I think. I have been trying very hard from year to year to achieve the purpose which my hon. friend says he has in mind now. He can count upon my fullest cooperation, but I know on both sides of the house there are members who will not be with us, and we might as well make up our minds that by the first of July we must give our adherence or withdraw it.

Canadian National Railways Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am most happy to have the cooperation of my hon. friend.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then we had better get busy, have the committee sit at once and do our best to achieve this year what we have not been able to achieve in former years.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: My words will be few, but they must be words of commendation to the minister for having brought this matter before the house at the earliest opportunity. With what the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has said,
I agree, but I should like to get the assurance of the minister that it is the intention to adhere in loto to the convention as it was revised in 1928. We must either adhere to the convention or not. The terms of the convention are clear that there must be no restrictions of any kind; that registration must be done away with. The law, if it is adopted, is as simple as any piece of legislation that was ever drafted. I doubt very much that the intention is to adhere to the revised convention just as it stands. I shall take only one section, to demonstrate my meaning, section 5 of the bill. That is a vital section. Those who have followed this discussion in years gone by will know that there is "copyright," which is a translation of the words, "droits patrimoniaux," and there is also this other right, the moral right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend. I will say at once that some societies in Europe have complained of the use of the word "publication." I think they give a meaning to "publication" different from that which I intended. As the leader of the opposition has suggested my hon. friend's name as one. of the members to be appointed to the select committee, I would suggest that such details might well be left to the consideration of that committee.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am grateful. I did not anticipate such an honour. In view of that, I Shall be pleased to defer my observations and to support the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That Bill No. 4, to amend the Copyright Act, be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Bury, Cahan, Chevrier, Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay), Ernst, Irvine and Rinfret, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
He said: Perhaps I had better give a few words of explanation, although the bill itself is very clear. Section 1 is for the purpose of increasing the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways from fifteen to seventeen. Section 2 is merely to correct an error in the Canadian National Railways Act. Through an error the act as enacted in the revised statutes of 1927 refers to section sixty-one of the Railway Act; it should have referred to section seventy. The important clause of the bill is that increasing the directorate from fifteen to seventeen.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why?


Robert James Manion: There are two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are not represented on the directorate. This is really for the purpose of giving them representation on the board, so that all nine provinces-some represented by more members than others, it is true-will then have representation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are the directors paid?


Robert James Manion: Yes-$2,000 a year and some travelling expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Cotnam in the chair.
On section 1-Nomination of directors.
Sir EUGENE FISET:: Would the minister explain to the committee not only the reason for the appointment of two additional directors, but how the directors are appointed? Is it by order in council? Are their salaries paid by the Department of Railways and Canals or out of the income of the Canadian National Railways? These are questions on which some members of the committee would like information.
There are other questions that I should like to put to the minister. What is the jurisdiction of each of these directors? Are they appointed by territorial district, provincial district, or with regard to divisional points on the railways? How far does their jurisdiction extend? Let me give a concrete example to illustrate better what I mean. Take, for instance, the appointment of Mr. Lucien Morand as a director for the Quebec district. As the minister knows, the Quebec district forms part of the central division, and tha
Canadian National Railways Act

central division ends at Riviere du Loup. The section from Riviere du Loup down, including the Gaspe peninsula, forms part of the eastern division. A few years ago when the French Canadian employees of that division wanted to bring before the authorities of the Canadian National Railways some of their grievances, among them was the very question the minister mentioned to-day in answer to an inquiry made by the hon. member for Bona-venture, the question of the transfer of the terminal of that special section of the eastern division of the Canadian National which we call no man's land, which belongs to nobody and which comprises an entirely French Canadian section, and extends, including Gaspe peninsula, for nearly four hundred miles of railway. We thought that we could at least get located at Mont Joli a French Canadian superintendent who has recently been appointed to supervise the administration of that division. Last September a large deputation comprising the members of the chambers of commerce of Gaspe, Mont Joli and Rimouski interviewed Sir Henry Thornton. We presented a petition signed by thirty thousand citizens. We tried to explain to him that that French Canadian section of the Canadian National Railways was administered by officials of the eastern division residing at Campbellton. We were given the usual buttered answer, and were told that the matter would be taken into consideration. We were extremely well received, but may I assure the Minister of Railways and Canals that it will be a great disappointment to the population along the lower shore of the St. Lawrence to read in the newspapers to-morrow the policy which has just been announced. The minister says that the government cannot interfere with the administration of the Canadian National Railways. Sir, that is the very reason I am asking this question at the present time: Are the directors of the Canadian National Railways responsible to the government? Are they appointed by order in council? Are their salaries paid by t'he Department of Railways and Canals or by the Canadian National Railways out of income? The hon. minister realizes that the appointment of the directors by order in council and payment of their salaries by the Department of Railways and Canals constitutes them as civil employees. They have not the right to mix in politics. Lately we have seen accounts indicating that one of the new directors took an active part in the central Conservative organization of Quebec. That is a dangerous precedent to introduce in the administration of the Canadian National Railways.
There is another phase of the question to which I take exception, notwithstanding the

faot that even some of my Liberal colleagues may not agree with me. I have sat for years on the special committee on railways and shipping. With many of my colleagues who have been acting on that committee I have come ito the conclusion that the greatest mistake which has been made in the organization of the Canadian National Railways lies in the fact that the presidency of the board of directors has been given to the president and administrator of the railroad. It seems to me that the chairmanship of the board of directors should be entirely separated from the administration of the road. Of course in that regard I am expressing only my personal opinion. Each year estimates of capital expenditure are submitted to the house. We authorize the floating of loans, by the Canadian National system, some of which run as high as $81,000,000, $71,000,000, $60,000,000 and, as in the present year, $70,000,000. We authorize persons who are not responsible to the people to float those loans either abroad or in Canada. For one thing, those loans should be floated by the government, and the Canadian National Railways so far as expenses are concerned should be considered a department of the federal administration. I do not wish to continue my remarks at further length, but I do think the appointment of two other directors at the present time is unwarranted. In these days of stress we should not add to the expenses of the railway company, especially since in the present year we are facing a deficit of nearly $39,000,000 in the operation of the road.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has asked
so many questions that I am sure he will pardon me if I do not deal with all of them. I shall however cover as many as I can remember.
In the first place he asked how directors are appointed. May I say that they are and always have been appointed by order in council. In the second place he asked if they were paid by the railroad or by the government. In answer to that may I say that theoretically at least they are paid by the railroad.
The next question is as to whether they are geographical representatives. I assume the hon. member means to ask if they represent on the board a special section of the country or the Canadian people generally. I would say that certainly they do not and should not represent any special locality; each member of the directorate should represent the Canadian people as a whole. At the same time it is obvious that

Canadian National Railways Act
a man from the province of Quebec who happens to be on the board naturally would take a special interest in that province.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid my
hon. friend is wrong. So far as their duties are concerned these directors are allotted to special districts. In Quebec there are two directors; one is allotted the Quebec and the other the Montreal jurisdiction.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is wrong in that statement; they are not allotted special districts at all. True, one is appointed from Quebec and one from the Montreal district, but that custom has been followed in the past. In that particular we are merely living up to the customs which have been established. However I must state that the men representing or coming from those districts are not supposed to represent on the board those districts alone. They are supposed to act for the whole of Canada. As an illustration Mr. Lucien Morand from the province of Quebec is supposed to represent equally the province of British Columbia or any other province; in like manner Mr. J. Fyfe Smith, although coming from the province of British Columbia, would represent equally the rest of the Dominion. They form a directorate exactly in the same way as the directors of any other company.
The next point mentioned by my hon. friend was that of the Gaspe railway; that is a large question. May I say briefly however that so far as I am concerned I can temporarily at least dispose of the question. The railway company, which after all must recommend construction before such construction can be undertaken, has not made any recommendations. In fact a recommendation has been made against the building of the Gaspe railway.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the hon. minister has altogether misunderstood me. I said that the Gaspe railway was included in that section of the eastern division of the Canadian National Railways which extends from Riviere du Loup to Matapedia, and from Matapedia around the Gaspe peninsula. In that section there are four hundred miles of railway running through a country populated with Freneh-Canadian people. They have used Freneh-Canadian employees, and arising out of numerous requests addressed by deputations to Sir Henry Thornton and other railway officials they have given us a Freneh-Canadian superintendent so that he may deal with Freneh-Canadian employees in their own language. However instead of stationing that superintendent in the section
of the country where he is needed at the present time he is being stationed at Campbell-ton to which place it is proposed that the headquarters of that section of the eastern division should be transferred. I have received to-day a letter from the chamber of commerce of Mont Joli stating that instructions have been given to transfer to Campbellton the staff of employees residing at Mont Joli, constituting nearly 2,200 of the local population. Those people will be compelled to abandon their homes in Mont Joli unless they wish to sacrifice nearly a quarter of their pay. I have received further the information that between fifteen and twenty employees of the local works at Mont Joli have been dismissed, and also that the terminal at Mont Joli is being transferred to Campbellton. What affects Mont Joli affects Matapedia. Notwithstanding the statement made by the minister that members of the board represent the whole of the Canadian people, the fact remains that they are appointed for and are allotted to certain jurisdictions or special districts.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: No, there is no special jurisdiction.


Eugène Fiset: It is all right for my hon. friend to make that statement, but I must say that is the way it has worked out in the past. There was representation for that section of the railway from Montreal to Riviere du Loup, but for the central division from Riviere du Loup to Matapedia there was no representative on the directorate.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has stated that- the directors are allotted to certain definite sections of the country. That may arise through some internal arrangement of their own. I speak merely to explain our relations with them.


Eugène Fiset: I do not blame the minister at all.


Robert James Manion: We appoint them as representatives of the whole of Canada, although they naturally have to come from some portion of Canada.


Eugène Fiset: Otherwise you
would not ask us to appoint new directors to represent two of the provinces.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will permit me to continue. He also complained of the location of the French-speaking superintendent at Mont Joli or Campbellton or some other section. Of course he understands that that is entirely a matter of administration. Until now I did not know where the

Canadian National Railways Act
French-speaking superintendent was located. As I say, that is entirely a matter of administration, and I have no control over it whatever. The hon. member also referred to my stating the policy of the government to-day or yesterday.


Eugène Fiset: To-day.


Robert James Manion: That is not the appropriate expression.


Eugène Fiset: I say the policy of the road.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member meant that, but he did not say so. I wish to say that this is the policy of the road, not the policy of the government. If we in any way interfere with the railway management we are introducing politics, as my hon. friend knows quite well, having been for some years a member of the special railway committee dealing with Canadian National Railway affairs. He also mentioned that one of the directors was on the executive of a centra! Conservative Association in the province of Quebec. I heard something of the sort myself. I say quite frankly that I do not believe that a director of the Canadian National Railways should be in that position. With due respect to my hon. friend, I do not think the director to whom he refers'Ts in that position.


Ernest Lapointe: He still is.


Charles Gavan Power: He still is the most active politician we have in Quebec.


Robert James Manion: I presume hon. members will admit that the gentleman in question has a right as a citizen of this country to take some part in politics. I do not suppose that his going on the directorate of the Canadian National Railways precludes him from so doing. I am informed, after some inquiry on my part, that the gentleman to whom my hon. friend has referred is not on the executive of any Conservative association. If it turns out that he is, I will do all in my power to see that he retires from that position.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will that apply also to British Columbia?


Robert James Manion: Yes. Neither I nor the government believe that any director of the Canadian National Railways should be an active officer of any political association, whether Conservative or Liberal. If I find any of them acting on the executive of a Liberal association I will endeavour to secure their withdrawal from it. My hon. friend

also expressed the opinion that the president should not be the chairman of the board of directors.


Eugène Fiset: I am expressing my personal opinion, of course.


Robert James Manion: Yes. As a matter of fact the late government which he supported made the arrangement with Sir Henry Thornton. I looked up the agreement when we were appointing the new board of directors, and I find it provided that Sir Henry Thornton shall be not only president of the road but chairman of the board. I am afraid my hen. friend will have to direct his criticism to the late government.


Eugène Fiset: I said so.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Is it the intention of the minister in any reorganization of the Canadian National board of directors to have a Labour representative on the board?


Robert James Manion: There is a Labour representative on the board in the person of Mr. Tom Moore.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the reason given by the minister for the increase of the number of directors from 15 to 17 is that each province ought to be represented on the board. But surely there are not 17 provinces.


Robert James Manion: Quite right.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask how many members on the board have been appointed from the province of Ontario?


Robert James Manion: I will gladly give my hon. friend the information.


Mr. SPENGER:: Could the minister name them?


Robert James Manion: I think I can do so from memory. At the. present time there are 15 directors. Three of them are ex-officio members. Sir Henry Thornton, naturally, is one of them; Gerard Ruel, ICC., the vice-president in charge of legal affairs has been on the board from its inception; my deputy and the deputy of my predecessor, Mr. Smart, is the third. Mr. Tom Moore has always been on the board as the representative of Labour. The, other members are: Mr. Murdock Kennedy from Prince Edward Island; Mr. James T. Camming from Nova Scotia; Mr. John D. Palmer from New Brunswick; from Quebec there are Messrs. Lucien Morand of Quebec city, J* Edouard Labelle of Montreal, and Geo. Henderson also of Montreal.


Mr. FACTOR:: Five from Quebec and five from Ontario?

Canadian National Railways Act


Robert James Manion: Three from Quebec, not including the president and the other ex-officio directors that I have mentioned. From Ontario we have Mr. W. A. Boys, K.C., of Barrie, Mr. F. K. Morrow of Toronto, and Mr. Gordon Perry, also of Toronto. From Manitoba we have Mr. S. E. Richards of Winnipeg, and from British Columbia, Mr. J. Fyfe Smith of Vancouver. With regard to the other provinces it has not been the custom in the past,
I am free to admit, that they should be represented on the board. But we felt that the country as a whole was so vitally interested in the Canadian National Railways that there would be a feeling of greater satisfaction and content if each province was directly represented on the board. Therefore we thought it wise to increase the board to 17. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) asked how, with 15 members on the board, all the provinces were not represented. That is a very reasonable question, but the fact remains that due to the necessity of having the executive committee meet every week it was absolutely necessary to have a number of the directors within a night's run of Montreal, the headquarters of the system. We thought the matter over very seriously and tried to figure out how, without enlarging the board, we could give each of the western provinces a director, but we could not do it and have the members of the executive committee within a night's run of Montreal; this can only be accomplished by selecting its membership from Ontario and Quebec. That is the reason for the change.. My friend from Rimouski opposed the idea of enlarging the board because of the additional expense entailed. As a matter of fact, the directors each receive 82,000, and under the circumstances the extra expense is not really serious.


Eugène Fiset: For the last four
years I have tried to ascertain what are the real duties of that famous executive, and of the board of directors. I quite understand what the minister says, that these directors have been chosen in Quebec and Ontario in order that they may meet together, but has the minister ever seen a copy of the agenda containing the questions which are ordinarily submitted to the executive of the board of directors? Is he aware of the fact that, for the most part, the policy of the railway is usually submitted to the executive and very rarely to a full meeting of the board? I fail to understand what really are the duties of these directors. Are they administrators? Do they administer, or do they simply decide on the policy to be followed by the administration?


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to reflect in any way upon the late board of directors, but I do say I do not think they took a very active part in the business affairs of the railway. The board of directors which has been appointed has been chosen largely from outstanding business men. There may be an exception to that statement, but I think the fifteen men are at least the equals-I do not want to say the superiors-of any board of directors the Canadian National Railways ever had. Personally I think they are much superior, but I am not going to argue that point. They are all reasonably outstanding business men. Their duties are to pass upon the business affairs of the company, just as the directors of any company are expected to pass upon its business affairs. If the directors happen to be of the lame duck variety; if they do not ask for or demand any information, and do not show some power or force in the management of the road, we cannot help it. I do not mind telling my hon. friend that I will be disappointed if members of this group take that attitude. Some of the individual directors already have spoken to me, and I have pointed out to them that it is their business to find out from the railway officials anything they wish to know. I have said to them, "You are directors and it is your business to demand any information you wish."


Eugène Fiset: Perhaps if I put a concrete question-


Robert James Manion: Just let me finish. My
hon. friend asked if I ever saw the agenda presented at any of these meetings, and it just happened that I had one laid on my desk this morning. The executive committee meets once a week. It is true that perhaps things may pass through quickly, as they sometimes pass through parliament in the latter weeks of the session, but they go through in a formal way. I spent at least half an hour this morning glancing through the agenda for the last meeting of the executive committee, and it was very well and completely done. I do not know whether the business was efficiently handled by the meeting, but the record laid before me would seem to indicate that such was the case.
With regard to the whole board of directors, they are in office from a business standpoint. I do not think they should interfere in the detailed administration of. the roads that is, in regard to the working men on the road or the officers. I do not think they should do that, in a general way, but it is their business, as it is the business of directors in any other large company, to go into the organization

Canadian National Railways Act
and administration of the business affairs of the road and to protect the people of Canada if necessary.


Eugène Fiset: This is the concrete question I should like the minister to answer: Do those directors, for instance, deal with the salaries of the superior staff of the Canadian National railways?


Robert James Manion: They certainly could do
so.


Eugène Fiset: Have they done it in the past, to the knowledge of the minister?


Robert James Manion: No, not to my knowledge.


Eugène Fiset: Then let me ask
another question. The minister is aware that for the last four years the special committee on railways and shipping has tried to obtain from the officials of the Canadian National railways a list of the salaries paid. I am not talking about the union wages paid the employees of the company; I mean the salaries of the officials and their staffs. We desired this information in order to try to ascertain what really were the overhead charges in the administration of the road. We have not succeeded as yet in getting that information; we did not even succeed in getting it in camera. Is the minister going to change the policy, and if he does appoint a committee this year will it be part of the duty of that committee to inquire into such questions? Of course, it may be due to the change of administration, but some of us are receiving rather queer inquiries from all over Canada. I have received them even from Vancouver, inquiring into that special phase of the organization of the Canadian National Railways. Can the minister give us any hope that we may be entitled to inquire into that matter if we desire to do so?


Robert James Manion: The attitude of the late
government was that the salaries of the higher officials should not be given because it was not considered in the public interest.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the
minister is mistaken; it was not the attitude of the government but the attitude of the officials of the railway, supported by the minister.


Robert James Manion: I understand that, but it
was also the attitude of the government in this way, that when questions were put on the order paper having to do with these matters, the answer was that it was not considered in the public interest to give this information. There is at present on the order [Mr. Manion.J
paper a question along these lines proposed by an hon. member of the house. 1 do not mind saying quite frankly, speaking for myself only in this matter, that I see no reason why it should be hurtful to the national interest to disclose the salary of any man. I do not know what was the reason in the past; I have never gone into the matter, but I may tell my hon. friend now that I have been more successful as minister than the whole committee was in the past few years, because I have in my desk in my other office a list of the officials and their salaries.


Eugène Fiset: I hope the minister will give us that information confidentially.


Robert James Manion: No, at the moment I do
not intend to give it. I simply say I have it, and I think it is the intention of the government to reappoint a special committee which will have the same right to go into all questions that it had in the past. I have not discussed the matter, so I cannot say positively, but I do not imagine it would be a policy of the government to overrule the decision of the management in regard to the salaries in question. However, since my hon. friend was chairman of the committee for some time, probably he will be a member of that committee this year; he will have the opportunity of taking up some of the matters to which he is now referring, and he can push them as far as he likes.


Eugène Fiset: But the committee has turned into a mutual admiration society during the last few years.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend was chairman of the committee.


Eugène Fiset: Perhaps that was the reason.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to ask the minister whether, in the event of two new directors being appointed, he and the government will take into consideration the question of choosing at least one director to represent the agricultural sections and interests of this country.


Robert James Manion: Yes, certainly we are considering that matter, and have been considering it for some time. I am hoping-and I can only go that far, because we have not chosen the two new directors-that one may be representative of the agricultural interests.


Mr. HANBURY:: I have here the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1930, and it shows as members of the executive committee, up to December 24, 1930, Sir Henry Thornton, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Henry, Mr. Decary,

Canadian National Railways Act
Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Raeside and Mr. Smart. Oould the minister tell me which of these gentlemen are officers of the railway and serving their full time in the employ of the company?


Robert James Manion: Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Ruel, and Mr. Smart is my deputy; I think those are all. Mr. Ruel is vice-president in charge of legal affairs, while Mr. Smart is deputy minister of railways, and represents the minister on the board.


William Daum Euler: Is Mr. Henry on the board? Mr. MANION: No, not at the present time.


Wilfred Hanbury: Did he serve full time with the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: No, he was deputy minister at that time.


Wilfred Hanbury: What was Mr. Smart's position? According to this report they were both on the board at the same time.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Henry retired as deputy minister and became associated with the Beauharnois company as an official. They left him on as one of the executives and directors and when Mr. Smart took the position of deputy minister of railways he went on the board in Mr. Henry's place, so the two of them were only on together for a short time.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What position did the
deputy minister hold before he was appointed to that office?


Robert James Manion: I do not know exactly.
He was an officer of the railway, had been in the railway business all his life, and for some years, I believe, was professor of railway engineering in McGill university.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Does the deputy minister, as a director of the company, receive the $2,000?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understood that the
policy of the government heretofore has been that there should be the minimum of interference by either political party with the operation of the Canadian National Railways, and that with that object in view there was created an executive committee, the officers of the Canadian National Railways being practically in control.


Robert James Manion: They were only two out
of seven.


Wilfred Hanbury: Three out of seven.


Robert James Manion: The deputy is not an
officer of the railway; he is an officer of the
Department of Railways. He is not in any way an officer of the company. The deputy minister is entirely-if I may use the expression in its widest sense-the servant of the Minister of Railways.


Eugène Fiset: Does not the deputy minister, over and above his salary as a civil servant, receive certain emoluments as a member of the executive of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: He gets the director's fees.


Eugène Fiset: And to that extent he is as much an administrator of the railway as are the other directors.


Robert James Manion: I did not say he was not as much an administrator; I said he was not an officer. My hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard said he was an officer of the road. He is not; he is a director. He is not associated with the Canadian National Railways in the sense that Sir Henry Thornton is, or Mr. Hungerford.


Charles Gavan Power: It has never been quite
clear to me what the duties of the executive directors are. I had an idea-I may be wrong in this-that these men were largely appointed to stand between the railroad officials and the general public. Am I right in that assumption-that they stand between the railroad officials and the general public of the particular section of the country from which they come?


Robert James Manion: I rather think the Minister of Railways has to stand between the railway officials and the public. I do not intend that as a short answer, but that has been my experience. So far as the executive is concerned, it acts as any other executive does. The Canadian Pacific Railway also has an executive. The executive has to meet every week, and it would not be possible, for example, to have Mr. Fyfe Smith from Vancouver present at these weekly meetings-I do not remember the late director from British Columbia. He could not get here every week unless he remained here permanently, so that there was appointed an executive, in the case of the late directorate, of seven, and at the present time eight, to meet every week and pass upon such matters as might come before them. The directorate as a whole meets every month.


Charles Gavan Power: What particular advantage is it to any province to have members from that province on the board of directors?


Robert James Manion: There should be no particular local advantage inasmuch as a director

Canadian National Railways Act
is supposed to represent the whole people of Canada and should not try to obtain any advantage for his own province. But my hon. friend knows this country well enough to realize that, not only in railway directorates but in governments as well as in everything else, Canada has a sort of geographic mind whereby the people demand representation on almost all bodies that are appointed. It is rather a disadvantage to the country as a whole, but that feeling exists nevertheless. And I may tell my hon. friend that when we appointed the directorate-the fifteen that are now appointed-although Alberta and Saskatchewan had not been represented for many years, I received some very severe protests from those provinces because they had no representation. It illustrates the point I am making. Properly, the directors should not attempt to seek any advantage for the parts of the country from which they respectively come, although possibly it would afford a greater feeling of satisfaction to the different sections of the country if they felt that they were represented by a man who at least would see that they were done no injustice.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not speaking of the board of directors but of the executive. Is there any particular advantage derived by any province in having a representative on the executive?


Robert James Manion: As regards the executive, geography has not been taken into account. The directors themselves appointed the executive for two reasons: first, supposedly, that the men so appointed were suitable; and secondly, that they were accessible-that they could easily reach Montreal for an executive meeting.


Ernest Lapointe: That second reason is really the more important one. Those gentlemen who can reach Montreal more readily are selected to serve on the executive.


Robert James Manion: Naturally, if they could not reach Montreal they could not be on the executive.


Ernest Lapointe: I say that, because I have read in the newspapers in my own city how important a man we had to represent us on the board, inasmuch as he had been made a member of the executive. If it is merely because he can take a night train to Montreal-


Robert James Manion: I am sorry to hear my hon. friend imply that he has not much admiration for the gentleman in question. I have heard that the representative from Quebec city was an outstanding man.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, he was outstanding enough to be campaign manager of the Tory fund at the last election.


Robert James Manion: And apparently he made a pretty good job of that. I hope he makes as good a job of the Canadian National Railways.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Did these directors who are no longer in office resign or were they dismissed because they were not performing their duties satisfactorily? Is it necessary to change directors at every election? Were these gentlemen not performing their duties properly? If they were, why was there a change ?


Robert James Manion: At least, politics had nothing to do with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Tell it to the marines.


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend the
ex-Prime Minister and present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) would not,
I think, admit that his directorate was appointed for political reasons.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am sure the Minister of Railways has a sense of humour.


Robert James Manion: I am glad I have; it is
an important thing to have. To answer my hon. friend's question, the directors are appointed-I believe this is the exact phraseology-"from one annual meeting to another, or until their successors are appointed." In the case of the late directorate, the annual meeting had passed and we appointed their successors. Their term had lapsed.


Eugène Fiset: Does not the minister think-


Robert James Manion: One at a time, please.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister say
that these directors are appointed at every annual meeting?


Robert James Manion: No, from one annual meeting to another, or until their successors are appointed.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: By whom-the government?


Robert James Manion: By the government.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There were no delinquencies on the part of the directors who were there before?

Canadian National Railways Act


Robert James Manion: I would not say there
were. I do not know of any delinquencies, but we have appointed a better board, I think.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was there any complaint from the public, the patrons of the Canadian National Railways, as to the manner in which the gentlemen who were discharged had performed their duties?


Robert James Manion: This is no time to go into such questions. I know of nothing of a criminal character against any of the late directors. They have been simply replaced. But suppose I had had such complaints, would it be of any particular use to disclose it in the house? I do not think it would do any good.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I ask the question because I have received letters from several persons among those whom I represent, patrons of the Canadian National Railways, who were satisfied with the service which the road was giving and who were inquiring whether these directors were dismissed for any political reason. They are asking whether these gentlemen had failed to perform their duties satisfactorily; and if they were satisfactory, why were they dismissed?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend can
assure his friends that politics had nothing whatever to do with it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Did the government, in
making the appointments we have heard about this afternoon, receive any O.K. from the leading officers of the company before the appointments were made, if there were no politics in the matter?


Robert James Manion: I do not think we have
vet reached the stage of the government letting the management of the Canadian National make our appointments; we make our own appointments and after we have made them, we get the endorsation of the Canadian National.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister does not
take any suggestions from the company in that respect?


Robert James Manion: Not in the least, although, to be fair I may tell my hon. friend that I did ask Sir Henry Thornton whether he had any suggestions; and they were given consideration.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That was the point
about which I was inquiring.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can the minister say
how many Liberals, how many Liberal-Progressives and how many Progressives are on the board?


Robert James Manion: For all I know, they may be all Liberals. I have not the faintest idea about the politics of any of them. I learned this afternoon from the hon. member for Rimouski that one of them acts on the Conservative committee, but if that be true I am going to try to stop that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Railways has shown me that he is one of the kindest men I know if he appointed some of his old friends of the time when he himself was a Liberal.


Robert James Manion: I did not quite catch
that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister said that
they might all be Liberals. Probably he appointed some of his old friends of the time when he was a Liberal.


Robert James Manion: I hope I did.


Wilfred Hanbury: For the information of
the minister I would like to assure him that the appointee from British Columbia, Mr. J. Fyfe Smith of Vancouver, who is a very fine and able gentleman, is a Conservative. If I am mistaken, probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce can correct me, but I think Mr. Smith was the treasurer of the Conservative party in British Columbia.


Robert James Manion: He is not at the present
time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think he ever
was.


Wilfred Hanbury: I do not know; there
are several treasurers, but I understand he handled some money.


Robert James Manion: Not having known anythink about their politics, I am glad to hear that, some of them are Conservatives, because since we came into power we are hearing that everyone we appoint is a Liberal.


Samuel William Jacobs: Speaking from this side of
the house, I want to congratulate the minister on the appointments he has made. During ithe period the Liberal party was in power, every man who was a director of the (Canadian National was a Liberal appointed by a Liberal government, and I think it is only right, now that we have gone out of power, that they should be superseded by men appointed from the Conservative party, as Conservatives, by Conservatives and for


Jean-François Pouliot: It is all right to say that there will be no politics in the national railways; this is ahvays being said, but I cannot understand why there are so many mysteries about the railways. When we ask the Minister of Railways for some information about the Canadian National, that information is not always given to us. For this I am not altogether blaming the present minister, because under another administration I had reason to make a similar complaint in the house several years ago. This situation is sometimes very embarrassing on account of the high figures of the railway appropriations that are submitted to us for our approval. The Canadian National Railways come to the House of Commons asking members of parliament to vote large sums of money, and when we ask the minister for information about this or that, sometimes the minister answers about this, but about that he says it is not in the interests of the public or of the railway to give the information. Supposing a man goes to a friend and asks for his en-dorsation on a note for $500 or $1,000, the friend would be perfectly justified in asking that man to tell how he standis financially, if he has assets, and so on. How can it happen that information is refused to members of parliament who are called upon to vote these large sums, especially this year when the deficit of the Canadian National, as the Prime Minister has announced and as the Minister of Railways knows very well, will be very substantial? The Canadian National Railways will have to come to parliament again this year, as it has done in previous years, and probably ask us to vote money blindly. That is far from being satisfactory. Whenever a member of parliament asks the Minister of Railways for information about the railway the minister may not always have the information at hand, but I cannot conceive how it happens that the management of the railway refuses to give that information to the members of this house.
I am quite sure that the minister himself can get all the information he wants from the railway. Why can it not be given through him to the members of this house? Surely the minister can trust hon. members of this house with information that may be of a confidential character. It may sometimes happen that the railway would not like information of a semi-private character given

Canadian National Railways Act
to the press. That is quite understandable, but it might be given to the members of this house just as well as it is given to the minister. If the management of the railway trusts the minister, why does it not trust the members of the house? I suggested the very same thing four or five years ago when the previous government was in power, but I did not receive a favourable reply. Now I address the same complaint to the present minister. I do not know what his answer will be, but it seems to me that the request I am making is only fair. How can we tell our electors that we are satisfied with the management of the railway if information about the railway is refused to us? To give you an idea, Mr. Chairman, of what happens in large companies, I know, for instance, of one lumber concern which shows a certain acreage of timber limits as security for the bondholders, whereas as a matter of fact this concern is renting about one hundred square miles of burnt timber. It is not worth very much, but it gives the impression that the company is the possessor of one hundred more square miles of timber than it really possesses.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, just before the adjournment I was speaking of the fact that sometimes information is refused members of parliament by the Minister of Railways and Canals on behalf of the Canadian National Railways. The reason is given that it is not in the interests of the country or of the railway company to give such information. I will ask the minister to be kind enough to trust the members of this house. Probably I should not suggest that he is unwilling to trust them, but there is no doubt that the Canadian National Railways do not always trust hon. members, and I would ask the minister to speak concerning that matter to the officials, and to the directors he has recently appointed. I have before me a copy of the Canadian National Railways magazine of February, 1931, in which there is a report of a dinner at which the minister was guest of honour. At that notable gathering were directors, representatives, employees and guests of Canadian National officials. The speeches were reported, and if one may judge from the article in this magazine it was what might be termed a social affair. No indication is given of the special duties of directors of the Canadian National Railways. It is 22110-58
stated that the hon. minister through his deputy represents the people on the board of directors. My hon. friend may correct me if I am wrong, but it is so stated in this issue of the magazine published by the Canadian National Railways. Sometimes we are in a very difficult position on account of these mysteries, but I would repeat that the minister can trust hon. members on this side of the house as well as those on the other side. If he wishes to give information of a confidential character he may be sure that the secret will be kept. On the other hand hon. members will have the satisfaction of not being required to vote blindly.
I do not wish unduly, to take up the time of the house, nor do I wish to read any lengthy report concerning proposed construction by the Canadian National Railways. I would like, however, to answer the question put to me, the other day, by the minister; I believe it bears some relation to the proposed legislation now before this committee. In that connection the directors of the railway company may have something to say; however, my hon. friend expressed the wish to be en

lightened on the point, and I shall endeavour to comply with his desire. If my memory serves me correctly, he asked me why the station at Riviere du Loup had not been built while the Liberal party was in power. Mr. Chairman, the reason is very clear. The first year I was elected I sent a memorandum to Sir Henry Thornton, president and chairman of the Canadian National Railways, requesting the building of the station. At that time I was told that they had to curtail expenses to the limit. That was the reason given; yet hon. members may see in Hansard of Monday last the translation of the report made by the board of health. At that time parts of the Canadian National Railways, especially the old Canadian Government Railways and the Intercolonial Railways, were not on the same footing as other sections of the system in regard to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. If hon. members will refer to Hansard of April 12, 192S, they will find the following:
Mr. Dunning: Under the old section, which will be seen in the explanatory note, the Canadian Government Railways were under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to their operation but not with respect to construction and maintenance. The object of the amendement is to put the Canadian Government Railways under the Board of Railway Commissioners as all other railways are under their control, especially with regard to the construction and maintenance of the lines. It is thought that there is now no reason for what might be called special



Canadian National Railways Act
privilege for the government railways, and when I speak of government railways I am distinguishing between them and the Canadian National Railways generally. It is understood that the Canadian National Railways generally are already under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This section deals with the old Canadian Government Railways, the Intercolonial Railway and the National Transcontinental Railway, and seeks to bring them more completely under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners than is now the case.
Mr. Bennett: What necessity has arisen to demand this legislation?
Mr. Dunning: The necessity arises through the demands of people along the lines affected for improvements of one kind or another for which, in any other part of the country, they would secure an order from the Board of Railway Commissioners. With respect to these particular lines they find it necessary to come to the minister exactly as they did when the minister had direct control over the Intercolonial Railway and the National Transcontinental Railway.
Mr. Bennett: Surely this does not apply to the Intercolonial Railway?
Mr. Dunning: Yes.
Mr. Cantley: Do I understand that the min

ister wants to be protected from the people of the maritime provinces?
Mr. Dunning: No, I have no desire to be protected from the people of any part of Canada, but I do desire to give the people of every part of this country the same right to appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners and appeal for anything they tnink should be done which comes within the scope of the Railway Act. Really this simply creates a standard practice on our Canadian railways, and I think the house will agree that it is desirable that all our system should be operated in a standard manner.
Section 16 of chapter 172 of the Canadian National Railways Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in the Government Railways Act or any other act, the provisions of the Railway Act respecting the operation of a railway, as distinguished from the provisions of such act respecting the construction or maintenance of a railway, shall apply to such of the Canadian Government Railways as would hut for the passing of this act be subject to the Government Railways Act, during such time as the operation and management thereof is entrusted to the company under the provisions of this act.
The provisions of the Railway Act, respecting maintenance of a railway, shall also apply to such railways during the time aforemen-fumed m 80 far as such maintenance affects the safety and protection of railway employees and the passengers upon the railway. '
Then follows the amendment brought forward by the then Minister of Railways and Canals as contained in chapter 13 of 1S-19 George V:
Section sixteen of the Canadian National Railways Act, chapter one hundred and seventy-

two of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
16.	(1) Notwithstanding anything in the
Government Railways Act, or any other act the provisions of the Railway Act respecting the construction, maintenance and operation of a railway (excepting those relating to the location of iines of railway, the making and filing of plans and profiles-other than highway and railway crossing plans and the taking and using of lands and expropriation proceedings) shall apply to any Canadian government railway which would, but for the passing of this act. but only for the period during -which the management and operation of that railway is entrusted to the company under the provisions of this act.
(2) All the provisions of the Expropriation Act and all legal procedure in matters arising under the Expropriation Act shall apply, during the said period, to such Canadian government railway in like manner as if this act had not been passed.
The intention of the amendment was to put construction and maintenance on the same footing as operation. Afterwards the chamber of commerce and the city council communicated with the railway management, and the board of health made a report on the Riviere du Loup station. In 1928 the matter was discussed with the manager of the Atlantic region, and in January, 1929, at Moncton I met Mr. Appleton and told him I intended to bring the resolutions and the report to the attention of this house. I would refer hon. members to Hansard of Monday last containing these papers, a perusal of which, I am sure, will be interesting to them. Mr. Appleton told me that the estimates of 1929 had to be reduced from $5,000,000 to $1,700,000, and that therefore the item could not be included in the budget of 1929, but that it would be placed in the budget of 1930. May I bring to the attention of hon. members a resolution passed on April 13, 1931, by the city council of Riviere du Loup. As it is very short I will read it:
At a meeting of the Riviere du Loup city council held at the city hall, on Monday, April 13, 193il, were present: His Worship the Mayor Charles Eugene Dube, Messrs, the Councillors, E. Laforest, pro-mayor, L. P. Lizotte, A. Dumais, J. H. Mailloux, A. Marquis, J. G. Parent, forming a quorum of said council under the chairmanship of His Worship the Mayor.
Councillor L. P. Lizotte moves, seconded by Councillor J. H. Mailloux: That this council desires to protest against the decision of the Canadian Railway Commission to repair the present station instead of building a new one, and, request them to reconsider their decision.

Canadian National Railivays Act
That copy of this resolution be transmitted to the competent authorities.
Unanimously adopted.
(Signed Chs. Eug. Dube,
Mayor.
(Signed) J. Lebel, Sec. Treas.
Certified copy,
J. Lebel, Sec. Treas.
What was my surprise the other day to hear my right hon. friend the Prime Minister complaining of the fact that in this connection I had read to the house reports by the board of health! May I tell him that the course I took should not be treated as a joke. I regard my duty as a member of parliament very seriously and I brought the case to the attention of the house as a matter of principle. We want definite information about what is to be done by the Canadian National Railways.
I understand the management is doing very well under the circumstances. But parliament is endorsing all the liabilities of the Canadian National Railways and voting public money from time to time to continue their operation We want to know what is going to happen. We know what has happened in this case, that a certain sum of money was indued in the budget of the Canadian National Railways for a definite purpose. As my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said, and rightly said, if money is voted for a certain definite purpose, and the money is not spent, the vote lapses. As a matter of fact, the money so voted was spent for another purpose,-I do not know what. Certainly there was no economy in so doing.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the amount voted?


Jean-François Pouliot: The amount voted was
$77,136, of which $50,000 or $60,000 was on capital account; but there being a deficit in the Atlantic division, current expenditure other than capital had to be. included in the vote.
You, Mr. Chairman, as batonnier of the Quebec bar, are familiar with the decisions given by the courts of Quebec in municipal matters, and no doubt will recall the case of Riou v. Martin which went to the Supreme Court of Canada. That case was decided in 1925 by the highest tribunal in this country. The Supreme Court of Canada held that when certain money had been appropriated by a municipal corporation for a definite purpose, and it was spent for some other purpose, the. mayor and the whole council became liable personally for the full amount so diverted. I do not ask the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues personally to reimburse the vote of $77,136, although some of my hon. friends to your right, Mr. Chairman, told me 22110-58J
they would be ready to form a "bee" and come down to Riviere du Loup and build the station.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to hear my hon. friend from North Huron (Mr. Spotton) applaud my statement. I told him the other day that I would ask him to be the cornerstone of that station. Truly, he would make a wonderful cornerstone; for the ceremony would be performed by Sir Henry Thornton, and they would be a perfect match. I say ' this in the most friendly spirit. Although, Mr. Chairman, I would not characterize the diversion of the vote as a fraudulent conversion of funds by the government, for I am sure no member of the cabinet appropriated the money personally, still it was spent for a purpose other than that for which it had been presented to the committee on railway and shipping last session.


Robert James Manion: How does my hon. friend know that the money was spent for some other purpose? Where does he get his information?


Jean-François Pouliot: I got that information from the right hon. Prime Minister the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Robert James Manion: No, the Prime Minister
did not give any such information.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will
allow me I will answer his question. Every hon. member who was in the house on the occasion will recall that I asked the right hon. Prime Minister if under the Audit Act any vote not spent within the financial year lapsed, and he said yes. Afterwards I spoke of vote 323 of last session, which included the special amount of $77,136 for the. building of the station at Riviere du Loup, according to a letter signed by the deputy minister of Railways and Canals, which letter will be found in Hansard. I asked the right hon. gentleman if all that money had been spent, and he. told me it had. The money was spent, but no station was built. In that case the money must evidently have been spent for something else, or no one can understand anything at all about it. The station was not built but the money has been spent. Where has it gone?	'
This is a matter of principle, and to-da.y we are asked to vote a certain amount of money for this, that and the other thing. Who will tell us that this money will not be spent in some other part of the country altogether and for some purpose other than that for which it has been voted? This money has
Canadian National Railways Act

gone some place, but I do not believe the minister himself knows where it has gone; he does not know any more about it than I do. All they know is that it has vanished. If I put a question on the orders of the day the government will be so embarrassed that they probably will answer that it is not in the public interest or in the interests of the railway to give the information. I wish to be fair, but I wish to be treated fairly also, and my request is very reasonable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was that request?


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a very good start, at all events. If the right hon. Prime Minister had been here; if he had been in charge of the department he would not have tolerated such a thing. I know the Prime Minister well enough to be sure that he would not have taken such action; he would not have refused to sanction the building of that station. I am sure the Minister of Railways also would not have himself done such a thing; it was done when both were not here. He is a very able doctor, and I take this opportunity of saying that I will not make any disagreeable reflection on him to-night, and if he seemed offended because he lacked a sense of humour one day, I am sorry for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he is a very able doctor I should be afraid of his diagnosis if I were the hon. member.
Mr- POULIOT: I would never offend my hon. friend the Minister of Railways as a doctor, because he is a very able doctor and if I ever feel ill I hope he will come to my rescue.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I should send my hon. friend to the hospital.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think my hon. friend would like me to be in hospital when the estimates of the Department of Railways come up, but I am here and thank God I am in good health. If my hon. friend the minister were the cleverest lawyer in Canada; if he were as good a lawyer as he is a doctor, I should nevertheless say to him that he has a very bad case. Why did he take such a bad case? He is wasting his time trying to defend it. No one can explain it, and because no satisfactory explanation, is given I am fighting for an answer.
Mr. BENNETT; What was it the hon. member was asking for?


An hon. MEMBER:: He wants a station.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister is very familiar with the 
matter. He is very quick; he understands things, and he undoubtedly knows what I am asking for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was an epitaph.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is not an epitaph, but if a new station is not built the old station will be the epitaph of the Tory party in my county. It will not be a beautiful one for them, because that mausoleum is eaten away by rats. It is in terrible condition, as my English-speaking friends in the house will see by looking up the translation in Hansard of last Monday. For the honour of this government, and to show that the policies of the right hon. gentleman are put in practice, would it not be proper for him to tell the Canadian National Railways to go ahead and put in their budget for this year the same amount that they had put in it last year, and which has been spent for other purposes unknown. Is it not a fair suggestion?
I have another question to address to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. Since no station was built last year, would he agree to tell the house the amounts of the tenders that were put in for the construction of that station? I hear no answer from the minister, so I will put my question on the order paper and see if the minister will answer it then. Would it be against the interests of the railway or of the country to give that information to the public? I would not like to have the prices changed; I should like to get the original prices, which would prove my contention that the interference of the ^defeated Tory candidate in Temiscouata was the reason for the decision made by the acting Minister of Railways (Sir George Perley).
I see my friends the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works here tonight. I ask them if they had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the decision of the acting Minister of Railways in regard to this station. Did they have anything to do with the decision not to build that station? I wonder if the Postmaster General or the Minister of Public Works will tell me what was then said by the defeated Tory candidate, that it was not a proper time to build that station.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: My hon. friend
knows very well that if we did have any tiling to do with it we would not be able to disclose it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because it is not in the
interests of the country to know about it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
knows better than that; he knows that the

Canadian National Railways Act
oath of a privy councillor prevents him from disclosing any information such as the hon. gentleman is requesting.


Jean-François Pouliot: I trust my hon. friend
enough to believe him even when he is not under oath. Something mysterious happened, and a wrong was done. The Canadian National Railways wanted to build that station but were prevented from doing so by the acting minister. My friend the Minister of Railways said it was a matter of economy, but it was included in a vote of 851,600,000, which was spent; later on 811,000.000 was spent by the Canadian National Railways; S2.0C0,000 was spent very easily on the Welland canal, and $1,500,000 was taken from the unemployment fund to cover the interest on other railway expenditure. All that money was spent, but they could not find $7,000 to make up the difference between the amount of one tender and the amount voted by parliament.
I claim justice and fair play, Mr. Chairman, and in doing so I represent the views of my electors. They have sent me here to defend their rights, and that is what I am doing. Last winter several people suffered hunger because they could not get work, and that suffering would have been prevented if this building had been constructed at the proper time. In all fairness I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways to be good enough to take sufficient interest in this matter, so that their manner of dealing with things in connection with the Canadian National Railways may not be a standing reproach to them. It is all very well to spend large sums of money in the big cities, but the small centres should be treated fairly; because otherwise the carpenters and other workmen who are unable to secure employment in their own places have to migrate to the larger cities, thus adding to the numbers of the unemployed. This is one of the causes of unemployment in this country, and I can assure the leader of the government and his colleagues that it is a serious matter. Indeed, if the same thing had occurred in any other part of the country I would have taken the same stand, because one has to be fair to every section, the small centres as well as the larger ones. All the money should not be spent only in big cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I am not saying this critically; I am merely emphasizing my point. The country people who cannot get work at home migrate to the big cities, and this only increases unemployment, at the same time adding to the burden which now weighs upon the shoulders of the population.
For all these reasons, as we say in legal proceedings, I conclude, with the hope that in the near future the Prime Minister will put into effect the policy which he enunciated in Brandon and inform the Canadian National Railways that they have a free hand to do what they think best. Then they will resume their program and construct that building, which I am sure will be an asset to the community.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways to a situation which I pointed out to him some ten days ago, when he promised that he would have the matter looked into and give me a reply. Up to the present time I have not received that reply. I can well understand how busy the minister is, and I do not wish to blame him for the delay.


Robert James Manion: What was the subject?


Peter John Veniot: The resolution of the board of trade of Tracadie, regarding the cutting down of railway service in the county of Gloucester. I wish to deal with that question to-night in the hope of throwing some light upon it and placing the minister in a position where he may be able to take it up, more intelligently than he can at present, with the head office -at Montreal.
The Caraquet railway was taken over by the Canadian National Railways some years ago. It has become one of the most paying branches or feeders to the Canadian National Railways, if not the most paying, in the eastern section of the line. Up to this year we have had in the summer time a daily freight and passenger service. During the last two or three years we have had in winter season a regular daily freight service and passenger express service. The people of the lower section of Gloucester, through which the line runs, make up a population of about 35,000. They applied to the railway in 1928 for a daily express service in the summer. Knowing as I did that that could not be a paying undertaking, I did not approve of their application. I consulted the different interests of that section of the county and convinced them that they should confine their application to a daily express service in the winter, when it would pay. They did so and the railway granted a daily express winter service. That express is now on and will be taken off around the 26th of this month. We find no fault with the taking off of that service because in summer it will not pay, owing to the autobus and taxi service in that section of the country. But when the railway, for the sake of economy, deprives a population
918	COMMONS
Canadian National Railimys Act
of 35,000 people of the daily mixed freight and passenger service it is time I raised my voice in protest. [DOT]
The section of the county of Gloucester through which the railway passes has, as I have stated, a population of 35,000. We have some of the largest fisheries in the maritime provinces located along the line of this railway and if we are to have a railway service only three times a week the fishing business will foe completely destroj'ed, because the people will not be able to ship fresh fish to the Montreal market and elsewhere. The salmon fishing industry, which is now overburdened by new regulations, will be still further hampered by want of railway communication. The large cod-fishing industry in that part of the country will be seriously affected. The lower part of this county is one of the best sections of New Brunswick for the production of pulpwood. We have the oyster fishery also, which the Department of Fisheries is doing all it can to encourage, and that industry will be affected. We have large catches of mackerel to be shipped fresh. We shall have to go out of that business, because we cannot any longer continue it under the system which they are now going to adopt. We have lumber interests in the lower sections of the county which also will be affected. There are large quantities of railway ties taken out for the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and these too will be affected. The lower section of the county will be seriously handicapped, and I would point out to the minister that retrenchments are being made for the sake of economy, in the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways, which should not be affected. The Canadian National railway in that part of the country has had the largest carloadings in the last year of any section in Canada, and retrenchments in the interests of economy will only throw back the railway and create a larger deficit in the earnings of that section of the Canadian National. I know I shall be told that there are other sections of the Railway in the province of New Brunswick which have been curtailed. Yes; there has been a curtailment on the Valley railway from St. John to Fredericton and Centreville. But it must not be forgotten that all along that section the people have communication with three and four trains a day, furnished by the Canadian Pacific Railway, so that the curtailing of railway service by the Canadian National Railways would not and does not affect that section of New Brunswick as seriously as it affects the sec-[Mi. Veniot.]
tion in which I am interested, which has only one railway to depend upon.
Speaking of retrenchments in the administration of the railways, if the management at Moncton wished to economize, why did they keep on a daily freight train during the winter season when there was scarcely freight enough to keep the trains moving? That was the time to retrench rather than now when business is coming up, when large shipments of fish are about to take place, and when the interests of the country are more at stake than they are in the winter season. If they had retrenched in the month of December down to a month ago, they would have saved money and they would not have seriously affected the business interests of that section of the country. To-day there are 250 carloads of potatoes waiting to be shipped from that section of the county of Gloucester, and the very moment that we are getting a market for them we are deprived of the railway facilities that we should have in order to get those potatoes readily to market.
Let me go one step further and point out the discrimination which the railway authorities have shown in connection with the transportation of potatoes in that section of New Brunswick. Up the river St. John potato dealers have been allowed to ship their potatoes in bulk in refrigerator cars, but in the counties of Gloucester and Northumberland potato dealers were refused the same privilege, and they were told that they would have to bag their potatoes before they would be allowed to put them into refrigerator cars. The matter was taken up and it took some seven or eight days to have it adjusted. Finally we were permitted to ship our potatoes in bulk in refrigerator cars the same as others were doing elsewhere in New Brunswick. I would not even hint that the railway is playing politics in this matter: I do not believe the management would do so, but it looks as if a discrimination existed against that section of New Brunswick which was the only constituency in that province to elect a Liberal in the last general election.
Let me go a step further. In the reduction in railway service the little town of Bathurst in which I live and which has a population of about 6,000-when the Minister of Railways and Canals has finished conversing with his colleague, if he will listen to my case I shall proceed.


Robert James Manion: I have listened to every
word the hon. member has said, and I aim ready to reply as soon as he gives me an opportunity.

Canadian National Railways Act


Peter John Veniot: The minister cannot- catch everything that is going on and at the same time keep up a running conversation as he has 'been doing for the last five minutes.


Robert James Manion: Yes, he can.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is not saying much.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The minister has not a single-track mind.


Peter John Veniot: I want to say to the hon. gentleman who is interjecting, that I am endeavouring as best I can to lay the case of my people before the Minister of Railways and Canals. My arguments may not be sufficiently strong to convince hon. gentlemen opposite that the case is a good one, but I shall proceed and do the best I can.
In the little town of Bathurst, which is the junction point of the Caraquet railway with the main line of the Canadian National, I am credibly informed that within the last two months no less than twelve men have been thrown out of employment. Two train crews have been taken off, one off the shunting and one off the regular freight train. That represents a sum by way of yearly salary of 822,000 taken from that town, which is already suffering greatly from lack of employment owing to the fact that, for instance, the pulp and newsprint mill has been running only two or three days a week and was closed down entirely for several weeks during the winter months. The railway management should at least give to the 35,000 people living in the district through which that line passes, a daily freight and passenger service. If we could obtain that, it would help our business, keep our people at home and employed, and no injustice would be done to the numerous industries that are operating in that section of the province. Will the minister be kind enough to take this matter up, or if he has a reply to the question I put to him some ten days ago, will he give it to me to-night? If not, will he take the mattar up with the management of the railways and see if something cannot be done to give us at least a daily mixed freight and passenger service over the Caraquet road?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
made a plea that would convince a much harder hearted man than I am but unfortunately I am not the person who should be convinced in this regard. The persons who should be convinced are the management of the railways.


Peter John Veniot: We submitted our case to
them and we got no satisfaction.


Robert James Manion: Of course my hon. friend
would be the last man in the house to believe in political interference in a case where there should not be any.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly.


Robert James Manion: I must apologize to my
hon. friend for not having told him some days ago the result of my investigation but the result was so bad that I did not like to give it to him. I have a list handed to me by the management of the Canadian National as to the changes in traffic referred to by him in one of the cases of the Bathurst-Tracadie line. The mileage is a little over seventy-seven miles. According to the statement given to me by the National Railways the revenue per train mile on that road is thirteen cents and the expenditure or cost per train mile is $1.26-2. In other words, the cost is almost ten times the revenue.


Peter John Veniot: Is the period dealt with a year?


Robert James Manion: They do not state, but I
presume so. Even if the showing were a little better in the summer than in the winter, my hon. friend will admit that it would not make a very good showing even in the summer. They show that by taking off the daily service and putting on a tri-weekly service-


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to interrupt, but what daily service are they cutting off? There are two daily services there.


Robert James Manion: They give the present
service, number of trains daily, six days a week, as two. For the proposed service, number of trains daily, six days per week, they also give two, but they give the mixed train three days a week. That is the cut that is being made.


Peter John Veniot: At the present time we
have an express daily service and a freight daily service. The express daily service goes off, as a matter of fact, every spring, and instead of leaving us the mixed freight and passenger service on the basis of a daily service six days a week, they are going to give us the mixed freight and passenger service three times a week.


Robert James Manion: Well, whatever the cut
is that they have proposed, I am not going to argue what they are going to give the hon. member's section of the country. They give the mixed train service as three days a week. My hon. friend says that they are cutting off

Canadian National Railways Act
the express. I do not so understand from this, but I will accept his statement. They claim that by changing the service the saving will be $30,479. Under these circumstances, though the hon. gentleman has made on behalf of his section of the country a very eloquent plea that would convince me, I am afraid he will find it difficult to convince the management of the railway. In fact, I may tell him-I do this with no other object than to elucidate the point-that the data I have here shows that this particular service is the greatest loser of any service in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and the management in reducing that service are eliminating a loss of a little more than $30,000 a year.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I may be allowed a further word, Mr. Chairman, as this is a vrey serious matter. The comparison is not a fair one. The comparison is made for the year. It is not made along the line, of a daily mixed freight and passenger service. The passenger express which is on to-day was first put on in 1928, on the first of October, and that service caused a loss of $10,000 a month to the railway for the months of October and November and up to the 15th of December. The next year, in view of the loss incurred by that daily express, I advised the railway authorities at Moncton not to put on the service until somewhere around the 1st or the 15th of December. They looked into the matter, and acted accordingly. They were in competition with the auitobus and taxi services, and that is what made them lose that amount on the passenger traffic.
It may be that they can save $30,000 in a year by cutting out all this service and counting on it being cut out during the whole year. But the express service is operated only during four or five months in the year, and therefore I say that the comparison is not a fair one. It is said that figures cannot lie, but figures can be made to misrepresent facts, and when it comes to making a comparison of that kind, it ill becomes the management at Moncton to make the comparison in that way in order to convince the minister that there should not be an increase in the service.
Let me go further. The cutting off of this service and giving us only three trains a week will disrupt the mail service not only of the county of Gloucester but of every other section of the Dominion that is doing business with the county of Gloucester. The mail today is carried by rural route a distance of 28 miles and by train a distance of 68 miles. There will be no daily mail service by rail, and the Post Office Department will have to enter into new contracts, cancel the old confMr Manion.]
tracts they have for the side service from the railway and inaugurate either an autobus or a taxi mail service which will cost the country much more than the Canadian National Railway can save by this reduction in the service. It is simply robbing Paul to pay Peter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. YENIOT:: -Or robbing Peter to pay Paul. I did not use that, expression in any personal way simply because my name happens to be Peter.
The minister is quite right when he says that this case should be presented to the railway management at Moncton. It was first presented to the management at Moncton, and then to the management at Montreal; at least, that is my information. To-day a representative of the interests in the lower section of the province is waiting on Sir Henry Thornton in the hope of having the matter straightened out. So I say that we have gone to the proper authorities, and we have failed to get satisfaction. Now I come to the foot of the throne, and I am appealing to the infallible justice of the crown to see that the rights of the people be protected. Once more I ask the minister to take up this matter at Montreal and see if he cannot give that large population the service which they require. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, a population of 35,000 people getting only three trains a week. Even if there was a deficit of $30,000 a year, that is no worse than the deficits that we see throughout the country on other sections of the Canadian National Railway. Why should the maritime provinces be singled out? Why should we be told that there is a deficit of $30,000 a year on 68 miles of railway, and therefore our railway communication is to be cut down and we must put up with it? That is not a fair way of looking at the matter, simply to consider whether or not a service pays. When the service is stopped the people suffer, and the industries along the line of the railway must equally suffer. In having the railway service work detrimentally to those industries along the railway, you are increasing unemployment and you are not living up to the policy which the government has laid down of helping to relieve unemployment in the Dominion of Canada.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has just made a statement which I think should hardly go unchallenged, when he said that the railway management had singled out the maritime provinces. I happen to have with me a statement of the saving which the-

Canadian National Railways Act
Canadian National Railway proposes (o make in different sections of the country. It shows that while in the maritime provinces they expect to make a saving of something like $198,1)00, in the central section, comprising eastern Ontario and Quebec they expect to make a saving of nearly $500,000, and in the western region a saving of $250,000. So they are making reductions pretty generally throughout the whole country. I appreciate the hon. gentleman's plea, and more particularly because yesterday I had a deputation wait upon me in regard to this very same line of railway. The deputation was introduced by an oustanding and straightforward fine-looking chap from down there- perhaps my hon. friend remembers his name- it was Mr. Robichaud.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, my opponent.


Robert James Manion: He made an argument about on the same line as that of my hon. friend.


Peter John Veniot: He consulted me before doing it.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister happen to know that gentleman's politics?


Jean-François Pouliot: The Tories of that constituency are better than those in my constituency.


Robert James Manion: The deputation made
practically the same plea as that made by my hon. friend from Gloucester. I have already taken the matter up with the railways and laid the representations of my hon. friend and his friends and of the friends of Mr. Robichaud before the railway, but I will bring the matter again to the attention of the management. My hon. friend is quite at liberty, of course, to argue the matter out himself before the management, and there is still the last resort of appealing to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The hon. member for Gloucester has presented his case very ably, and I can assure him that it will be given fair consideration.


Peter John Veniot: This is my last word as to the comparison which the minister has placed before the house. He stated that in the eastern section, by the elimination of certain accommodation, the railway will save $198,000, while in the central section, Ontario and Quebec, it will save $500,000. Perhaps the Minister of Railways is not familiar with the territory in the maritime provinces, or if he is, he gave me no evidence of it when making such a comparison. In the maritime provinces the old Intercolonial railway is the only railway of main line dimensions that we have between Levis and Halifax, and between Truro and Sydney, and when you are cutting out a service in that section of the country to the extent of saving $198,000, while you save only $500,000 in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where you have the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway all giving accommodation, then 1 claim that the comparison is unfair and unjust, and it should not be used as an argument against the maritime provinces.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, while I do not agree with some of the remarks of the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) I must confess that many of the statements he has made on this question I am pleased to corroborate to the fullest degree. In the first place we must remember the purpose for which the Intercolonial Railway was built. Its construction was not carried out from an economic point of view but was regarded by the Fathers of Confederation as necessary to providing means of communication between the lower and upper provinces, and making Canada into one great dominion. To-day I believe we are looking upon this railway system more particularly from an economic point of view, and I think we ought not to lose sight of the London agreement, which was hidden away for so many years and upon which the British North America Act was framed. We in the maritime provinces feel that sometimes so far as railway rates are concerned, we are not treated on the same basis as other parts of Canada. Hon. members, should take into consideration the distances over which freight has to be hauled in other parts of Canada and compare them with the distance in the maritime provinces; you in western and central Canada say that the distances are much shorter, yet your rates are lower than ours. At the same time hon. members forget that the Intercolonial railway was originally built by the people of Canada for the purpose of cementing the lower with the upper and central parts.
I wish to make some futher remarks in connection with the cut in the service of the railway companies. In the constituency I represent in the province of New Brunswick we have experienced a cut in service. I am not saying that, the cut was not warranted; I do-not stand here to-night for the purpose of saying that the railway companies of Canada should not be operated economically so that they may serve the interests of all the people 'of Canada. I do say, however, that the exPostmaster General made a rather unhappy
Canadian National Railways Act

comparison of the treatment which had been accorded to the people of the St. John river and the people in the constituency he represents. He tried to contrast the service in my constituency with that which had been accorded to the people of the country of Gloucester. Surely he knows that the very same treatment which was accorded to his people in the county of Gloucester was accorded to the people along the St. John river, namely, that when they had restrictions placed upon them in respect to the shipment of their potatoes in bags from Gloucester county the same restriction was placed upon the people along the St. John river. That restriction was placed upon us by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railway companies. It applied to both companies at the same time. If my hon. friend had wanted to be fair he might have said that those farmers who shipped on what was known as the Gulf Shore and Caraquet railway did not ship their potatoes in bulk last fall when they could and should have shipped them, the same as we did. They waited until this spring because they thought the price would be better. However these restrictions when they came into effect hurt them a little more than some of the other people in the province of New Brunswick. These are statements of fact which my hon. friend cannot refute; he knows they are true. There was no discrimination. So far as the railways are concerned I simply want to say the same rules were applied in connection with the St. John river district that applied to the Gloucester county section from which my hon. friend comes. At all times I shall try to say a word on behalf of the people of the maritime provinces, and on behalf not only of my own constituency but of the county represented by my hon. friend the exPostmaster General. I would be pleased to say a word on behalf of Prince Edward Island, of Nova Scotia or any other portion of the maritime section of Canada. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain from challenging the statements which have been made by the exPostmaster General to the effect that there was discrimination in favour of the farmers along the St. John river against those in the county of Gloucester which he happens to represent.


Peter John Veniot: Were you not allowed to
ship potatoes in bulk in refrigerator cars?
Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton); Yes, and you were allowed to do the same thing at the same time.


Peter John Veniot: No, we were not.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I beg
your pardon, you were.
tMr. B. F. Smith.]


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman-


Benjamin Franklin Smith: There
was no discrimination shown.


Peter John Veniot: We were refused the right. We had to send a delegation to Moncton to obtain the right to ship.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: When
were you refused the right?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. Hon. members
must address the chair.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: We were refused the right at the same time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
like to take a minute or two of the time of this committee to speak to the question of the reduction of train service in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Chairman, I rise
to a point of order. Would you please tell me under what clause of this bill the present discussion is taking place?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Clause 2-no, it is
clause 1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
like to say-


Robert Gardiner: Is this discussion in
order?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, as yet I have
not heard any point of order taken.


Robert Gardiner: My point of order is
that we are dealing with clause 2.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, let
us stay at it for a little while.


Robert Gardiner: It is a clause concerning the appointment of a person to represent the Minister of Railways and Canals to investigate any matters pertaining to the Canadian National Railway. I submit, Mr. Chairman, the cutting off of train service does not come under this particular clause.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The question of the directors of the Canadian National Railways involves a matter of policy.


Robert Gardiner: I understand we are
dealing with clause 2.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I
understand it we are dealing with clause 1.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Clause 1.


Robert Gardiner: We are not-

Canadian National Railways Act


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the discussion
should be confined to the clause under consideration, but it may to a certain extent involve the policy of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On that
ground I would like to address a few remarks to the chair in answer to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) who has made a very eloquent plea on behalf of his constituents.
I wish to speak in a general way of the situation in the province of New Brunswick. There has been no discrimination against the county represented by the hon. member for Gloucester. All of us who are within the sphere and influence of the Canadian National Railways in the province of New Brunswick are feeling the pinch of the cut in the service.
I feel that the people themselves in a degree are at fault because they are not patronizing the railway companies but are using the cheaper modes of travel such as motor busses and motor cars which are operating in direct competition and conflict with railroad traffic. That is the tendency all over the American continent, and it is one to which we cannot shut our eyes.
At the same time I have something further to say with respect to the management of the railways. I do not wish to interfere with or attempt to dictate to them, but I do think that in their new-found zeal for economy- and I use those words advisedly, having regard to what we have seen in relation to the operation of both railways in days gone by- in cutting to the bare bone they are going too far. I am not familiar with the railroad which traverses the country between Bathurst and Tracadie. In days gone by I had the discomfort of travelling over it, before it became part of the national system. The district through which this railway passes is very thickly populated, and I do not see how it can be served by a tri-weekly service. It seems to me that the railway should adopt a .middle course, and if I can say anything in favour of their doing so I want to say it here and now. Instead of running an express and freight service over that 77 miles of road, as they have been doing in recent months, they should run a mixed train daily up and down the entire section. By so doing they would save a very substantial sum of money. There are other portions of the province of New Brunswick served by the Canadian National Railways which are not being discriminated against by the cutting down of service that is being put in to effect in other sections, but in which the service has been reduced beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances. I think that will be the
sense of members from the province representing the constituencies affected. I would suggest to my friend the Minister of Railways that in this zeal for economy they do not go too far, because if they do I believe they will defeat the very purpose they have in view.
In addition the question of postal service must be considered, only to-day I received representations from my constieuency with relation to that particular matter. It is from the country lying between the city of Fredericton and the town of Woodstock, a distance of 65 miles, perhaps the oldest portion of settled country in the province of New Brunswick. To my knowledge it has been in enjoyment of a daily mail service for thirty years. That service is to be out down to three times a week. I protest. I have suggested to the department that they put on a motor service to take care of the three days when the trains are not running; that is a consideration in connection with the reduced service, and this alternative will cost a considerable sum of money. I would suggest that instead of going to the extreme that they have gone to in relation to the operation of these branch lines in New Brunswick, they endeavour to adopt a happy medium. This, I think, could be worked out and still save a large sum of money, without starving the service as is now proposed.
Mr. HANBURY; Do I understand from the minister that the directors are solely responsible for the direction and operation of the Canadian National Railways?
Mr. MAN'ION: The directors in association with the managing officers of the railway, yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: The directors are in control of the management, and they would have authority, if they wished, to make a change in the management?


Robert James Manion: No, I should hardly like to say that. They are not in control of the .management; they work in association with the management. I presume that if one of jthe high executive officers did something illegal or something that would justify his dismissal, the directors would have a good deal to say in the matter; but they are not in a position to dictate to the officers of the system.	.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister suggests, then, that the management is really not subject to the government?


Robert James Manion: Absolutely; so far as the administration of the system is concerned the government has not anything whatever to do

Canadian National Railways Act
with the management. In regard to these questions which we have been discussing for the last hour, the government has nothing whatever to do with them; the reductions in train service were decided by the management. May I say that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the same way has decided to cut down its services on many lines. I have had some protests in that regard also, although not so many, because naturally the people think we have more influence in dealing with the national system. The cutting down of the train service is entirely a part of the. policy of the Canadian National Railways management in an endeavour to bring their expenditure somewhere near their revenue. May I point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) who a moment ago on behalf of New Brunswick dealt generally with the subject in an excellent speech, that while it is true that the mail service may be interfered with by some reduction in train service, I think it is hardly fair to say that the, Canadian National Railways, with a heavy deficit, should be asked to handle at a loss the mail service. Any additional cost for such service, say 810,000, should be undertaken by the Post Office department, or, if you will, by the country generally.


Wilfred Hanbury: If the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company desire to make any change in the management or the presidency they would have full authority to do so. Would the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways have similar authority?


Robert James Manion: The present president of the Canadian National Railways was appointed by the late government, under an agreement, for a period of five years from 1908 at a certain salary. So the directors, without very good cause, would not, I presume, be in a position to interfere with him; and of course, the president has control of the officers under him.


William Daum Euler: Is this not the fact, that the only authority the government exercises, so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, is by way of appointment of a board of directors and the president of the road, exercising control, also, we will say, over capital expenditure? Is that not the extent of the authority exercised by the government?


Robert James Manion: That is absolutely correct.


William Daum Euler: The operation of the railway itself is entirely in the hands of the management.
[Mr. Manion.J


Robert James Manion: Yes. It must be remembered that, as Minister of Railways, I receive representations such as we have heard tonight, and I find it my duty to pass those representations on to the management. I suppose that every day I send to Sir Henry Thornton some five to ten representations of one kind or another, which I feel are matters for his consideration and that of his officers. I have no control whatever over the, management.


William Daum Euler: You might do that too, occasionally, so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned?


Robert James Manion: I do. I had a letter this morning from Mr. Grant Hall with regard to representations that I passed on to him in connection with the cutting down of train service in British Columbia.


Frederick George Sanderson: Many hon. members are receiving petitions and resolutions from county councils and township councils and also from farmers' clubs in regard to the freight rates on farm commodities. I have received several myself and have been asked to send them on to the Minister of Railways, and in one case to the Prime Minister; which I did. He acknowledged the petition and advised me to send a copy of it to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Minister of Railways also acknowledged those I sent to him. Three I sent to him to-day which he will not get until to-morrow morning. He also advised me to communicate with the railway commission. I desire to read one of these petitions, Mr. Chairman; they are all in the same form. This particular one is from a .township council in my constituency:
We, the members of municipal council feeling .that one of the heaviest burdens carried by agriculture to-day is that of high freight rates, *wish to draw your attention to and ask your careful consideration of the following resolution:
Whereas prices obtainable for farm products now are on the average considerably below pre-war prices, and
Whereas the farmers of Ontario find it practically impossible to make a fair living on their farms, and
Whereas freight charges on hauling farm products to markets are the same as they were when prices of these products were at their peak, being in some cases several times what the Ontario farmer receives net to-day for his product, and
Whereas we believe that the keen competition which trucking services now provide for the railways can best be overcome by establishing competitive freight rates and securing a larger volume of business;
Therefore we urge on the government, through your department, the necessity of a downward revision of freight rates on farm commodities so that at the low prices now

Canadian National Railunys Act
prevailing we may be enabled to make a living which will compare favourably with that enjoyed by other classes who perform a service of no greater value.
I am quite aware that the government are correct when they say that the question of freight rates is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, but I would request the government, and especially the Minister of Railways, to take these resolutions and petitions into very serious consideration, because they have to do with a grievance held by the farmers of Ontario and of every province in Canada. If the Minister of Railways would use his good office and the persuasive powers he has displayed at times in the house, and take up the matter seriously with the railways and if necessary with the Board of Railway Commissioners, because it is a vital matter and one of public interest, something might be done. The question of freight rates, especially as thejr pertain to the farming community, is really important, and I would call upon the Minister of Railways now to make some commitment to-night that he will at least consider serio'usly these resolutions and petitions and make some effort to right the wrong under which the farmers are labouring at the present time. Would the minister be good enough to take that into his consideration?


Robert James Manion: I suppose I have had
some hundreds of resolutions of this type sent to me from various parts of the country, but I must point out what my hon. friend pointed out in his opening remarks, that freight rates are not under my control in any shape or form. Freight rates, and for that matter passenger rates as well on the railways, are entirely in the hands first of the railways themselves and then of the Board of Railway Commissioners, over which I have no control any more than my hon. friend.
Now, in regard to my taking the matter under serious consideration, I certainly consider it a serious matter, but there is another very serious matter which we cannot forget. That is the fact that the revenues of the Canadian National Railways-and the Canadian Pacific Railways as well, because what affects one affects the other in regard to rates -are to-day decreasing materially even as compared with last year, and last year's earnings were very much lower than those of the year before. For example, in 1930 the gross earnings of the Canadian National Railways amounted to $46,000,000 less than in 1929. and at the rate they have been going so far, this year they will earn about $46,000,000 less than they earned last year.
That is the way it looks now, because according to statements which have been published in the press, and to which my hon. friend had access just as I did, although they were sent to me personally as well, the decrease in earnings of the Canadian National Railways for the first three months of 1931 as compared with the same period of 1930 was over $12,000,000, and last year they were down about $12,000,000 as compared with the year before.
When you take that into consideration, Mr. Chairman, and when you have regard also to the fact that last year the Canadian National Railways were nearly $30,000,000 short of paying their interest charges to the public, to say nothing at all of the $32,000 000 interest on money loaned by the government or paid by the government at various times to the national railways, their subsidiaries or their original component parts, it will be seen just how serious it is. When you consider these things, you cannot really argue very strongly that either the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position to cut freight rates at all, if they are to keep their heads above water. So I must confess to my inability to argue very strongly that the railways must bring down their freight rates.
May I tell my hon. friend and the committee generally that demands are coming in from all over the country, not only for capital expenditures which I mentioned yesterday but for freight rate reductions. I suppose nearly every day I receive requests from some section of this country to move freight of one kind or another for nothing. not for just a cut in rates but for a movement free. For instance, the other day quite a well known member of this house requested that some carloads of seed grain be moved about fifteen hundred miles for nothing. On a number of occasions within the last few weeks I have had requests to move potatoes from one section of the country to another for nothing. I do not suppose I could name any commodity which I have not been requested within the last few weeks to endeavour to get one railway or the other to move for nothing, or next to nothing. In many cases the request was that the movement should cost absolutely nothing. I feel that as far as these freight rates are concerned, if the railways are to be asked to make such reductions for the good of the country, then the country as a whole must pay the bill rather than the railways. It is not fair to ask either the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific
Canadian National Railways Act

Railway to carry freight for nothing. As I say, if it is in the interests of the country that freight should be carried for nothing, then the country should pay the piper.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Does not
my hon. friend think the country is putting up enough now?


Robert James Manion: I think the country is
putting up too much now.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is not the public now paying the deficits of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: I should say the public is paying.


Frederick George Sanderson: This further reduction in freight rates would be a very small matter to the public if it were divided all over the Dominion of Canada. The question is one of vital public importance.


Mr. McDADE:: It is a matter for the
railway commission, is it not?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, but surely
parliament has something to say about such a question as this, which affects the farming communities of the whole Dominion.


Robert James Manion: And may I suggest as
well that parliament has a good deal to say about the financial condition of this country. That condition is not such that $100,000,000 a year can be added to the national debt in respect of the national railways without affecting our financial structure. -That is the way it seems to me, and I do not think we have any right to increase the expenses of the national railways, which are already very heavy, and at the same time decrease their earning power. The Canadian Pacific Railway, in common with all other railways of this continent, is being hit just about as hard as the Canadian National, and I do not think it is the duty of parliament, of the Minister of Railways or of the government to ask the railways to absorb a greater loss than they are absorbing now. It is only fair to say that the railways in Canada claim that their freight rates are lower than freight rates for equal distances in the United States, and I think that fact has been proven many times. The railways claim that to be the case, and I think it is true. That being so, it seems fair that the people who ship the freight should pay the freight rates rather than the people generally who are not shipping freight, and I do not think it is fair to ask the railways to make any more decreases in freight rates, in a general way, such as those suggested in the resolution read by my hon. friend.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I point out to
the Minister of Railways that in this particular instance, in connection with the petition of the farmers, in the first place the product which they are shipping does not return a price sufficient to cover the cost of production. To that must be added the present freight rates, and I suggest to the minister that he put it to the railway companies in this way: that possibly by putting lower freight rates into effect they would get more business. A large proportion of farm commodities is now transported by trucks, automobiles and so on. A reduction in freight rates might mean an increase in business for the two railway companies and so bring in more revenue. To my mind this is a question which should not be lightly passed over, and I think the minister will agree with me that it is a matter of great importance. I would stress the point that the minister at least should give it serious consideration. If the Board of Railway Commissioners have full jurisdiction in ithe matter, a question of this importance should be brought to their attention by the Minister of Railways and by the government of the day. I would ask the minister to take it into consideration and at least get in touch with the board. I believe that in almost every case where petitions have come to members of this house they have sent copies to the secretary of the board. I repeat, the minister should give the matter his very serious consideration.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Has the matter been referred lately to the board?


Robert James Manion: Yes, these petitions have been sent to the board, and the hon. member has as much right to appear before that board as I have. The Board of Railway Commissioners is a judicial body which passes upon any changes in freight rates made by the railways, and any citizen can appear before it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Wouldn't the minister have more weight before the board?


Robert James Manion: No; it is a judicial body and I have no more weight before them than anyone else has. As regards taking the matter into consideration, this has been done; the question is before the board.


Paul Mercier: Was it a matter that applied to the whole of Canada or to a particular locality?


Robert James Manion: You cannot cut rates on one railway without affecting the other.


Paul Mercier: It applied to Canada in general?

Canadian National Railways Act


Robert James Manion: That is what the petition asks for.


William Daum Euler: While I have every sympathy with the pleas made by various hon. members on both sides of the house on behalf of their own constituencies in certain localities in the country, I must admit that I have also a good deal of sympathy with the views advanced by the minister with regard to rates. It appears to me that the pleas made to-night are in nearly all cases pleas to make the national railways reduce their rates. In other words, hon. members seems to think that the Canadian National Railways can be called upon to make sacrifices which ordinarily neither the Canadian Pacific Railway nor any other private railway would be asked to make. We have to make up our minds what the function of the Canadian National Railways is, and whether we are to use them only for the benefit of the country, without any reference to the rates that should be paid. If that is the case, we might as well decide to nationalize them completely and give free service just as we do in the case of canals-the wisdom of which I have questioned before-having the people pay the cost of running the railways, and allowing everyone to travel and to ship his goods free.


Robert James Manion: And having the Canadian Pacific Railway go bankrupt.


William Daum Euler: My contention always has been, inasmuch as I am a friend of public ownership, that we should give the system a fair chance, and allow the Canadian National Railways to run their business on business principles, the same as the Canadian Pacific Railway. While offhand one might have sympathy with the pleas that have been put forward, because they are sectional, and members wish to please their own constituents, nevertheless the minister should be very firm, no matter what party may make representations, and allow the national railways to manage the system with a free hand, just as a private corporation is conducted, on the merits of every case. Representations have been made to the effect that the minister should use his good offices, his genial and sunny ways, with the railways, to induce them to make reductions. I am afraid he would not have very much success. The railways know their business pretty well, and I certainly would object to the minister's attempting to use his influence with the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is entirely outsidle his functions as Minister of Railways to attempt to use any influence whatever with the board. There, again, I do not think he would meet with success, and he ought not to.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I have been very much interested in the arguments of some hon. gentlemen respecting rates in their vicinity, where the Canadian National Railways have endeavoured to save some money by a curtailment of service. Let me cite a case in point. The minister wrote me some months ago respecting twelve miles of road in my constituency, informing me that the Canadian National Railways deemed it advisable in the interests of the system to close that road because it was not paying. I examined into the matter and told him to close it. Why is the railway not making a profit on that road? Simply because the people along the road are not using it; they are using some other system. But the people are there just the same; they have produce to ship and they are using some other system that is cheaper. If that is the case, is it any hardship to close the road or to curtail the traffic? Not at all. If the people do not use the road then they should have the traffic closed, and I told the minister to close it up. If it is not paying we have no right to keep it going. A stretch of twelve miles of road costs this country a considerable sum of money to keep open. If these pieces of road throughout the country are not being used, what is the use of keeping them open? If there are other means of transportation, why keep the road open? The people themselves are the judges whether they want it or not. All along the road in my county there are good highways and the people are using motor tracks rather than the railway line to carry their stuff into the city. More than that, they are not using the line for passenger service. I think we have a right to stand behind the management, especially when they desire to curtail expenses on the road. By curtailing expenses in sections that are not being used, you can possibly reduce rates on other lines which the people are using. You cannot do it otherwise.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the quorum of the board of directors now and what will it be after the bill is passed?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I cannot
answer that question offhand, but I believe a
majority constitutes a quorum.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to inform me some other time when he gets the information.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Paul Mercier: Does not the minister regard the directors as an advisory board?

Canadian National Railways Act


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: This section of the bill is probably wide enough to admit the discussion that has taken place, and I wish to join, on behalf of a section of the province of Nova Scotia, in the protests that have been made in the interests of New Brunswick. I have reference to one piece of railway extending from Point Tupper to St. Peters. It has been operated by the Canadian National Railways for the last fourteen or fifteen years. It was purchased from an American concern about that time and since then has given daily service, and good service too. Now it is rumoured that it will be reduced to a tri-weekly service. The people in that section of the country are entitled to a little better service. Indeed, instead of curtailing tha service and making it tri-weekly the Canadian National Railways should extend it. The fact that the service is not extensive enough is possibly one of the reasons that the road is not paying. In some cases where thirty miles of road have been built, there should have been sixty miles. If the railways extended this line to the town of Louisburg, they would have a branch that would probably pay is way; whereas the curtailment to a tri-weekly service will cause great dissatisfaction in that section, dislocate railway arrangements, and interfere with the management of the trains. The men will be transferred to Sydney, and altogether it is going to create a situation which will be very embarrassing. With reference to the daily mail service which it is stated they will have to cut, I would appeal to the Minister of Railways to see to it that at least this service is continued. If the finances of the railways are not sufficient this year, then next year or the year after, I trust we shall see the St. Peters road put through to Louisburg.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for St.
Henri asked me if the board of directors is an advisory board. The board of directors is more than that; I take it it is exactly the same type of board as the Canadian Pacific board of directors. The board could, if it chose, veto an act or proposed act or proposed policy of the management. The board of directors really directs or should direct, if it is properly fulfilling its functions, and I have no doubt that the board of directors recently appointed will do that. May I emphasize in that connection that so far as we are concerned the 'board of directors are handling the railway? We have nothing whatever to do with the policy of the railways. That, I think, answers my hon. friend's question.

As regards the line about which the hon. member for South Cape Breton has been speaking, I have to express the same feelings as I did with respect to the others; that is, I sympathize with him in his case and I shall lay his representations before the management. But the management have decreed that many of these lines in various part of the country shall be curtailed so far as service is concerned. I have no doubt, if business picks up, they will be only too glad to restore the daily service which they previously had, but at the present time it is the intention of the management, according to the statement which they gave to me, to curtail some of the services, and I am afraid the St. Peters-Point Tupper branch is one of them. There are two lines mentioned, but I believe after a further examination they have changed their opinion in regard to one of them. Whether it is the one referred to or another in the near neighbourhood, I am not sure. The management, however, is in control, and the best I can do is to say that I shall see to it .that the management receive the representations of my hon. friend in that regard.


Finlay MacDonald: What about the mail service?


Robert James Manion: As regards the mail service, it is not fair that the railway, if it is losing anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 on a branch line, should be compelled to operate it in order to provide the mail service. There are other and perhaps cheaper ways of carrying the mails than by passenger train. If the mail service be the only issue involved, the railway, unless it has a contract to that effect, will not agree to assume the heavy loss that would be entailed by maintaining the service in order to carry the mail.
Mr. MERCIER St. Henri):	I thank the
minister for the answer he has given. I understand the newly appointed directors have the full responsibility of the administration of the railways?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Paul Mercier: I thank the minister.


William Duff: I understood the reference
made by the minister with regard to curtailment of service was entirely in connection with branch lines. If the branch lines do not pay, and consequently the service is to be curtailed, why should the same thing not apply on the main line?


Robert James Manion: I think it does.

Canadian National Railways Act


William Duff: For instance, I do not think
it is fair to people living in country districts, which have been given a daily service for a number of years, that they should now be put to the inconvenience of a tri-weekly service, while people living along the main line are subjected to no such inconvenience although the main line trains are losing more money than the branch line trains. When the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton were speaking and the minister indicated that the Tracadie-Bathurst line lost some $30,000 last year, I took my pencil and did some figuring. This line is about seventy miles in length. Assuming that there are about 22,000 miles of railway comprising the whole national system, branch lines and main lines all over Canada. 1 figure that a loss of $33,000,000 last year, according to the information given, would work out at $1,500 a mile. This Traeadie-Bathurst line, the service on which the management is going to cut down to three days a week, did not lose $1,500 a mile, because $1,500 a mile for seventy miles would mean a loss of $105,000. The people living along the line from Tracadie to Bathurst or from Point Tupper to St. Peters or any other branch line in the country should not be treated differently from people along the main lines.


Robert James Manion: I do not think they are.
According to the intention of the railways, there are going to be cuts in connection with both of the great systems, the national and the Canadian Pacific, in regard to the transcontinental runs also. That statement applies to what my hon. friend has just said. For instance, in the maritimes there are two trains, the Ocean Limited and the Acadian. One of those, I do not remember which just now, is, I think to be discontinued this year. I am saying that subject to correction but I think I am right. As regards the transcontinental service on both railways they are modifying it to some extent. For instance, as regards the fast transcontinental trains that are put on during the summer, they are being started later and discontinued earlier than in the past. Therefore the people across the whole country are being affected in the same way. What I believe both railways have done is to pick out the lines where they are making their heaviest losses in proportion and discontinuing or curtailing the service to a certain extent. I understand the point made by my hon. friend, but so many considerations enter into the earnings on investment in the national as well as the Canadian Pacific that it would be difficult to figure the thing out as my hon. friend has done on
a basis of so much loss on so many miles. The investment in the national railways is so immense to-day that the interest alone is a very large item. The question of transcontinental service has to be considered from the standpoint of absolute necessity. Across Canada there are some sections where a transcontinental service could not be discontinued because there would be no possibility of serving that section in any other way. There are certain parts of the country that could not be served by motor vehicles of any kind.


Mr. LUCAS:: I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to mail service. Where the railways are giving a six-day mail service at the present time and they cut that service to tri-weekly, will they receive the same amount for carrying the mail or will there be a reduction?


Robert James Manion: There will naturally be a reduction. The matter all depends upon the contract. If the railways have a contract to carry mail six days a week and cut the service to three days, they will certainly not receive the same amount of money as for the six-day service.


William Thomas Lucas: While I quite agree with the minister that the railways cannot be expected to carry on a service where they are making a loss, it is hardly fair that the people should be deprived of the mail service. If there is going to be a cut, the government will save a certain amount on the mail service in view of the lessened train service, and therefore it is only fair that the government, through the Post Office department, should provide some other means of providing the daily mail service. I know that does not come under the Department of the Minister of Railways, but I hope he will bring it before his colleague the Postmaster General so that it may be dealt with.


Robert James Manion: I have no doubt the people affected will see to it that the matter is brought before the Post Office department. If they forget to do so, it will be the only thing that has been forgotten this year.


Jean-François Pouliot: I listened to the hon.
member for Lincoln, who spoke in almost extreme terms, and to the hon. member for North Waterloo, who proved to-night to be an extremist. This is the first time that I have heard the reductio ad absurdum reasoning here. The hon. member for North Waterloo says that the railway would have to carry passengers or freight free. I would point out that if the Minister of Railways has received so many requests for reductions in freight

Canadian National Railways Act
rates it has been because of the business depression. He has told us that the deficit on the Canadian National for the first three months this year averaged about $4,000,000 a month.


Robert James Manion: Pardon me-the decrease
in earnings this year as compared with last year. A deficit is not the same thing.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to misquote my hon. friend. I understood, however, that the business on the railway this year was not so good as in the previous year. This depression will not last forever. Business will improve in due course, and we should not forget that once again we will have business as usual. As soon as business conditions improve and people are able to make more money by selling their goods at better prices, they will not need freight rate reductions so badly, so I suggest to the minister not to advise the Canadian National management to make too many cuts in their present expenditures. It has been stated by Sir Henry Thornton and by Mr. Hungerford, the vicepresident of the railway, that cordial relations between the management and the employees is the keynote of efficiency. In hard times particularly the management should have sufficient regard for the welfare of the employees to keep them on as long as they possibly can. To reduce the staff of employees would only be to impose an additional burden on the country. I ask the minister, therefore, to be kind enough not to ask for too many curtailments in the expenditures of the railway. I must confess that I felt a little jealous when he said he had been convinced by the plea of my hon. friend from Gloucester. I hope that I also have been able to convince him in my plea for the station at Riviere du Loup.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to my hon. friend that he will have a better chance of convincing us if he does not argue so much.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have made such a
good start that perhaps I may speak to my hon. friend again with respect to the station at Riviere du Loup. I thank him in the meantime.


Mr. PICKEL:: I would invite the attention of the committee to two roads in my county where curtailment in the service is going to cause very considerable hardship, and where the people will suffer in a way that has not been mentioned here to-night. They are two milk routes, one on the Canadian National railway from St. Johns to Noyan, and the other on the Orford Mountain branch

of the Canadian Pacific railway. The farmers in that district have no other means than the railway of getting their milk and cream to market.


Paul Mercier: Does it
matter very much with butter at its present price?


Follin Horace Pickel: It is not butter I am speaking of. The farmers are taking their milk and cream into the cities, and the curtailment of the service will work a hardship not only on the farmers but on the city residents if the farmers are unable to get their produce to market. Milk and cream are perishable products, and a tri-weekly service will not answer very well. I have already spoken to the minister with respect to these services, and he has promised to use his influence. I have also communicated with the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I have not heard from them.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I notice that the hon.
member for Lincoln, when speaking of a railway of twelve miles in his constituency, said that he had received a letter from the Minister of Railways. I wonder if it has been the practice of the minister to write to the different members throughout the Dominion before a cancellation of railway service is made.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member was
written to simply because the railway management had told me incidentally that they were going to cancel that service. They said that that was their intention, and I wrote and advised the hon. member. So far as other members are concerned, my hon. friend may judge from the protests that are coming from behind me, from supporters of the government, that they have been hit very much heavier, particularly in the maritimes, where there are more of them, than hon. members on the other side of the house. I may say that I have had no communication with them. That is not the practice, nor would I have communicated in the case my hon. friend has mentioned, except that I happened to know what the intentions of the management were, and I advised the hon. member for Lincoln, and he took the big business attitude that if the road was not paying the service should be discontinued.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: The explanation of the miinster is clear, but the declaration of the hon. member for Lincoln left me under the impression that he had received an intimation from the Minister of Railways who was seek-

Canadian National Railways Act
mg to get his sanction of the discontinuance of that service, and that the hon. member consented to have the service withdrawn.


James Dew Chaplin: That is only a surmise on your part.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Last night when we
were dealing with this question of railway service I pointed out to the Minister of Railways that I thought the people would always be fair with respect to curtailments in railway service if the facts and figures and the actual business situation of any particular piece of road were placed before them. I do not think that the people want a railway service that is not paying. It is only natural with conditions as they are to-day that the farmers should be demanding reductions in freight rates. I believe that the real reason for that demand is found in the prices which the farmers are being paid today for their wheat and coarse grains, and I believe that that demand will continue until better prices prevail throughout the Dominion for wheat and coarse grains.
But what I particularly rose to ask, Mr. Chairman, was a question dealing with Canadian National directors. Before the committee rose at six o'clock we were dealing with the directorate representation of the Canadian National Railways, and I understood the minister to say that there would not be what we might term geographical representation or sectional representation. That simply means that the populated and more highly developed areas of Canada will not receive greater representation than areas that are not as well populated or industrially developed. That brings me to the question I wish to ask of the minister. I understand that there are fifteen directors and that two more are to be appointed, seventeen in all. There are two provinces in Canada not represented on the board at the present moment, Alberta and Saskatchewan. When the representation is made complete, will the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, comprising the greater part of western Canada, have provincial representation on the board?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Thank you.


Paul Mercier: What are the occupations of the directors appointed by the government?


Robert James Manion: The occupations are various. The representative from Prince Edward Island is a merchant farmer; probably he might be called a trader. The hon. member for West
22110-59J
Algoma has suggested to me that Hansard of yesterday contains the answer to a question setting out the occupations of the directors.


Paul Mercier: Do they know something about railways before they are appointed?


Robert James Manion: Some of them did. They would know as much as directors of other companies know concerning the companies with which they are connected.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or as little.


Wilfred Hanbury: With regard to railway rates I would like to call to the attention of the minister one point in connection with a reduction of rates which would develop business. At the present time both railway companies have all the rails and equipment necessary to haul lumber from British Columbia to any port in Canada. On the other hand I understand the Canadian National steamships are operating a steamship line at a loss in competition with the rail service. Lumber of different kinds has been hauled at the same rate; for instance, the higher finished product, such as flooring and ceilings, enjoys the same rate as the rough sawn material used for rough purposes. There is no distinction whatever in the rate charged. On a previous occasion a suggestion was made to the railway company that they keep for the rail service the hauling of approximately 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 feet of lumber which goes annually to the St. Lawrence river by making a reduction on the rough sawn material, but not on the highly finished or manufactured article. As I see the matter at the present time the Canadian National steamships are operating a steamship line in competition with the railway line and I understand they are suffering a loss on their steamship service. Now we learn there is a loss on the rail service. I mention this fact merely as a suggestion to the minister.


Robert James Manion: What is your suggestion?


Wilfred Hanbury: My suggestion is that the rate on this rough sawn lumber from British Columbia to points on the St. Lawrence river be reduced.


Robert James Manion: Via the railways?


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes, by rail, but not on the highly finished article. Yesterday afternoon the minister was good enough to give us the assurance that he had no knowledge of the affiliations of the gentlemen who have been made directors of the Canadian National Railways. I am sure he expects us to accept that statement as his assurance that there will
932	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways Act
be no political interference with the Canadian National Railways and no attempt to use them in any way as a basis of patronage. I assume that he is giving the house that assurance. Supposing however that patronage did happen to creep in-although I must confess I cannot conceive how under the present directorate it could-would the country look to the board to correct the fault, or would the government take the responsibility? The minister has told us that the board have full responsibility. I am suggesting to him that it. is the responsibility of the government to see that there is no political patronage in connection with the operation of the Canadian National Railways, and I would now suggest that he give the committee some assurance to that effect.


Robert James Manion: iSo far as I know there is no political patronage in regard to the Canadian National Railways. As to assuring my hon. friend of what will happen if in the future it should occur, in view of the fact that I have so many troubles to which 1 must attend at the present time I hope he will wait until such patronage occurs bet ore he asks me to deal with it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend's troubles have only started.


Robert James Manion: I do not think there will be any patronage. I think the national railway system is in a position to carry on without political patronage. If such a question should arise I shall deal with it; I am sure my hon. friend will trust me that far.


Paul Mercier: I suppose if there are two more directors appointed there will be no patronage shown?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Inquiry and report regarding company or operation of government railways.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain what he has in mind with regard to this section?


Robert James Manion: This is merely a technical correction; this afternoon I explained the nature of it. The clause previously contained the figure sixty-one, the correct figure being seventy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to extend the time for the commencement of construction and completion of the lines of railway which the Northern Alberta Railways Company was authorized to construct by section 11 of schedule B to the Northern Alberta Railways Act, 1929-namely, an extension of the main line of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company from Spirit river, and a branch line of the Central Canada Railway from, at or near Grimshaw.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
Robert James Manion: This is a resolution on behalf of the Northern Alberta Railways Company, a combination of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railways, for an extension of time for the construction of a couple of branch lines authorized two years ago. As members of the committee know, under the railway act these extensions must be begun within two years and completed within five. Of the branch lines then authorized, a sufficient amount of work has been done on six to meet the statutory requirements; but the two mentioned in this resolution have not yet been begun. Requests for extension of time were much more common in the past than they are to-day. Under the circumstances I think it is a very reasonable request.
May I say that if the resolution passes a bill will be introduced based on it, and then members will have full opportunity to discuss the measure either here or before the railway committee.


Charles A. Stewart: Grimshaw is a very important extension, is it not?


Robert James Manion: I do not know much about these branch lines.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Manion thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 36, respecting the Northern Alberta Railways Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Government Employees Compensation



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act to extend the benefits of the act to all employees in the service of His Majesty excepting those for whom provision is made under other statutes, and to extend the interpretation of the term "compensation" to include any benefits, expenses or allowances that are provided for under provincial compensation acts.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is for the purpose of amending the Government Employees' Compensation Act so that provincial compensation acts will apply to all government employees. At the present time in the various provinces the law varies. For instance, postal employees are covered in the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia only; customs officers are covered in Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia only; lighthouse keepers and employees on boats carrying supplies to lighthouses or attending to aids to navigation are not covered in Nova Scotia. Some of the provincial compensation acts do not apply to government employees in the various departments; they may cover those engaged in some industry, but the courts rule that the government service is not an industry. The purpose of the bill to be introduced, based on the resolution, is to briDg all employees of the government under the various provincial compensation acts. It is expected that this will cost the government an additional $70,-
000.


Charles A. Stewart: In effect,
Mr. Chairman, all the employees of the government of Canada will come under the provisions of the compensation acts in the various provinces by statute rather than, as formerly, by order in council.


Robert James Manion: No, I do not think that is correct. I think they are now under the various compensation boards by statute. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to put all government employees on the same basis. I may say that last year the government of my hon. friend introduced a bill of this kind, but due to the dissolution of parliament it could not be dealt with. In a nutshell, the
purpose is simply to give the employees of the government in all the provinces the same treatment.


Charles A. Stewart: Under the old system the government carried its own compensation, but made the provincial laws apply in the adjustment. I am very much in favour of this proposal. I think it is entirely proper that by statute all the services of the government should come under the provincial compensation acts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are the railways under it?


Robert James Manion: No, the railways are not dealt with by this measure.


Mr. HEENAN:: I am very glad that my hon. friend has introduced this resolution. As he says, we had a resolution on the order paper last year, but owing to the dissolution of parliament it was held over until after the general elections. Has the minister any information of the approximate aggregate amount which the Dominion government pays to the provinces in this connection?


Robert James Manion: I have those figures under my hand. Last year we paid in round figures the following; New Brunswick, $91,000; Ontario, $106,000; Manitoba, $94,000; Alberta, $7,000; British Columbia, $14,000; Prince Edward Island, almost $4,000; Quebec, $79,000. In Ontario, in addition to the amount given before, we paid $2,600 for medical aid, and in Saskatchewan $380. The total amount paid last year to the provinces by the Dominion was $452,000. This will add another $70,000, in round figures, to the expenses of the Dominion.
Perhaps I might as well explain in a few words how this work is carried on. The provincial compensation board, in whatever province the accident occurs, looks after the government employee just as it would look after an employee of one of the railways or of an industrial plant and gives him medical attention, sixty per cent or whatever it may be of his wages, and so on. They pay the usual charges and then bill the government for the amount. At certain periods the Dominion government pays the provinces the sums disbursed, with a small addition for administration expenses.


Peter Heenan: 
Robert James Manion: I have not had this matter under consideration before, but I am afraid there would be. a duplication of machinery if we followed my hon. friend's suggestion. I may say also that the provinces are endeavouring, as my hon. friend probably well knows, to bring about uniformity. As a matter of fact, before this bill which is to be introduced was decided upon by myself, representing the government, the representatives of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, who in turn represented all the provinces of Canada, waited upon the Minister of Labour and myself in my office and discussed the whole matter. This really was the proposal they brought forward. If, however, as my hon. friend suggests, there are still inequalities, this is a very good step in the right direction, and if those inequalities still exist, a little later we can perhaps make whatever modifications are necessary to equalize matters.

Mr. MERjC'IER (St. Henri): Could the minister tell me the exact number of employees affected?


Robert James Manion: It covers all government employees in the different departments. I do not know how many employees there are in the outside service, but this takes in both the inside and the outside services.


Charles Gavan Power: There are forty thousand, anyway.


Charles A. Stewart: Around forty thousand.


Robert James Manion: All the government employes will be under the act.


Paul Mercier: How many
were injured last year?


Robert James Manion: There were 3,960 claims.


Mr. HEAPS:: What amount was paid out?


Robert James Manion: We paid $452,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: For how long a period?


Robert James Manion: For one year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was that entire amount paid out to the injured work people?


Robert James Manion: That includes about 5 per cent for administration expenses, amounting to about $21,000. Other than that, practically all this money went to work people.


Wilfred Hanbury: Could the minister tell us whether all provinces have compensation boards, and whether the employees bear any portion of the cost?


Robert James Manion: I think all the provinces have compensation boards. I see payments were made to Nova Scotia,. New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think Prince Edward Island has a compensation board.


Robert James Manion: I notice that we paid about $4,000 to Prince Edward Island. Perhaps that was for railway employees. I am sorry I cannot give that information definitely.


Thomas Reid: What percentage is contributed by the employee?


Robert James Manion: Each provincial act is different, but I do not think the employees make any contribution. The amount is made up by the industries and the governments.


Mr. NEILL:: In British Columbia the employees pay a cent a day for medical attention.

Government Employees Compensation


Robert James Manion: I know something of the province of Ontario, and so far as I know in this province the employees pay nothing.


Peter John Veniot: They do not pay anything in New Brunswick.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to direct the attention of the minister to a matter which I have taken up privately with the Minister of Marine, and I hope the minister will take this opportunity to remedy a grievance which exists in British Columbia between his department and the local provincial authorities over the interpretation of the word "employee". A very simple change in the interpretation would remedy the situation.
Here is the difficulty: Lighthouse keepers, of course, are paid by the Department of Marine, and there is an arrangement under which certain lighthouse keepers employ assistants. The department is either too economical or too mean to pay the wages of the second man, so they have an arrangement whereby the lighthouse keeper must employ an assistant, for whom he is allowed a few hundred dollars extra. They do not allow a living wage for a man but only about half that wage, and they sanction the practice, which is often followed by lighthouse keepers, of employing their wives or junior members of their families to do the work, which really is not the full work of a man. Occasionally, where there are two or three assistants, they do pay a full wage for the assistant, but here is the situation: It is held by the Workmen's Compensation Board that this assistant is an employee of this government, inasmuch as he is paid indirectly by the government. There can be no question about that, with the record of wages paid to lighthouse keepers showing that when an assistant is necessary a considerably larger amount is paid. The Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia have always held in that case that the assistant was the employee of the government, but the Marine department have held that he was an employee of the lighthouse keeper. The result is that if an accident of that kind happens, the lighthouse keeper is of course quite unalble to meet any claim against him, and there is therefore considerable criticism of the government. It is claimed that they are cheaply avoiding at least a moral responsibility by not paying out this sum to the injured workman. The trouble could be avoided very simply by having a change in the interpretation of the word " employee " so as to cover a case of that kind. The other case to which I wish to allude is similar. In certain cases the Public
Works department does work by day labour, employing teams. These teams and their drivers may be taken off a farm in the vicinity at a time when they are not busy. The Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia does not apply to farmers, and the department here-possibly the Justice department-have ruled that in that case a man working as a teamster by the day on some clearing, or perhaps road making for some Dominion department, is not an employee of the government but is a farmer, or an employee of a farmer, although he is at the moment working not as a farmer but as a professional teamster for the government. That also is a case in which a rather cheap argument is used to withhold compensation from the man injured in that capacity. I understand that the act that governs this provides its own interpretation of the word employee, so that if the interpretation were changed along the lines I suggest it would not conflict with the meaning of the word employee as contained in any other act such as the Civil Service Act. " Employee " could be made to cover, amongst others, the two classes I have mentioned. I trust the minister will look into this before the bill is brought down, because it would remove a very real injustice. I do not think the Marine department would like to have it said that they were purposely unjust. I know of one case where a man risked his life and suffered considerable injury from fire to save the lighthouse property; but because he was an assistant to the lighthouse keeper in that technical sense of the word he was told to look to the lighthouse keeper as his direct employer if he wished compensation. Of course, the lighthouse keeper had no funds with which to compensate him. If the change were made as I suggest, it would do justice to a class of people, particularly lighthouse keepers, who are not overpaid as it is.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member spoke to me about the case of assistant lighthouse keepers, but unfortunately the argument against it is that the assistant lighthouse keeper in the case mentioned by him is not an employee of the government.


Alan Webster Neill: He is, indirectly.


Robert James Manion: He is an employee of the lighthouse keeper, by whom he is hired. There is a principle involved; the act cannot be applied to someone not in the employ of the government, when you pass legislation applicable to such employees.
936	COMMONS
Government Employees Compensation


Alan Webster Neill: But he is being paid indirectly by the government.


Robert James Manion: He is hired by the lighthouse keeper.


An hon. MEMBER:: Could you not pay
the assistant directly?


Robert James Manion: I suppose the Marine
department could introduce a system of paying the assistant directly, but I fancy the reason for the present method is that in many cases the lighthouse keeper, being a man with a family, and receiving a little allowance, can secure the help at home which otherwise he might have to hire outside, paying more in the way of wages. I am, of course, subject to correction, but I suppose that is the reason.
I have not heard of any labourer driving teams for the government, but in this case I assume that the provincial compensation act of British Columbia does not apply to such an employee. It seems to me that it is necessary, if possible, to get this provincial act to apply, because we are going to work under this act through the provincial compensation board.


Alan Webster Neill: The provincial act does not
cover farmers. But the point is that when you take a man off the farm to grade a road he is not a farmer while so engaged. All we ask is that the department shall decide that a man is not a farmer when he is grading a road for a dominion department.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A teamster would in all
probability be working under a contract and he would not come under the provisions of the act.


Charles Gavan Power: As I understand the act, it
is to permit the workmen's compensation boards of the various provinces to pass upon claims for compensation. If the government employee residing within the province does not happen to fall into one of the categories covered by the workmen's compensation act of the province, this act does not affect him.


Robert James Manion: That is correct.


Charles Gavan Power: That is to say, a man employed on an experimental farm, we will say, as an agricultural labourer, would not come under the provisions of this act because in most provinces agricultural labourers are not under these compensation boards. What will become of a claim for compensation made by a government employee who cannot obtain an aw'ard from the compensation board of his province? Am I to understand that there is a system whereby, by order in council, it is proposed to award him the amount granted to labourers in similar callings?


Robert James Manion: The hon. member was
correct in the first place when he said that it applied to the employee as defined by the provincial act. But. so far as this act is concerned, it is to bring in all government employees, with the exception of military, naval and air forces which are already covered by an insurance scheme of their own, and railway employees who have already been brought under the act in all the provinces. So that this will cover all employees of the government, with possibly some individual exceptions such as have been referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. I have not heard, however, of the case of a labourer on an experimental farm. The act will certainly cover all government employees, with, as I say, rare exceptions. If we find individual cases of an exceptional character they will have to be dealt with, but I do not know of any except those mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Charles Gavan Power: The compensation acts in
the various provinces specify the classes of employees who will come under the act. Other labourers do not come under the act-some because their salaries exceed certain amounts, and others by reason of the class of labour in which they are engaged. I mentioned the first example that occurred to me, that of the agricultural labourer. I speak again subject to correction, but I am under the impression that in our province, and I am quite sure in Ontario, agricultural labourers are exempt from the provisions of the workmen's compensation act.


James Dew Chaplin: That is true of Ontario.


Charles Gavan Power: And Quebec has recently
copied the Ontario act. Now, what becomes of a claim made by an employee of the government who does not come within one of the categories outlined in the various provincial acts?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: He is in the same position as he is now, and we can deal with him by order in council as a special case. But we cannot force into the provincial acts classes which those acts do not provide for.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: You instruct the provincial
board to rate the damage and they will do the rating for you.


Robert James Manion: Not necessarily. Before the treasury board there continually appear cases which are not covered and which are now going to be dealt with. The cases mentioned by the hon. member for Quebec South could be put into this category; they could be

Salaries Act
treated by order in council and recompensed by order in council as they are at the present time.


Thomas Reid: Speaking in support of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said in regard to men employed by the Department of Public Works, in British Columbia a man might be a fisherman or an agriculturist to-day and to-morrow be employed by the provincial government or by any municipality, and he immediately comes under the provisions of the British Columbia compensation act. We had a case in our municipality where a man working under the provisions of the employment relief fund was injured after only one hour's work, but there w'as not an official capable of determining what compensation he should got for one hour. The act in British Columbia is wide enough to include a man employed by the provincial government or a municipality. I think the hon. member's suggestion should be taken into serious consideration.


Robert James Manion: While there may be arguments in favour of what the hon. gentleman proposes, at the same time I think we are at the present time taking a pretty long step in the right direction, and if it be found that injustices arise, amendments can be made later on. We are now taking a step that is going to cost us $70,000, and in the present state of the national finances I do not think I would like to promise to take on more expense. I think the hon. gentleman will realize that we are doing pretty well as it is.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it the intention of the government to give the same rate of compensation as prevails in the provincial acts?


Robert James Manion: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Manion thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Robert James Manion: It will.


Peter Heenan: 

SALARIES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
lion HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:	.
That it is expedient to amend the Salaries Act to provide that the salary of the Solicitor GeneralPshall be increased from seven thousand dollars per annum to ten thousand dollars p annum as from 7th August, -1J3U.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Section 5 of the Salaries
Act, which is chapter 1S2 of the revise statutes of Canada, provides that the salary of the Solicitor General of Canada shall be $7 000 per annum. That act has never been amended, but in the year 1927 the salary of the Solicitor General was increased from $7,000 to $10,000 and it has continued at that figure ever since. But the vote under which the increase was made was peculiarly worded. It is number 445 of the votes of 192/ and it reads:
To provide increase of $3,000 per annum for Hon. Lucien Cannon, payable to him from the consolidated revenue fund, for the period dining which he occupies the position ot bolicitor General, the acceptance of such salary not to vacate his seat in parliament.
That was carried as a statutory vote in 1928, 1929 and 1930. On the 28th of July last the then government resigned and Mr. Salaries Act

Cannon was no longer Solicitor General. There will in any case have to be some amendment of the terms of the vote, and it is considered that the correct way of making the amendment is to amend section 5 of the Salaries Act, changing the figure from $7,000 to $10,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not rising to take exception to the change being made in the manner which my hon. friend has just indicated. I assume that the government intends that the Solicitor General shall be a member of the cabinet, and the idea is to have each member of the cabinet receive the same salary.
pretty well to get along without his ministers in the House of Commons, and from what I hear he has done quite a little as well in the way of administration of some of the departments other than his own. The other evening he told us there had been occasion to give a personal certificate to a member of the public service who was over seventy in order that he might be continued, and he asked us to imagine who the official might be. I thought it was a deputy minister, but he told us that it was an elevator man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not give that certificate; he refused it.


Hugh Guthrie: He is already a member of the cabinet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend has just indicated, that was the view the previous administration also took while the Solicitor General, was a member of the cabinet, and to effect that end the difference in salary was made in the manner indicated by the Minister of Justice. The point I desire to raise-and I wish the Prime Minister were present, because I should have liked to direct my remarks to him personally -is whether this is not a good time to consider reducing the number of portfolios rather than permanently increasing the number of portfolios as is being done by this increase in the minister's salary. The government has been cutting down the staffs of the civil service; it is endeavouring to abolish some of the boards and the branches of some of the departments, and it would seem, if that same spirit of economy and retrenchment were extended to the cabinet itself, it might be possible to reduce the total number of portfolios and effect a substantial saving also in that direction.
I think this would be a very good time for the taking of such a step. I am glad to see the Prime Minister coming in, as my remarks can be directed more particularly to himself as head of the government. I may say to my right hon. friend that I have just ben referring in^ his absence to the skill he has exhibited in attempting to cut down some of the services, and to the effort he is making from the point of view of economy, to abolish some branches and boards connected with the public service. I was going to ask if he did not think this might not also be an appropriate^ time similarly to reduce the size of the cabinet. I think he will agree that a small cabinet, particularly one headed by himself, would be quite as efficient as a very large one. My right hon. friend has managed


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that among his many other duties my hon. friend had been giving attention to the elevator men, and so it would appear from his reply. However, I do submit, in all seriousness, that the question of reducing the number of portfolios is something that is deserving of every consideration. My right hon. friend may have it in mind. He has sought to economize in the number of portfolios by taking three or four of them to himself. He might I think consider very seriously combining the functions of two or thiee of the ministries under one minister, and this particular resolution seems to make it appropriate to make that suggestion to him at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the right hon. gentleman are certainly worthy of very careful consideration. The government has considered the matter. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman would say that we considered it when the government was formed, but I hasten to tell him that there is no intention to impose upon the Prime Minister the Finance department as well as others and thereby reduce the number of portfolios, although the arrangement so far has resulted in a substantial saving of money. The matter is under consideration. I think that some of the departments, in view of the change that has been brought about by reason of the resources being turned over to the western provinces, might be consolidated. The right hon. gentleman has had ten years of very considerable experience; I recall quite clearly the effort he made to reduce the number of portfolios, but in the end he found it necessary to increase them. The recommendations of the Duncan report with resnect to the fisheries was responsible, not wholly, but practically, for the creation of one new department, if the administration was to give effect, as was intended, to the report.

Salaries Act
I have had in mind for some time that this country should have a department of communications. I have thought about it a very great deal. There is the air, there is radio, wireless and cable communication


An hon. MEMBER:: Post office and railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, post office, railways and other forms of communication. I have given some thought to the matter but obviously, for reasons which the right hon. gentleman understands and the house appreciates, I have been only a few months in Canada since undertaking this task and I have not had as much time to consider the matter as I should like. But what has been said to-night by the right hon. gentleman I shall be very glad indeed to take in the spirit in which it is offered, as giving his benediction to the efforts we are making to improve the public service, and if the results to be obtained can best be secured by the methods suggested we shall not hesitate to apply them.
I hope within the next few days to introduce a bill mentioned in the speech from the throne, which I can anticipate to this extent, that it will make for more efficient control with respesct to our revenues and expenditures. I happen to know of my own knowledge that the right hon. gentleman himself bestowed considerable thought to the matter.
I am very glad that the committee has taken the view it has in the discussion we are now having; for, after all, at the beginning of this century the revenues of Canada were only $50,000,000. When Sir John Macdonald died the revenues were $37,000,000. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier went out of office in 1911 my memory is that the total revenues of this country, just a little time before that, crossed the $100,000,000 mark. Now they approximate, at the least, $1,000,000 a day, and the extent to which consolidation of departments would improve the public service is a matter that I am not prepared to speak about at the moment because I have not arrived at a definite conclusion. In a country as vast as Canada it is very difficult to say, where you have revenues of approximately $1,000,000 a day to be dealt with, that you are making for efficiency by imposing too much detail upon him who administers. When the chief administrative officer is unable at a glance to know the state of efficiency with which the details of government are carried on by those in the departments, there is failure; and if you have too large a responsibility on the one individual the data comes before him too much in tabloid form to
make possible an efficient working of the machinery. The effort that my colleagues and myself are endeavouring to make at the moment is to utilize the experience of the past in the light of the knowledge of to-day and to accomplish just what the right ^ hon. gentleman has in mind, namely, efficiency in the conduct of the public service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish simply
to correct one impression which my right hon. friend has left with the committee. It is true that, for the reason mentioned, the late administration did, in its last year of office, add one portfolio through the separation of the departments of fisheries and marine. But it is also true that when we came into office we made two or three very imporant consolidations. For instance, there was the Department of Inland Revenue, the Department of Customs, each presided over by a separate minister, and there was a separate branch of the public service dealing with the income tax. Those three were brought into the one department of National Revenue. Similarly, when we came into office, there was the Department of Militia and Defence, the Department of the Naval Service, and a separate air board. Those three were brought together into one department, that of National Defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was only one
minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was a
separate Minister of Militia and Defence, and the naval service was under the Minister of Marine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were two deputy
ministers, one for militia and defence, and one for the naval service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That consolidation was made, bringing all three into the one department. From experience I can tell my right hon. friend that he will find it much easier to make his consolidations in the first year than he will thereafter, provided he is in office any length of time. If he does not contemplate being in office any length of time, he will find avoiding consolidations a much simpler matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because he does, he is
not hurrying.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 38, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian High Commissioner
Friday, Apx-il 24, 1931