1933-04-27

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have adopted the following resolution:
Resolved: That pursuant to the provisions of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, the Senate of Canada hereby approves the purchase of the radio broadcasting stations and equipment of the Canadian National Railways by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission for the sum of $50,000.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens) moved that the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 25, 1933, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Is the Department of Public Works doing any work on a dock at Bigwood, Ontario?
53719-273J
2.	If so, what amount is set apart for this work ?
3.	Is the work being done by contract or by day labour or partly by each?
4.	Who is in charge of the work?
5.	If the work is being done by day labour, who have been employed on the work?
6.	On whose recommendation are men engaged and what salaries are being paid?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.
t


NORANDA-ROUYN MAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. BRADETTE:: What is the yearly contract price that has been paid to the mail carriers transporting mail from the town of Noranda to the station of Noranda, and also from the town of Rouyn to the railway station of Rouyn for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, respectively?


Mr. SAUVE:: Noranda & N.C. railway station, $280; Noranda & C.N. railway station, $480-$760 for 1930.
Noranda & N.C. railway station, $280; Noranda & C.N. railway station, $513.30- $793.30 for 1931.
Noranda & N.C. railway station, $280; Noranda & C.N. railway station, $480-$760 for 1932.
Rouyn & N.C. railway station, $500; Rouyn & C.N. railway station, $575-$1,075 for 1930.
Rouyn & N.C. railway station, $500; Rouyn & C.N. railway station, $614.52- $1,114.52 for 1931.
Rouyn & NjC. railway station, $400; Rouyn & C.N. railway station, $575-$975 for 1932.


NEW RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	How many new mail routes have been opened during the fiscal year 1932-1933?
2.	How many new rural mail routes have been opened in each province during the same
period?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. Prince Edward Island	Nil
Nova Scotia	 8
New Brunswick	 8
Quebec	 9
Ontario	 5
Manitoba	Nil
Saskatchewan	Nil
Alberta	 3
British Columbia	 1
Total	 34
Settlers in Rouyn District


CARLETON, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has there been any change in the postmastership of Carleton, Quebec; if so, for what reason?
2.	Were any charges made, and what were
they ?	_
3.	Were they investigated, by whom, and with what result?
4.	If a new appointment has been made, who is the appointee, and on whose recommendation was it made?
5.	Is the appointment permanent?	s


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. Yes, financial irregularities.
2 and 3. In view of the postmistress' failure to follow the regulations, a special inspection by Post Office Inspector Pouliot was made which led to the discovery of very serious irregularities necessitating her immediate removal from office.
4.	Frank Joseph Allard has been appointed by the Postmaster General.
5.	Yes.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) made reference to some settler in the Rouyn district of Quebec, who claimed to have been in very difficult circumstances and, I believe, was said to be in danger of starving to death, and I gathered from the observations made by the hon. member that this settler was induced to go on the land partly by this government, in conjunction with the province of Quebec and the municipalities. Reference was also made to other settlers. I have received to-day a telegram from Mr. J. E. Laforce, who acts for the Canadian National Railways on the committee with respect to this work. The telegram, if I may be permitted to read it, is as follows:
Relative statement the Gazette this morning. No families back to land were placed Rouyn or immediate surroundings. No back to land families province Quebec in distress provided they have shown willingness to work.
J. E. Laforce.
I then got the alphabetical list of the names and locations of all settlers in the territory of Abitibi and I do not find amongst them the name of the person who sent the telegram to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I also made inquiry faith respect to the placing of settlers in the Temiscouata constituency and I find that, as regards the settlers who were assisted by this government to locate there,
CMr. SauvA.l
we have only two and that they both signify to the committee that they are doing very well. I believe there are other settlers there who were placed by the province of Quebec, and of course I have no report upon their condition because that is a matter essentially for the province to deal with.


SOLDIER SETTLERS-SASKATCHEWAN
Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) yesterday inquired concerning seed for soldier settlers. I asked him whether he would be good enough to let me have the name of the settler to whom he referred, and he did so. This settler is located not in the constituency of North Battleford but I believe in the constituency of Weyburn.
It would appear that the director of soldier settlement, in order to have the same treatment afforded to all settlers with respect to seed grain in the western provinces, in fact throughout Canada wherever the need arose, made it possible for all settlers to be treated alike. They could apply to the municipality, the same as the civilian settler or any other farmer, and the director, acting within the scope of his authority, gave them a preferential lien, withdrawing the preferred position of the crown, as it were, with respect to seed.
The settler to whom the hon. member for North Battleford made reference received seed last year and was advised some months ago of the course he should pursue if he were without sufficient seed for this season's operation. It would appear that he has ample seed to take care of the land that belongs to the crown in the right of the dominion, but that he has purchased other lands, to take care of which he may not have seed enough. The position was indicated to him some time ago and if he will follow the procedure as outlined, he should have no difficulty.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes-Mr. Manion.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. MANION:: Before we take up any
of the sections which were allowed to stand, we might first dispose of the question of amalgamation. It is the intention of the government to put in a clause as part IV of the bill. It was thought that by doing this the

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
clause would stand out more plainly as referring to the whole bill. I have given copies of the proposed amendment to my right hon. friend and other hon. members opposite. If it is agreeable to the committee this clause will be put in as part IV and numbered section 27, or possibly some other number if the numbering of the sections is changed. The amendment reads:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the amalgamation of any railway company which is comprised in the National Railways with any railway company which is comprised in Pacific railways nor to authorize the unified management and control of the railway system which forms part of National railways with the railway system which forms part of Pacific railways.
I might say that this amendment has been submitted to the legal officers of the department as well as to the legal officers of the Department of Justice. It is thought that this amendment will provide against any amalgamation of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: As I
understand the amendment, its purport is t a prevent the taking over by the Canadian Pacific of any branch lines from the Canadian National, or visa versa. I do not think it was ever intended that such an amendment should go that far. I may be wrong, as one cannot follow the ramifications of an amendment of this character simply by hearing it read.


Robert James Manion: This is to preclude the
amalgamation of the two companies but there is nothing to prevent the establishing of joint running rights, the joint use of terminals, the linking up of telegraph or ticket offices and so on.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: At the time the minister mentioned his intended amendment to the committee I suggested for his consideration the adding to the section of certain words which now appear elsewhere in the act. These were, "in so far as the provisions of this act may be inconsistent with the provisions of this section, they shall be read in the light thereof and be so construed as to conform therewith." Either the minister or the Prime Minister stated that the addition of such words would be superfluous as their intent would be covered by the section as worded. If that is so, I will not press the matter any further.


Robert James Manion: I think the right hon
gentleman is referring to section 24, which still stands, and which reads:
In the event of any conflict between an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners and that of any tribunal, the order or decision of the tribunal shall prevail.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was
with reference to amalgamation, that the provisions of this act shall be read in the light of the section it is now being proposed to insert, and that nothing therein shall further amalgamation.


Robert James Manion: The reason we have made this section a separate and distinct part is to cover that very point. It was thought that by making it a separate part it would stand out more emphatically. It could have been put in as one of the preliminary clauses which apply to the whole bill, but I am advised by the legal fraternity that making it a distinct part would make the right hon. gentleman's recommendation unnecessary.


Mr. JACOBS:: I suppose the minister is
prepared to admit that the same authority that inserts this amendment can. strike it out?


Robert James Manion: Of course. We cannotbind any future parliament and when my' hon. friend is Prime Minister he may change-this bill or do anything he wishes.


Samuel William Jacobs: I hope the amendment will! come in long before I am Prime Minister^


Mr. GRAY:: Does the minister really think that this amendment is of any real value; does he think there are any teeth in it?


Robert James Manion: The amendment is made
to meet the wishes of -hon. friends opposite Who apparently thought they saw a coloured gentleman in the woodpile. As the hon. member for Cartier said in his speech, he thought this was going to lead to amalgamation. The government had no thought of amalgamation but in order to cooperate with hon. friends opposite, this clause has been suggested. If they desire that it should not be included in the hill, I do not think it would change the effect of the bill at all. It was to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite as well as those outside the house who might think that there was something wrong with the bill that this amendment was suggested.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In, other words, it is merely
an expression of intention or hope?


Robert James Manion: The intention, and I think the effect of this amendment is to prevent the amalgamation of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways.


Mr. HEENAN:: I am not going to argue at any great length with respect to this provision, because the government and the minister have been good enough to accept the suggestion from this side of the house, but I want to put myself on record so that there may
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

be no comeback so far as I am concerned that this is merely a pious hope-and apparently it is about the only thing we can get- that is placed in the bill stating that there shall be no amalgamation. I want to point out to the minister once more that this bill which we are discussing provides for amalgamation of the railroads of Canada; despite anything that may be included in the bill, its actual operation is amalgamation.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); Nonsense.


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend from York-Sunbury is the best judge of nonsense of any man in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am, and I am looking right at the hon. member.


Peter Heenan: Since I have been in the house I have never heard the hon. member give expression to anything but nonsense of the worst kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: Do not any of you Tories think you are going to get away with this.


The CHAIRMAN:: Will the hon. member address the chair?


Peter Heenan: Will the chairman keep his own side in order? I do not want these men who do not know what they are talking about to interfere in my discussion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must address the chair.


Peter Heenan: I am addressing the chair now. I do not intend to allow the Tory party to give away the Canadian National without the people of this country knowing what they are doing. The bill itself provides for the amalgamation of our Canadian railroads. I believe the minister is sincere in thinking that this amendment is of value. I think it is of value to this extent only that the government is enunciating in this provision that it does not intend the amalgamation of the railroads of Canada, but that does not detract in the slightest from this bill which provides for running rights of one road over the other, the merging of services and all the ramifications that go into the operation of a railway. The amalgamation of the railroads of Canada is right in this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just your opinion.


Peter Heenan: If I were as ignorant as my hon. friend, I would not give expression to such ignorance.
tMr. Heenan.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member knew anything about the English language, he would not make such a statement.


Peter Heenan: If I were as ignorant as my hon. friend, I would go to law school.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member lived in the days of Parnell, he would be a dynamiter.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would ask hon. members to address the chair.


Peter Heenan: All I am asking you, sir, to do, is to keep order on both sides.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is what I am trying to do.


Peter Heenan: I just want to give warning that neither the chairman nor anyone else will shut me up on this measure, because when it means putting 20,000 or 30,000 workers on the streets in order to help the moneylenders of New York, I am going to fight for the citizens of Canada.
I am not going to argue against this amendment, but I want to put myself on record. I am going to support it because it seems to be a pious hope the government have that the railroads will not be amalgamated, but I cannot accept it as being of value and I may be all wrong-
, Mr. MANION:	The hon. member is.


Peter Heenan: but I want to tell the government and the minister they are all wrong on it. Every provision in this bill means the amalgamation of the operations of the railroads of Canada. Apart from that I want to say that I am prepared to accept the amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have in my constituency as many and probably more railwavmen than has the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in his.


Peter Heenan: Why does the hon. member not fight for them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
just as much interest in them as he has in his, but I am not a self-constituted champion as he is.


Peter Heenan: I know the hon. member is not.


Mr HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The only position the railroad men in my constituency take is that the principle of amalgamation shall not be included in this bill. It is not included in the bill, but to make assurance doubly sure and to relieve the minds of the

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
railwaymen of this country the government has inserted an amendment which has been read to the committee to-day. If the hon. gentleman knew anything about the drawing and construction of statutes, he would know it is not necessary to insert in a bill a provision which negatives something which does not exist. This proposed amendment is in law absolutely unnecessary, but in order to satisfy public opinion and especially that which I have the honour to represent directly, namely, the railwaymen in my constituency, this is being put into the bill; they are quite satisfied with it and I venture to say that not one of them is asking the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to champion their cause in the house.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could the minister inform the committee whether there is at present any move on foot to amalgamate the services of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National express companies?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I cannot answer definitely as to that. I may say quite frankly that certain cooperative measures are being studied by the management of the two railways and, generally speaking, the government does not hear the result of such detailed studies until something definite has developed from them. I understand there have been discussions as to operating the express companies to a greater extent in cooperation than has been the case in the past, but further than that I am sorry I cannot definitely inform my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I happen to have in my possession a communication addressed to me just a few days ago dealing with this question. While the talk is of cooperation and consolidation, this letter refers distinctly to amalgamation of the two companies with the primary intention of saving large sums of money and of course with the result of letting out large numbers of employees. In this communication which comes from a reputable source-and although it is confidential, I will let the minister see portions of it-they talk of the amalgamation of the two services. They claim that the Canadian National service is much superior to that of .the Canadian Pacific, and they believe the best portions of the business of the Canadian National will be picked up and amalgamated with the Canadian Pacific. AVhether that be correct or not, I cannot say, but the impression is at present gaining ground throughout the country that the privately owned company is taking off the best portions of the Canadian National railway system and
that is being amalgamated, while the government or the country will be left with the worst portions of the Canadian National railway services and will no doubt have to maintain that as a losing proposition as time goes on. That is likely to happen. We have already had the consolidation of services between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto and this was one of the best services which the Canadian National had so far as passenger traffic was concerned. If that is going to be the basis of cooperation between the two railways, I am afraid we are going to do something which we shall ultimately regret. The information contained in this letter, coming from what I believe is a reputable source, is that the income of the Canadian National Express Company is claimed to be much higher than that of the Canadian Pacific Express Company, and if we are going to have instance after instance of .the best paying services of the Canadian National system being amalgamated with the poor services of the Canadian Pacific, I am afraid this bill is hardly worth the time we are giving to it in the house.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to imply that we are going to have instance after instance of the Canadian National being sacrificed to the interests of Canadian Pacific. I have not yet heard of anything which would justify such an assertion. I am just as interested in the Canadian National as is my hon. friend. Furthermore, if as he suggests the managing officers of the Canadian National Railways were so stupid as to permit the Canadian Pacific Railway to pick off their plums in that fashion, then I think the sooner we got rid of the whole outfit the better. That would be my feeling about it. But I do not believe that the managing officers of the Canadian National are stupid. I believe that they are just as capable of taking care of themselves as are the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I believe that they will take care of themselves in any cooperative measures that may be adopted.
My hon. friend said something about the Canadian National giving up its service between Ottawa and Toronto, but the Canadian Pacific has also given up its service between Montreal and Toronto. That is part of the cooperative measures that they are working out. Though on the surface the Canadian National so far as the service between Ottawa and Toronto is concerned apparently suffers, my understanding is that under these pooling arrangements the earnings are divided so that there would not actually be any loss;



C.N.R.-C.P.R. BUI COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
and as between Toronto and Montreal it is the Canadian Pacific that gives up its service and the Canadian National runs its trains. But it is on the basis of a fifty-fifty division of doing away with services and a fifty-fifty division of the profits accruing from that curtailment of operations. My hon. friend is usually fair, but I do not think he is fair in suggesting that the Canadian National Railways will permit the Canadian Pacific Railway to take over any portion of their better paying services unless the Canadian National gets an equally valuable quid pro quo. I am confident of that. The officers of the Canadian National are experiencing no interference by the government in any shape or form in regard to these cooperative measures, and I repeat, that if they are stupid enough to let the Canadian Pacific Railway put it over them they are too stupid to run a railway anyway.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I may say that that impression is gaining ground among a great many people.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It is not very complimentary to the management.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will read one or two lines from these communications which I have here and which I believe come from a very reliable source.


Robert James Manion: If the hon. gentleman is going to read communications to the house it is only fair that he should say from whom they come. Otherwise I submit that he has no right to read them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not read any portion of these communications for that very reason, but I have what I think are official figures showing the business of the Canadian National express and of the Canadian Pacific express, which services I claim are likely to be amalgamated or coordinated in the very near future. According to my information the business of the Canadian National express was $594,000 as compared with $216,000 for the Canadian Pacific express, so if there is going to be an amalgamation on a fifty-fifty basis we can understand how unfair it would be in that case to the Canadian National railway system.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that there
was to be an amalgamation on a fifty-fifty basis, but that whatever cooperative measures were put into effect, the doing away of trains and services, and1 the remuneration, would be on a fifty-fifty basis.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I bring this matter to the
attention of the minister and the house because I have received a lot of letters from 
different parts of the country along this very same line. But if we have the assurance of the minister that any cooperation or amalgamation of services, although I am opposed to the whole thing, will be done on a fair basis, I have no more to say.


Mr MANION:: The hon. gentleman may
have my assurance so far as the matter is within my control. I would object with all the power I possessed against the Canadian National giving to the Canadian Pacific something that it did not get a return for- absolutely.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Under this bill we are
appointing a chairman and a board of trustees for a period of years. They cannot be removed by the minister or by this house without the concurrence of the upper house. Am I right in that?


Robert James Manion: By parliament; that is right.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then in Part II of the bill we are giving the chairman of the board of trustees all the power that it is possible to give to any trustee. We are giving him power to amalgamate traffic and amalgamate terminals. The minister will not deny that.


Robert James Manion: 
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: 
Robert James Manion: I do not admit that joint operation means amalgamation at all.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It means an amalgamation of services if it means anything at all. We appoint this board of trustees, and this government has no control over the board. This house cannot dismiss the chairman of the board of trustees without the concurrence of the upper house. The two .houses of parliament have to concur in a resolution before he can be dismissed. If this house passed a resolution to dismiss the chairman of the board of trustees, and the upper house refused to concur in it, the chairman would remain in his office. Now, suppose that the chairman of the board of trustees under the power given him in Part II of this bill does things which he is empowered to do, and which mean the amalgamation of service; what effect will this amendment which the minister proposes have? I cannot see that it will have any

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
effect in preventing the amalgamation of services. May I say this, that a railroad is really a service that is given to the people, and if you are going to permit the amalgamation of services, I do not see how you can get away from amalgamating the railways. Suppose that the board of trustees sanctions the amalgamation of terminals, the amalgamation of railway ticket offices, and of stations, and so forth, I do not see how by this amendment we can undo what they have done in the wray of amalgamation. What effect would the amendment have? I am asking for information. The chairman of the board of trustees is appointed for a period of seven years, and he cannot be dismissed except by a resolution passed by both houses of parliament, and if in the meantime he goes on amalgamating terminals and ticket offices and services and stations, there will be very little left of the Canadian National Railways at the end of seven years.


Robert James Manion: I do not agree at all with the hon. gentleman in regard to that. I submit that at the end of seven years, if we get the right kind of trustee, as we hope to do, we shall have the same condition on the Canadian National as we have on the Canadian Pacific so far as independent operation is concerned. It is true that some of the divisional points and some of the branch lines may be worked jointly, and it would have been a good thing for this country had that been done many years ago. There are two things which my hon. friend seems to forget in his remarks. In the first place, we are appointing trustees whose duty it will be to look after the interests of the Canadian National Railways. We are not appointing trustees to work for the Canadian Pacific Railway. If we should be so unlucky as to get a chairman of trustees who would betray his trust, I have no doubt whatsoever that this house would dismiss him at the next session and that the action of this house would be endorsed by the Senate, because after all the Senate, without a doubt, represents the best thought in this country just as does this House of Commons, and if some trustee should be false to his trust I cannot conceive of the other chamber in justice and decency not taking action to protect the Canadian National Railways, just the same as we would. To assume what my hon. friend suggests, we must first of all assume that the trustees are to be false to their trust, and secondly that the other chamber is also to be false to its trust. That would be a wrong assumption. I do not believe that at the end of seven years, if these cooperative measures last so long,
there will be any difference except that there will be some joint operation here and there which should exist, because as was pointed out in a committee this morning, and as I have pointed out on the floor of this house, there are many opportunities for joint operation of ticket offices, for instance, and telegraph offices on expensive comers. Joint operation of such services could only redound to the benefit and profit of the two railways, and it could not in any way take away from the independence and autonomy of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: While I was relieved to hear the statement of the Minister of Railways on the matter raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg a few moments ago, I feel that he should be made aware of the fact that there is now growing over those sections of the line where there are pooled services in central Canada-I refer to the Ottawa-Toronto, Montreal-Toronto, and Ottawa-Montreal pooled services-a feeling that there is something wrong. The remark made by the minister to-day may dissipate that feeling. But when travelling on the train the other day one of the old conductors who-has been employed in the service for about twenty-four years, evidently a very estimable type, and well educated, informed me that there had been a sudden transfer of sales of passenger tickets to the extent of nearly eighty-seven per cent in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert James Manion: Between here and Toronto?


Edward Joseph Garland: Between Montreal and Toronto. He expressed grave concern about the situation, discussed the matter at some length with me, and asked me what the terms of pooling were to be. I said I did not know, but that the matter could be taken up, and that I would ask the minister. I am now asking who determines the terms of pooling? Is it the minister, the board of trustees or the tribunal? Secondly, what principle of pooling would the minister suggest, and thirdly is the principle of pooling adopted to be established as a regulation which the tribunal or trustees must follow. For example, in addition to the point raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I would suggest this to the minister: Where in the past railway points having both lines operating through them showed forty per cent to the Canadian Pacific Railway and sixty per cent to the Canadian National Railways, and where it is found that those figures are suddenly switched around under the pooling arrangements to sixty-five per cent to the
[DOT]1332
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

Canadian Pacific Railway and the balance to the Canadian National Railways, what basis would be followed? If disputes, in regard to terms of pooling are to be left to the decision of the tribunal, how are we to approach the tribunal? Reading the second to last clause in the bill I find the following:
Save as provided by this section no order, decision or proceeding of a tribunal shall be questioned or reviewed, restrained or removed by any process whatever in or to any court.
I do not know whether in that section the House of Commons is included.


Mr. GEARY:: Read the other parts of the section.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like the minister to cover those points, if possible, because a good deal of disturbance has been created.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid the hon. member has covered a lot of ground in only a few questions, and possibly I may not be able to answer him fully; however I shall try. In the first place, in regard to tickets being sold between Montreal and Toronto-I believe that is the section of the road he indicated-and the suggestion that a larger proportion of passenger traffic tickets were being sold through offices of the Canadian Pacific, I would answer as follows: In the first place, I do not think that is a correct statement, because there would be no advantage in buying from one ticket office rather than the other for the simple reason that the earnings of the pooled trains are divided fifty-fifty between the two systems.


Edward Joseph Garland: The conductor would have no object in misinforming me.


Robert James Manion: He probably misinformed himself.


Edward Joseph Garland: He ought to know, he would collect the tickets.


Robert James Manion: But not the money. The money goes to the railways; the tickets go to the conductors. I believe I am correctly informed when I say that the railways have pooled their passenger traffic between Ottawa and Toronto and between Montreal and Toronto. Between Ottawa and Toronto the Canadian Pacific handles the train. So that as the hon. member for Melville mentioned the other evening, those people who have been accustomed to travelling to intermediate points between here and Toronto by way of the Canadian National railway will find that the service was not as good as it was previ-
ously, because the Canadian Pacific is carrying on a joint service between those two points. The same is true, on the other hand, with regard to the service between Montreal and Toronto. No doubt there will be a greater volume of traffic on that service than between Ottawa and Toronto. In that case, the service is pooled and carried by the Canadian National Railways.
I was not going to waste the time of the committee by giving illustrations to show how difficult it is for one railway to obtain an advantage over the other. However, I believe I should tell one incident which occurred and about which I happened to know. The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National were both running their sixty-miles-an-hour fast trains between Montreal and Toronto. While both railways were carrying a great many passengers, it was decided the two fast trains were not required, and that one could carry the business. They thought, as I believe, that the change was to the advantage of both railroads. The Canadian Pacific agreed that the Canadian National should handle the fast train service between Montreal and Toronto but since the Windsor station was in a better location than the Bonaventure station, that the trains should run out of and into the Windsor station, despite the fact that a Canadian National train was being used. So far as returns were concerned, it would not have meant one dollar's difference t'o the Canadian National. But the directors and management of the national system took the attitude that if the train ran both out of and into the Windsor station damage would be done to the prestige of the national system and that there would be a loss from the standpoint of advertising. After a good deal of wrangling it has been decided that the train shall go out of the Windsor station to Toronto, but shall enter the Bonaventure station upon its return to Montreal. I believe this illustration goes to show how anxious the management and directors of the Canadian National have been to secure a fair deal for the national system. While the Canadian Pacific argued that the Windsor station should be used exclusively- and I believe their argument carried some weight-the management and directors of the national system insisted that that should not be the case.
I believe this illustration goes to show that officials of the Canadian National system have no intention of giving up any rights, prestige or advertising value connected with any service it now possesses. So far as tickets are concerned, I repeat that the returns from the pooled services are divided equally between

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
the two railway systems. If the hon. member cared to walk over to the station he would see a notice containing the words "pooled train tickets for sale here." The returns on those tickets are divided.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
divided on what basis?


Robert James Manion: So far as I know, on a
fifty-fifty basis.


Edward Joseph Garland: How can
justice be maintained by dividing on a fifty fifty basis? If one system had been selling sixty per cent of the tickets between Montreal and Toronto and the other system selling only forty per cent, a fifty-fifty division would not be fair.


Robert James Manion: But from other points
probably the reverse percentage would be the case. If the hon. member will look over the passenger statistics I believe he will find that on the whole, the Canadian Pacific has been doing a better paying passenger business than has the Canadian National, for the simple reason that the Pacific system has as feeders a trans-Atlantic steamship service, and a transpacific steamship service. , For those reasons they get a great deal of transcontinental or long haul traffic. My information is that they have thus been getting a larger average revenue per passenger carried than has the Canadian National. Therefore I believe that if passenger service returns are split fifty-fifty the Canadian National system would be getting a fair deal all round. While I may not be able to go into the details as to former percentages of traffic now pooled I believe if both railways can make big savings by cutting off unnecessary trains, they are thereby gaining so much that the possible small amount which one might have gained here or another might have gained there might easily be forgotten.
I believe the hon. member mentioned one or two other points which I cannot call to mind at the moment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am afraid the committee is drifting away from the section before it.


George Reginald Geary: I should like to ask a question. At the moment there are arrangements between the two railways whereby, for instance, between Toronto and Hamilton the Canadian Pacific runs over the tracks of the Canadian National. That is an arrangement made between the managements of the two roads. Am I to understand that any matter
of inter-company arrangements of that sort must come before the minister or before the House of Commons for consideration or adj ustment.


Robert James Manion: No; the hon. member is
quite correct in his understanding that it does not come before the minister. However when I hear these matters discussed I endeavour to give whatever information I can to the committee, because my deputy minister is a director of the railway. As a matter of fact the matters to which the hon. member has referred would not be referred to me. If I heard that the Canadian National was getting an unfair deal I should certainly make inquiry as to how such a matter arose. But those arrangements are made by the managements of the two companies plus the committees appointed by the directors.


George Reginald Geary: In other words you do not
manage the road?


Robert James Manion: 
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: After this bill passes, suppose there is amalgamation of services at a given point and it is apparent that the Canadian National railway is getting unfair treatment. I suppose when 'this legislation is passed the minister will not have the connecting link with the Canadian National that he has at present by virtue of his deputy minister being a director. Suppose the trustees of the Canadian National are amalgamating or coordinating services and the minister finds that the Canadian National is getting the worst of it. These men we are going to appoint trustees will not be infallible. What power has the minister after this legislation is passed to stop it? I cannot see where he will have any.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: The only power the minister has would be the same power as my hon. friend has or any member of this house. When moneys are required by the Canadian National-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Only capital expenditures.


Robert James Manion: No, deficits, interest on bonds, practically everything except operating details has to be passed by this house. When these are being passed it is the privilege of this house to do as it does to-day, appoint a committee to discuss the whole situation, and there is no reason why the trustees should not be brought before them in fact it is agreed that they may be, and there is no reason why officers should not be. Certainly if a trustee or group of trustees were to betray, either accidentally or intentionally, the rights of the Canadian' National, that trustee or those trustees would be amenable to action by this house, and I promise my hon. friend I would support him or any other member of this house if at any time I had proof that these trustees were showing bad faith towards the Canadian National. That is the best assurance I can give.


Peter Heenan: I believe the minister is
sincere in that, but I want to point out something. Rightly or wrongly I have been looking at this bill from what may be regarded as a narrow viewpoint, that of how it is going to affect the railroad men of this country. In reply to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) the minister said that if it were discovered .that these trustees, although appointed for seven years, and not subject to dismissal except on an address from both houses of parliament, were betraying-probably that word is too strong, but were making errors that favoured the Canadian Pacific-means could be taken to dispense with their services. But I want the minister to look at this from my viewpoint for a moment, I think this will drive home the argument that I have been attempting to make for some days. Suppose under this measure the two railroad companies get together-I will admit it would probably have been better, as the minister says, if they had done it many years ago, but they did not. But now they get together. Take, for example, Winnipeg; there are four yards there; Fort Rouge, the Canadian Pacific yard, the Canadian Pacific new yard at North Trans-cona, and the Canadian National yard at South Transcona. Suppose they merge these four yards into one. They construct rails to 
radiate from that yard. It would probably [DOT]cost thousands and thousands of dollars to do that. After that is done, that money spent, the other employees are gone. Dismissal of trustees would not alter that in the least. There will be things done, merging of roundhouses, back shops and other tilings of like character that will cost thousands of dollars to do in the first instance and once they are done the profits will come after but the employees are gone. The provision for apportionment of employees between one road and the other cannot work out. We have here a conglomeration of railroads, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and their various branch lines, and men stationed in different parts of the country who have seniority rights in -that part a-nd no other part. They have seniority rights on the Canadian National, the Canadian Northern, or other roads at a certain point and no other point on that road. How could a man laid off here be sent several hundred miles away to a place where he is unknown, where he has no rights whatever to displace another man? These are all matters that I submit require the best thought of the house, without any heait. I point out that once the trustees are appointed, once they agree with the Canadian Pacific officials to do these various things, and the machinery is .put into operation, it is impossible to undo it again. I agree with the minister that if the Canadian National trustees favoured the Canadian Pacific unduly we could find some -means of dismissing them-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the discussion
is out of order, and unless the committee consents to review the whole -bill again I must ask hon. members to stick to the clause now under consideration. We are now discussing things that 'have been discussed and adopted.


Peter Heenan: If you are alluding to me Mr. Chairman, I am through.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: A moment ago my
hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) put some figures on the record in regard to the earnings of the Canadian National express and the Canadian Pacific express that I think should be corrected. I do not know where my hon. friend got his information. Accurate information is available to every member of this house, all that it is necessary to do is take the annual report of the Canadian National and the annual report of the Canadian Pacific.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I still call the
attention of 'the committee to the fact that unless there is general consent there cannot be a general discussion on the bill. We must confine it to the clause.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the discussion has been going on in relation to the general question of amalgamation, and I understand that this amendment now before the committee deals directly with amalgamation or the negative of it. I merely wish to correct a statement in regard to the relationship existing between the Canadian National express and the Canadian Pacific express.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The amendment just
says that nothing shall be deemed to authorize amalgamation. I do not think that permits discussion of the whole question.


George Brecken Nicholson: I appreciate what you say, Mr. Chairman, but the amendment does deal with amalgamation, and what I want to say will only take a moment. The actual figures, instead of being $500,000 in the case of the Canadian National Railways and $216,000 in the case of the Canadian Pacific, are $12,102,645 for the Canadian National and $15,599,830 for the Canadian Pacific for identically the same services for the year 1931. I put these figures on record for this reason. There is unquestionably a deliberate attempt being made right across this country, by such statements as have been put into the hands of my hon. friend and which have been read in good faith, to convey the impression that this measure that is being passed in an effort to rescue the railways from their present situation, and particularly the Canadian National Railways, is designed to scuttle the Canadian National in the interests of the Canadian Pacific. I think the correct information should be given.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I suggest with all respect to those who want to talk further on this matter that we accept the amendment now, lest peradventure we lose it with all that may be in it. I can imagine myself in the minister's chair, exclaiming, "Well, if they don't want to have it I will withdraw it." Let us have it by all means.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In our section of the country we are quite willing to cooperate, but apparently cooperation means elimination or extermination. I said, when the first reading of the bill was under consideration, that so far as the railway commissioners were concerned the port of the country from which I come had never received fair treatment from
them. To substantiate this statement, I will say-and the house will be surprised to learn this-that the Duff commission never found it possible to devote so much as half an hour of their time to a consideration of the problems of that section of the country right on the ground itself. They never visited any section of the Transcontinental line passing through that part of Canada. In a word, the Duff commission did not think it desirable to visit a section of the Canadian National Railways comprising one-third of the whole system, and on that ground alone we feel that we have a grievance-a grievance which it is hard for us to understand at all. Time was not a matter of great concern to the commission, so that there is no excuse from that point of view. I contend that they should have been on the ground to see for themselves the physical situation of the railways.
I wish to bring up to-day a matter which is of interest to the whole of Canada; I refer to the passenger and freight service of the railways from coast to coast. A little over a year ago the national trains were taken off from Montreal to North Bay and Cochrane and from Cochrane to Winnipeg; for what reason we do not know. No one in Canada, certainly no one in that part of the country, can imagine what could have induced them to take this step. We find on the other hand that trains were put on in sections where there is no population nor any local traffic. On the longest section of the run from Halifax to Quebec and on to Winnipeg and through to the Pacific coast trains were taken off. The suggestion was made that the reason might be that the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway was charging too much for trains using its roadbed. So far that suggestion has not been verified but there is no doubt that trains were taken off in that northern section.
I repeat, we are willing to cooperate and to do everything we possibly can to make the Canadian National Railways a going concern, but it seems to us that passenger service is being taken away from the Canadian National system and handed over to the Canadian Pacific. At the present time trains leaving Quebec pass through Montreal to Ottawa and then go on to North Bay, whereas in the past they went directly from Quebec to Cochrane and on to Winnipeg. A similar situation exists in the maritimes. The committee will understand to what extent the Canadian National system has been the loser during the past year and a half so far as passenger service is concerned. People travelling from our section
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

of the country have been obliged to take a roundabout route, spending from two to six hours in Winnipeg.
I believe, as I have said both privately and publicly, that the Minister of Railways has the welfare of the Canadian National system at heart, but no matter what he says in answer to the criticism of Mr. Deachman, the fact remains that to-day the Canadian National Railways are losing passenger and freight service, and this applies more particularly to my own section of the country. Before the Christmas recess I asked the minister what seemed to me a perfectly reasonable question but one that apparently came to him as a great surprise, namely, when the passenger service would be really established over the National Transcontinental line, and he told me it was not within his province to know when that would take place. Surely the Minister of Railways, who is in charge of the department, should know what is taking place in that section of the country, a section which, as I have said, constitutes one-third of the Canadian National system. For no assigned reason the trains were taken off that section and a service given to a section where there is no population and no local freight.
Only a few months ago I listened with surprise to a statement made by the Prime Minister to the effect that it was practically a blunder to have built a railway linking up east and west in the northern sections of Canada. That I think is a statement which the right hon. gentleman will come to regret. Surely everyone realizes that owing to the construction of that railway hundreds of thousands of a new population found employment. On that score therefore the construction of that line has been fully justified.
To drive home the inadvisability of changing the passenger service in the manner I have indicated, I wish to give some statistics.
Recently the movement of the Continental Limited, Montreal to Vancouver, was changed and instead of moving Montreal to North Bay via Ottawa, thence via Timiskaming and Northern Ontario to Cochrane and west to Nakina via the Transcontinental line, it now moves via North Bay, Capreol, Hornepayne to Nakina. The actual saving in mileage is actually only sixteen miles, made up as follows:
Miles
North Bay to Cochrane	 255
Cochrane to Hearst	 129
Hearst to Nakina	 144
	Miles
North Bay to Capreol.. .		 83
Capreol to Foleyet			 148
Foleyet to Hornepayne..		 149
Hornepayne to Nakina.. .		 132
	512
And .the serving of the population of these	
two routes leaves nothing	in favour of the
route now in use. The	population figures
?tand as follows:	Population
North Bay to Cochrane.		 80,000
Cochrane to Nakina.. ..		 36,000
	116,000
	Population
Nakina to North Bay via	Capreol. 12,000
There is no reason in the world why this service should have been discontinued. Railroad men have told me that there are trains running through the country where they are now routed with only one passenger in the pullman cars and a total of half a dozen in the whole train, but that was not the case with the trains in our section of the country. We have no direct communication with the western sections of Canada. If we want to go to Winnipeg from Cochrane, which is only 900 miles away, we have to go to North Bay in order to make connections. That is a very roundabout route. I know the minister has at heart the welfare of the Canadian National and the other railroads in Canada and I urge upon him to see that this anomaly is remedied as soon as possible. There has been a current rumour in Montreal that trains numbers one and two will be reestablished on May 1, and I hope this is true. The minister may not be familiar with these details of management but I believe it to be his duty to see that the passenger service of the Canadian National Railways should be made as practicable as possible.
The idea has got abroad that there is a certain amount of sabotage in connection with the activities of the Canadian National Railways. I am not in position to corroborate such statements but I refer the committee to the utterance of the Minister of Railways during the Christmas festivities. He was speaking of nothing less than blue ruin for this great railway system. The feeling seems to be spreading throughout Canada that we should get rid of the Canadian National Railways. I think we should have more optimism than that exhibited by the Prime Minister only

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
a few weeks ago when he was referring to the Canadian National Railways. The railway situation may be very serious but I think our railways could be operated in order to provide a vast amount of good to Canada as a whole.
When speaking on the first reading of this bill I referred to another anomaly which existed in my section of the country in the transcontinental routing of grain.


Robert James Manion: I have listened for some
time to the hon. gentleman and it seems to me that he is only making a speech covering every phase of the bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: And outside of the
bill.


Robert James Manion: I think we should try to
keep within the amendment under discussion, and I suggest that the hon. member do so. I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite are any more anxious than we are that the discussion should wander all over the map.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think I have the same right as other hon. members.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur):: I think the point is well taken; the hon. member should confine his remarks to the amendment.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am referring to amalgamation and I am within the limits of the amendment. I listened to other hon. members dealing with every phase of the railway situation and I do not think there should be a special ruling with regard to myself.


Mr. SPENCE:: We have had too much
nonsense.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Does the hon. member intimate that I have been speaking nonsense?


James Houston Spence: I have said we have had
too much nonsense now.


Donald James Cowan: I refer the hon. member to standing order 58 which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why other hon. members should have been permitted to ramble all over the question while I am to be penalized. I have been referring to cooperation and I believe I am within the limits of this amendment. It will only take me a few moments to say what I have to say.


Donald James Cowan: I ask the hon. member to confine
himself as closely as possible to the amendment with regard to amalgamation.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want the minister to study the situation as it pertains to the National Transcontinental railway question. This is a question which has not received the consideration it deserves from this or past governments. I will be fair, and make that distinction. I hope one of the new tribunals will visit our section of the country to deal with this matter and deal with it fairly. We do not ask for special favours, all we want is the service to which we are entitled.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert James Manion: There is another amendment which has been practically agreed to by both sides of the house. I think it would be better to take up these amendments and then we could deal with the sections which were permitted to stand. This particular amendment deals with abandonment. I will ask my colleague to move it.


Mr. STEVENS moved:: That clause 2 be amended by substituting the following as an additional sub-clause:
Notwithstanding anything in this act or in any other act any railway company may abandon the operation of any line of railway with the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and no railway company shall abandon the operation of any line of railway without such approval.


Robert James Manion: This amendment has been studied by the legal advisers of my own department and the Department of Justice, and it deals with abandonment in both a negative and a positive way. This was done in order that there might be no misunderstanding.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Does
that imply the approval of the governor in council?


Robert James Manion: This has nothing to do
with that. This amendment is made so that no abandonment can take place without the consent and approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I might say that either to-morrow or the next day a bill will be introduced to amend the Railway Act by adding practically the same clause. As I explained in a previous discussion, the Canadian Pacific and other railways can abandon lines other than main lines without the approval of the board. It was felt by hon. members opposite and some hon. gentlemen on this side that there should be greater protection against such abandonment, and this amendment is offered to meet their wishes.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
Mr. SPEN'CER: I know of several lines that have already been graded but on which no rails have been placed. In what position -will they be? Will the railways have to go to the railway commission before those lines are discarded?


Robert James Manion: They are in exactly the same position as before. When the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National, as the case may be, decide to go ahead with those lines, either railway will be in exactly the same position as it was before to continue; this bill will not have any effect in such a case. The provision applies only in a case where one or other railway wishes to abandon a line as the Canadian Pacific could and the Canadian National to a large extent could do in the past without permission. Now, instead of doing this without permission, they will have to [DOT]obtain permission from the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will it not be necessary that the other company interested be notified to be present before the board, because otherwise one company might, so to speak, steal a march on the other? It would be well that all the companies interested should be notified to be present when the application is made.


Robert James Manion: This is a clause that deals with the whole act. I believe it is correct to say that when any matter comes before the railway commission, notice is given to interested parties, so that the point mentioned by the hon. member is covered in the Railway Act.


Mr. McINTOSH:: As regards the abandonment of branch lines, there was a Canadian National branch line in the North Battleford district; had the railway to have the sanction of the Board of Railway Commissioners before that branch line was abandoned?


Robert James Manion: In regard to any branch line that was built of recent years under the Canadian National Railways Act the railway had to go to the board. It is possible the hon. member refers to some individual line of which that is not true, but I think I am correct.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not referring to a line that was built and operated, and then abandoned. I am referring to a line part of which was graded; it had not been steeled. Apparently the line is abandoned. Had the sanction of the board to be obtained before abandonment could take place?


Robert James Manion: The hon. member is asking the same question as that asked by the hon.
[Mr. Manion.l
member for Battle River. That line is and will be in the same position after this bill passes as it was before. The Canadian National, when it finds it can afford to continue that line and figures there is enough business for it, will go ahead and finish it. It is not an abandoned line; it is in exactly the same position as if this measure had never been introduced.


Mr. MARCIL:: As regards a branch line, if the people along the route are dissatisfied with the decision given by the railway board, will an appeal lie to the governor in council?
I do not know whether that is provided for or not.


Robert James Manion: I am not a lawyer and I
am speaking subject to correction, although I rather think I am right; any decision which is given by the Board of Railway Commissioners can be appealed to the governor in council. Whether that applies to the case mentioned, I do not know, but I may say this to the hon. member for Bonaventure, that at the present time the Canadian Pacific altogether, except so far as its main line is concerned, and the Canadian National to a large extent can abandon lines without submitting the matter to anybody, so we are protecting the people to a greater degree than they were in the past, by providing that the railways cannot abandon any line-and I am in a day or two going to introduce a similar amendment to the Railway Act-without submission to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not wish to give a legal opinion, but I believe the people will be protected to a greater extent than they have been in the past.


Charles Marcil: To complete this matter, [DOT]the government is obliged to give in this country certain sendees which are not paying and where there is no competitive service. Supposing this new organization decides that a certain line does not pay; that they are losing too much money on it and that is the only line in the district carrying passengers, freight and mail; if the railway commission decides that this line must be abandoned, a new responsibility is put upon the government of looking after transportation, mail service and so on. That is the reason, I 'think, it would be wise that we should stand by the old principle that if a decision rendered by the railway commission is found to be unjust to a oertaia district and contrary to the public interest, there should lie an appeal to the governor in council. That should be provided for beyond a doubt.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: There is nothing in this
measure to change that principle in any shape or form. But at the present time railways are being abandoned without submission to anybody, the governor in council, the Board of Railway Commissioners or anyone else, and not only are we inserting this clause in this bill, but in a day or two I am going to have a clause inserted in the Railway Act for the same purpose, 'that is of forcing not only the Canadian Pacific and 'the Canadian National, but any railway in Canada, before they can abandon any line, to go before the Board of Railway Commissioners. Therefore we are at any rate protecting the people to a greater extent than they have ever been under any government in the past.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand from what
the minister has said that if a Canadian National railway branch line had been sanctioned by parliament before this bill was brought down to the house, the Canadian National could abandon that line, I mean temporarily, without the sanction of the Board of Railway Commissioner's. Am I right in that?


Robert James Manion: Up to the present time
the railway could abandon, although I am not sure about some of the branch lines and I do not wish to get myself on record in a wrong manner. I do not like to go into the same discussion again; I would prefer to avoid repeating myself, but I pointed out that the Canadian National Railway Company, according to section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Aot, was not permitted to abandon lines without submitting the matter to the Board of Railway Commissioner's. That included most of the branch lines that were built since 1923; they were all included in that and make part of the Canadian National Railway Company, so that in the past the railway could not abandon those lines without submission of the matter to the Board of Railway Commissioners. So far as that is concerned, we are making it applicable to every line affected by this bill; the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National, the old Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, or any of those other lines cannot be abandoned without submission of, the matter to the board.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am right then in concluding that the line I am referring to, in northwest Saskatchewan that had been sanctioned by parliament and had been abandoned, was not abandoned until the Board of Railway Commissioners gave approval?
Mr. MANION; I am afraid my hon. friend is using the wrong word. That line has not been abandoned. Abandonment means that where a line has been operating, the operation has stopped; it means stopping of operation. The line to which I understand my hon. friend refers was never completed and never operated.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The construction was
abandoned-the term is correct. We can correctly speak of abandoning construction operations.


Robert James Manion: That is not the proper
term. The construction was not completed; that is what my hon. friend means. The line was not abandoned. When the Canadian National Railways have money enough to complete that line, I have no doubt in the world it will be completed.


Charles Marcil: For the information of
my constituents, I would like the minister to give me the section which provides for an appeal by the people to the governor in council in case the railway commission sanctions the abandonment of any line. I know there is an appeal to the governor in council in the matter of rates, but is there a section which provides for an appeal in case of abandonment of a line? Is there anything in the Railway Act providing for that?


Robert James Manion: My legal adviser says no.
Personally I thought there was an appeal to the governor in council from any decision of the railway board. I do not want to advance a legal opinion because I am not a lawyer, but in this bill there is nothing to alter the condition that existed formerly.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In a case of dispute
between the two railways, would the municipality interested in the dispute have a right to put its case before the railway board?


Robert James Manion: Oh yes, absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert James Manion: I think now the best way to proceed would be to start at the beginning and mop up, to use an old army term, as we go. What about the first clause? I do not suppose there is anything in a name. Some great writer has said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What about adopting the short title?


Peter Heenan: Clause 2 is not carried
yet.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: W e are now on section 1.

C.N.R.-CJ'.R. Bill


Peter Heenan: I wanted to ask a question on clause 2. I am trying to be helpful, and I would like to deal with that matter before we leave clause 2.


Robert James Manion: We are coming back to
clause 2.


Peter Heenan: Some hon. gentlemen
have not come here at all, let alone coming back. The minister promised the other night to consider inserting a provision in clause 2. Why not do that now and then we can start through the bill again. It was a clause with reference to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman
apparently did not quite catch what the chairman said. We are dealing with clause 1 now, and after we get through with that we are going through the act. Clause 2 will come next, and when we reach it I shall be glad to deal with the point raised by my hon. friend.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-His Majesty bound.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River made a proposal that instead of paragraph (a) of clause 2 we should insert the whole of section 179 of the Railway Act. I have studied that question. I have put it before the Department of Justice and I have taken the advice of the legal officers of my own department. They submit that by inserting section 179 of the Railway Act there is no greater protection for the railway men, and that it does complicate the act, becauses the first portion of section 179 deals with matters that have nothing whatever to do with the men. My hon. friend I know is anxious for compensation for the men under certain conditions, just as they are protected under the Railway Act. But under the bill as it now stands they are amply protected, and I would ask my hon. friend with all respect to withdraw his amendment. I am taking the opinions of the legal advisers who tell me that to accept my hon. friend's suggestion would only complicate the act and not protect the men any further.


Peter Heenan: I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not propose an amendment, but when we were discussing the clause I said that it was of little value as it stands now, and I would point out to the minister that notwithstanding the advice he has received from his legal advisers the clause [The Chairman.]
as it stands is of little value. Section 179 of the Railway Act contemplates, a different thing entirely from what this measure contemplates. Let me give an illustration.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There has been an
amendment moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. POWER:: Read it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It reads as follows:
The company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof, until the provisions of the last preceding section are fully complied with, nor remove, close, or abandon any station, or divisional point nor create a new divisional point which would involve the removal of employees without leave of the board and where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence.


Peter Heenan: I had overlooked the fact that I had moved that. I thought that I had asked the minister to move it himself. I am glad that the minister is going to bring in a measure to amend the Railway Act because he may cover in that amendment the matter I am now bringing up. Section 179 of the Railway Act contemplates a situation such as this:	If a railroad company desires for
reasons best known to itself to change its terminals, say from Ottawa, to five miles away from the city, the railroad company must compensate its employees for the loss of property necessitated by the fact that they have to transfer to another point. Section 179 covers that situation fairly well. But when, under this bill, stations are abandoned, there will be many railway men dismissed; not dismissed in the ordinary sense of the word by telling them, "We do not need you any more. Here is your cheque. You can go," but there simply will not be any work for them to do. The men themselves will be abandoned, if I may use the word in that sense, and consequently they will not receive compensation for loss of property from that cause. I think the minister might very well make provision in the Railway Act itself, by amending section 179 of that act, and go beyond the present provision in section 179 which reads, "and where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees, as the board deems proper, for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby," because under this bill it would not be a loss of property caused through a change of residence necessitated by the changing of a terminal, but the

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill
loss will be1 through their jolbs having been done away with and there being no work for them at all. I know that as a private member I have not the right to move an amendment along that line, because it would involve an expenditure of money, but I appeal to the minister to provide that the men will be compensated for financial loss caused to them by the economies effected hereby. Would the minister take that into consideration when he brings in his amendment to the Railway Act?


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to be in any way discourteous, but I would point out that the very point which the hon. member suggests was embodied in an amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg.


Peter Heenan: No.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps not in exactly the same words.


Peter Heenan: His amendment provided
for compensation for all persons who lost their jobs.


Robert James Manion: But my hon. friend from
Ivenora-Rainy River, if I understood him, is suggesting that the same thing apply in regard to any changes that might be referred to section 179 of the .Railway Act. I do not wish to go any further than section 179, which provides that in the case of the abandonment of any station or divisional point or the creation of a new divisional point which would involve the removal of employees the leave of the board must be obtained, and the company must compensate its employees for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby. The point I am making is that they are protected under this new bill just as they were under the old act. In other words, in the new bill there is the statement that that part of section 179 of the Railway Act which relates to compensation to employees for financial loss is incorporated in the bill. I do not wish to go further than that. So far as we have gone in the bill, I am quite agreeable, but I do not wish to carry it further than that. Of course I will promise to consider anything, but there is no use of pretending to the hon. member that I am going to do something which I do not intend to do. I do not believe there is any likelihood of putting in the bill the provision he suggests.


Peter Heenan: 
Robert James Manion: I know the towns of Sioux Lookout and Rainy River as well as does the hon. member, because we both come from that section of the country. As a matter of fact I do not believe there is any likelihood of either point being abandoned. But should they be abandoned I submit under the act the men will be protected, and I think the hon. member agrees with that statement. At any rate I submit that is so because section 179 distinctly states that in case Of abandoning a station or divisional point or creating a new divisional point thei men will he compensated. So in case of an abandonment the men will be compensated by virture of that amendment.
If I understood the hon. member correctly he wishes to go further and say that if in this divisional point men should lose their positions they should be compensated because of loss of employment. We could not have a law to look after employees at Sioux Lookout and Rainy River and not have a law to look after employees at Winnipeg and Port Arthur. I have said that the hon. member's suggestion is similar to that made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg. I do not believe in promising what I do not intend1 to do.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

There is no use promising something which I cannot carry out.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has placed himself on record as wishing to go farther than the legislation provides. I appeal to him to let the bill go through as it is.


Peter Heenan: I suppose it is an Irishman's privilege to keep on talking until he is understood.


Mr.   M ARGIL@: There are two Irishmen here.


Peter Heenan: I point out to the minister that I was not asking for a special consideration for employees at Rainy River or Sioux Lookout, but was merely stating their ease as an example. I should hope the measure I suggest would apply to all railroad employees in Canada. Again I point out that my proposal was entirely different from that moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg. The hon. member asked for compensation for all those who lost their positions. I am asking not only for compensation for loss of positions, but I am asking this: If a railroad company abandons a station because of the merging of services, and some of the men who are not required are dismissed, then we should compensate those people for loss of residence. They axe as much entitled to compensation as those who are transferred to another point. Let me give the example again. Supposing the Canadian Pacific wanted to change their terminal from Ottawa to a point five or six miles out. Under the act they compensate me for the loss of my property rights, so that employees may go and build a home at the other terminal point. That is what is contemplated under section 179. But under the new bill the Canadian Pacific Railway may abandon Ottawa entirely. Under the present regulations the railway companies and the men will get together to negotiate how many men in Ottawa are entitled to move to another point to secure work. In those circumstances the men transferred will come under section 179 of the Railway Act and receive compensation for loss of property. But if half a dozen men owning property in Ottawa are dismissed because of this economy I suggest they are entitled to compensation for loss of property. I do not wish to delay the committee, but I should like the minister to take this matter into consideration.. I suggest to the minister that instead of accepting or rejecting the amendment now before us he just insert the words "under section 179 of the Railway Act."


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member cannot move an amendment to Ms own amendment before we dispose of this one.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The minister said a
few moments ago that he had discussed with various officers concerned, the matter o>f embodying in this bill the whole of section 179 of the Railway Act. A number of hon. members are very much interested in that point, quite apart from the protection it will afford the employees from a financial point of view. It will be recognized by the minister and by the committee, I believe, that in the case of an abandonment of a terminal point, people other than employees are, in a financial sense, vitally interested. I can perhaps do no better than give a concrete illustration of just what can happen under such circumstances. This particular case, although relating to a comparatively small point, was pretty well advertised at the time, it may be in the recollection of the minister although he was not minister then. In my riding at that time, although not now, was a small divisional point, termed Big Valley. It was largely a railway point, depending almost entirely on the fact that it was a terminal point. Based upon the fact that a large proportion of the population were railway men the village erected a fair sized schoolhouse, sold debentures and generally obligated itself for a very large sum considering its population, in order to take care of the railway men's families. When a point of that character is abandoned, a small point where a large proportion of the inhabitants were railway men and their families, they of course suffer very severely. Many of their houses are standing abandoned, some were purchased for a song by the farmers and hauled out on the farms thereabouts. They lost all value in fact. The men suffered severe financial loss, and I am in full sympathy with what has been said with respect to protecting those men. But I understand they were protected by the particular provision in the act referred to, whatever that protection is worth.


Robert James Manion: As far as they were concerned.


Alfred Speakman: Yes, they have been
dealt with as far as that section goes. But I want to point out to the minister and to the committee that no protection is provided in this bill-in fact protection is precluded by the fact that part of the section only is referred to-no protection is provided for the village itself and others who suffer, although not employees. Under the entire section 179

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
such people were given some slight protection; at least to this extent, that they did receive notice and were entitled to lay their case before the railways and before the railway commission before the transfer took place, and to endeavour at least to get some recompense. I think it will be recognized by every one that under those circumstances, where a small community has erected public utilities, schoolhouses and so on far beyond its normal needs and sold debentures based on the railway property and the railway men as taxpayers, and then those men are removed because of a change of policy on the part of the railway, the village itself and the rest of the inhabitants suffer almost as much as the railway men, and by this bill no protection whatever is given them. I am not going to labour that point, but I had hoped that when the question arose as to reference being made to the entire section, that point of view would have been given consideration, and those interested, the municipal authorities and others, given notice of the contemplated action and a right to appear and lay their case before the board with the possibility of receiving compensation.
As I recollect, neither the men nor the village in this case received any compensation. There seemed to be some loophole, through the abandonment -not being an entire abandonment. The abandonment was practically speaking complete, but some half dozen men or less were left with a caretaker's job, and technically the abandonment had not taken place although in actual effect it had. The place is not in my riding, and the matter has not been brought to my attention for some years, but as I remember it, not one dollar of compensation was received by the men or the municipality. But the section did contemplate that protection should be given, and under this bill; by the reference being limited to that part of section 179 which deals only with compensation to the -men, any possibility of compensation being awarded to or representations heard from the municipal authorities and others affected is completely eliminated. I recognize of course that the mere fact that section 179 is not specifically referred to does not necessarily mean that it will not govern, it simply says that the act will prevail over all inconsistent provisions with the exception of certain specified sections. If that part of section 179 proves to be inconsistent that part would still prevail. It does not say that the rest of section 179 will necessarily be inconsistent, but by the fact that one part is picked out and referred to and provision made that even if it prove
inconsistent it will still prevail, I think we may fairly take it for granted that the balance that is not referred to will be considered as inconsistent and so will be eliminated. I do not know whether that particular aspect, and the conditions I have referred to and the position of others than employees has been given consideration. If not I do hope the minister even at this late hour will consider that viewpoint and will see to it by the inclusion of the entire section if possible that this amount of reasonable protection will be afforded to those interested.


George Reginald Geary: I happen to know the Big Valley case, and I am free to say it was not a satisfactory decision. The finding of fact by the railway board was that the divisional point at Big Valley had not 'been abandoned, and therefore the section did not take effect. Subsequently the railway employees strove to get an amendment to section 179, I think it was at the last session, to cover such a case. That amendment was refused. But my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) is a little in error I think in his construction of section 179. I know of nothing in the section as it now stands that enables any compensation to be paid to other than employees. It is simply protection for employees. The Big Valley case was heard in the west, and doubtless the municipal authorities of Big Valley itself appeared and made representations.


Alfred Speakman: That is what I said, it at least gave them notice, and opportunity to be heard.


George Reginald Geary: There will be no difference under this proposed act. The railway board could either hold its sessions in private, or could give notice and let representations be made by the municipality; there is no change in this bill in that regard, so that whatever benefit there may have been in the forepart of section 179 is not interfered with by the present bill.
In regard to the section the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) dealt with, complaint is made that by pooling services between, say, Toronto and Montreal, some men are left without work. That pooling has not taken place under this bill. It might have taken place any time within the last fifteen or twenty years. It would be governed, if at all, by section 179 of the Railway Act. Pooling may take place under this bill, but only by arrangement, such as can be made now. My friend wants to amend section 179. I submit his proposition is not
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

in order at this time, because we are not discussing the Railway Act. If he seeks to amend section 179 by including in it some provision that every man who is deprived of work through an arrangement between the railways is to be given some sort of compensation, that is a very drastic change. Without seeking to stop my hon. friend-it would be rather late to stop him-I think his amendment deals with a matter that is not before the committee. His speech in terms suggested that the minister consider an amendment to the Railway Act. The minister says he will, but it has nothing to do with what we are now discussing.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?
iMr. GEARY: I do raise a point of order, namely, that we shall get nowhere in the consideration of this bill if we discuss a proposed amendment to an entirely different act.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member seems to be familiar with the Railway Act. May I ask him whether under the new system authorization will be given to abandon any divisional point or junction at the sweet will of those who may have charge of the matter, as happened at Matapedia in my own corn stituency, which had been a divisional point for forty years, connecting Gaspe with the Intercolonial. The change was made overnight from Matapedia to Campbellton, New Brunswick, in another province. The railway leaving Gaspe runs two hundred miles to Matapedia, and that has been the divisional point for the last forty years. Now the Canadian National has shifted the terminus from that point to Campbellton, thirteen miles away, involving the dismissal of all officials, because they say it is cheaper for them to go to Campbellton than to keep the terminus at Matapedia.


George Reginald Geary: Has that been done?


Charles Marcil: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: But not under the proposed act.	[DOT]


Charles Marcil: No, but I am asking whether there will be any change in this regard. Matapedia was the terminal point fixed by the Quebec legislature when it incorporated the road. At that time it gave subsidies, fixing the terminal there, and now it has been removed to another province, adding thirteen miles to the run. Surely that is ridiculous. A man reaches Matapedia and he has to go on to Campbellton and then come back to Matapedia on his way to Montreal. Is there any sense in that?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: As I understand the point of order raised by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), the case cited by the hon. member for Bonaventure would not fall under the amendment which is being considered and which deals only with employees. I cannot see anything in the rules to prevent an hon. member seeking to repeat in a bill under consideration a principle embodied in another statute. The amendment would therefore be in order. Is the committee disposed to vote on the amendment?


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) brought up a question which has been answered by one of my hon. friends from Toronto. I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman something that he has forgotten. At the previous sitting of the committee an amendment was moved to section 16 under part II of the bill dealing with cooperation. The amendment was as follows:
Where the execution or carrying out of such a measure, plan or arrangement involves the doing of any act which by any statute requires the leave, sanction, assent or approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, no such measure, plan or arrangement shall be effective without the approval of the said board.
So that we made it absolutely subject to the approval of the board, where it would have been in the ordinary course of events so subject. So far as the rest of the act is concerned, it is in the same position as before.


Charles Marcil: Has the matter to which I have referred been brought to the attention of the minister? I refer to the moving of the terminus from Matapedia to Campbellton. It is a grave injustice.


Robert James Manion: I do not remember who
drew it to my attention but someone did because I am familiar with it. The matter is entirely in the hands of the management, and if they were required to go before the board I presume they did. At any rate I had no power over them. Every abandonment, whether of a station or a ticket or freight agency, is a matter that is dealt with by the management, and though protests did come from that section of the country, I had no jurisdiction any more than I should have in connection with the Canadian Pacific, if they decided to change some routing or terminus. I would point out to the hon. gentleman, however, that in so far as they had to appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners under the existing Railway Act there will be no change in this legislation.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry to hear the
minister say that because certainly a grave

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
injustice has been done the locality in question, and I was wondering whether the minister would have allowed such a thing to happen.


Robert James Manion: I had no power to stop it.


Charles Marcil: We are now dealing with
the economy program, and I want to put this to the minister. Why should twenty-six miles be added to the service between Gaspe and Montreal? The train reaches Matapedia and then runs back eastward over the same ground another thirteen miles.


Robert James Manion: As the hon. member explains it, it does sound most illogical, and that argument was advanced by those residents of the district who wrote to me. As I usually do in all such matters, I submitted their representations to the management of the Canadian National and they made a reply which I must say was satisfactory to them. I do not say it was satisfactory to me, because I am not competent to pass on the technical side of railway questions; but from their point of view, from the point of view of the economy which would be effected, they claimed that the change was to their advantage. I saw the difficulties which my hon. friend points out, and theTe were also political disadvantages which I should have been glad to have them appreciate, in moving the terminus from one province to another; I knew it would cause considerable difficulty. But they stood by their guns, they maintained that their position was sound, and they explained to me to their own satisfaction that the change was better for them. I had no power to alter their decision.


Charles Marcil: I would point out to the
minister that the employees were not compensated. The place was simply torn down and Campbellton made the terminal point. A grave injustice has been done not only to the employees but to the locality itself, and I submit that there should be in this legislation or in the Railway Act some provision that would prevent the recurrence of such a change. I know that if the terminus had been removed from Campbellton, New Brunswick, to Matapedia, Quebec, we should have heard from the New Brunswick members; but as a rule we are peaceable and law-abiding in Quebec and we allowed the government to deal with the matter. I impress upon the minister that a grave injustice was done, because the road was built originally with subsidies from Quebec and the terminus was fixed at Matapedia. It remained there for forty years, and suddenly one day the Canadian National Railways step
in and remove the terminus to a point in New Brunswick thirteen miles away, notwithstanding that there is no advantage to be gained from the change; for any railway man will inform the minister that the addition of twenty-six miles, running up and down, morning and night, is an absolute loss which is not compensated by the dismissal of the officials. There is another objection. The train leaves Gaspe and runs two hundred miles through rough country and it must reach Campbellton one hour ahead of the time it reaches Matapedia if it is to connect with the Ocean Limited westbound. If it does not reach Campbellton an hour earlier it cannot connect with the Ocean Limited, and that means that it must leave Gaspe very early in the morning. The result is that the people in that district are put to considerable inconvenience having to take the train at the earlier hour. His Lordship Bishop Ross objected to this and Sir Henry Thornton, when he had the management of the Canadian National Railways, fixed the departure of the train from Gaspe at eight o'clock in order to have it meet the Ocean Limited westbound at Matapedia.
Let me point out to the minister that the Gaspe railway is the best feeder which the Canadian National Railways have east of Montreal. This has been conceded. When Sir Henry Thornton went away the change was made and now the train reaches Campbellton too late. Fresh fish in the fishing season and general merchandise are consequently held up for twenty-four hours. As I say, there is no advantage whatever from the change but on the contrary an additional mileage of twenty-six miles. The passenger has to get off at Matapedia and wait an hour or an hour and a half or run up to Campbellton, covering a distance of thirteen miles each way. I repeat, this is a grave injustice to that section of the country, and I think the minister should amend the act to provide that in the future no such radical change shall be made before the people of the locality are heard by the board.


Robert James Manion: I will take the remarks
of the hon. gentleman into consideration.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: When we were discussing this section before, the minister referred to a matter that had been brought up with regard to pensions of those who were under sixty-five years of age and had been forty years in the service. As the law now stands he would not get a pension until he had reached the age of sixty-five years. If a man is laid off because of a duplication of services, the suggestion is made that his pension could be calculated even though he
C.N.B.-C.P.R. Bill

has not reached the age of sixty-five. The advantage in this would be that the pension paid would not be as large as if he had waited until he had reached the age of sixty-five, and should an opening occur he would be out of the way to make a place for someone who was unemployed. When this matter was being discussed before the minister said he would take it under consideration,


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I cannot suggest a solution of this problem at the moment. It is something which the management will have to take into account when dealing with pension arrangements. As I pointed out the other day, this whole question of pensions is very complicated. I have a memorandum outlining the different schemes and the closest compass in which an explanation could be given was three closely typewritten pages. I shall be very glad to submit the hon. gentleman's remarks to the management but I do not think we could include anything in this bill to deal with pensions. That is an arrangement which has been altered at times by the railways and it dates back to the old days of the Grand Trunk. There are at present three systems of pensions, the Grand Trunk railway provident fund, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees' provident fund and the present Canadian National pension plan. I believe it is the intention of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific officials to deal with all pension matters as affecting railway employees. I understand that the railway employees themselves have suggested that the pension schemes be made contributory. I have no doubt that when these matters are being considered, the men's unions will see that they are not lost sight of.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope the minister means that he will recommend to whatever tribunal is dealing with this matter allowance of pensions to those who have been deprived of their positions before reaching the age of sixty-five years.	.


Robert James Manion: Speaking from memory and not wanting to be too definite, I understand that where a man has been working for the company for fifteen years, he is entitled to pension when retired.


John Campbell Elliott: I happen to have the
pension regulations before me and I should be very glad if the minister would point out that provision. I should like to quote from the rules and regulations which were passed 
under the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Pension Act, chapter 4, 19-20, George V (1929). Section 8 reads as follows:
Subject to confirmation as provided in rule 4, such pension may be granted by the pension committee to employees on their retirement from the company's service in the following cases:-
(a)	To an employee retiring at the age of 65 years or over, with 15 or more years of service to his credit.
In that case he has to be sixty-five years or over.
(b)	To an employee of the age of sixty and under sixty-five years with 20 or more years of service to his credit retired by reason of permanent physical or mental disability upon the certificate of the company's chief medical officer that for such reason the employee is unfitted to follow his usual or any other suitable employment in the company's service.
(c)	To an employee who, after 10 or more years of service to his credit, becomes incapable of continuing his service by reason of injuries received whilst actually at work in the employment of the company, but only for so long as his incapacity shall continue.
(d)	To an employee of the age of 50 years and upwards with 15 or more years of service to his credit who is discharged from the company's service otherwise than for misconduct.


Robert James Manion: That covers the point I was making.


John Campbell Elliott: If he is fifty years and upwards and is discharged from the company's service otherwise than for misconduct. There would be a very few who would come under that clause after having been in the employ of the company for forty years; they would have to have started work at a very early age.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Before proceeding with this question would the committee first dispose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River?


John Campbell Elliott: I think we would save time by discussing both matters together.


Robert James Manion: I think there are many cases where an employee under the age of sixty-five years receives a pension upon being retired. I have under my hand the memorandum to which I referred a moment ago, and I think it would save time to put on record the particulars of the different schemes. The first scheme is the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund, which provides for pension in the following cases:
(a)	Those who have attained the age of 70 years after being 15 years in the service.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
(b)	Those who after 15 years in service become physically or mentally incapacitated from following their usual occupation in the service.
That would be at any age.
(c)	Those who have attained the age of sixty after being 15 years in service and request to be retired.
(d)	Those who are permanently disabled as a result of injuries received whilst on duty and actually at work in the service.
(e)	_ Those who prior to the coming into force of this act entered the service at such advanced age as to cause them to reach the age of 70 before being 15 years in the service; provided that on attaining the age of 70 they have been at least 10 years in the service.
The Canadian National Railways Pension Act provides for pension in the following cases;
(a)	To an employee retiring at the age of 65 or over, with 15 or more years service to his credit.
(b) To an employee of 60 and under 65 years with 20 or more years service retired by reason of permanent physical or mental disability on certificate of company's chief medical officer that employee is unfitted to follow his usual or other suitable employment in the company's service.
(c)	To an employee who after 10 or more years service becomes incapable of continuing by reason of injuries received while actually at work in the company's employ, but only for so long as his incapacity continues.
(d)	To an employee of 50 years and upwards with 15 or more years service who is discharged otherwise than for misconduct.
I think that is a pretty wide range and I think quite a few of the points mentioned by my hon. friend are covered. Apparently he has given a good deal of study to this question and if he will advance any of his ideas to me I shall be very glad to pass them on to the railway company. I shall bless them on their way, if he wishes.
Mr. HEENAN; As regards the amendment which stands in my name, I want to point out to the minister that I was trying to be helpful, and I still want to be. It is true that when I spoke on the amendment, I pointed out to the minister that I did not think my own amendment would really fill the bill under the new plan. I asked that he would consider bringing in an amendment to the Railway Act and so far he has not felt disposed to accede to that request; in fact, I think he has finally decided that he will not bring in the amendment 'that I requested.
There are several reasons why the amendment I have before the committee at the moment should be incorporated in this measure. One is that the minister himself brought in an amendment which changes this bill;
in other words, he is amending it so that instead of the railway companies having power to do all these things that were enumerated several days ago, those matters would be put under the railway commission. I think the minister will recall that !he brought in an amendment the other night-I do not know Whether it was carried-putting miany of these operations, such as abandonment of lines and so forth, under the railway board instead of the arbitral tribunal. If we adopt this bill now', we say, and I want the minister to pay attention to this;
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts, but so that
And then follows "that part of section 179." Does he see what we are doing? We are putting these matters under the railway commission and we are giving them only "that part of section 179." I think the minister could cut out all that. I cannot move an amendment to my amendment in order to add anything-


Mr. ERNST:: Oh, ohl


Peter Heenan: Of course some hon.
members coming from behind the curtain have to laugh because they do not know what is being discussed.


William Gordon Ernst: I am not behind the curtain.


Peter Heenan: About the only time I
get annoyed is when some hon. member Who is not taking an interest in the welfare of the railway workers of Canada comes from behind the curtains and laughs.


William Gordon Ernst: I have taken far more interest in the railway workers of Canada than my hon. friend has done.
Mr. HEENAN; I have the floor.


William Gordon Ernst: I have not been behind the curtain. I have been sitting right here.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member ought
to be behind the curtain.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River has the floor.


William Gordon Ernst: I should not be described
as being behind the curtain and I ask the hon. member to retract that particular statement which is false.


Peter Heenan: It is surprising to me how the hon. member thinks I was alluding to him.


William Gordon Ernst: I am quite sine the hon.
member was.
C.N.R.-CB.R. Bill


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must admit that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has the floor.


William Gordon Ernst: But he must not make
allusions which are obviously directed to me and which are not in accordance with the fact.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member said that he was not speaking of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.


Peter Heenan: I did not accuse any specific member of being behind the curtain, but any hon. member who interjects these "smart Aleck" remarks should be behind the curtain.


William Gordon Ernst: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member.


Peter Heenan: I shall not continue until these "smart Aleck" remarks from the Tory party stop.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must use parliamentary language. That expression is not parliamentary.


Peter Heenan: I mean these gentlemen on the Tory benches.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has the floor and he has had it all afternoon on this amendment. He knows he should not address personal remarks to his colleagues.


Peter Heenan: I object to the Chairman's remarks, because he sits in this chair listening to these "smart Aleck" remarks and does not take note of them.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The Chairman has to sit in his chair, but once in a while he listens to remarks that cheer him up.


Peter Heenan: I say again that the minister has now brought in an amendment which gives to the railway commissioners powers that he had formerly given to the arbitral tribunal. I am not suggesting that this is entirely wrong; it is just a change of conditions. Now with the change of conditions, we have only one part of section 179 exempt from the provisions of the bill. All I want to do is what I think the minister intends and ought to do, namely, to provide for the whole of section 179. In my amendment I have moved the whole of the words of that section and I submit that we could very well include a further provision here. Somebody else might do it. I should like the minister to accept section 179 of the Railway Act. That is all I want done.


Robert James Manion: This is the hon. gentleman's amendment. I have explained, not once but a number of times, why this cannot be done. I have given reasons and I do not wish to go over the ground again.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Section 179 has not been very satisfactory to the railway employees. I do not think there is much doubt as to that. The statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer gave one very concrete illustration as to how the section worked in the past. In addition to that we have had the spectacle this year of the railway employees appearing before a committee of the house asking that section 179 of the Railway Act be changed in order to give it a fairer interpretation so far as they are concerned, than it has had. That was turned down by the railway committee and I presume the section as it stands will remain in operation.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not know that the hon. member can criticize a law unless he wants to ask that it be repealed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I can discuss it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am trying to do my duty the best I can. I do not want to be discourteous. The rule is clear that one cannot discuss a law unless one wants to ask for its repeal. This amendment deals with the bill before the committee, not with the Railway Act. The hon. member is quite in order to discuss the amendment, but I do not think he would be in order to discuss the Railway Act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not discussing the Railway Act in its entirety; I am discussing section 179 which is specifically referred to in both the resolution and the amendment now before the committee.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then the hon. member is in order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Section 179 has proved to be very unsatisfactory to the railway employees. Further, if the bill now before the committee becomes law, the effect will be that under section 179 there may have to be many more appeals to the railway commission. The Minister of Railways this afternoon gave an interpretation of the act, but I do not think he had an opportunity of consulting with his legal adviser before he made the statement on the floor of the house. If the railway commission were hearing any appeal under that section, I do not know whether they would take the same broad view of the ques-

C.NH.-C.P.R. Bill
tion which the minister has taken here, because in the past they have followed a very strict and narrow interpretation of the act, and that is what we are complaining about. Furthermore, what may happen under this new measure for cooperation is that the lines may have to be abandoned, and before that abandonment takes place the men in the railway service will have to be dispensed with. A week or two after they have been dispensed with, the lines will be abandoned. The men's employment has been done away with, and they are left with their little properties in these towns with absolutely no redress under section 179 of the Railway Act or under this measure. If the minister will not give me one hundred per cent of what I ask, he might give me a small portion. He seems to be in rather a generous mood this afternoon, and I would ask him to take into serious consideration, not simply throw the suggestion into the waste paper basket, the enactment of a provision that will give to these men compensation even to a limited degree, especially when they have put their life savings into a home in some railway town and find not only their work gone but the value of their property wiped out; because when lines are abandoned, either wholly or in part, the value of the property disappears. I appeal to the minister to include in this act or in an amendment to the Railway Act a provision if not to compensate the men for losing their jobs, at least that they shall receive some compensation for the property they may lose.


Peter Heenan: Let me put it to the minister in another way. First let me ask him, does he intend to deprive the railroad men of the rights which they now have under section 179 of the Railway Act? I take it that the minister would immediately say no, and ^ I see he nods his head. What I fear is this, now that we are putting all these things back under the railway commission. As we refer to only part of section 179 of the Railway Act, then by inference the other part of section 179 is inconsistent with the provisions of this act. I fear that the government unintentionally is taking away the privileges which the employees now have. I do not want to go into another lengthy discussion on this thing. I feel that I am making a fair and reasonable appeal to the minister. If there is any delay I am willing to take the blame for it on the ground that I have not been able to make myself understood, but the more I look into it the more plainly I see that when you mention only part of section 179 of the Railway Act, then by inference you say that the other
part of section 179 is inconsistent with the provisions of this act. Although section 179 does not satisfy me, as the minister knows by now, I think that the least we can do in order to preserve for the employees the protection which they now have, and not take anything away from them, is to include the whole of section 179.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to go into a lot of detail. The reason I object to section 179 going in in toto is that it refers to section 178. The beginning of section 179 has nothing to do with the employees. Reference is made in section 179 to section 178, and 178 deals with such matters as deviations, changes and alterations; plan, profile, and so forth; sanction; the depositing of plan, profile and book of reference; it provides that the company may execute works, and that the board may dispense with proceedings. A lot of matters are dealt with in section 178, to which section 179 refers, which have nothing whatever to do with the employees of the railway.
I take it that the attitude of the hon. gentleman is to protect the interests of the employees. I submit-I shall not repeat it again whether we vote on this or not-that that part of section 179 which is included in this bill protects the employees so far as they can be protected under section 179. If you put in the whole section you deal with a lot of matters that would interefere to a certain extent with cooperation, and would have no effect on the employees at all but would only complicate matters. To show how the hon. gentleman must be wrong, he says that because we refer to a portion of section 179 then by inference the rest of section 179 is put out of court. If his contention is right, then because we mention the Maritime Freight Rates Act, all other acts must be out of court. That cannot be right because this act prevails over any other act except where the provisions of this act are inconsistent with the provisions of some other act.
I do not intend to argue the matter any further. The hon. gentleman has put himself on record, and certainly I have. I submit in conclusion that section 179, so far as it protects the men, is incorporated in this act. With all due respect, and I say this with no disrespect whatsoever for my hon. friend, I prefer to take the opinion of the Justice department and of my own legal advisers as to the interpretation of the act rather than the word of my hon. friend. I must accept the word of the Justice department and of my legal advisers because neither my friend nor I is a lawyer.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Peter Heenan: I wish that I were arguing against thie Justice department or against the minister's legal adviser because I might be able to convince him that he was wrong. The argument which the minister has just put up convinces me that I am right. Section 2 provides:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts, but so that,-
(b) the pi-ovisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act; and . . .
shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of this act or to be in any manner affected thereby.
Why do we say that?


Robert James Manion: Just to emphasize it.


Peter Heenan: That is the point. The
minister and I are agreed. It is just to make sure that the Maritime Freight Rates Act is not disturbed. The next paragraph alludes to the Crowsnest pass rates, not in so many words, but that is what it means. It is necessary to emphasize it. What I want the minister to do in the few sections that relate to labour is to emphasize the fact that labour is protected.


Robert James Manion: We have done that by
putting in that part of section 179 of the Railway Act.


Peter Heenan: Why put in just a portion of section 179? I admit that the minister is right in saying that section 178 relates to other matters, but we have left out entirely the first portion of section 179 which says: The company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof . . . nor remove, close, or abandon any station, or divisional point nor create a new divisional point which would involve the removal of employees, without leave of the board.
Are we going to leave that out?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It also says, "until the
provisions of the last preceding section are fully complied with." My hon. friend did not read that.


Peter Heenan: That means section 178.
I admit that the thing is complicated because of the fact that it has not been considered.


William Gordon Ernst: As an engineer put your
hand in your own pocket.


Peter Heenan: Is that coming up again?
I want the minister to give this matter serious consideration because so far as I am concerned this bill cannot go through this house in this way. We have only asked the 
Minister of Railways to protect the labour men in this country. We are not getting that; we are not even getting consideration, nothing but "ya-ha's" from the Tory benches.
-Mr. MANION: I rise to a point of order. The bon. gentleman blew up a filibuster the other day, and got a lot of headlines in the newspapers. I object to the statement he has just made, and I would ask him to retract it. He says all he gets from the Tory benches is a lot of "ya-ha." What it means, I do not know. The Tory benches are giving as much consideration to the working men as is the hon. member. I object to the statement, and I want it retracted.


Peter Heenan: That does not worry me
a bit.


Robert James Manion: I want a ruling.


Peter Heenan: I will withdraw it, right
now, and substitute for it anything else that will stand for the same thing. The Minister of Railways has a bill before us which means the amalgamation of the railroads of Canada.


Robert James Manion: It means nothing of the
sort, and the hon. member knows it.


Peter Heenan: It means harm to 40,000
railway men of Canada.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I ask the hon. member to keep to the terms of the section, and the amendment thereto.


Peter Heenan: I am asking for the protection we had under section 179, before this bill was drafted. Part of that protection is being taken away from us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no.


Peter Heenan: I say, yes, yes. If you do not want to take it away from them, include it in the measure and accept the amendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must abuse the chair, if he wishes to abuse anybody.


Peter Heenan: It is hard to do it when hon. members are interrupting so much.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have to keep the
hon. member within decent bounds.


Peter Heenan: Why worry about it?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am here to have
the rules of the house respected.


Peter Heenan: It is a funny thing that
if anybody rises to talk about labour matters he is the only man who is ruled out of order.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That remark was
absolutely uncalled for, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it, otherwise I shall have to take the necessary measures. I have to do my duty, and I shall do it. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement.


Peter Heenan: What statement?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The statement the hon. member has just made.


Peter Heenan: I will withdraw the statement I have just made. What was it?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. member
does not know what he is talking about, it is not my fault.


Peter Heenan: We have before us a bill
which means more to the railway men of Canada than any other measure which has been introduced into this House of Commons. Instead of the government considering my amendment there is presented the spectacle which we see every time one of us gets up.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay):: You are
making a spectacle all right.


Peter Heenan: Every time hon. members
on this side of the house rise to try to protect the railway men we get just what we are receiving now from the Tory benches. When I spoke before I did not refer to the Minister of Railways or to the government, but to the speeches of hon. members sitting behind the government. However, that is past, and I aim still appealing to the minister to give the protection to the railway men of Canada that they had prior to the initiation of the bill.


Robert James Manion: They have it in this legislation.


Peter Heenan: They have no such thing,
and you cannot tell me that .they have it. If they have it in the bill, be as specific in this measure as you were with the maritime freight rates legislation. Include the whole of section 179 of the Railway Act, and not only one part of that section. If the minister is content that he is taking nothing away from the railway men, and that they will still receive the benefits of section 179, I suggest that in the measure he use the words "section 179", not "that part of section 179." The Minister of Trade and Commerce shakes his head, as much as to say that it cannot be done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not that.


Peter Heenan: I know that section 179
of the Railway Act contains the words "until the provisions of the last preceding section
are fully complied with." I know that it is all mixed up. But in eliminating those words you also eliminate the words "the company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof"-until the railways submit to profiles, plans, and other things enumerated, and so on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. member permit me to say a few words? We have listened this afternoon to a full discussion of this matter, and have gone over the whole field a number of times. In his desire to meet the wishes of the hon. member the Minister of Railways has violated the rules of the house, due to the fact that he has had to indulge in tedious repetition; to my knowledge he has repeated his explanation at least four or five times. May I appeal to the hon. member to be just to the government and those who are seeking to pass the measure. We have carried into the new bill all that portion of section 179 which refers to the compensation of employees.
Following the explanations made by my colleague the Minister of Railways, let me explain the whole matter again. There is another part of section 179 which deals with the deviation of lines, and deals particularly with terminals and railway stations. The details of that part of section 179 are set forth in section 178. There are some portions of the section which, if carried into the bill in toto, would disturb the whole structure of it. That would be easily understood if anybody were to read section 178 carefully. The government have considered the matter with great care, have submitted it to the law officers of the Department of Justice and the Department of Railways, and we have been advised that it would be legally unwise to carry the whole section into the bill. The hon. member will observe that we have specifically and definitely carried into the measure, the provision concerning compensation to employees. I ask the hon. member and the committee if they have not discussed this clause long enough. We regret we cannot satisfy the hon. member's wish but we have explained to him the extent to which we have gone. We ask that the committee help us to make a little more progress with the bill, and we do not ask it in any spirit of bitter, specious or captious opposition to the hon. member's views. It is our earnest desire to meet him, but we cannot meet him in the extreme view he takes in regard to section 179.
I think we have been reasonable. Certainly the Minister of Railways has been patient, not only to-day, but during the long
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

and tedious discussion which has taken place throughout the progress of the bill, a discussion which has spread over many, many days. After all, some consideration should be given to anyone piloting a bill such as this through the House of Commons. We are anxious to meet the views of hon. members opposite. In fact, the minister has in his hand some other amendments which he is anxious to move, and which will meet the views of hon. members opposite. Already two of those amendments have been carried. We are not seeking to be objectionable, we are trying to be reasonable, but we cannot meet the hon. member in this respect. As his amendment is before us, surely we can take the sense of the committee in regard to it.


Peter Heenan: I hope the Minister of
Trade and Commerce will give mie credit at least for trying to be considerate. I have been patient, as long as hon. members on the government benches allowed me to be so. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not yet convinced me; it may be because I cannot be convinced. I admit that as far as the compensation is concerned we have it included in paragraph (a) of section 2; but I want the Minister of Trade and Commerce to look at this point; -the first part of section 179 says that "the company shah not at any time make any change..." except by leave of 'the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is only after they get that leave that compensation is effective, so it is really necessary to get the first part in, in order to make the second part effective. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways can convince me in this respect I shall be satisfied.


Robert James Manion: I do not think it is possible to convince the hon. member, but we are convinced ourselves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That portion which
relates to compensation of employees, every part of section 179 that has to do with compensation, is preserved in this 'bill. If the whole of it applies, then the whole of it is preserved. That is clear.


Peter Heenan: All I can say is that the
railroad men do not believe so.


Robert James Manion: This was put in in the other chamber at the request of the railroad men.


Peter Heenan: No, Mr. Chairman, it
was not. This is what the Senate gave the railroad men out of what they asked, which is an entirely different thing. The railroad men asked for more than this, but this is ail they got.


Robert James Manion: My legal adviser was present at those meetings, and he tells me that the raolroad men expressed themselves as satisfied with this. That is what the gentleman who is sitting in front of me and who was present at those meetings says. And it is a very strange thing if these railroad men are not satisfied and have not so advised me. I come from a bigger railroad centre than my hon. friend


Peter Heenan: That has nothing to do
with it.


Robert James Manion: No, but if they are not
satisfied it is strange that they have not given me some intimation of their dissatisfaction. I have never heard a word from them to that effect, and they do not hesitate to approach me. According to my best information it satisfied them when they appeared before the committee in the Senate.


Peter Heenan: Probably the minister will admit that I know something about what the representatives of railroad unions think about the whole measure. But I do not want to discuss that. Do you think I would stand here and talk as I have talked if I thought this was satisfactory to the representatives of railroad labour in Canada? Not for a moment. I will go this far right now; if the minister will make the statement on behalf of the government that if this is not interpreted the way he now says it will be interpreted, he will bring in an amendment at a future session, I will withdraw my amendment.


James Houston Spence: Of course you would if
you got all you wanted.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is on
the amendment.


Peter Heenan: The very fact that the
Minister of Railways will not go so far as to say that if it is not interpreted the way he says it is intended to be he will amend the bill-


Robert James Manion: I did not say how it was
going to work out. I say it will protect the men to the same extent that the Railway Act does.


Peter Heenan: But there is a difference
of opinion between us as to the provision. I contend that the railway men of this country are not protected; they have not under this bill the whole of section 179, but only part of it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways say-and I believe they think they are right-that we have not had anything taken away from us whatever.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
With that difference of opinion between us surely the government ought to go so far as to say that if it is not interpreted the way the government says it is going to be they will amend the act at a future session. Is that unreasonable? I point out again that all we ask in this whole controversy is protection of the railroad men of this country even to the extent they had before this bill was presented. It is bad enough taking work from 20,000 to 40,000 of them, without trying to take away some of the privileges they have at the present time.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will draw the hon.
member's attention to standing order No. 41 (i); that a member shall not:
Use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the house.
The hon. member has spoken all afternoon, I think obstructing his own amendment.


Peter Heenan: I do not think that is a
fair reading of the rule. I am not obstructing.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. member is only
blowing off steam.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee desires to have the amendment put, but the hon. member has risen time after time and has. obstructed his own amendment.


Peter Heenan: I am only trying to answer the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways. They take the position that this measure does not detract-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I call the hon. member's attention to the rule.


Peter Heenan: I appeal against the ruling of the chair.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
alone in his appeal. Therefore it is of no use.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The point I raised is somewhat different from that raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I am not going to argue about the legal aspects of section 179, as to its definition or even its application, because I am always afraid to jump in where lawyers are concerned. I recall that a couple of years ago I had one of the best lawyers around this building draft an amendment which I thought was too difficult for a layman to draft, and after I submitted the amendment to the house every lawyer in the house jumped on me and said that I should have gone to a lawyer to have it drafted. It is possible that the definition given by the Minister of Railways is quite correct, and I am prepared to accept that viewpoint. At the same time I desire to
testify to the fairness of the minister during the whole course of the discussion of this measure. Now having said these nice things about him I hope he will treat me with a little more consideration than when I suggested a little earlier this afternoon-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does the hon. member want to move an amendment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, it arises out of the
same things.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Because we could dispose first of the amendment now before the committee, and then the hon. member could proceed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In speaking to the point I
raised earlier I will not repeat what I said if I get satisfaction from the minister. I claim that under the provisions of this bill the necessity for proposing an amendment to section 179 will be apparent to everyone. It is almost certain that a large number of railway employees who have put their savings into a little piece of property in a railway centre will as a result of the operation of this bill find they have no further use for the property which they have purchased.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just before the adjournment I was making an appeal to the minister on behalf of those railway men who are likely to lose their homes, which no doubt they have worked a great many yeans to acquire. As regards section 179 of the Railway Act, I do not think it is important whether that provision goes into this legislation because in my opinion the men would still come under the Railway Act. But the important part is the effect which in past years the actual operation of section 179 has had; it has given very little satisfaction to the men affected, and its interpretation, as respects the Big Valley situation, for example, which was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer, simply meant that although the men had lived in the town for many years and had bought homes, they found, when the time came for a change to be made in connection with that divisional point, that they were entitled to nothing in the way of compensation for their removal. It seems to me it is not a question whether section 179 is incorporated in this legislation; the important point is that the
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

spirit and intent of that section shall be observed in the operation of the bill now before us when it becomes law.
I think it will be generally agreed that in consequence of this bill many hundreds and even thousands of men who have sunk all their savings into homes in small railway divisional points will probably lose everything they possess. I am now pleading for the small man who has invested his all in a home and is now likely, as a result otf the operation of the legislation now before us, to find himself utterly dispossessed. I submit that we shall have to have an amendment to the Railway Act, either in section 179 or by way of a special clause in the act, to meet this situation, because there will probably be thousands of such cases throughout Canada; men will lose not only their jobs but their life savings. Is the minister not prepared to consider favourably the insertion of a clause which will provide for such men some compensation to be determined by the railway board?


Robert James Manion: In the first place I should not oare to admit the accuracy of my hon. friend's statement that so many men will find themselves in the position he suggests. I think it would be wiser for us to wait until we have seen some of the effects of the legislation before taking action in this regard. If any injustice is done I do not think there is any member of this house who would wish to see the railway men suffer; I do not think anyone wants to see them suffer injustice in consequence of any act of parliament or of the railway companies. If therefore it should prove that men are being unjustly treated, we shall be in a fair position to deal with the matter as and when such injustice occurs. At that time we could discuss the matter on its merits. If it is found after the act goes into operation that there are just grounds for complaint, the question can be considered next session, if we are all here at that time.
I understand and respect my hon. friend's position in this matter, but the government does not accept the premise he lays down, and we are not anxious to include in the legislation any provisions which may not be necessary.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the Big Valley affair discussed this afternoon, it was shown that men had been actually moved from one place to another and that through a technicality in the law they were not entitled to compensation; yet parliament took no action; indeed, when the matter was brought to the attention of the committee this year it was turned down and the men could get no redress. However, I am glad the minister makes the 
admission that if one year from now it is found that men have lost their homes through process of this legislation, he will take into consideration the suggestion I am now making.


Robert James Manion: On its merits.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. But I would remind the minister that it is rather dangerous to leave legislation in such a form as to make retroactive measures necessary. Personally, I would rather have parliament take a proper view of the situation now, to anticipate any difficulties that may arise and to make the necessary provision to take care of them.


Mr. MITCHELL:: When this house passes legislation that has for its object the dismissal of thousands of men, I believe that a responsibility rests on the government of the country at least to make some provision for those who will suffer in consequence. I advanced this argument the other day. This question came up in Great Britain when the different railway systems, one hundred and twenty in number, were consolidated into four large systems. There ample protection was provided for the railway workers. I know that in a young country like this, with such a background as ours, it is difficult for us to appreciate action of that sort. In connection with the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg, take the railway towns in northern Ontario; when a man loses employment there he loses everything, because his home depreciates in value. Such men are more or less cut off from civilization as we know it in the larger centres. There is not the remotest possibility therefore of their receiving anything approaching the value of the property they own. There is really only one thing that they can do, and that is to leave their homes and swell the ranks of the unemployed in the large cities of Ontario.
In its practical application, whether we like it or not, this legidation will throw many railway workers on the streets. We need not deceive ourselves in this matter. In my judgment, no consideration at all was given by the framers of this bill to the human element in the railway industry. Section 179 of the Railway Act is to ail intents and purposes a dead letter in the application of this legislation. An example was cited by the previous speaker. It was necessary in western Canada to shut down a divisional point, and all that had to be done was to leave one crew there and section 179 did not apply.
I believe the responsibility rests upon the government at this time to make some provision for the railway men who are going to

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
lose their jobs. I do not want to labour the point, but after all these men are making a greater sacrifice than the people who invested in the industry. Surely it is not beyond the wisdom of any government to deal with such a situation. I think it could very well be done before the final passage of this bill, and that would be far better than waiting a year. I appreciate the position of the minister, but it is not a question of waiting to see how the legislation will work, because the displacement of labour through the consolidation of the two railways is an actual problem. A good deal has been said about amalgamation. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we shall have amalgamation within eighteen months of the passing of this legislation, and this by sheer force of economics. It seems to me the government could quite easily make provision, small as it might be, to take care of the men, because we might as well sign the death warrant of those who are being laid off in the railway industry as leave the act in its present shape. These men have absolutely no hope of finding employment in any of the centres of the dominion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the risk of delaying the committee, I should like to make a few observations. It is not admitted as an accepted premise that the legislation now before the house will have the effect which lion, gentlemen opposite are insisting upon. Be that as it may, what help will it give to the men who are out of employment to-day? They will continue to be out of employment if some measure such as this is not passed by parliament. I would refer the hon. member for East Hamilton to the speech made by Mr. Beatty in Winnipeg. He was dealing with this very question and as an argument for amalgamation he stated that no doubt there would be some cases where employment would be lost but that those who are still employed would have steady employment. He stated that that would be much better than a continuance of the intermittent employment now prevalent.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a
moment; you are on your feet pretty often while I am on mine very seldom. The argument adduced by the hon. member for North Winnipeg has many ramifications and implications. He is arguing that the state should be an insurer-that is what it amounts to-of employment for men who because of economic reasons find themselves out of employment. Let me put this case to hon. gentlemen opposite. If they come into power 53719-275
and the hon. member for Weybum has his way, the tariff on cottons wild be taken off. If the hon. member is a member of that government, which I do not think is likely to happen-


Mr. YOUNG:: Not at all likely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In my
constituency there is a town of 1,800 people wholly dependent upon the cotton industry. What would he say if as an argument against the proposal to take off the tariff on cottons I said that because of its fiscal policy, the government of this country should ensure to those people compensation for their loss of employment and property. That argument is just as sound as the one advanced by the hon. member for North Winnipeg. I could make just as strong a ptlea for those people as he makes for the railway workers, and from the standpoint of the nation my argument would be just as unsound as his. I put that to hon. gentlemen opposite as a complete answer to the case put forward by the hon. member for North Winnipeg.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If the fiscal policy of the government throws a large number of men upon the streets-


Edward James Young: Which it has done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -I see no reason why the government should not be held responsible for the cost of readjustment to the new situation. That is what is coming in this country; that is what has already been recognized in other countries. We may very well have to do the same thing in the not distant future. This action may have to be taken in the town of Fernie where the policies of this government have forced the closing down of the whole town with a possible throwing of thousands upon the streets. There is no earthly reason why their care should not be a charge upon the government since their policy has made the town useless. Compensating adjustments ought to be made. I submit that we have not before us a hypothetical case such as has been mentioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury; we have a concrete case in which the employees of a so-called government owned railway, as well as a privately owned railway, are affected. If this bill is to be worth anything, it will have the effect of throwing a large number of men out of employment. We all know that a large part of the cost of railway operation is made up of wages and if there is to be any gain made by the bill now before us, it will mean that a considerable number of men will be thrown out of work. That

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

fact is tacitly admitted by the hoin. member for York-Sunbury when he suggests that those who will be left will have steady employment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said that was Mr. Beatty's argument. The hon. member can twist things about just as well as anybody I know.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not trying to twist anything.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
your usual method.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I submit that if I am to be subjected to this kind of thing I shall have to call upon you to ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is quite right; he has the floor and he should not be interrupted without leave.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not my practice to try to twist things. I submit it is not fair that an hon. member should make such a statement in this committee. Mr. Beatty is quoted by the hon. member for York-Sunbury to the effect that a large part of the savings would be in the fact that a smaller number of men would have steady employment. I submit that that statement indicates that men are to be laid off. I think we must admit that that will be the inevitable consequence of the passing of this legislation.
We in this corner have taken the ground that we ought to effect whatever economies we can, but we say that in effecting those economies we should not disregard the rights and the needs of the men who are to be displaced by such action. Apparently the government refuses to recognize the rights of the men to their jobs; they are willing to turn them off. It is a curious thing that we in this corner should be driven to asking for the protection of property rights. We say that the rights of the men to their jobs should be safeguarded, and we ask also that certain property rights should be protected. The purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of the bondholders; apparently it is one thing to protect the rights of the big people but an altogether different thing when it comes to protecting the rights of the little people.


An hon. MEMBER:: The old story.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. member opposite suggests it is the old, old story; it is the old story but it is none the less the true story.
(Mr. Woods worth.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: A democratic appeal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we are protecting the so-called rights of the bondholders by this legislation, I submit there would be nothing out of the way in our protecting the rights and property which may be involved by this- action.


Mr. GOBEIL:: What property?


An hon. MEMBER:: What rights?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The property rights of the employees which will be destroyed by this legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: While I was
going home at Easter a man related to me the situation in which he had been placed by the taking off of the train between Toronto and Montreal. Formerly he had been a resident of Winnipeg but had been transferred to Toronto in order to take a run out of that city. As he expected to be in Toronto indefinitely, he bought a house. With the taking off of his train, he has lost his run and his house is now valueless. That is not a hypothetical case, it is something that has actually happened. When we are dealing with the property rights of the big people I suggest that it is quite proper to deal with the property rights of the smaller people. I do not think the minister is taking the correct attitude when he says that we may deal with such questions a year hence. We are dealing with the whole situation to-day; we are dealing with property rights as they will be affected by this legislation and it seems to me that some provision should be included in the bill to take care of the situation to which I have referred. As my colleague has pointed out, there is such a measure in the Railway Act. The principle was conceded in that act and this bill to a considerable extent supersedes that act.


Robert James Manion: Not so far as compensation is concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I stand corrected;
perhaps I am wrong, but if these men are laid off, lose their positions through the economies that are contemplated, will they have the rights that they were supposed to have under the Railway Act?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Their property
rights?

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
4357'


Robert James Manion: May I suggest this to my hon. friend: I doubt if he was present this afternoon, but we -spent the whole afternoon trying to convince the committee that that was the case, and I think we convinced everybody but one in the committee that the rights of the railwaymen to compensation as protected in the Railway Act were protected to the same extent in this measure. I am trying to save my breath by not putting up the same argument again.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I accept the correction, but as my colleague said before, while technically there are certain rights, in practice, as was shown by the illustration given this afternoon, the men are not able to take advantage of what was evidently the spirit of the act. So my suggestion now is that since the principle is conceded in the Railway Act, we should strive to put the same principle into this measure. I think that is a fair proposition.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to beat the carpet over again although I have been doing so all afternoon. Our attitude on this side -and I think it was the attitude even of the hon. member for North Winnipeg-is that so far as the men's rights were protected in the Railway Act, they are protected in this.
The other question as to whether that is sufficient protection for the men is an entirely different matter. That is a question for consideration as it affects the Railway Act as a whole. The question of unemployment insurance, which my hon. friend has been discussing, is also one to be considered from now on, because I think all hon. members realize that men who have suffered through idleness, unemployment, throughout this depression have had thrust upon them something which our type of civilization should not have permitted. I believe the whole question of unemployment insurance must be dealt with in the near future, although not necessarily in that form. I say frankly-and I have said this many times publicly-that this type of economic civilization which we have cannot endure if we do not properly look after unemployed men in times of depression. I say that sincerely, but that has nothing to do at the moment with this measure. What my hon. friend and some of his friends are suggesting, and, I believe, in good faith, is that we should constitute the railway-men a special group. That is what I say and what the hon. member for York-Sunbury has said, cannot be done; we cannot do that. It would be discriminating even among the railwaymen themselves, because if we put into 53719-2751
this measure a provision that men who in the-future are laid off must get some compensation, what about men who in the past have-been laid off from the railways? In this wajr we would be discriminating even as between the railwaymen themselves. This bill is not for the purpose, as set forth by the hon. gentleman, of protecting the rights of the bondholders-I wrote down the words he used -I do not think it is fair to suggest that, nor foT the hon. member for East Hamilton to say that the purpose of the bill is to lay off railwaymen. That is not the purpose, nor is -it to protect the rights of the bondholders.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is happening just the same.


Robert James Manion: That is a different matter. To say that it is the purpose and to say that it is happening are two different things. Let me finish my argument; I did not interrupt my hon. friend. The principle of the bill is neither to lay off men nor to protect the interest of the bondholders. It is so to regulate the economies of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific that the latter will not go into bankruptcy and the former will not bankrupt this country. As expressed by the hon. member for York-Sunbury quoting Mr. Beatty, this bill is for the purpose of endeavouring to get the railways into such operating shape that when a revival of business *comes, they will operate so fairly and economically that the men who are employed on the railways will be ensured a reasonable amount of steady employment instead of an uncertainty as at present. It may be that some hardships will occur; that cannot be avoided, but at the moment I submit we cannot put into this measure a provision that protects one group of men to the discrimination of another or that protects one portion of a group of men to the discrimination of another portion of the same group.
All of us having expressed our viewpoints, three on the other side and two on this, may I say that the whole discussion is out of order. I am saying this now because I wanted to set forth my own arguments before I was ruled out of order. I think it was fair I should do this because my hon. friends made their arguments. The other day the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved an amendment which had for its purpose the compensation of all men kid off. That was voted down by the committee and therefore to discuss again the same matter


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was not voted down; the vote was upon a point of order.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: All right; that may be true, but at any rate, the amendment was ruled out of order, and if it was out of order then it is out of order now.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was out of order was this introduction by a private member of a motion that could be introduced, according to the ruling, only by a member of the government.


Robert James Manion: I believe the hon. member is correct. We have put ourselves on record. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that the government will have to take the responsibility. We will take the responsibility. I quite admit there are in this bill clauses that will not be popular, particularly in view of the fact that some hon. gentlemen have been making wild statements that this will mean putting 40.000 men out of employment. Nothing like 40,000 or even 20,000 men will be put out of employment; in fact, I doubt if very many will lose their positions. I believe with a decent revival of business, thousands of men will be taken on instead of further employees being laid off. I do not wish to rehash the whole question. I respect my hon. friends' viewpoint. They have put themselves on record; they have stated their attitude. The government takes the responsibility of saying that at the present time we cannot admit into this bill clauses to protect one group or a portion of one group as against others and as we have all expressed our viewpoints, I think we might make a little further progress with the bill than we have done so far to-day, although I am not blaming my hon. friend for lack of progress this afternoon


William Richard Motherwell: Did I understand
the minister a few moments ago to say that if this amendment which he has before the committee does not work out satisfactorily, he will be ready to submit amendments another year?


Robert James Manion: No; I said that if it worked out so that unfair hardships were imposed upon the railwaymen, we would be ready at the next session of parliament to consider on its merits any proposal to deal with the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: That is near enough for the purpose I had in view. Might I call the attention of the committee to this point: when the various amendments were submitted by the opposition, wherever those amendments all came from, the Prime Minister about the middle of last week said that 'Mr. Heaps.]
they would all be submitted to council and given the most careful consideration before he left for Washington. I presume that has been done.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no question it has been done. Whatever decision has been arrived at, my hon. friends and his colleagues, in the absence of their leader, cannot depart from such decision on any major question.
As regards this hammering, I have done my share of it and maybe I will do it again on the third reading, but to do it now is futile. The minister cannot depart from, even to modify materially the cabinet decision, which has been reached. His statement is satisfactory to me, at all events, in the absence of his leader. I recall quite clearly that the Prime Minister made some rather fair comment at that time that he was going to give all these amendments the fullest possible consideration before he left. I have no brief for the government in all conscience; I think everybody knows that. I am speaking in our own interests, and in my own behalf I want to get home out of here. I have business to do out in the west. I have never been at home for years during the seeding time, and that is the most important time of the _ year to the farmer. While my public duties keep me here, they do not keep me here to talk ineffectively on this question at this time as important as it is.
While I am on my feet I want to remind the ministry now that I make two reservations : I am reserving the right to speak on any of these amendments on the third reading, because it is evident, in view of the facts I have recited, that it is useless to discuss them further now. Furthermore, I do not want anybody to assume, if I do not speak in committee on any of these amendments, that therefore I agree to them because I may take the opportunity on the third reading of the bill of seeking to have them referred back to the committee to be dealt with when the Prime Minister returns. But in view of these facts which I have attempted to recite I appeal to my good friend from Kenora-Rainy River, would it not facilitate matters if he took a similar position and reserved all his rights until the third reading of the bill when he could move to have it referred back to committee? I understand that the hon. member has an amendment to the minister's amendment. Well, of course, he is master of his own affairs, but it looks to me as if it

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
would expedite matters and that we would get just as much satisfaction if we postponed this discussion until later on when, on the Prime Minister's return from Washington with the laurels that he may bring, he may feel generous and give us all we want.


Mr. FACTOR:: Just one word before my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River gets up. May I ask the Minister of Railways this simple question? Does this section as drafted in this bill give the right of compensation to a displaced railway employee in the same manner that he has that right under section 179 of the Railway Act?


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes. I have stated that, not once, but I should think from six to ten times this afternoon. The act as now drafted gives exactly the same protection, such as that protection is, as is given under section 179 of the Railway Act.


James Dew Chaplin: Along these lines of railway going out to the northwest other industries have been built up, such as the lumber industry, which have been pretty hard hit during the last few years, and I would ask if any compensation is contemplated for the men in those industries who are now out of work just as much as the railway workers.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for Melville who is now leading the opposition forces -I do not know who appointed him-will not get my vote any more to be leader of this party. He has put me in a rather peculiar position because he has requested that I withdraw my amendment in view of the statement made by the Minister of Railways. I hope he meant the statement which the minister made in answer to the hon. member for North Winnipeg, and not the last statement of the minister because his last one could be argued on -the floor of this house for many, many hours. To suggest that this bill is not designed to throw hundreds and thousands of railway men out of work is beside the mark because the bill will be of no avail if it does not do that very thing. The pooled services which we have been discussing recently-the trains from Ottawa to Toronto, and Montreal to Toronto-have thrown out of work over a hundred men on both the roads.
I trust that the committee will observe that all I have been trying to do this afternoon is to have included the provisions of section 179 of the Railway Act as it now stands. Though that section as it stands is by no means satisfactory to -me, I have been- trying this afternoon to have the complete section 179 included in the measure now before us. The first part of that section providing that
the companies may do thus and so without leave of the board is entirely eliminated from this bill, to my way of thinking, and in the view of a great many railroad men throughout this country. But I did make a suggestion to the -minister before supp-er which, taken with the remarks of the hon. member for Melville, practically nail me to the cross. I suggested that if the- minister, speaking on behalf of the government, would assure me that if the working out of this does not conform to the statements made by the minister this afternoon, he will consider amending the bill at a future session, and the minister practically agreed to that suggestion in answering the hon. member for North Winnipeg.


Robert James Manion: Do not put anything into my mouth that I did not agree to. I do not desire that there should be any misunderstanding. I did not say that if the bill did not work out as I expected I would deal with it. I did agree that if it was shown that section 179 as incorporated in this bill was different from section 179 -as in the Railway Act, we would deal with it. That is a different thing. I wish to keep the record straight so that my hon. friend will not misunderstand me.


Peter Heenan: That is all I wanted, and I appreciate the minister's attitude.
Mr. SPBN'CE: Yo-u got that long ago.


Peter Heenan: When we- are trying to
help the minister perhaps he wo-uld -try and keep his supporters quiet behind him. In view of the ve-ry fair statement of the minister, and in view of the minister's nod when the hon. member for Melville stated that evidently the Prime Minister before he left for Washington discussed this thing with his colleagues and decided that no major amendment co-uld now be made to -the act-I hate to think that that is so -because if -it is we might just as well adjourn the house to-day before the Prime Minister co-me-s back-


Robert James Manion: 
Peter Heenan: I think the minister has
misunderstood me. The hon. member for Melville suggested, indeed, I think he stated, that the Prime Minister had said on the floor Of the house that these amendments which have been suggested in committee would be considered in the cabinet before he left for Washington, and the hon. member for Melville suggested that that had evidently been done, and that the government had arrived at a conclusion in regard to them and had decided that no further amendments of a major character could be accepted, and I understood the Minister of Railways to nod his head to that.


Robert James Manion: We certainly discussed the amendments in council.
Mr. HEE'NAN:	I am very glad to know
that we can consider amendments in the absence of the Prime Minister. In view of the very fair statement which has been made by the Minister of Railways, practically complying with the suggestion that I made before supper, as I understand it, and in view^ of the remarks of the hon. member for Melville, I ask leave, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw my amendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the hon. member shall be granted leave, under standing order 53, to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Heenan) withdrawn.


Robert James Manion: The next amendment with which we have to deal was moved by the hon. member for West Lamlbton. He is not in the house now, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Melville, who at the moment is leading the opposition, that the, hon. member suggested that section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act should be included in section 2 of this act. The intention was to protect against abandonment without the consent of the governor in council and the Board of Railway Commissioners. We offered as a compromise the provision that no abandonment may be made by any railway concerned in the legislation, which meant the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways, without its being approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners. Our suggestion was accepted by the hon. member, and I am quite sure if he were in his seat he would agree. Under the circumstances I believe the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton should be withdrawn.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not familiar
with the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Lambton; probably we would not disrupt the procedure if it were allowed to stand. The hon. member no doubt will be in at any moment. I should not like to commit myself in his absence.


Robert James Manion: Very well; I shall deal
with the other amendment. I did not wish to get away from clause 2, because, as I said this afternoon, I should like to clear up the outstanding matters as we go along. The next amendment I have before me is sponsored by the leader of the opposition. He is not in his seat.


Peter Heenan: He will be here in a
minute.


Robert James Manion: I shall see what the next
one is. I do not wish to deal with the right hon. gentleman's amendment in his absence; I should not like to be discourteous to him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members must
be here to look after their amendments.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but I do not like to be discourteous to the leader of the opposition or to the hon. member for West Lambton. At the same time I believe I could convince the right hon. gentleman that his amendment is not necessary.


William Richard Motherwell: Are there no other sections standing?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but I had hoped to
clear them up as we went along.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the desirable thing to do, but. it would not be fair to go on with the amendments in the absence of the right hon. leader of the opposition and the other hon. member. I appreciate the minister's attitude.


Robert James Manion: The next amendment concerns the hon. member for West Middlesex, and he is not in his seat.


Mr. NEILL:: Go ahead.


Robert James Manion: The amendment following that also concerns that hon. member. Then, following that is one in which the hon. *member for Vancouver Centre is interested; he is not nere. I am sure the hon. member for Melville cannot accuse us of hurrying with this bill.


Mr. SANDERSON:: The hon. members
for West Middlesex and Vancouver Centre will be here in a few minutes. They are on their way now.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Mr. REID:: In the meantime would the
minister entertain an amendment I have to offer? I am sorry I have not been able to present it sooner. It is an amendment which in my opinion should be adopted, or some definite assurance given in regard to the matter with which it deals. In the discussion of clause 2 of the bill much doubt seemed to exist in the minds of the legal fraternity as to the exact meaning of the words, "inconsistent provisions of all other acts." Those of us who are not lawyers cannot be blamed if we do not understand the meaning of that expression. The minister did not give a satisfactory answer as to why clause (b) and (c) were put in the bill, that is, the provisions concerning the Maritime Freight Rates Act and "the provisions of any statute of Canada which confirm any contract or enact or provide for any specific or special freight rate, toll or tariff or for the ascertainment of any one freight rate."
If I remember correctly, when the minister was asked regarding these subsections, he confessed he was at a loss to understand why they were put in. The minister will agree that if this act becomes law all the arguments which have been advanced in committee will be more or less forgotten. Three trustees will be administering the Canadian National Railways, and those trustees will have their own solicitors to interpret this legislation. Therefore all the pious wishes and suggestions entertained by hon. members, in regard to what this or other sections may mean, will be discarded. The legal men employed will interpret the act. In view of the fact that these two provisions have been put in, the bill under section 2, to take care of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and the Crowsmest pass rates, I am led to the decision that some doubt existed as to the manner in which this legislation would affect freight rates. With that in mind I move:
That after the word "thereby" in the twenty-third line of clause 2 the following words be added: "But nothing in this act shall be deemed to take away from the Board of Railway Commissioners the right to hear and decide all appeals made to that board in connection with freight rates and tolls."
I suggest that proviso should be put in, and I therefore hand it to the chairman for the consideration of the committee.


Robert James Manion: Before dealing with the
amendment may I suggest that the lawyers of the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific will not interpret the laws; thait is a function of the courts. In the event of lawyers connected with the Canadian National or
Canadian Pacific lines interpreting any of these clauses in a way which is not in accordance with the intentions of the act, it would be the duty of the court to correct such interpretation.
In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member which deals with freight rates and tolls, may I suggest that from one end of the bill to the other we find freight rates and tolls mentioned only twice, namely in two subclauses of section 2. They were not mentioned because it was felt that the legislation interfered in no way with freight rates and tolls in general, but in order to emphasize that at least they were not interfered with the Maritime Freight Rates Act was mentioned. The same applies to subclause (a) of section 2 which deals with compensation to employees who were affected financially by the movement of terminals. Because they are put in does not imply that others not put in are interfered with. With all due respect I submit that there is nothing in the legislation in any shape or form which will interfere with the board of Railway Commissioners dealing with freight rates or tolls in the future as they have in the past. For those reasons I cannot accept the hon. member's amendment.


Thomas Reid: Under the provisions of the
legislation I understand that if the two railway companies decided to charge a certain fee for tickets they would have to go before the board.


Robert James Manion: That will not change.


Thomas Reid: And in the matter of freight
one railroad will be taking all the freight over the one line; in those circumstances the railways will agree.


Robert James Manion: May I add one thought that I had forgotten? I read it this afternoon in regard to another matter. In section 16 of part II of the bill we have added:
Where the execution or carrying out of such a measure, plan or arrangement involves the doing of any act which by any statute requires the leave, sanction, assent or approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, no such measure, plan or arrangement shall be effective without the approval of the said board.
So that applies, and I hope my hon. friend will withdraw the amendment.


Thomas Reid: 
Robert James Manion: I do mat wish to hurry the matter at all, but every amendment I have, with one exception, is an amendment proposed by an horn, gentleman opposite who is not in the house at the moment.


Edward James Young: I am ready to go on now with a matter I was going to discuss.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think it would be
more in order to deal with an amendment.


Robert James Manion: Then we are discussing the amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Lambton.


Edward James Young: Some time ago I wrote asking the minister of Railways for certain information which I wished to discuss under section 14. When we came to discuss the section the information was not available, so it was agreed that I could discuss it under any section. I now have the information, and, with your consent, Mr. Chairman, will proceed with the discussion.
The minister referred the other day to some figures put out by one R. J. Deachman which he said were misleading if not inaccurate. I can quite understand that, because there are so many sets of railroad statistics available that confusion may well arise. Tor instance, the minister the other night gave figures showing the percentage of the total traffic that each railway has been getting. I do not for a moment doubt that the figures are accurate, but I cannot find what they are based on. I have before me a considerable amount of information received from the bureau of statistics covering the operations of both railway systems for the past ten years. For the year 1923 I find that the total operating revenues of the Canadian National Railways were some $216,000,000. Only to-day I saw another set of figures, issued also from the bureau of statistics, citing the operating revenues of the Canadian National for that same year at $218,000,000, a difference of some $2,000,000. Both sets of figures ate accurate. A footnote relating to the latter figure reveals that it includes certain telegraph earnings not included in the other. Then the annual report of the Canadian National Railways shows the purchases of freight cars in the year 1931 as some 4,300, but the figure I got from the minister in regard to the same purchases for the same year was 3,800. I have no doubt both sets of figures are accurate, but there has 'been some different basis of calculation.
In regard to the purchase of coal, I asked the 'minister what imported coal had been displaced by Canadian coal on the Canadian National lines, and at what additional cost to 
the country. I have no doubt the figures he has given me are accurate, but I cannot understand them or their significance. Again the other night the minister quoted figures which to me were astounding; he stated that on what he called the luxury trains, such as those between Toronto and Montreal, the loss last year to the Canadian National system was $25,000,000. When I looked into it I found that the total passenger earnings for that year were only $16,000,000.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that was the loss on those particular trains; I said the loss on the entire passenger service was over $25,000,000. The only authority I have for it is the railway itself. The hon. gentleman refers to revenues only.


Edward James Young: I am glad the minister has made the correction, because Hansard took him up -wrongly. What I want to point out is that it is very difficult for a man who is not a railway accountant, or skilled in the use of figures, to arrive at any accurate estimate of the position of the railways and what they are doing. I would suggest to the minister that one of the best thing he could do would be to call in the officers of his department and have them prepare a standard system of accounting and reporting to this house, so that when we come to consider the railway estimates each year, even members of our intelligence, may know exactly what the position is, what the financial structure is, what its operations are, where the expenditure is going, and if there is any leak, where it is. That I think should be submitted not only for the Canadian National but also for the Canadian Pacific, so that we would be in a position to compare the efficiency of operation of both lines of railway. I offer that suggestion to the minister in good faith, I hope he will consider it.
Another matter I wish to deal with is the operating ratios and the money spent in purchase of equipment and maintenance of way on the two systems. I find from the reports I have from the bureau that the operating ratios were:
1930	1931 Increase
Canadian National. . 92.06 100.	7.94
Canadian Pacific. . . 76.95	80.40	3.45
When we look at the transportation ratio, that is the percentage of earning required simply to operate the trains, we find the following:
1930	1931	IncreaseCanadian National. .	45.04	47.89	2.85Canadian Pacific. . .	37.21	40.83	3.62
C.N.R.-C.PH. Bill
It will be noted that the increase in the operating ratio is not reflected in the increase in transportation ratio; that additional expenditure must have occured somewhere else.
Looking at the ratio of maintenance of equipment we find:
1930	1931 Increase Decrease
C.N.R. .	.	.	19.34	21.91	2.57C.P.R. .	.	.	16.68	14.11	2.57
Here, while the Canadian Pacific made a better showing in 1931 than in 1930, the Canadian National made a worse showing. Before we go on to maintenance of way and structures I would like to turn for a moment to this matter of equipment. In the Duff report, page 46 we find these words:
During the period under review-
That is the period 1923 to 1931.
-the Canadian National did not lack rolling stock or motive power necessary to efficient operation.
That was the situation from 1923 to 1931 according to the Duff report. But turning to the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for 1931, on page 29 we find that at the beginning of that year the Canadian National had 126,129 freight cars of all kinds, eliminating conductors' vans. That year they purchased 4,304 new cars. The minister however gives the figure as 3,800, so we will accept that figure. Those cars, according to the figure given to me by the minister, cost the railway company S10,355,000, so that there was an investment of that amount in equipment which according to the Duff report was not necessary. We find that in the same period the Canadian Pacific had only 87,539 cars. Dividing the total freight ton miles by the number of cars it appears that that year the Canadian Pacific got 115,000 ton miles out of each car it possessed while the Canadian National got only 88,920. We find also that the average load per car on the Canadian Pacific was 23-45 tons and on the Canadian National 22-39. Here we find an expenditure of over $10,000,000 on what, according to the Duff report, was an altogether unnecessary investment. Now, why was that done? I do not believe it is the fault of the Minister of Railways; I believe it was done as a measure of unemployment relief. I think the minister told us on one occasion that the railways were persuaded to advance their program and buy more of this equipment than they actually needed at the time in order to relieve the unemployment situation. That is the only explanation that has been forthcoming so far as I can see.
That is to say, they invested this $10,000,000 not as a railway operating scheme but as a means of relieving unemployment.
I do not think it is fair to the national railways that all this additional expenditure, which should be the business of government as a whole, should be charged to the system. I think the minister's colleague behind him put something over him. Possibly that may have been the best way of relieving unemployment, and I am not discussing that point at the moment. Whether it was or not, however, I submit that it is not fair to charge all that expenditure to the Canadian National Railways while the Canadian Pacific Railway was not exposed to any such expenditure.
Let us turn to the expenditure on maintenance of way. We find that in the year 1931 the Canadian Pacific expended $1,350 per mile on maintenance of way while the Canadian National Railways spent $1,695; in other words, the Canadian National spent S345 per mile more than the Canadian Pacific. They were operating 21,941 miles of road and that represented therefore a total expenditure of over $7,500,000 on maintenance of way in excess of what was spent by the Canadian Pacific. Here again I do not think it was done ait the instance of the railway management; I believe it was done as a measure of unemployment relief at the instance of the government. I am trying to show that the trouble with the railways is largely, so to speak, backseat driving. They have not been altogether free from governmental influence.


Robert James Manion: So that my hon. friend will not send that out without correction, may I say right here that his conclusions are entirely wrong. I will explain it when he gets through, but this interjection will appear in the middle of his speech if he is sending it out.


Edward James Young: If the minister can prove that my conclusions are inaccurate, well and good. But when he explains that it was not done as a measure of unemployment relief, I hope he will explain also why, when the Canadian National system was well equipped with rolling stock, they invested $10,000,000 in needless freight cars while the Canadian Pacific was exposed to no such expenditure. Again, in the matter of fuel, as I said a moment ago, I could not determine from the figures I received exactly what additional cost the policy of forcing the railways to use Canadian fuel had imposed upon them. The statement was made however that on a certain number of tons of coal used the additional
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

cost was SI .40 per ton, part of it paid by the railways and part by others. But when I look up the trade returns I find that the steam coal imported into the country averaged in value $1.50 per ton, so that if either through the railways or through some other agency we are paying an extra SI .40 per ton for steam coal, it is obvious that we have doubled the cost of coal to the railways.
The total purchases of the railway company last year amounted to $70,000,000, according to the figures of the minister. Most of these purchases were dutiable at about thirty per cent. It is contended that they did not pay the whoile thirty per cent additional cost. Well, suppose the sellers of these goods which they purchased did not take the full advantage of the duty but only one-third of it; suppose that instead of an additional cost as represented by a duty of thirty per cent which the tariff would permit, the sellers took only ten per cent. That means an added $7,000,000 to the operating costs of the railway. Here we have, then, $10,000,000 for equipment, $7,500,000 for maintenance of way, and $7,000,000 additional cost in purchases for the operation of the railways. In other words, we have $24,000,000 expended by the railways which could just as well have been saved.
The minister not long ago referred to the fact that he had saved the country an enormous expenditure by closing down the work of the Montreal terminals. I have here a book entitled The American Transportation Problem, and I would read one paragraph from it, dealing with terminals.


Robert James Manion: What is the date of the book?


Edward James Young: It is just off the press, 1933. The paragraph in question reads thus:
Terminals exert a controlling influence over the character and cost of transportation service. They have contributed on many occasions to seriously delayed and irregular transportation service. A large number of the delinquencies charged against the railroads in the last two decades or so have really had their origin in faulty terminal situations. The congestion, particularly at the eastern port terminals, during the recent war will long be remembered. Here equipment, badly needed in other parrs of the country, was piled up and rendered practically useless. What is not so obvious is that, even under the best of conditions, terminals constantly put a brake on the rapidity with which traffic moves and cause irregularities which shippers or receivers of freight find it difficult to contend with. As Mr. Loree has well expressed it, "the large terminal stations and the large terminal yards are the graveyard of cars." His calculations indicate that considerably more than two-thirds of the 14-9 days involved in a typical completed car movement is spent in terminals. If IMr. Young.]
such items as surplus cars, Sunday and holiday delays, and delays due to repairs be eliminated from the calculations, 86 per cent of the time is chargeable to terminal operations and only 14 per cent to the line haul. There has been improvement in recent years, but this has been general and it is doubtful whether the proportions indicated have undergone much change More expeditious and regular movement of freight is. therefore, conditioned very largely by the adequacy of terminal facilities and the effectiveness shown in their use.
I have read that paragraph to impress upon, the committee the importance of terminal facilities. Some years ago the government undertook to improve the terminals at Montreal. Now, as everyone knows, the condition in Montreal, so far as terminals are concerned, was deplorable. In his speech introducing the bill at the time Mr. Dunning pointed out that the Canadian National Railways have in Montreal three different stations, all disconnected. When it was desired to transfer a car from one to the other they had to take it out of the city and around the mountain a distance of eighteen miles in order to bring it to another part of the city. The expense was enormous and the delay considerable, and this perhaps will account for the necessity of ordering new cars. The plan was to spend $50,000,000 in improving the terminals at Montreal, not more than $10,000,000 in any one year. When the present government came in, however, they said, "We cannot afford that expenditure; we will discontinue the development of these terminals." They did so; they laid off men; they saved that $10,000,000 a year which would have been spent in Montreal for that purpose. But what did they do? They turned around and spent $10,000,000 buying new cars.


Robert James Manion: We did not; the management did, and not at our request either.
Mr, YOUNG: The management bought new cars. Did the management find it necessary to buy new cars because they had not adequate terminal facilities? The Canadian Pacific had better facilities; evidently they could get better results from their cars. It was demonstrated, before the terminals were started, that that investment, large as it was, was the most profitable investment then presented in connection with the Canadian National Railways, much more profitable than any branch lines they could build. The government abandoned the project, though it was necessary to the railways and would have given employment to thousands of people, because it was costing $10,000,000 a year; and for some reason or other an additional $10,000.000 was spent on equipment which, according to the Duff report, was not necessary.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
I am not criticizing the minister for this; perhaps it was the best thing to do to relieve unemployment. But I would point out that when you are making savings it is well to call in your engineers and find out what savings you can make with the best economy. With a million dollars to be spent on unemployment, it would have been better to spend it where the engineers recommended it could be spent with profit than to spend it on rolling equipment which, according to the Duff report, was not at all necessary. I hope the minister will clear up that situation when he replies.


Robert James Manion: I hope my hon. friend will forgive me if I do not deal very lengthily with his remarks. First, let me congratulate him upon his great industry in searching out statistics and putting them before the committee. There is this to say for him, he always puts his case good-naturedly; he is never unpleasant no matter how fallacious his argument may be. As far as railway statistics are concerned. I hope my hon. friend does not think that I imagine myself to be an expert. I doubt if any hon. member of this committee, or even anyone outside the house can fully understand railway statistics.


Edward Joseph Garland: Even those in the railways themselves.


Robert James Manion: I will admit even that
statement.


Edward James Young: What about the suggestion
of using a uniform system?


Robert James Manion: As a matter of fact my
hon. friend's suggestion was carried out about ten or twenty years ago. They are given according to the Inter-state Commerce Commission yet it takes a statistician of a very eminent character to understand these statistics. I do not intend to waste the time of my hon. friend by trying to explain his statistics, nor shall I waste my own time in trying to explain mine.


Edward James Young: I have a Canadian Pacific
and a Canadian National report before me and I cannot find anything uniform in them.


Robert James Manion: I quite understand that
but I cannot give understanding to my hon. friend. I have given three years to the study of the railway situation and I think I understand it in a general way. However, I am learning every day I continue to occupy this position. If my hon. friend- spares only a moment or two from his study of tariffs in order to study railway matters, he must not expect to understand them fully in that short a time.
My hon. friend pointed out that the operating ratio of the Canadian Pacific was considerably lower than that of the Canadian National. That is largely explained by the fact that the Canadian National has something like 5,000 more miles of line and consequently a larger overhead and more extended services. In the case of lines such as the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, there are hauls which are not very remunerative. I think my hon. friend's contention can be explained without going into details.
My hon. friend stated that when we stopped work upon the Montreal terminals we insisted that the Canadian National build railway cars. I might say to him that the cars built were not ordered by this government. I think 1931 was the year quoted by my hon. friend. The management of the railways believed they needed these cars and while we were endeavouring to cut down the budget as much as possible we did not feel that we had the right to interfere with their requirements. They ordered the cars; we had nothing whatsoever to do with that. My hon. friend's conclusion in that connection is entirely wrong. I might mention that in that same year we purchased something like two million ties as an unemployment relief measure. These were made available to the Canadian National without any cost to the railways. That was one thing that was done to relieve unemployment, and it was not done at the cost of the Canadian National Railways.


Edward James Young: Is that what the minister meant when he said that he asked the Canadian National Railways to advance their program?


Robert James Manion: We spoke to both railways; I discussed that point with Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Beatty. I asked them to advance their program because we all felt that the depression would be over before this. They agreed to do so in order to fill in the bottom of the gully, so to speak, or the bottom of the depression. Both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific did advance their programs. Other than the interest upon the money, neither railway lost anything. They simply filled some of their necessities a little ahead of time. Both railways were treated in exactly the same way. My recollection is that the two companies spent well up to $20,000,000. This amount was spent six months or a year in advance of the time in which it would ordinarily have been spent, but it did not cost the railways anything to build these appliances, or to fill their requirements ahead
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

of time. I do not wish to go into this matter in detail, but in both cases the government carried the interest charges, I think for a year and a half.
My hon. friend pointed out that according to the figures he was given the Canadian National Railways spent $300 more per mile than the Canadian Pacific on maintenance.


Edward James Young: 


Robert James Manion: I was just taking the
round figure, but the correct figure is even better for my argument. I hope that he or any other hon. gentleman in this committee will remember that the Canadian National Railways having spent S345 per mile more on maintenance than the Canadian Pacific, apparently have not 'been strangled as far as maintenance is concerned. They were able to keep their maintenance upon a better basis than the Canadian Pacific. I might say to my hon. friend that not one cent was spent in this way at the request of the government. I am glad my hon. friend has proved that the Canadian National did spend more than the Canadian Pacific upon maintenance, because it answers a lot of the charges which have been made throughout the country by my hon. friend's friend, Mr. Deachman. I think my hon. friend has answered his friend rather well.
1 have no desire to go into the Deachman matter in any detail as I do not wish to waste the time of the committee. I do not wish to suggest to-night-I did it the other day, and perhaps correctly-that Mr. Deachman did it intentionally, but Mr. Deachman instituted comparisons of ton miles of freight carried by both railways to the disadvantage of Canadian National Railways, largely by reason of a fallacious index which he himself established. However, it is revenues, not ton miles that count. Let me illustrate what I mean, and I think even my hon. friend will understand this. The distance from Winnipeg to Fort William is 426 miles. If one railway carries a ton of wheat to Fort William it receives $2.80 in revenue. One ton would be carried 426 miles, which would make 426 ton miles. If the other railway carried a ton of first class freight over the same route it would receive $25.60 or 9-1 times as much revenue. Yet the ton miles would be exactly the same. That shows the futility of trying to work comparisons as to revenues from ton mileages, and that is what Mr. Deachman did. Let me give another illustration. Halifax is about 300 miles farther from Montreal than Saint John, and yet the export freight rate to both places is the same. One port is competing with the other. If the 
Canadian National carries a ton of wheat from Montreal to Halifax, it would be able to show 300 more ton miles than the Canadian Pacific could show in carrying a ton of wheat to Saint John, but the revenues would be the same.


Mr. EULER:: The same would apply to Portland.


Robert James Manion: That would also illustrate the same point. It is futile for the ordinary member like my hon. friend or myself, or for a man like Mr. Deachman who is not even a member of this house, to take a few isolated statistics from the Canadian Pacific and try to demonstrate that the Canadian National Railwaj's is being subjected to sabotage by this government. That is what Mr. Deachman did. That is all the point I wanted to make and it illustrates the futility of my hon. friend attempting to demonstrate one thing or the other by statistics.
In regard to the Montreal Terminals, I do not wish to go into that discussion again, but I am as fully convinced as that I am standing here to-night that those terminals were not required. I am not criticizing anybody; it was the idea of the management at that time that this was a very fine investment. They came forward with a $50,000,000 proposition, which it was admitted might run to $75,000,000. They convinced the government of the day-and I do not wish to discuss that point -that this was probably a good investment, and if business conditions had remained as they were at that time, it might have been. But nobody can convince me to-day that it would be wise to go on with those terminals at that vast expense. To expose the fallacy of the point raised a little while ago that the railway spent $10,000,000 on those terminals and this government stopped employment to the extent of $10,000,000, may I say that in the first two years about $8,000,000 of that $10,000,000 was spent in buying land, so that unemployment was not relieved by land purchases.
The hon. member referred to the question of the use by the railways of Canadian materials. He and I argued that out the other day; we take different attitudes with regard to it. He takes the free trade attitude that the government or the railways or the people must buy in the cheapest market no matter where it is. I believe we can go crazy on tariffs, and the world generally has been doing so-I am speaking generally. The tariffs of the world have to come down, but one country alone cannot lower its tariffs without doing harm to itself. The whole world must bring down tariffs.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


William Richard Motherwell: We are part of the world.


Robert James Manion: But our hon. friends are arguing for just our part alone. My hon. friend's leader and I listened to Sir Arthur Salter to-day and he takes the attitude that general world tariffs must come down. I believed that even before I heard Sir Arthur Salter say it, but the tariffs of one country alone cannot be lowered without harm being done to itself.
But getting away from tariffs, I am one of those who believe that as far as possible the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific and all other institutions and individuals should buy Canadian goods if they can get anything like as good an article at anything like as fair a price. I do not say that we should buy goods for double the price. To-day I had before me two tenders for an order for my department, one for Canadian and the other for United States goods. The Canadian goods were unfortunately about one-third higher in price and I thought the difference was too great; I said I did not think there was any justification for that and we would have to take the United States goods. It is possible to go so far in buying Canadian goods that it is uneconomical, but I have never asked the Canadian National! to go as far as that. I believe, however, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific should, so far as they can, buy Canadian goods as long as they can get a similar article at a reasonable price. Let me point this out: I am quite sure this was not known to the government of that day. In the building of the Montreal terminals and the hotels at Vancouver and Saskatoon the specifications put out by the architects some four or five yeans ago showed 40 per cent of United States goods. This was the report given to me by Sir Henry Thornton and it was a surprise to him as well as to me. Most of those goods could have been produced in Canada at the same price. Of course the order went forth then and it has obtained ever since, that so far as possible Canadian goods should be purchased so long as they did not have to pay excessive prices for them. That is a reasonable attitude and one I am willing to stand for before any audience at any time. I think I have dealt with all the points brought up by the hon. member.


Edward James Young: In regard to the purchasing of Canadian coal I have under my hand figures from the bureau of statistics showing the amount of coal used per 1,000 gross ton miles and I find the Canadian Pacific, which is able to buy its coal in the open market to
a greater extent than is the case with tihe Canadian National, gets better results from its coal. The figures are as follows:
Tons
Canadian Pacific	 -0598
Canadian National	 -0607
About two per cent more coal is required to do a given amount of work on the Canadian National than is required on the Canadian Pacific in spite of the fact that I understand the former has better grades.
In regard to the statement of the minister that we cannot understand these figures, that is true; that was the reason I spoke. We are here ,to oversee the management of the Canadian National and it is important that we should understand the figures. That is why I aim asking the minister to have his officers devise a system of reporting that will be so simple that even we with our limited understanding can follow it. I notice he has said that the government did not ask the Canadian National to spend the $10,000,000 additional on 'equipment or the $7,000,000 additional on maintenance of way. He did not explain why it was spent, and it is his duty as minister to inquire further into this matter of expenditure and report to the house.


Robert James Manion: I have been making inquiries of that sort for many years and that is not the only 'thing about which I am inquiring.
I am glad to see the leader of the opposition is in his seat. I was sorry to take him away from his pleasant dinner, but from the standpoint of his health I have no doubt done him a favour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been
sitting here for an hour waiting for the bon. member to finish his speech.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry my right hon. friend has found it as tedious as that. If I had known he was in a hurry to get back to the dinner, I should have finished my remarks more quickly.
I was trying to deal with these amendments in order as we went along. The right hon. gentleman will remember that the hon. member for West Laimbton made a proposal-the hon. member for Melville did not remember it-that we adopt into this bill section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act providing that they must submit to the governor in council and the Board of Railway Commissioners the abandonment of any lines. The light hon. gentleman will remember that we made a proposal that was a compromise, I
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

will admit, that no railway in Canada may be permitted to abandon lines without submitting the matter to the railway board and the right horn, gentleman accepted that. If the hon. member for West Lambton were here, I am sure he would withdraw his amendment. I think the right hon. gentleman will agree that was the understanding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My impression was that we had withdrawn the amendment.


Robert James Manion: If that is the case, all right. That will clear that up.
The next is an amendment which the right hon. gentleman himself proposed. He suggested that in clause 2, on page one, line 15, the word "and" be struck out and the following paragraph be added, "the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act." That will recall the matter to the right hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Paragraph (d) is what I proposed.


Robert James Manion: Yes, my right hon. friend suggested that we add paragraph (d) to except the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I took the attitude that that was not interfered with by this measure; the provisions of this bill do not prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act for the reason that they do not conflict at all. In order to satisfy my right hon. friend in regard to that, I took the opinion of the Justice department and perhaps the reply would state the position in better words than I could use. I will read the letter from the Department of Justice which is signed by W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice and dated April 22, 1933:
Dear Mr. Manion,-
I understand from Mr. P. M. Anderson of your department that you desire to be advised upon the question whether there is anything in Bill A, "an Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway System, and for other purposes," which will override the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, revised statutes of 1927, chapter 112.
I have carefully examined the provisions of the bill, and am of opinion that none of its provisions will have the effect mentioned. I do not overlook the broad provisions of section 16 whereby the railway companies are authorized to agree upon such cooperative measures, plans and arrangements as are fair and reasonable and best adapted to attain the purposes of effecting economies and providing for more remunerative operation. I am clearly of opinion that these broad general powers do not authorize the doing of anything incon-
sistent with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and I am satisfied also that none of the more specific provisions of the bill can be interpreted as having such effect.
In view of that opinion I trust that my right hon. friend will not press his amendment. If at all possible we do not wish to clutter up the bill with unnecessary amendments or unnecessary exceptions. It has been argued two or three times here to-day, in regard to one or two exceptions, that because a certain exception was mentioned it made something else applicable. The more exceptions we make the more danger there is of misunderstandings in the interpretation of the bill. I appeal therefore to the right hon. gentleman not to press his amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no formal motion made. The proposal I made at the time was partly to bring to a termination a long discussion that we had been having, and I suggested means that I thought would probably meet the situation from both sides. I think that if section 2 were differently worded from what it is there probably would not be the same need for the suggested amendment. The section starts out with the words:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts.
That is a very involved sentence, and this suggestion of provisions inconsistent with the provisions of other acts raises at once the question of provisions of acts which have been passed especially with a view to protecting railway labour, and the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act had that as well as the public interest as a primary purpose of its existence. It was for that reason that I made the suggestion. It would not clutter up the act; it would not increase its length beyond the extent of a single line to add a paragraph (d) reading, "the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act." It might not make any actual difference in the effect of the act, but it would, I believe, make a great difference in the attitude of labour towards the act, and I think that is well worth while in dealing with a question that involves the attitude of employees towards a particular measure. I would hope that the minister would see the advantage from a public point of view of inserting just that one clause in that way for that reason.
As I see it, the railway employees to-day are suspicious of this act. They fear that it is going to throw many of them out of employment, and that a lot of them will suffer

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
serious loss, and what they fear most is the arbitrary methods that may be invoked in administering some of the provisions of the act. They look upon the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as a protection against summary and arbitrary action. I believe that the opinion which the minister was given by the Justice department is correct. I believe that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act are not overridden by this act, and I would personally be prepared to accept the minister's word for it, but I still think that on grounds of public policy there is a very strong reason for including that one subsection. I believe that it will make railway labour much more prepared to accept this act in the spirit in which the government would like to have it accepted. It will help to remove some suspicion of the act, and to the extent that it does that, it will lend an added sense of security to those in the employ of the roads and serve a highly useful purpose in so doing. ,


George Reginald Geary: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman will not think that he has achieved his purpose by the discussion thus far, and by having had read into the record the opinion of the legal department, with which he agrees. I see a great deal of danger in putting anything that is unnecessary into legislation. It is quite possible that the insertion of the clause my right hon. friend suggests would hold out to the men hopes that may not be realized. I cannot recall from memory any provision of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act that would apply to the situation raised by section 16 to which my right hon. friend adverted. True it is that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act provides for a conciliation board as between an employer and one man only, but a reading of the interpretation clauses of that act I think will convince my right hon. friend that' such things as are occurring now and will occur under this bill have no place under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. For instance, reference has already been made to the displacement of labour in connection with the pooled services between here and Toronto, and between here and Montreal. That was not done under this act, but it has had the effect, so it was claimed in the house this afternoon, of releasing some men from work or of destroying the work which might otherwise have been obtained by some men. But I do not think that it has ever occurred to the labour bodies that this was a matter for settlement under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. If you were to insert such
a clause as has been suggested it might be holding out to the men a false hope that perhaps the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was being interpreted in a manner that would allow matters affected by the tribunal, for instance, to come within its ambit when actually they did not come within it at all.
My strong objection really is to putting into legislation anything that is unnecessary, to (fluttering up legislation. We have had too much experience of the difficulties of construing a statute. It should be construed within its four comers, and if within its four corners you find an exception which, according to my right hon. friend and the minister, will if put in there serve no useful purpose at all, then possibly the railway men will forget this discussion or refer to the insertion of the exception as indicating that in some way or other the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was being widened so as to embrace something which it does not embrace at all. If there was any good Object to be served, if there was any doubt in the minds of the legal advisers, if they could suggest that this might cure a difficulty that could reasonably be foreseen, I would have no objection; but as a lawyer, as one who has had to do with statutes in the courts, I do object very seriously to any statute having in it anything that by common consent has no effect whatever in the statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The argument of my hon. friend seems to me to constitute [DOT]the real reason why the clause should be inserted. He says that the insertion of it might hold out a false hope. I submit that the unwillingness of the government to insert anything so obviously fair creates a suspicion which may or may not be false. I think an object in all legislation should be to make absolutely clear and above suspicion its purpose and intention. I do not think that we can get away from the fact that this act in one or two particulars is going to bear very hard upon some of the labour employed. None of us likes to see these drastic economies. I think the minister himself is quite sincere when he says that it is a painful business to put through a measure which is going to mean, because it is necessary to make economies, that a number of men are going to be thrown out of employment. If that is the case let us, as I said the other evening, seek to make the condition created by the measure as little grievous as we can possibly make it. If by inserting some clause which gives to the great body of railway employees the feeling that at least if this nightmare of unemploy-
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

ment is coming upon them it will not come upon them in an arbitrary and unjust way, if that be the effect of the insertion of the clause, it seems to me the government ought to jump at it and insert such a clause immediately.
Speaking of the cluttering up of statutes, this bill is full of cluttering clauses. I could show the minister a dozen, and I would be agreeable to striking out ten or twelve lines which I am prepared to cite for the substitution of this one, if the minister should deem that necessary in order to insert a clause such as I suggest. This statute is full of unnecessary verbiage, as most statutes are. Just why one paragraph, "(d) the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act," referring to an act passed over twenty-five years ago and which has come to be recognized by labour as something that is a protection to its members as well as to the public, should not be inserted. I cannot for the life of me understand. The fact that the government is at all hesitant about it, and that any of its supporters should uphold them in their desire to keep the provision out, creates in my mind just the very feeling that after all there may be something here which hon. members are a little afraid labour will take advantage of to protect itself. I believe in this legislation we ought to try to protect labour as much as we can.


Robert James Manion: During this debate the
right hon. gentleman has been exceedingly courteous, and because we have objected to the clause proposed by the hon. member for West Lamb ton I do not think he should suggest it must necessarily involve some insidious attack upon labour. Generally speaking the right hon. gentleman has been reasonably fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have presented the point of view as I think labour will see it.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the right
hon. gentleman is quite fair, as I believe he will admit that he has not the interests of labour at heart any more than the rest of us have. He has said that if anything could be put into the legislation which would convince labour that it was being fairly treated, it should be put in. I admit that. But at the same time is it fair to put into the act something which has no effect upon labour, but gives them a false sense of security?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why a false
sense?


Robert James Manion: That is the point raised by the hon. member for Toronto South. I do not think it is fair to give labour a sense of security which does not exist. The Department of Justice is not prejudiced in this matter, and its attitude is that the provisions of this legislation do not in any way affect the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The other evening when we were discussing this matter I made that statement, and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre nodded his assent to it. The lawyer attached to my department, who was appointed by the late government, takes exactly the same attitude as is taken by the Department of Justice. The hon. member for Toronto South is of the same opinion. I have no intention of being arbitrary in the matter. But there is still another attitude which both railway companies have submitted to me. I was not going to argue the matter, but probably in the circumstances I should speak fully. I was anxious not to clutter up the bill. I agree with the leader of the opposition that there are a number of clauses which the bill could do without. That statement would apply to most of the subclauses of clause 2, and if they were left out the bill would1 be better for it. But after lengthy discussions with various interests, including labour, those sections were placed in the bill. Very often legislation is not interpreted by courts, but by laymen. For instance, while the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners was a well known judge, there are men on the board who have not had legal training. The possibility pointed out is that if you include unnecessary clauses in bills those clauses are brought to the attention of the laymen on the board, and because something has been put in which should have had no effect upon the legislation, there is the possibility of misinterpretation. I am laying the facts before the right hon. gentleman and am still willing to listen to argument. I should like however to leave the bill as clear cut as possible although I admit even now it is not as clear cut as it might be.


Peter Heenan: I understand the hon. member for Toronto South and the minister are desirous of having a clear understanding as to the necessity for the insertion of this clause. Let me point out, as the leader of the opposition has done, that the provisions of this section shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts. Then, if we turn to section 16 we will find that the railroad companies in conjunction with the heads of the organizations

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
will divide their work proportionately. I have no doubt that the minister can imagine the many disagreements there will be throughout Canada in connection with the merging of these men. Someone will have to be called in to arrange settlements. And then in view of the fact that this bill provides that the railroad companies together with the beads of the organizations will endeavour to do so and so, we read into it that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act would be inconsistent with the provisions of this legislation. In other words the suggestion is that this act would prevail over the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.


George Reginald Geary: There is nothing of the kind in it.


Robert James Manion: No.


Peter Heenan: Hon. members opposite may be right, but the men who have spent their lives in railway work and meet these conditions every day believe that the bill does prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. There is a direction in the bill to do thus and so. There is no doubt that there will be disagreement hundreds of times. There will not be an adjustment in the next ten years of all the disputes which will arise. The men want to be assured that they can use the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as in connection with any other dispute. Apart from that I wish to point out to the minister this: Last Thursday there was a long discussion which, I believe, might have been much shorter. One of the conditions upon which I withdrew my amendment was that the government would accept the amendment of the hon. member for East Algoma. At that time the government promised the leader of the opposition that they would consider the provision for which we are now asking, namely the insertion of the safeguard of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I do not wish to repeat- and I do wish the minister would pay attention to me, so that we may understand each other; if he would listen I would not have to repeat myself. The men contend that under section 16, which authorizes the railway companies together with the men to agree on the merging of the men into several seniority districts, they should be able to resort to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I am sure that notwithstanding what our lawyer friends say, any court would interpret this measure to mean that its provisions would prevail over the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
I should like to point out to the minister a few examples which I am sure, would not draw much on his imagination. Let us suppose that the Canadian National shops in Montreal were closed. In order to balance that we give the representatives of the railroad organizations the right to merge the men into shops in some other parts say of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the first place these men have no rights now to work at other points under the seniority rules. That will have to be a new right created through negotiations between the companies and the men. I could give as another example the Canadian National, the old Grank Trunk and the Canadian Pacific being concerned in a merger of services. Under present conditions the Canadian National men have no rights whatever on the Grand Trunk proper, and vice versa; and the men on neither of these roads have any rights to employment on the Canadian Pacific. Yet it will be necessary in the case of all such mergers for them to get together with their employers as to these seniority rights. I am satisfied that all the disputes that will arise between the men and the companies will not be adjusted in the next ten years.


George Reginald Geary: Would the hon. member
permit a question?-because I want to get at his argument. Is such a case covered by the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act? Is that his point?


Peter Heenan: No, that is not my point. My point is that this bill we are now discussing provides that these mergers will take place, and while it does not say so, the railroad companies together with their organizations will endeavour to arrive at an apportionment of the work. If they do not agree then the men will want to resort to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to settle it. If the government do not insert this provision. I think they ought to be willing to appoint a board of adjustment and pay them full time to settle all these disputes until they are all finally cleared away.


George Reginald Geary: But the opinion of the law
officers is that that is all covered, that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is not interfered with, and that all the remedies given under that act remain in eSect. That is my point-that there is nothing in this measure to disturb the application of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I would be among the last to say that the men's

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

rights under the existing act should be destroyed. But the opinion of the law officers of the crown is that that act remains undisturbed.


Peter Heenan: I agree that my hon.
friend thinks so, and that the Justice department thinjk so and that the government think so, but the men do not think so. What harm, then, would it do to insert a safeguard making it perfectly clear? We argued here all day Thursday on this very point, and it was because the government agreed to consider this, practically agreed to insert such a provision, that I relinquished the floor and withdrew my amendment. I withdrew it in good faith, feeling sure that the minister, after what he said last Thursday, would take care of the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition. It cannot do any harm; the men want it; the minister says it is covered anyway, the Justice department say it is covered. What then is the objection to inserting these few words safeguarding the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman certainly misinterpreted me if he thinks I said I was going to adopt this. The right hon. gentleman did suggest it and I said we would give it every consideration. I have given my answer in regard to it; the Justice department say it is not necessary. However, I do not know any particular reason why we should fight all night, we have been all day on this section, and as far as I am concerned I am a bit tired of arguing it. I am absolutely convinced, on the opinion of every lawyer whom I have consulted on both sides of the house, as well as of the Justice department, that the suggested amendment is not necessary. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour, looking it over a minute ago, endorsed the opinion that the men are amply protected without any amendment, as far as the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is concerned; that the provisions of this bill do not interfere with the provisions of that act; that it is not the case, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said, that this act prevails over the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. There is no provision in this act that interferes with any provision of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. However, I do not wish to take any arbitrary stand and if the leader of the opposition feels as he says he does, I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Labour to move this amendment to this bill.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have reviewed the provisions of the bill in the light of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and I do not think it was the intention of anyone on either side of the house to defeat the right of the workmen on the railways to have resort to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. There is, as has been pointed out by one of the members for Toronto, a danger in the drafting of any statute that the inclusion of something in that statute may by inference imperil the rights of those who seek remedies that the statute without such inclusion already gives them. That is the only danger. But I cannot see that that danger seriously arises here. Of course one may be wrong, but from my experience in the interpretation of statutes I think the inclusion of such a provision as this does not add anything to it, nor is it likely to subtract anything from it, although I would not be so sure that by inference it might not. It would be too bad if the position of the railway workers were in any way imperilled. I do not think it is. It seems to be the opinion of some, particularly of the right hon. leader of' the opposition, that the proposed change would add some clearness to the bill, so I would defer to his view. It does not change at all what I believe to be the proper legal construction and interpretation of the act itself. We all know that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act has provided the machinery for the disposition of what otherwise might be contests between employers and employees that would be most difficult to adjust. Certainly it never was in the mind of the government, and I doubt if it was in the mind of any member of this chamber, that any right of the workmen should be imperilled one iota by the passage of this legislation, as far as the right to resort to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is concerned.
Therefore I move:
That section 2, subsection 1, line 15, be amended by striking out the word "and" and adding the following after paragraph (c):
"and	_
(d) the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to thank the minister for having accepted in the spirit he has the suggestion that I made, and may I repeat to him what I said as to the genuineness of his belief as t-o the opinion of the Justice department being a strictly legal one and as such meeting the point from a legal point of view. But I do think nevertheless that the minister has acted wisely in

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
inserting this provision, especially because of the involved nature of the first clause of section 2. If that clause were differently worded there would not be the same reason for this amendment; but with the clause worded as it is, talking about inconsistent provisions of other statutes, it is very desirable that this clarity should be given the section, and I am sure the results will more than repay the minister for what he has done.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have before me an amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Lambton. The hon. gentleman is not present.


Robert James Manion: I understood it was to be withdrawn.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It cannoit be withdrawn in the absence of the hon. member who proposes it.


Robert James Manion: If it is not withdrawn I will ask for a vote. I have played the game and I think it is about time we made progress.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I was going to suggest a method of getting around this difficulty. Let the amendment stand until the hon. member comes back-


Robert James Manion: I will not agree to that. I have agreed to most everything on earth for the sake of peace and quiet in the family. We have made compromises and agreed with hon. gentlemen opposite on everything possible. We put in that provision with regard to the Board of Railway Commissioners to satisfy them and now they want us to hold up the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the chairman who is pointing out that the hon. member for West Lambton is absent and that the amendment cannot be withdrawn under the circumstances. I agree with the Minister of Railways. We had an understanding and I asked that this particular amendment should not be brought forward in view of the proposal which the minister himself made. The minister introduced a section which I said I was sure wrould satisfy the hon. member for West Lambton, and I am still of that view. If it cannot be withdrawn-[DOT]


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Under the rules it cannot be withdrawn in the absence of the hon. member.
53719-276|


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, in the circumstances we might all vote against the amendment.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Perhaps the leader of the opposition would take the responsibility of withdrawing the amendment on behalf of the hon. member.


Charles A. Stewart: The chairman says it cannot be withdrawn.


Robert James Manion: May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to read the rule that prevents our having a vote on the amendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is nothing to prevent the committee voting on the amendment, but the amendment cannot be withdrawn ir the absence of the hon. member who proposed it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely anything can be done by unanimous consent.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No; there is a special rule in this regard.


George Halsey Perley: Will the chairman be good enough to put the amendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Neither a motion nor an amendment can be withdrawn in the absence of the member who moved it.


Thomas Reid: Put the amendment and we will vote it down.
Amendment negatived.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4, subsection (2)-Chairman. To devote all his time.


Robert James Manion: In connection with this
provision there was a proposal by the hon. member for West Middlesex. The hon. gentleman brought up the question of full time on the part of the three trustees as opposed to the Chairman devoting full time and the other two members being part time. In this connection the Prime Minister and the members of the government are of the opinion that perhaps it would be wise for the government to have power to provide for three full time men for one, two or three years as might be deemed desirable, in order 'that they might become thoroughly familiar with the whole railway situation. The problems are quite complicated and difficult, and no one knows better than I do how long it takes one to become thoroughly familiar with them. In-
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

deed, I am not yet entirely conversant with the whole situation although I have devoted three years of concentrated study to it. The hon. the member for West Middlesex in his amendment proposed that each trustee should devote his whole time. He suggested: "One of such trustees shall be their chairman. Each shall devote his whole time," the word "each" being substituted for "he." That would make all three full time men. The amendment which I Shall propose will read:
(3) The trustees, other than the chairman, first appointed under the provisions of this act shall from time to time during the terms of their appointments devote to performance of the duties of their office their whole or part time as may be determined from time to time by the governor in council, and the salaries to be paid to such trustees for whole and/or part time service shall be fixed at the time of their appointments.
This may sound complicated, but if we appointed three men on full time and with full salar3r it would require an act of parliament to make any change in their status. In this regard I would direct the attention of the committee to section 7, which provides:
No trustee shall be removed from office, nor suffer any reduction in salary, during the term for which he is appointed, unless for assigned cause and on address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.
In view of that provision, which we do not agree to withdraw, we could not appoint a trustee on full time for any period and later place him on part time at a reduced salary or remove him from office without assigning a cause and securing an address of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. We therefore deem it best to leave the bill in such a form as to enable the government to deal with the matter as it sees fit.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the
minister shortening the term of appointment?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is that under section 4?


Robert James Manion: Yes, subsection 2.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister, I understand, intends to leave subsection 2 as it is.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: That is to say, one of
the trustees shall be chairman and he shall devote his whole time. That settles the matter so far as he is concerned.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Then following subsection 2 there will be the new subsection which

the minister proposes. It provides for the trustees other than the chairman and requires them to devote their full time-that is, the first set appointed.


Robert James Manion: No, my hon. friend is
wrong; if the government so decides, and that is the thought of the government at the present time. The government at the moment feels that it would be better to put them in for full time; so that in all probability, if the section is amended as proposed, that will be done.


John Campbell Elliott: They shall, during the
terms of their first appointment, devote to the performance of their duties their whole or part time as determined from time to time by the governor in council.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: It is surely a step in tire
right direction. I really think that these three trustees, conducting a business as large as this, should devote their full time to it, and I am glad the 'minister has seen fit to go that far.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The amendment will
be subsection 3.


Robert James Manion: I was just reading that.
Before we submit that, I would like to change the wording of subclause 2 in order to make it a little clearer. It has been thought that this subclause is not clear enough. I shall read the amendment first and then have my colleague move it. It reads:
One of such trustees shall be their chairman. He shall devote his whole time to performance of the duties of his office and shall not be an officer nor after his appointment as trustee become otherwise than by reelection a director of any company other than a company which is comprised in National railways.
I think that makes the meaning a little clearer without changing the sense.


Mr. SPENCER:: Do I understand the minister to say that all the trustees will give their full time for the first three years, after which the two trustees other than the chairman will be put on part time?


Robert James Manion: I cannot see that far
ahead. If these amendments are accepted by the committee, as I hope they will be, the government will have the power to appoint the three trustees on full time for as long a period as they choose, up to the length of the period of appointment. The intention is to appoint the three trustees for full time for

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
one, two or three years, or until they become thoroughly familiar with the work. After that time, it is possible that the trustees other than the chairman will be put on part time, but that is something that would be decided in the future according to circumstances.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It strikes me that if these trustees are kept on such important business as the railway business for two or three years it would' be very difficult for them to find ways and means of giving up their work. They will be needed to carry on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I trust
the minister understands that this amendment does not remove our objection to section 7 as it now stands.


Robert James Manion: We are not dealing with
section 7.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
see that this amendment makes very much change in the bill as it stands. This amendment will give to the governor in council the power to say whether the two trustees other than the chairman are to work full or part time for a period of two or three years. The question whether they are going to work full or part time is not so important; it is to section 7 which deals with the selection from a panel that I abject most strenuously.


Robert James Manion: That is section 6.


Charles A. Stewart: There will
remain what I and a good many other members of this committee consider to be the most objectionable features of this bill. This amendment is a mere bagatelle if the rest of the objectionable features are not to be removed. Full control should be taken by the governor in council. That is the serious feature of the whole bill.


Robert James Manion: We will be there in a
minute.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
look upon this amendment as effecting anything-


George Reginald Geary: It is a small piece of mercy.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a very small piece of mercy if the balance of this section and section 7 are to stand.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I move that subclause 2
of section 4 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
One of such trustees shall be their chairman. He shall devote his whole time to performance
of the duties of his office and shall not be an officer nor after his appointment as trustee become otherwise than by reelection a director of any company other than a company which is comprised in national railways.


Robert James Manion: I understand that the hon. member for West Middlesex is withdrawing his amendment.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Elliott) withdrawn.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do I understand the amendment to mean that the chairman may not hold the office of director of any company other than one connected with the Canadian National Railways except by reelection? In other words, he can hold directorships in concerns other than the Canadian National Railways if he holds such office at the time of his appointment and is reelected.


Robert James Manion: That is right.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
like that.


Charles A. Stewart: In another
company?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but not another railway company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Other business concerns?


Robert James Manion: Just the same as Mr. Beatty is the director of a number of other companies, such as the Bank of Montreal.


Edward Joseph Garland: He should not be.


Robert James Manion: Suppose it is decided to
take a man from the business world to take charge of these railways from a business standpoint. If he has been the president of companies which he has helped to build up over a period of years, it would be very difficult to get him to drop all contact with those companies. Acting as a director of a company does not take very much time. As long as he was only connected with companies which did not conflict with the railway company, it would be to the advantage of the railway company. The hon. member for West Edmonton is a director of a number of companies and he knows it does not take much time.


Charles A. Stewart: One only.


Robert James Manion: It does not take much
time to attend a meeting once a month. Mr. C.NR.-C.PR. Bill

Beatty, the president of the Canadian Pacific railway, is a director in a number of companies. Sir Henry Thornton was a director in a number of companies, including the Royal Bank. If the chairman of this board is not permitted to be a director in any other company, possibly one with which he has been closely associated for a number of years and has helped to build up, I submit it will be very difficult to get a man of the type we may desire to take the position. I think that statement is unanswerable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not introducing and recognizing the factor of interlocking directorates, which factor is likely to become one of the biggest questions to be faced by governments in dealing with the financial and industrial world? I do not think we ought to countenance, let alone invite, that sort of thing by legislation. There is no doubt in the world that much of the evil which exists to-day in the industrial and financial world has grown up largely because of interlocking directorates. If the chairman of this board is to be permitted to be on the directorates of banks and financial and business corporations, it simply means that the Canadian National Railways will be supplying patronage to all these different concerns.


Robert James Manion: Or those concerns will be supplying patronage -to the Canadian National Railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The orders for wh-at is needed by the Canadian National Railways will be placed with the different concerns which the gentleman happens to be representing. If the chairman of this board is to be the important personage indicated here, he should be absolutely divorced from relationship with other businesses so that he can be perfectly impartial when dealing with national railway affairs as they relate to other financial, commercial and industrial concerns in -the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree entirely with the analysis made by the leader of the opposition of the point to which I just directed the attention of the Minister of Railways. I understand that this point was raised in previous discussions of this particular clause. It is possible that this czar, as he has been called, may be a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As I understand it, this man is to be the directing head of a publicly owned railway system and presumably he will be in sympathy with the conception of the principle of public ownership. I submit that no man who is so shackled to the present 
competitive system as to be a powerful director of other big corporations can sever his conception of a social order from those entanglements in which he is .privately interested. I would suggest that any person who is selected for this important position should at least be required to sever his directorships in other great corporations; this is the least we can ask of him. We all know that in the past we have had great difficulty in finding men of talent and capability who were not born in and ingrained with, yes, the evils, if you like, of the present system. The greatest problem this administration has is to find just such men, men who are not only pledged to the principle of public ownership, but prepared, if necessary, to make some sacrifices in order to render effective their administration of this enormous enterprise. I do not think the minister is well advised in providing as he has done in this clause.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman said
that we could appoint even a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is no doubt that within the four comers of -that clause we could, but I can easily imagine what would happen to this or any other government if it chose to appoint a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway as president of the Canadian- National, so I think that answers itself. A government would have to be entirely out of its head to do any such thing, so I think any government can be trusted not to appoint a director of the Canadian Pacific as president of the Canadian National.


Thomas Reid: Is it not the case that one
of the other trustees could in due course of time become president? This is provided for -in case of death.


Robert James Manion: It is just as unlikely as
anything could be for this or any other government -to appoint directors of the Canadian Pacific as trustees. I do not think we need argue that feature of the matter. For a government to appoint a director of the Canadian Pacific as trustee of -the Canadian National would be too obvious an attempt to bring about amalgamation and absorption, so that no government would dare to do it. The -thing is so remote from possibility we do not need to argue the question.


Thomas Reid: Then leave the old clause in
so as to -make sure.


Robert James Manion: We have not changed the sense of the old clause; the wording is different.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
In regard to directors in general, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Bow River that because a man is a director of some company, for instance, a flour milling, packing, mining or oil company, any one of which would be in a position to give business to the Canadian National Railways, it would be injurious to the national railway to have such a man. I have no doubt in the world that if we had inserted a provision that he must not be a director of any other company, we would immediately have been attacked -and I am not saying that we would be by my hon. friend-on the ground that Mr. Beatty is a director of a number of companies and we would be putting this man at a disadvantage.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister would not be criticized by me.


Robert James Manion: I am not saying that, but
we would be criticized. The fact that a man is a director of a company does not condemn him unless he is a director of an opposing company.


Charles Gavan Power: Could he not be got to
resign if he were?


Robert James Manion: Yes, that might be done,
as the present Prime Minister did when he came into the government; he resigned from all his directorships. It may be that we shall find in the dominion some man who is willing to do as the Prime Minister did. But we might pick out a man-I have one in mind at the moment; I do not wish to name him because I do not think anyone knows we have him in mind, an outstanding, successful man, who is not only a director, but president of a numlber of companies which he has built up-


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not
Sir Charles Gordon?


Robert James Manion: No. This man has built
up a number of compani.es upon which he is to-day one of the officers. Supposing that man said: Here is a company-we will imagine it is a flour milling company-that I have been associated with for twenty years; I have helped to build it up; I wish to keep an eye on it, to have some right to look into its affairs, and I would not consider taking a position like this without that privilege. If the government were up against a situation of this kind, it might be eminently fair and just for such a man to be chosen. If we can get a man who is not a director of any other company or who will resign from such positions, so much
the better, but the hands of the government should not be tied.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where in the
clause as now drafted does it permit what my hon. friend says it does? As I read the clause, it distinctly prevents the chairman from being a member of the board of directors of any other company than those comprised by the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read
the clause:
One of such trustees shall be their chairman. He shall devote his whole time to performance of the duties of his office and shall not be an officer of any company other than a company which is comprised in National railways.


Robert James Manion: But a director is not an
officer. The clause refers to an officer of any other company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I see.


Robert James Manion: A president is an officer of
a company. A man could not remain president of some oompany because that is an office. Supposing we chose the president of some flour milling company-and by the way, I am not thinking of anybody, so do not connect anyone with that-and we wanted to appoint him. He might say: I would like to do this public service and I think I could do it well, but for twenty years I have been president of this company; I have helped to build it up; I do not wish to give it up entirely; as director of that company I can give a certain amount of traffic to the Canadian National. Surely it is of advantage to the Canadian National to have a man who would have connections of that kind. It is argued, and I think rightly, that out of the seventeen directors of the Canadian Pacific, many are put on as directors because of theiir business connections. For instance, take Mr. McLaughlin of General Motors, Oshawa, who is one of the directors of the Canadian Pacific: it is stated quite openly and I think correctly-and this is to his credit-that he gives business to the Canadian Pacific. There is Mr. James Stewart, who used to be in the flour milling business and who was formerly a director of the Canadian Pacific. I have no doubt many men were made directors of the Canadian Pacific because they could give business to it. Surely we should not absolutely tie our hands to prevent us from appointing a suitable man if he happened to be a director of some company which might give business to the Canadian National.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we were
appointing a number of directors who as such were each receiving a nominal fee, there might foe something in what my hon. friend is saying. But the point is that this gentleman, I assume, will receive a very high salary, one comparable at least with that given to the governor general of this country. If the gentleman to foe appointed as chief trustee of the national railway is to be placed in that position, he ought to be obliged to divest himself of his 'relationship with other concerns. The minister has referred to the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister apparently felt for public reasons he should not in the discharge of his public office as prime minister retain his position on boards of directors of different concerns. Exactly the same argument would apply to the position of the gentleman who is to be chairman of the trustees of the Canadian National and even more so because he will have it in his power immediately to direct business to individual concerns in a way that tfic Prime Minister 'himself in all probability would not have. It is a very wrong principle to encourage, and certainly to encourage by legislation; because I venture to say that before very long this parliament will legislate to prevent the interlocking of directorates which exists in a great many concerns at the present time.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to prolong
the argument, but there are one or two points worthy of remembrance. To mention Mr. Beatty again, surely it does not interfere with his capacity as 'president of the 'Canadian Pacific Railway that he is also a director of the Bank of Montreal and a director I believe of a number of companies. Surely it did not interfere with Sir Henry Thornton, who was president and on a salary not equal to the governor-general's, but three times as much if you include his expense account-


Edward Joseph Garland: It has
been alleged that it did interfere.


Robert James Manion: I have never heard that
alleged. Sir Henry Thornton was a director of the Royal Bank for many years, and I did not know that that interfered at all-I never heard it alleged. Other men are in the same position. I submit that a man might be a director of three or four companies in addition to being president of this road, and those three or four directorates mi^ht well not take five per cent of his time, leaving 
him free to devote the other ninety-five pear cent of his time to the road, which would be doing pretty well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sir Henry Thornton is not here to speak for himself. I was told by Sir Henry Thomton that word had been sent to him that he was to resign his position with the Royal bank at the instance of this government.


Robert James Manion: I can tell the right hon. gentleman that no such word was ever sent to Sir Henry Thornton by this government or by any member of this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend speaks as if he knew what the Prime Minister may have said as well as himself, but I say that Sir Henry Thornton said to me personally that word had been sent that he was to resign from the board of directors of the Royal bank because he was president of the Canadian National Railways, and that the two positions were not compatible. He thought it was an extraordinary action on the part of the government to take. Word was sent to him from the Royal bank to resign, and he did resign. I make that statement with full knowledge of what I am saying. If it were thought necessary by the government of the day through the Royal Bank of Canada to tell Sir Henry Thomton as president that he was to resign from that directorate, the same argument applies to anyone who is to be appointed as trustee and chairman of the Canadian National Railways with respect to his continuing to hold other directorships.


Robert James Manion: I think I know the orders that were given to Sir Henry Thornton when president of the Canadian National Railways. I gave most of them myself so far as this government is concerned. I do not think the Prime Minister gave him any such order because if he had I think he would have advised me of it, and he never advised me. I do not believe he gave any such order. I did not, and no one else had any right to give any such order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister say that the Royal bank did not ask Sir Henry Thornton to resign his directorship at the instance of the government of Canada?


Robert James Manion: So far as I know I absolutely deny it. The Royal bank may have asked him to resign; I know nothing about that.

C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that Sir Henry Thornton so advised me, and I believe he was telling the truth when he told it to me.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to question the word of a dead man. I am speaking for a live man, and I make the statement that he did not get that order; he was not told to retire from the Royal bank because of any order of this government, and so far as I know-I cannot speak positively for what the Prime Minister may have done, but I am convinced that the Prime Minister gave no such order, irrespective of what the right hon. gentleman heard from Sir Heniry Thornton. I might quote Sir Henry Thornton too on a number of different things that perhaps would not be creditable to a number of members of this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish my hon. friend would' not make general threats. I ask him to quote Sir Henry Thornton on anything.


Robert James Manion: Sir Henry Thornton told me, not once but many times, that he was forced by the right hon. gentleman to spend the money of this country on all kinds of expenditures for this railway that be personally did not feel it was wise for the Canadian National Railways to expend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my word is as good as my hon. friend's, and I venture to say that Sir Henry Thornton never said such a thing to him in his life, never used the expression about being forced to do anything by the government, and I say more, that all the time he was president of the Canadian National Railways I never asked Sir Henry Thornton to do anything that involved public expenditure. I make that statement on my honour as a member of this house.
M>r. MANION: I am not accusing the right hon. gentleman of having done it. I did not quote Sir Henry Thornton until he dared me to. I quoted what Sir Henry Thornton stated to me. I never stated that I charged the right hon. gentleman with anything, but he dared me to quote Sir Henry Thornton on anything, and I quoted him, and I say again not once but a number of times Sir Henry Thornton told me that he was practically forced to build branch lines and do other things for political purposes which he did not wish to do, and which were not good for the Canadian National Railways. I took that attitude, and I repeat it, and my word is as good as that of the right hon. gentleman. I
was not questioning that Sir Henry Thornton made the statement he is alleged to have made to the right hon. gentleman. I was sa3dng that this government did not give Sir Henry Thornton that order, and I think I would know if it had. I cannot answer positively for the Prime Minister, but I do not believe that the Prime Minister ever gave any such order to Sir Henry Thornton. I do not believe that the Royal bank was ever instructed by this government or by any member of it to ask Sir Henry Thornton to resign his directorship of the Royal bank.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Hansard will show that my hon. friend's original remarks were that Sir Henry Thornton had been forced by me. He now says that he was "practically" forced; he introduces the word practically, and he then goes on to say, "by the government" to build branch lines and matters of that kind-a very different statement from the one he made first.


Robert James Manion: I stand by the one I made first.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my hon. friend contradicts himself. I repeat, on my honour as a member of this house, that Sir Henry Thornton is on record himself to the effect that he was never interfered with politically by the administration of which I was the head. He made the statement publicly that the Canadian National Railways had not been interfered with by the administration, and he attributed the success he had had with the railway until my hon. friends came into office to that fact, but political interference began the minute hon. gentlemen opposite took office.


Robert James Manion: Political interference never bega-n and never was begun by this government with the Canadian National Railways. It began under the right hon. gentleman, and I am ready to debate it in this house any time, and to prove it-to prove it, I repeat, and I have got the proof right here in this portfolio. I have tried to avoid political discussions. The right hon. gentleman says, "I am speaking on my honour as a member of this bouse." His honour is no greater than mine. I am speaking on my honour also. I did not question the right hon. gentleman's statement as to what Sir Henry Thornton had. said to him, nor do I question that Sir Henry Thornton made it. I had no desire to get into a political discussion of any kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: I do not know why the hon. member for Vancouver Centre laughs. I have discussed this bill for three weeks, and I have not brought in politics until tonight. I have discussed it on as high a plane as any man could although 1 have been egged on a number of times by hon. gentlemen to bring in political issues because they have brought them in themselves, not many of them, but one or two. I do not wish to get into political discussions about the matter at all. I simply took the attitude that we did not instruct Sir Henry Thornton, and anyway what has that got to do with the question before us? Sir Henry Thornton was a director of the Royal bank for years under the regime of the right hon. gentleman, and if it was wrong to have a director of the Royal bank or of any other company as president of the Canadian National Railway, why did not the right hon. gentleman stop Sir Henry Thornton from being a director? I am advised that he was a director of other companies. I do not know that I could name them, and I am not saying that to his discredit at all; but if it is wrong now for a trustee to be a director of other companies, it was wrong for Sir Henry Thornton to be a director of the Royal bank under the regime of the right hon. gentleman. I do not know where the consistency comes in.


William Richard Motherwell: I wonder if the minister, now that we are talking on the subject of Sir Henry Thornton, would be good enough to tell the house whether he asked Sir Henry Thornton to resign from his position as president of the Canadian National Railways or was he just merely frozen out?


Robert James Manion: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that it will be for the good of Sir Henry Thornton's memory to discuss him any further than we have already discussed him in this house. It might be wise for both sides of the house to leave him out of the picture. The only reference I made to him, and I did this incidentally only by way of illustration, was to say that he had been a director of the Royal bank. Unfortunately a few heated words led to a few more, but I think it would be well to leave Sir Henry Thornton out of the picture altogether. I am quite agreeable to doing so, but on the other hand, if it is forced upon me, I am quite ready to discuss the matter fully.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I suggest that the committee get back to the clause under consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I shall have to get new batteries on my earphones. I did not hear an answer to the question I put.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if the minister would meet us half way. It may be true that he cannot get a man of high standing who is not acting as a director of other companies. Would he remove the fear some of us have that a trustee or chairman could be appointed who may or could be a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway? Would he not go half way and place in the bill a proviso that the chairman cannot be a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Robert James Manion: I will not accept that suggestion. To do so would be a reflection upon the intelligence of the government, and I do not intend to do that. Any government with an atom of intelligence would not appoint a director of the Canadian Pacific to act in a high office on the national system.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the amendment
carry?


Edward Joseph Garland: On division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment is a substitution for paragraph 2.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Paragraph 2 of clause 4.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I beg to move to add
after subclause 2 of clause 4 a new subclause as follows:
(3) The trustees, other than the chairman, first appointed under the provisions of this act shall from time to time during the terms of their appointments devote to performance of the duties of their office their whole or part time as may be determined from time to time by the governor in council, and the salaries to be paid to such trustees for whole and/or part time service shall be fixed at the time of their appointments.


Charles A. Stewart: I repeat that the amendment does not mean a blessed thing, except that the governor in council may or may not employ trustees whole or part time for the first two or three years of their appointment. It does not mean anything. My hon. friend is moving for full time employment during the tenure of their office. Without referring to the discussion which has taken place may I say that the gentleman who undertakes to manage this business will undoubtedly have to be a full time employee. AVe are now substituting a very small board of trustees for a large board of directors. Per-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
sonally I object to the iterm "trustees"; I do not like it. I do not like the suggestion that these gentlemen are managing a bankrupt institution; that is the only implication which can be placed upon the term. However, the government is determined to call them trustees, and that there shall be three on the board. This reference to the fact that they may or may not for the first year or two of their appointments devote their full time to the management of the board appears to me as so much eyewash. I want the governor in council, or the government through the governor in council, to take full responsibility for the appointment and control of these gentlemen, and also to have power to discharge them; otherwise we shall have a board of three gentlemen with power to spend the money of this country. The minister has pointed out that because we have to vote the annual deficits on operations, the income account and such capital accounts as the trustees deem wise to expend, we will have control. We will have no control whatever. We are just handing over to the appointees of this or any other government complete control of the biggest institution in Canada. Then we are binding ourselves to vote money to those gentlemen to spend willy-nilly, as they see fit, in the operation of the road. True, as outlined in the minister's amendments of to-day, there will be some control in connection with the disposal of property. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, and so far as I am concerned it is quite satisfactory. But if the government refuses to take the responsibility for hiring and firing these trustees they are going to fasten a serious handicap upon this road, this national enterprise and the biggest business in Canada to-day. They are divesting themselves of authority which they should retain, and which rightfully belongs to them, and are passing it over to three gentlemen whom they will select but whose actions they will not be able to control one year after they are appointed. Then, except by vote of the House of Commons and Senate combined, the government will be helpless. Why refer this matter to the Senate? We do not refer to the Senate financial matters in connection with the operation of the road. No accounts are referred to that body; they pass them as a matter of course, but they can do nothing with them. But here are three men who are going to spend sums of money as large as this government are spending. The government finds it necessary to have eight or ten ministers to
administer the affairs of the country,, and yet the trustees will be responsible for expenditures comparable to the expenditures by the government.
The government are tying their hands; they are handing money to the trustees, willy-nilly, without any control except the right of the House of Commons and the Senate to dismiss. I believe I do not use language too strong when I say it is ridioulous, and of the many ridiculous things this government has done this is the crowning event. So far as I am concerned, I will oppose the measure as vigorously as I can.


William Daum Euler: Speaking on the second reading of the bill I stated it was my opinion that the three trustees should give full time to their work. Their task is so colossal that it seems to me there is plenty of work to which each of the three trustees could give his full time. I am pleased that the government has offered an amendment which at least in part meets that difficulty. I rise to say however that since the government recognizes the necessity for full time employment of the three trustees, upon that should follow when we come to another clause an amendment to the effect that if the three trustees give all their time to the work of their respective offices the chairman alone should not have the complete say as to any action which could be taken by the board of trustees, and that the majority should rule. If the three men give all their time it seems to me it follows that the majority vote should govern the proceedings of the board.


Robert James Manion: We will deal with that matter later.


William Daum Euler: I believe the two matters are related. I can see that if two men gave only a small fraction of their time practically all the work of the board of trustees would be done by the chairman. For my part if the two men gave only part of their time, we might as well have one general manager, and be done with it. But if the full board are on full time the majority should govern.


Robert James Manion: May I repeat that the
expectation of the government at the moment is that they will give their full time to begin with at any rate. As far as I know at the moment that is what probably will be done. But there are reasons why we do not wish that it should be mandatory that the three must be full time. There is in addition the question of salary; it had to be rearranged

C.N.R.-CJP.R. Bill
because of that. I think if the committee will permit the governor in council to take that responsibility, in all probability when the appointments are made the three .men will be for full time to begin with at any rate.


John Campbell Elliott: There is another amendment I moved which is closely connected with the amendment we are now considering, namely, as to giving equality of voting power to the three trustees. That is an amendment to section 11, subsection 2.


William Daum Euler: That is what I was referring to.	[DOT]


John Campbell Elliott: If the trustees have the
full voting power I think it gives them a standing. But since this discussion arose it has occurred to me that perhaps we should discuss the two together, if the minister would not object.


Robert James Manion: We have got only one
clause through, and we have spent days on this bill. I should like to get section 4 through. The point the hon. gentleman raises comes up under section 11. The hon. member for North Waterloo took the same attitude; he thought it was fair to discuss the clauses as we come to them. We are giving in to the hon. gentleman; we will probably do as he suggests in regard to full time, although we are leaving it open. Having done that let us dispose of clause 4.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps it would be
better to leave this until we consider section 11, because I may say very frankly that after being rather disposed to appreciate what was being done as a step in the right direction, I now feel that if the minister still intends to handicap the trustees by not allowing them to carry -any resolution except with the vote of the chairman, this does not help us at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister was kind enough to let me see a copy of 'the amendment proposed. I would like to ask him to explain why he requires the words "from time to time" in it. As it reads now the trustees other than the chairman shall devote whole or part time. I should imagine that that would be sufficient, whole or part time as determined by the governor in council. But he adds, "as may be determined from time to time by the governor in council."


Robert James Manion: I have had the opinion
of a number of outstanding railway men that they did not think the men should be full

time appointments. It is possible that three full time men might be a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth; it might not be satisfactory for the railway. The reason the amendment is drawn in what may appear to be somewhat loose terms is to give power to the governor in council to alter it if the matter did not work out as hoped. It is not put in for any other purpose, except that and the question of salary. I do not want to go over that again, but the salary question comes in in section 7. If we should carry that section we could not change their salaries without an address of the Senate and the House of Commons, or new legislation. Therefore this clause was drawn by the Justice department and my legal officers with the object of giving the governor in council some power in the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish the minister had drawn it himself. I think he could have made it a lot more intelligible.


Robert James Manion: Carried.


John Campbell Elliott: Let this stand until we
deal with section 11 and consider the two together; because this is not satisfactory to me, if it is the intention of the minister that these men will be what I have already described as crippled trustees.


Robert James Manion: All right. But may I
point out with all respect that my hon. friend and his group are a little difficult to satisfy. We have now brought in at least three important amendments, showing a desire to reach satisfactory agreements between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves, and the result after nearly three weeks of discussion is that we have now two sections passed, the name of the bill and section 2. Now my hon. friends ask me to hold up section 4. I am not quarrelling, but I would like to put it on record that hon. gentlemen opposite certainly are not easy to satisfy.


John Campbell Elliott: I am as anxious as my
hon. friend to get this matter disposed of in a reasonable time. When we get along to section 11 we will be able to discuss the question of who is reasonable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the hon. minister ought to leave on record the statement that we have been three weeks on this bill. It is true that it is three weeks since the bill was introduced, but we have spent only a day or two each week on it.

Radio Broadcasting
And it is also true that practically all the clauses are through now with the exception of a few that the minister himself asked to stand.


Robert James Manion: All the uncontentious
parts are through, but practically none that were contentious. I will admit that three weeks is a slight exaggeration, but it is nearer three than two. On the second reading we took a full week, and took the better part of a week on some clauses.


Edward James Young: All the better for the bill.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 28, 1933