1933-04-07

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to Hansard of Wednesday, April 5 which contains your ruling as to the expunging of certain passages. This ruling having been made, I would direct your attention to the first column of page 3748 of Hansard. I have no complaint to make but in view of your ruling my expectations are high.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is entirely out of order in the remarks he has made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am referring to a reference made to me in Hansard.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no question of privilege involved. An hon. member when speaking in the house made a certain reference to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and the hon. member for Temiscouata is entirely out of order in seeking to discuss this matter at this time. The matter might be discussed in an ordinary debate but it certainly should not be taken up in this way.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no question of privilege involved.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know whether the word "clowns" is parliamentary.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It has not been used.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, it has.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member point it out to me?


Jean-François Pouliot: The following appears on page 3748:
As long as these inferences were made by the hon. member for Temiscouata only I did not object very much to them; I was even pleased at the free advertising for my brother and I did not object for the reason that clowns are never taken seriously.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Probably the hon. member should not have used the word but it escaped my attention at the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: In order that proper decorum be maintained in this house, would Your Honour be kind enough to order that the above-mentioned quotation be expunged from the record?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for Temiscouata believes that the word referred to him, I will direct that it be expunged from Hansard.

Privilege-Mr. Heenan



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to 'take exception to what Your Honour may have done in the way of expunging possible objectionable phrases from Hansard, but I would ask if it is not part of the privilege of the house to control its own records, and whether the house should not, before any statements are expunged from the records, pass a resolution in the first instance. I raise this point now because Your Honour has made decisions which equally affect members on both sides of the house. I did not wish to take exception to anything done in the past but I respectfully submit so far as the privileges of the house are concerned that His Honour 'the Speaker is the servant of the house in this as in all matters, and the house should itself determine whether anything is to be expunged from any of its records.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I will take the remarks of the right hon. gentleman under consideration.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEENAN

Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege: The Ottawa Citizen of this morning contains the following statement:
Hon. William Finlayson, Minister of Northern Development, in the legislature to-day promised to investigate charges made by Peter Heenan, former Minister of Labour in the federal government, to the effect a Liberal merchant had received only $350 for supplies-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order 1


Peter Heenan: The report continues:

while a Conservative merchant in the same northern town had received $125,000.
I did not use those figures. The oorrect figures will be found in Hansard and if there is going to be any investigation I want the Ontario government to investigate the figures I gave.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member can
refer the house and the public to Hansard. If every hon. member is to bring up misquotations by newspapers of what he has said in the house, we will never get ahead with business.


Peter Heenan: This report states that
the legislature is going to investigate and I want it to investigate the figures I gave on the floor of the House of Commons.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The figures the hon.
member gave are properly quoted in Hansard. This house has no control over the Ontario legislature as to what investigation it shall make.


Peter Heenan: I am quoted here-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What point is the hon.
member seeking to make?


Mr. BENNETT:: This cannot be considered as a question of privilege in this bouse.


Peter Heenan: I am misquoted.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
said so and that is as far as he oan go. He has admitted he is correctly quoted in Hansard.


Peter Heenan: The figures I gave-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order 1


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member
to order. I want the hon. member to understand that there is nothing personal in my remarks with regard to this matter but when the Speaker rises to address the house it is the duty of any hon. member to take his seat. I call the hon. member to order.


Peter Heenan: On a question of privilege: Surely if I am misquoted in the press or in the legislature, I am entitled to make a correction.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the hon.
member had made his correction.
|lr. HEENAN: I was just about to do so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member said
the figures given in 'the report are not correct, but he said also that he is correctly reported in Hansard).


Peter Heenan: I am going to give the
correct figures now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That cannot be a question of privilege in this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
made his statement; he has gone far enough.


Peter Heenan: Well, sir-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hou. member
to order.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


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


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no ruling to
appeal from; I call the hon. member to order.
Criminal Code


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


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has confused the privileges of this house with the privileges of another assembly. According to his statement, a report appears in a newspaper of what took place in the legislature of Ontario, and it is contended that the statements thus appearing are not correct. The privilege is the privilege of someone in the legislature to correct an erroneous statement of what was said in the legislature, not here. There has been no question raised as to the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's statement in this house, neither has it been impugned so far as this house is concerned. The newspaper purported to report what took place in another legislature altogether. If they did it inaccurately, the hon. gentleman might say that it was an inaccurate report of what was alleged to have been said by him. But there is no proof that it was said by a member of the legislature of Ontario or that the report in the newspaper is not wholly inaccurate. That is the ground of the objection that I have frequently urged against the reading of newspaper statements in this house. If we all indulged in that practice, practically the whole time of this house would be taken by each member rising in his place from day to day to explain a misstatement of his position with respect to any given matter. In this case the privilege, if any, is of someone in the legislature of Ontario, and not of someone in this parliament.


Peter Heenan: I am prepared to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. AH I want is a square deal in this matter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I have asked the hon. member to keep order. This is no time to speak.


Peter Heenan: May I not correct a misquotation of what I said on the floor of this house?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That has already been
done.


Peter Heenan: No, I have not yet
corrected it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have asked the hon.
member to resume his seat.


Peter Heenan: I am only resuming my
seat, Mr. Speaker, on the ground that as a member of this house I have been unfairly treated and I am appealing against the ruling of the chair.

On the order for motions.


Peter Heenan: I want to appeal against
your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have ruled that the hon. member is out of order; that is my ruling. He has stated his complaint. He has complained that he was incorrectly reported in a newspaper report of what took place in another legislature which has nothing to do with this house, and I submit that he is not within his rights in going further with the matter here, and I call him to order.


Peter Heenan: Then I shall take another opportunity of correcting it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I do not wish to be driven to naming the hon. member and having him expelled from the chamber.


Peter Heenan: It makes no difference to me. I will come back again anyhow.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale) (for Mr. Senn) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70, respecting the Income War Tax Act (declarations on returns). [DOT]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Mr. RHODES:: The title of the bill practically explains its provisions. The bill provides that income tax returns shall be verified by a declaration, and it also sets out the form of the declaration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71, to amend the criminal code.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There are two or three provisions in this bill which I might mention. The first is to exempt from the operation of a section of the criminal code boxing contests

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
which are conducted by amateurs, with gloves not to exceed five ounces in weight, under the auspices of provincial commissions which have been authorized by provincial legislatures. In two or three provinces, notably in Ontario and Quebec, such commissions have been authorized, and recently a question has been raised as to the authority to carry on these contests under such provincial authorization.
The next is a provision brought forward at the instance of the Children's Aid Societies in various parts of Canada to amend the sections of (the code in regard to acts of immorality and drunkenness in premises where children reside.
The third is an amendment which seems to have become necessary through recent occurrences, when stench bombs have been set off very frequently in moving picture theatres, and on. one occasion I think in a church.
The fourth provision is to make a theft of the removal of logs lying in the bottom of streams and belonging to certain owners.
The other changes are very minor, more clerical than otherwise.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to empower the Canadian National Railway Company to issue notes for a sum not exceeding $13,058,004.63 for refunding requirements and capital expenditures for the calendar year 1933, and to authorize the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the governor in council, to make loans on the security of such notes to an amount not exceeding the said sum; and to authorize the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the governor in council, to make temporary and accountable advances not exceeding in the aggregate $47,9-41,395.37 to meet the net income deficits occurring during the calendar year 1933, the total of such deficits as certified by auditors appointed to audit the accounts of the company, to be included in the estimates submitted to parliament at the first session following the close of the said calendar year.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), on the orders of the day yesterday, asked if the arrangements under which pool trains between the two companies are run had been approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners. I have information to-day that on March 21, by order 49675, the Board of Railway Commissioners approved of those trains.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CAN ADI AN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 16, 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. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
register a strong protest against this bill, because it is submitted to a committee of the whole house instead of to the regular committee before which such matters are generally studied. At page 2777 of Hansard the Minister of Railways and Canals is reported as Follows:
In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Heenan) as to whether or not it is my intention to submit this bill to the committee on railways, shipping and telegraph lines, I should like to say that it is ray intention to suggest submitting it to a committee of the whole house. These matters have been dealt with very fully by the royal commission. This commission travelled from coast to coast and took evidence from all those who desired to submit evidence. They heard provincial authorities, railway officers, railway employees-public bodies and individuals-any who felt that they had some contribution to make to the solution of the question. In addition, the Senate committee heard further witnesses, most of whom had appeared before the royal commission, and it is my opinion that it is not necessary to go to the trouble and expense of hearing these witnesses over again.
In the same debate I am reported at page 3000 of Hansard as follows:
First I would say that the matter of expense is only a pretext. What was the expense of hearing witnesses in the Senate? Does the minister know? Will he tell us? Was it so much?
There was no answer to that question. Then I continued:
The railway debt is $2,300,000,000, a figure-*
C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is quoting from a previous debate on the same subject matter, namely the debate on the second reading of the bill. According to my understanding of the rules he is not entitled to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, the rule of the house is to the effect that we cannot quote from a previous debate, if the quotation is in regard! to another matter. At this point however we are discussing the same bill, and I submit a member is entitled to quote Hansard on the same debate. However to save time and trouble I shall not insist upon reading further from Hansard, and shall be content to read some documents which do not appear on Hansard but which it is my intention to place on record. The quotation I have just read appears at page 3000 of Hansard of March 14, 1933. Any hon. member may find at that point what I said.
Then, I sent the following question to the assistant clerk:
Mr. Pouliot:
1.	What has been the taxation of each witness heard at each of the sittings of the Senate committee on Bill A of the Senate from November 10, 1932, to February 16, 1933?
2.	What is the total amount of other expenses incurred by that committee in connection with said bill?
On March 17, 1933, Mr. Speaker ruled as follows:	"This is a matter for the Senate,
not the House of Commons. Question not in order." Then I wrote to the Minister of Railways and Canals. My letter under date of March 20, 1933, is as follows:
Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Doctor Manion,-
On Friday last I sent the following questions to the assistant clerk of the House of Commons.
The questions I have already mentioned are quoted in the letter. I then continued as follows:
The Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons wrote me thus: "This is a matter for the Senate, not the House of Commons. Question not in order."
Will you kindly give me that information?
With thanks,
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
The answer to that letter is as follows: Office of
The Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Canada.
March 22, 1933.
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
I am obliged for your letter of March 20, and for your suggestion that I give you infor-

mation as to expense incurred by the committee of the Senate which dealt with Bill A.
As the Speaker of the house has already advised you, such inquiries should be addressed to tbe officials of the Senate, who could no doubt give you the desired information.
Yours very truly,
R. J. Manion.
The letter is addressed to Jean-Frangois Pouliot. I then wrote the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen leader of the government in the Senate, the following letter:
Ottawa, March 23, 1933. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Leader of the Government,
The Senate,
Ottawa. Ont.
Dear Mr. Meighen,

Pray find herewith enclosed copy of a letter to Hon. Doctor Manion, dated March 20, and copy of his answer dated March 22.
Would you kindly communicate with the officials of the Senate in order that the information asked for is forwarded to me as soon as possible?
With thanks,
Sincerely yours,
J ean-Frangois Pouliot.
Then I wrote another letter to the same right hon. gentleman, It is as follows:
Ottawa, March 25, 1933. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Leader of the Government,
The Senate.
Dear Mr. Meighen,-
You will greatly oblige me if you answer my letter of March 23 at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
The answer of the right Hon. Arthur Meighen was as follows:
The Senate,
Canada.
Ottawa, March 28, 1933.
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
On my return to Ottawa to-day I have your letters of the 23rd and 25th instant.
As I understand the procedure it would be necessary for you to move in the Commons that a message be sent to the Senate asking for the information you desire.
If such a message is received in the Senate I shall see that it is given prompt consideration.
Yours very truly,
Arthur Meighen.
This letter was addressed to J. F. Pouliot, Esq., M.P. It was impossible for me to have such an address moved in the House of Commons and communicated to the Senate. It would have been impossible for me to have the answer to-day when the bill is being considered before the committee of the whole house. So my good friend, the good Samaritan, the Hon. Senator Horsey, was kind enough to put the following question before the Senate:

C.N.R.-C.R.R. Bill
Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Bill Inquiry-Expenses of Witnesses
Hon. Mr. Horsey inquired of the government:
Whether any expenses were incurred by the government for the payment of the expenses of witnesses who appeared before the Senate railway committee on Bill A, and, if so, what was the total amount paid therefor?
Bight Hon. Mr. Meighen: No expenses were incurred for payment of witnesses.
Mark you, Mr. Chairman, this answer is of the utmost importance, as it illuminates the whole matter. I shall repeat it.
Right. Hon. Mr. Meighen: No expenses were incurred for payment of witnesses.
This question and answer is to be found at page 445 of the official report of the debates of the Senate. I protest strongly, Mr. Chairman, against the bill being submitted to the committee of the whole house, and I expressed a similar protest upon the second reading of the bill. It is impossible for any hon. member to give a clear decision or to make a clear judgment concerning unknown facts. True, the minister has said that the commissioners travelled from ocean to ocean, and gathered an immense amount of evidence, with which they are satisfied. When the bill was originally brought to the Senate it was such a bad piece of legislation that the leader of the government in the Senate, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, refused to accept responsibility for it. Senators had the opportunity and the advantage of hearing witnesses in the Senate committee. Many witnesses were called, among others Mr. Beatty and Mr. Hungerford. They gave evidence which to a certain extent changed or transformed the bill. I state now that the matter cannot be properly considered in its present form, and that it should be studied carefully by a special committee of the whole house, a committee which has existed since confederation for the purpose of examining such matters. In that way any hon. members on the committee would have an opportunity to hear witnesses in connection with any point upon which they wished to base a judgment.
Now, sir, this bill is submitted to this committee. The statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals during his speech on March 7, when he moved the second reading of this bill was that in order to save expense and trouble we should study it here without hearing any witnesses. This is most startling. What is the expense? The leader of the government in the Senate says there is no expense in calling these witnesses. I understand it is a great honour for Mr. Beatty, Mr. Hungerford, Mr. Ruel and others to appear before a committee of the Senate. I do not know if they feel that it is such an honour
to appear before a committee of the House of Commons. That bill should have been moved first before the House of Commons. It came before the Senate first because the government had no other legislation ready to give to the Senate to examine, while we were discussing other matters in the House of Commons.
Now, sir, to show the committee, and prove to the minister himself, that it is absurd to go on with the study of this bill without hearing other witnesses, I will ask him the following questions:
How many superintendents and assistant superintendents, first on the Canadian National Railways, second on the Canadian Pacific Railway, are civil engineers?
How many officers earning $2,500 or more a year in the offices or management of both railways were there in 1930,? in 1931, and in 1932?
How many of them were dismissed each year?
How many of them are there this year, 1933?
How many of them have been dismissed since the beginning of the year?
On the other hand, how many men earning $2,500 or less have been in the employ of the Canadian. National Railways, and in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and how many of them have been set back in both railways for the same periods I have mentioned, in 1930, in 1931, in 1932 and since the beginning of 1933?
And if the hon. minister is kind enough to answer these questions I will be glad to ask him some more.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, in regard to one matter which the hon. gentleman mentioned, that of the expense of bringing witnesses before a House of Commons committee, I did not emphasize that feature as much as he has emphasized it; I merely mentioned it as incidental. I pointed out that the witnesses had been heard1 before the royal commission and before the Senate committee, and that the evidence as given by these witnesses was, to a large extent, open to perusal of hon. members of this house and therefore was not necessary to repeat it. Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Beatty both appeared before the royal commission, Mr. Beatty appeared before the Senate committee, Mr. Hungerford took the attitude that his evidence had already been given before the commission and it was unnecessary to repeat it because there was no change in it. That was the point, the expense was incidental.
In regard to the dismissal of various employees of the two railways, I do not know
3S10
C.NJi.-CB.R. Bill

the details as to the men who were laid off. I cannot give these details at the moment and I do not know that it would help particularly in the consideration of this bill to give that information. The information in a general way has already been brought down; that is the house has before it, in replies to various questions, the number of employees which the Canadian National had in various years and the number which it has at the present time. That really covers the information the hon. gentleman wishes so far as that road is concerned. He also wanted to know how many superintendents on the Canadian National were civil engineers. I am sorry I cannot tell; there are some who are civil engineers, but I believe even my hon. friend, or myself, neither one of us being a railway man, will realize that a man does not need to be a civil engineer to be a superintendent. According to my information superintendents on the various railways of this and other countries are chosen from various groups of employees. Sometimes they come up from the ranks of the locomotive engineers, the firemen, and other classes of railway workers. And some come from the civil engineers. The reason is, I am informed, that it is considered better to have superintendents of various trainings, it is to the advantage of the road. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend any information I can, but I hope he will not ask for information, as to matters of which I have no knowledge, and cannot reasonably be expected to get.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, it is a good time to understand our position clearly. I do not want to have any evidence repeated. I have here the evidence, the report of the commissioners, the report of the debate in the Senate, and of the Senate committee, and the Hansard of the House of Commons containing the discussion on this bill. I do not wish any evidence to be repeated, but I want new faots to be put before the house. I cannot get them to-day from the Minister of Railways because he does not have them at hand, but if the heads of both railways were here I could secure that information from them. What the hon. minister has said proves that my contention was right.
Now, sir, I have another ground of protest against this bill, I would say a ground of protest at large. I am strongly against the abandonment of governmental responsibility. The government must have a policy with regard to the railways. The government has to foresee. The only way to have that policy applied and applied well is to put the railways

under the direction of the Minister of Railways. I do not see why the Minister of Railways is at the same time the Minister of Canals. Both of course are transportation systems, one by rail, the other by water; but canals should rather be under the Minister of Marine. The Minister of Railways 'has to supervise the whole railway system of this country from coast to coast and that is enough for one man. My idea about such legislation as this is that there is no reason for the government to abandon its responsibility, to put it on other shoulders, the shoulders of trustees whom they appoint, but who will not be responsible to this house. The only way to have the railway problem settled in this country is for the government to have a definite policy and then have it applied by the Minister of Railways to both railway systems and all branches of railways. On our statute books we have an extensive body of railroad legislation. It has been enacted by the parliament of Canada, both houses, it has been given the royal sanction and it is the law of the country. Now shall we vest some individuals with the (powers of parliament? I am here as a member of parliament, I and my two hundred and forty-four colleagues have certain rights. We can lay before this house the complaints we have to make, we have the privilege to submit legislation to this house, but as soon as this bill is passed the powers we now have will be handed to other people who will not be responsible to this parliament. Sir, it is a sign of weakness; a strong government should have a strong railway policy and be able to apply it strongly, apply it themselves, and not lean on others to apply it. This is my second ground for objecting very strongly to this bill.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, this act provides for the amalgamation of the two great railway companies in Canada. I should like to address a series of questions to the minister; I presume he has the information available, because the effect of the bill is so great and has to do with so many of our people that I do not think we can over-estimate its importance. Already we have seen some of the results of this cooperation between the two companies; this afternoon the minister referred to the service between Montreal and Chicago, the first result of which was the laying off of probably several hundred employees on the two systems. So far during the discussion of this measure the minister has not given any information to the committee as to what might be the effect of this cooperation on the unemployment situation in Canada. Further, I should say it is common

C.N.R.-C.PJt. Bill
knowledge that for some considerable time the railways have been investigating to what extent they can amalgamate their services in various parts of the country. I understand that this amalgamation extends to the joint use of terminal facilities both in freight and passenger service, as well as the amalgamation of the freight and passenger services themselves.
Therefore I should like to ask the minister if he is in a position to tell this committee how far the railways have gone up to the present in regard to amalgamating their services; what the probable effect will be in regard to the number of men who may be laid off, and further what financial saving is expected after this cooperation is put into full effect.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my hon.
friend is asking a rather difficult question. He is as familiar as I am with the statements that have been made by various persons as to the savings that may be made by amalgamation. This is not amalgamation, but there is no doubt that through cooperation there will be a considerable saving, and no doubt some of 'that saving will be brought about by the laying -off of a certain number of men. I have no idea how many men will be affected in this way, but I am convinced that if business revives as we hope it will in the near future, instead of the railways even under cooperation laying off men they will be taking them on. My conviction is that when business comes back to anything like normal, not necessarily to the peak year of 1928, the railways will take on thousands of men no matter what may be done in regard to cooperation.
I cannot give my hon. friend 'the number of men who probably will be laid off; I do not think anyone in the country oould give that figure at this time. I do not suppose either Mr. Beatty or Mr. Hungerford oould say how many men are likely to be affected. In the first place any cooperation that may take place must 'be agreed to by the two railways; 'then it is put into effect, and until that is done naturally nothing like definite figures can 'be given1.


Abraham Albert Heaps: T'he reply of the minister
is very unsatisfactory; he bases his statement on ifs and hopes. These have not proved very satisfactory in the past two or three years. It is not much satisfaction to the men who are to be laid off if they are told to hope that prosperity will return in the near'future; neither is it satisfactory to tell them that if conditions get a little better than they are to-day they may not be laid 53719-241
off. We do know that the president of the Canadian Pacific railway told a meeting in Winnipeg a short time ago that if amalgamation were carried out the railways could get along with from seventy to seventy-five per cent of the present staff. Under a complete amalgamation of these two systems that would mean the laying off of about forty thousand employees. On the other hand, if we do not have complete amalgamation but get as close to it os possible by means of cooperation-though I cannot see the difference between amalgamation and cooperation -we should be able to get a proportionate figure. So far as I can see, having in mind the service between Montreal and Chicago to which the minister referred, there is no difference between amalgamation and cooperation; it makes no difference to the men concerned what you may call it. They only know that they are to 'be laid off as a result of the two railway companies working together.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is the weak point in this method of dealing with this bill. My claim is that if the bill had been submitted to one of the railway committees or to a special committee of the house we could have heard the experts of the two companies, and could have obtained some idea as to what the financial saving would be and as to the estimated number of men who would be laid off. The first question addressed to the minister to-day brought the answer that he had no information to give us. If the Minister of Railways is not in a position to give the committee any information on the most vital point of the whole bill I say we should rise and report progress until the minister has the information the committee desires.


Robert James Manion: No one in the world could give that information; it is asking for the impossible.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is not impossible at all.
If Mr. Beatty can tell the Winnipeg board of trade that forty or forty-five thousand men would be laid off as a result of amalgamation I imagine he could give us almost identical figures as to what would be done in regard to cooperation.


Robert James Manion: I must say that I read
Mr. Beatty's speech, and I do not remember seeing any such statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quoted his exact words
when I discussed the matter on the motion for second reading. Mr. Beatty's words were to the effect that the two lines could get

CJV.R.-C.P.R. Bill

along with from seventy to seventy-five per cent of the present staff. Surely the inference is obvious; it means that if the present staffs of the two railways total about 170,000 men, 40,000 would have to be laid off.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of information would my hon.. friend be good enough to quote the exact words, if he can place his hands on them?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will undertake to give the Minister of Railways the exact words of Mr. Beatty before the afternoon or the evening is over. I think most hon. members of the house read the full report of his speech, in the course of which the words I have quoted were used. I think that speech was delivered during the early part of last February. If Mr. Beatty could give the number of men who would be laid off through amalgamation surely it should be possible to get the number of men who will be laid off as a result of cooperation. Mr. Beatty also stated that by the process of amalgamation there would be a saving of some $75,000,000 a year. He can give that information to the public of Canada-


Robert James Manion: That was under amalgamation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But if we take it on the basis of cooperation what is the difference?


Robert James Manion: There is a vast difference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know there is a difference, and that is why we want the figures. Surely we have a right to expect them. I have just been handed a copy of the speech made by Mr. Beatty in Winnipeg on February 8 of this year.


Mr. BOWMAN:: At what page?


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Robert James Manion: There is no doubt that for some years both the railways have been looking into the question of cooperation at various points. One of the first recommendations made by this government, both by the Prime Minister and myself, to Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Beatty, when we came into power, had reference to the greater need of cooperation than had existed in the past. But even prior to that the two railways undoubtedly had been canvassing the possibility of cooperation at certain points. I do not believe that either railway has any definite figure as to the number of men that would probably be laid off as a result of cooperation in different parts of the country. It all depends on the extent to which the cooperation is carried. In the case of cooperation affecting a few passenger trains it might mean very few men; but in extensive cooperation a great many men might be involved. In the speech delivered by Mr. Beatty, from which my hon. friend has quoted, Mr. Beatty spoke of unification-that was the word my hon. friend quoted, I believe. I distinctly remember reading about a statement on the part of Mr. Beatty regarding a possible saving of
S75,000,000, but although I should not care to oppose my views to Mr. Beatty's on the subject, I am bound to say that I have grave doubts that such a saving could be effected. As to my hon. friend's request for definite information, I do not think that either of the railways can say precisely what number of

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
men may be laid off. I have seen statements attributed to Mr. Beatty and Mr. Hungerford, certainly to Mr. Beatty, that in the course of natural decrease year by year in the number of the employees there need not be very much interference at all with the number of those who work on the railways. Some high officials of both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways have made that statement to myself. At any rate, while I am not disputing my hon. friend's word, I should like him to quote what Mr. Beatty said with regard to forty or fifty thousand men being affected.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He mentioned a percentage, seventy-five per cent.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and as my hon. friend says, that would work out at forty or fifty thousand. If I remember rightly Mr. Mosher did make a statement before the Senate committee to the effect that it would mean the laying off of some forty thousand men, but I do not agree with him; I do not think that by any method of cooperation that is possible, even by amalgamation, any such number of men would be laid off under any circumstances, even under the present depressed conditions in the country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What the minister has just
said shows the difficulties that will be encountered throughout the passage of this bill if we have not the experts of the railways to inform us. The fact that Mr. Beatty could make a statement along the line be did would indicate that he must have had certain information on which to 'base his statement with regard to the saving of $75,000,000; if he had not some basis for that statement he would not have made it at all. No doubt these figures were given him by experts in his own company and then submitted in the course of a public speech. I would ask the Minister of Railways to reflect for a moment on one of the statements he has made to the committee. He said that in the natural course of events, taking into account those men who leave the railway service each year -and those who die off, there need not be much unemployment on the two railway systems. On a moment's reflection, I do not think the minister would have made that statement. Does he not realize that each year there is growing up a new generation looking for work?


Robert James Manion: Not a new generation of
railway men.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It makes no difference. The
new generation must be employed somewhere, 53719-241 i
and if the possibilities of employment on the railways are being gradually eliminated it means that fewer and fewer meu among the rising generation will have any chance of entering the service. Here we have a government who a few years ago pledged themselves to end unemployment in this country; yet 'the very basis of this bill is to throw twenty thousand persons out of work. That [DOT]is something that must be considered. In my own constituency there are thousands of railway men whom I shall have to face when I go back and give some information as to what their prospects are likely to be in the *immediate future. Am I going to go back and tell them that when this matter was being discussed on the floor of the house the minister was unable to give any information?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman is disputing a statement which 'he is under the impression that I made. I did not give it as coming from myself; I said that I had read somewhere that Mr. Beatty had made the statement, and I added that other railway men had spoken to 'the same effect, that there need be no great interference with the railway employees even by amalgamation. The hon. gentleman was very much shocked. As a -matter of fact, I was quoting Mr. Beatty from memory. However, perhaps it might be well for me to read -the exact words used by Mr. Beatty in a speech -he gave in Winnipeg before the Canadian Club. It was the second address delivered' by the chairman of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it was made on February 8:
Railway labour has been disturbed naturally by proposed changes in administration. The necessary adjustments cannot be made without some disturbances of staff. But, wisely handled, these need cause no widespread discomfort or dislocation. The normal turnover of labour will absorb the majority of those displaced as the adjustments are made. The temporary inconvenience involved will not be greater than that resulting from our present situation, and the change will lead to a permanent cure for the worst evils. There is not the slightest reason to fear that a consolidated system, operated by men who have dealt fairly with employees in the past and who know the priceless advantages of esiprit de corps, would show lack of feeling in working out the problem of reorganization. I believe that the advent of such a system would immeasureably improve the position of railway labour in Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The speech I referred to was the one Mr. Beatty delivered in Toronto, not in Winnipeg.


Robert James Manion: This is subsequent to the Toronto speech.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was the Toronto speech
that I was referring to. I quoted from it, where he said something about seventy-five per cent of the present labour. I have the exact words somewhere.


Robert James Manion: If that is the case, Mr. Beatty has answered Mr. Beatty.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will not try to defend
Mr. Beatty, but perhaps the minister can answer a simpler question:	What is the
result of the present amalgamation of services, or cooperation, between Montreal and Chicago and between Montreal and Toronto?


Robert James Manion: The cooperation has only
begun and I do not think it is possible to give absolute figures at the present time. The judgment of the railway commission, as I indicated to the hon. member for South Perth this afternoon, was handed down only on March 21 and has been in effect since April 1. I quite admit that there may have been some men laid off as a result of the pooling of services, because that is natural; they have cut two fast trains to one fast train, and it does not require so many men to handle one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Surely the minister has in
his possession some information as to the number of men affected by the amalgamation of services between those points. I am told that in Toronto sixty-one employees of the Canadian National were laid off. Surely the same -thing would apply to other terminals.


Robert James Manion: I hope my hon. friend does not think that I carry in my head the figures concerning every change made in the railways from day to day, from week to week and from year to year. I can get that information for my hon. friend but I cannot give it offhand right at this moment. I do not think he is fair in asking for such information out of the blue sky.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The unfairness of the whole proceeding is that we have to proceed with this very important bill without having the experts of the railways before us in order to furnish information. I do not expect that the minister carries all this information around in his head. I know he is next to an encyclopaedia but I do not expect him to be a complete encyclopaedia. Perhaps he will obtain the information as to what the amalgamation of the services between Montreal and Toronto means in the number of men affected, as well as the estimated savings to the railways.


Robert James Manion: This bill will probably
take some time and I will obtain the information in the meanwhile.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I think
the committee should1 have the number of men laid off since 1929, divided into those laid off due to the slump in railway business and those laid off due to amalgamation of services.


Robert James Manion: If possible, I will have
that information later in the day.


Mr. MITCHELL:: We should also have
the number of men laid off through the increase in the size of locomotives and length of trains. That would give a proper picture.


James Langstaff Bowman: Mr. Chairman, a discussion of the number of men laid off naturally brings up that portion of the commission's report which deals with the contributory causes of the railway problem. I would direct the attention of the hon. member for North Winnipeg to the fact that Mr. Beatty's statement to the commission is predicated upon the assumption that from 4,000 to 5,000 miles of railway will be torn up and destroyed. Mr. Beatty's reference to the saving of $75,000,000 was through a possible saving which would be spread over a period of five years. These facts should not be lost sight of. Chapter TV of the report deals with the contributory causes of the railway problem. The major portion of that chapter deals with the competition from other transport agencies, special attention being given to the competition from road transport. I do not purpose dealing at any great length with the facts set out -under that heading, as I have no doubt they are familiar to all hon. members of the committee. However, I should like to refer to the general findings of the commission, and I quote from paragraph 163 as follows:
It is generally recognized that there is a need for regulating road motor services and for equalizing the conditions under which road and rail services are provided.
The following rather important statement is made in paragraph 164:
If the railways lose a large part of their profitable short distance traffic to the roads a readjustment of the whole freight rate structure may be necessary, with -a possible increase in the rates charged for the long distance and heavy freight traffic.
I referred to this possibility in a speech which I made in this chamber about a year ago. At that time I stated that unless some adjustment was made in the matter of freight rates as between private motor competition and so forth it might be that the railroads would have to come to the Board of Railway Commissioners to ask for an increase in freight rates. As a matter of fact, this was suggested by one of the labour representatives, who

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
appeared before the commission. In my opinion the competition from motor trucks and private automobiles is one of the questions which must be solved if we are going to see any daylight in our railway problem. The following appears in paragraph 165:
The railways themselves should be empowered to provide and operate services of road vehicles, subject to whatever restrictions are imposed upon other road transport operators.
I think most hon. members will agree that up to the present time the railways have been more or less asleep as far as the meeting of this type of competition is concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: How would they meet it?


James Langstaff Bowman: They could meet it in the manner suggested by the paragraph I have just quoted. Certain of the railroads in the United States have already gone into this class of business.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Some of the provinces prohibit the railway companies from entering that type of business.


James Langstaff Bowman: I am not so sure that they do.


James Dew Chaplin: The province of Ontario has done it already.


James Langstaff Bowman: To what extent?


James Dew Chaplin: They control the highways and the granting of charters.


James Langstaff Bowman: There can be no question but that up to the present time the competition has been unfair as between the motor truck, the private automobile and the railways. I think this fact can be summarized best by reading another sentence or two from the report. Paragraph 166 contains the following:
By concentrating less on mutual competition and by turning their energies to the coordination of the services they provide, a properly coordinated system of transport will be evolved.
That is the finding the commission arrived at after investigating this matter carefully for some months. Paragraph 167 reads:
The federal and provincial governments in cooperation should, however, examine this question of the regulation and taxation of road motor vehicles with a view to equalizing the conditions under which road and rail transport is carried on, and to securing uniformity throughout the dominion. A joint inquiry in which both federal and provincial governments were represented should enable a measure of agreement to be reached upon the general principles which should govern the regulation and taxation of motor vehicles using the public highways.
An finally in paragraph 168:
In our view the general principles upon which operators of road passenger services and common and contract carriers of freight should be regulated are as follows:
(i)	Schedules of rates and charges should be published.
(ii)	Within those schedules common carriers of freight should accept and carry what is offered to them without discrimination between customers and commodities.
_ (iii) Operators should be insured against all risks, including third party risks.
(iv)	Operators should keep accounts on a prescribed system and render returns to appropriate public authority on a common basis.
(v)	Minimum standards in regard to working conditions, including wages and hours of labour, should be required.
(vi)	In the interests of the safety of the public, a standard of fitness should be required of all operators in regard to their vehicles.
(vii)	Due regard should be had to the preservation of road surfaces, and, to this end, restrictions should be imposed upon the size and weight of road vehicles in accordance with the type and character of the highway.
Finally the commission suggested that there should foe a uniform system of licensing based upon and providing for the imaimtenianioe of highways. I understood from a remark of the Minister of Railways when this bill was introduced that at the last initeffprovincial conference in January this question came up, and that a resolution was passed by that conference, and it was agreed that the Minister of Railways should submit to the provinces a questionnaire dealing with matters relating to the regulation of truck and motor bus service, and that after the information had been assembled and studied a conference of the appropriate officials of the dominion and the provinces would be called to consider the whole situation. It was further agreed that the dominion statistician should assist the Minister of Railways in preparing the questionnaire. I was subsequently informed by the Minister of Railways himself thait the questionnaire bad -been prepared and sent out to the various provinces. I should like to ask the minister if any report has since come to hand from the provinces on that question, and if so what was the general purport of their replies.


Robert James Manion: There have been no
replies received as yet to the questionnaire beyond the acknowledgment of receipt and stating that instructions were being given by those receiving the questionnaire, the provincial premiers in most cases, to the appropriate officials to prepare the information required.


James Langstaff Bowman: Perhaps the minister,
without divulging something which the house
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

should not 'be told, might state what was the general attitude of the provinces in respect to 'the matter to which I have referred.


Robert James Manion: They were all agreeable
to the idea of a questionnaire, and also to the idea of dealing with this matter, but some of the provinces took the attitude that already their charges upon motor vehicles were sufficiently high and that they would not agree to any change in that regard. It was rather with the idea of bringing about an equalization of these charges that the questionnaire was sent out, with a view to dealing with those cases where the motor vehicle was not paying its due proportion of the maintenance and interest charges for highways. However, the provinces were all agreeable to the 'proposal as finally decided upon.


James Langstaff Bowman: Has either of the railway companies made application to the government for the authority suggested in clause 165 of the Duff commission's report, that the railways themselves should be empowered to provide and operate services of road vehicles, subject to whatever restrictions are imposed upon other road transport operators?


Robert James Manion: That is a question which comes within the purview of the provinces, but in any event the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National have already decided upon a certain amount of that type of transport in the territory from Toronto to Sarnia and also to Windsor. They have organized and I believe have put into operation, at least they were hoping some time ago to put into operation, a service of collection and delivery by motor truck at either end of the journey. They had to put that matter up to the provinces in order to get their consent. I presume that those arrangements are now in effect, but I have not been definitely advised.


James Langstaff Bowman: Does the minister know whether former railway employees have been given positions as truck drivers and so forth under these new arrangements?


Robert James Manion: The railways have nothing to do with the trucking themselves. What they did was to make arrangements, hiring or renting or leasing arrangements, whereby trucking companies at either end of the route handled the trucking that pertained to the traffic.


Mr. SPROULE:: Those arrangements are now in effect at Sarnia in my riding.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A few moments ago the Minister of Railways and myself had a discussion as to what Mr. Beatty had said at a certain

time and place. I have now his exact words, and in order that there may be no misunderstanding in any quarter as to what he did say, I wish to quote from the published report of Mr. Beatty's speech before the Canadian Club at Toronto on January 16, 1933. I shall quote the whole paragraph in which he refers to expected lay-offs of employees, which appears at page 16 of this booklet, which I have no doubt most hon. members have received. Mr. Beatty says:
Then there is the second objection that union means a disregard for the human element in that it will involve a reduction in personnel. It is true that this may be the result; yet such a reduction is inevitable unless very prosperous conditions are restored. But those who are apprehensive are apparently unaware of the substantial turnover of railway labour in normal times. It has been shown by investigations in the United States that the normal turnover by withdrawals due to ill health, death, retirements _ and voluntary changes runs from five to six per cent per annum - of the total number of employees. Therefore, from natural causes, in the event vacancies were not filled, the personnel of Canadian railways would be reduced in five years from twenty-five to thirty per cent, and 'it would not be possible to administer the unified properties with a staff reduced below seventy-five or seventy per cent of normal. Consequently, the danger of injustice can be readily exaggerated, and, of course, the danger of reduction, even to the extent I have mentioned, decreases with the return to more normal times and heavier traffic.
It will be observed that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway admits that in all probability they will get along with 70 or 75 per cent of the staff, assuming that amalgamation takes place, but he also says that if conditions were normal there would be an annual turn over in normal times of about five per cent. But the facts are that conditions are not normal, and we are now legislating in abnormal times, trying to adjust abnormal conditions to suit a particular case or argument. I put this question to the minister:	Has he or the government given any
consideration to compensation for the men who are likely to be affected by this legislation?


Robert James Manion: I did not question the
hon. gentleman's word, but I wanted to have the exact words that Mr. Beatty used, and I have since had them drawn to my attention. I would however point out that the quotation which I gave from Mr. Beatty was not so extreme as the statement he made three weeks later in Winnipeg.


Abraham Albert Heaps: You would not call Mr. Beatty an extreme man.

CRR.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: No, I did not mean that
he waa extreme; I meant that the statement was not so extreme with regard to labour. My hon. friend will find even in the statement which he quoted that Mr. Beatty said:
Therefore, from natural causes, in the event vacancies were not filled, the personnel of Canadian railways would be reduced in five years from twenty-five to thirty per cent, and it would not be possible to administer the unified properties with a staff reduced below seventy-five or seventy per cent of normal.
He uses the word "normal," by which I presume he means the normal number of employees in a normal year. Certainly this is not a normal year, nor have we had one for some time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then his argument in regard to lay-offs and the five per cent turnover also falls to the ground because when employment is scarce the turnover is less, because people do not give up their jobs and look for another. The turnover in employment to-day is much less than it ever was before, because there is so little employment and there are such vast numbers of unemployed. In view of the possible effect of this legislation, could the minister inform the committee as to whether or not the government has given any consideration to compensation for the men who are likely to be affected by the passing of the bill?


Robert James Manion: Undoubtedly individuals in the government have given consideration to the matter. It is debatable however whether this or any other government should take any class of employees, namely railway employees, and compensate them in the event of their being laid off, without making such practice general. I doubt whether my hon. friend is any more anxious than I am to see that in times such as these the unemployed are cared for. I believe any reasonable or charitable man, I was going to any Christian man-I believe I might include any Hebrew gentleman, so that I may not be accused of any discrimination-would take the attitude that the industrialists and public men of Canada should work out a scheme whereby, in depressed times such as these through which we are passing men, whether they be railway employees, or any other class, will not be thrown on the street. I feel that very strongly, and this is not the first occasion upon which I have expressed my views. The first time I made a public statement to that effect was in Windsor about two years ago. Upon that occasion I said that in times like these it is the duty of industrialists and public men to endeavour to look after employees. Unfortunately when depression does come upon us it is almost impossible to put such a scheme into effect. When recovery does take place it will be our duty to endeavour to see in the matter of unemployment, that we shall be in a better position if again, unfortunately, we are faced with a depression.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let us start now.


Robert James Manion: If I may repeat, I do not believe this or any other government should take the attitude that railway men alone, of all classes in the community, must be looked after if laid off. It would not be proper to give them special attention, and ignore other classes. I realize it is a difficult matter, and I am willing to give it consideration. So far, however, as far as I know, the problem has not been solved.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I say that this legislation places the railway men in a category different from other employees. They are to be laid off as a result of parliamentary action. We are about to put through parliament a bill, the effect of which will be to lay off a large number of employees. Had there been no act of parliament, the railwaymen would probably have had no grounds upon which to lodge a complaint. In the present instance however there is a distinction which I have no doubt the minister appreciates. It is a fact that as a result of an act of parliament undoubtedly a large number of railway employees will lose their positions. Under the circumstances does the minister not feel that the railwaymen are placed in a category different from that in which they would have been had no legislation been passed?


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for North Winnipeg has placed the case before the minister much better than I could have done. I agree with him in everything he has said, and I feel sure that all hon. members on this side of the house hold a similar view.
The bill before the house is not a temporary measure to deal with an emergent situation. As the minister and other members of the government do not like the word "amalgamation" I shall say the legislation is designed to merge for all time the services of the railways in Canada. As I have said before outside of the house, undoubtedly the bill is for the purpose of amalgamating the operations of railway services in Canada. If the government does not like the word "amalgamation" they may use the word cooperation, merging, or any other word they like. The effect would be the same, so far as the men
CJST.R.-C.P.R. Bill

employed on the railways are concerned. I am not quoting Mr. Beatty, Mr. Hungerford, the late Sir Henry Thornton or anybody else, because my experience and the experience of all men who have had to do with railways must teach me that after this bill becomes operative we will never have the same number of men employed on Canadian railways. When this bill becomes operative, men who have worked ten, fifteen or even twenty years on the railways might as well kiss their railway service goodbye. It is designed to amalgamate train services, not for to-day or to-morrow but for all time. As an hon. member on this side of the house pointed out there must be agreement, and a continuance of agreement, because it is so directed in the measure.
With the larger engines-the larger power, as we call it,-and with all the up-to-date facilities there is no doubt that to-day railways are in a better position than ever before to move heavy tonnage quickly. Under the legislation before us one railroad is going to move that tonnage where previously it had been done by two and sometimes three railroads.
Only last week one train was taken off between here and Toron/to, and another between Toronto and Montreal. No doubt the people will receive as good service, but the elimination of the service means that over one hundred men must foe taken out of the service of the railway companies. I know that is what the bill is designed to do; we might as well face the facts. Unless it is designed to 'throw men out of service, the bill can have no purpose whatever. I repeat that it is designed so that the railway companies may be induced to cooperate for the purpose of throwing men out of work in order that salaries may be saved.
As the bon. member for North Winnipeg has intimated, in the discussion of this measure we ought at least to have some information from the government as to the number of men likely to be affected by the bill. How many men are going to be thrown out of employment? What are their ages? Are they fit to enter 'any other occupation, or have they passed the age where they could adapt themselves to other work? Where do they live? Do they own property, and is their property going to be abandoned along with their jobs? What compensation is to be given to them? Surely when we are discussing a measure designed to save $75,000,000 a year we ought to give consideration to spending a few of those millions so that the hardships of employees might be eliminated.
fMr. Heenan.]
That is the reason wthy, upon the second reading of 'the bill I asked the minister whether he purposed submitting it to the committee on railways and canals. If the bill went before a committee the representatives of the men affected would have a right to appear before the committee, so that members of the House of Commons-not the Senate-might hear them. The House of Commons is now dealing with the matter, not the Senate. I am not one who is content to take his cue from members of the Senate as to the proper attitude to take towards this or any other bill, and I make that statement with all due respect.
We should have had railway presidents before us, and should have been afforded the opportunity to ask them the questions we are now asking the minister. I feel sure they could have given us the information better than the minister because he has not got it. I do not see how he could have it unless he went into this question very thoroughly with the presidents of the railroads. We could ask them how many men their cooperation proposals would displace, what compensation they intended to give these men and their families, what provision they intended to make for the future of these Canadian citizens. We should have this information, because to my mind this bill affects more vitally the railway men of this country than any measure that has been put through this House of Commons. Here we are, the parliament of Canada, legislating to do what? To undo the very thing that prior parliaments did. These railroads were built under the authority of parliament. Private corporations and others secured charters and authority to build railroads through territories whose requirements in the matter of transportation should have been demonstrated and full information should have been laid before parliament as the prospect of the railroads paying, what competition they would have to meet, and so on and so forth. After this authority was given and1 the lines constructed men and boys were induced and encouraged to leave their homes and farms and enter railroad service. Had not the parliament of Canada given charters to build these railroads, and did not the papers picture in flaring headlines the great development of this country, its prosperity, the opening up of new territories, clay belts, fine agricultural and mineral areas, forest resources and undeveloped water powers? Men were induced to go into this line of work, they were sent out' to isolated towns to do their part in carrying on the commerce of Canada; it was a national

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
proposition. They got married, they built or purchased their little homes, all their life savings are in those homes, their families are there, there are communities along these lines in which practically ninety per cent of the people are railway employees or their dependents. They built their churches, their community halls, all these facilities, and now at the stroke of a pen it is suggested that parliament wipe this out without giving those men or their wives or dependents any consideration whatsoever. All through this affair the people most vitally affected are the only ones who have not received any consideration. Not the slightest consideration have the railway employees of this country received. Take first the appointment of the commission, no representative of the railway employees was selected1-


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman's remarks, but there is a rule of this house that when we are in committee we must deal with the clause under consideration. The hon. gentleman made the same speech as he is making now on the second reading of the bill. It was appropriate then, but I submit that it is not appropriate at the present time. He is not the only one; a number of hon. members have also transgressed the rules. I do not wish to limit debate but I think we should keep within a mile or two of the clause under discussion. I do not think we are within a thousand miles at the present time.


Humphrey Mitchell: Observe the twelve mile limit.


Peter Heenan: When the minister was
speaking on the second reading of the bill, in concluding his remarks he made a similar statement with respect to myself, which I had ignored up to the present time. He stated figures, which he said I gave, that were entirely wrong; he misquoted me, said I was only half right all the time, that it was usual. Now he says I should keep within a mile of the measure. I want to tell him, Mr. Chairman that when I am defending the railway employees of this country and the government introduces a bill that is designed to throw thousands of them on the streets, I am within my rights in speaking for them in this house. I say it is designed to throw thousands of them on the streets, and the Minister of Railways ought to be the last one to raise a point of order when any man is trying to defend them.


Robert James Manion: I rise again to a point of order. The hon. gentleman made this same speech on the second reading. It has no bearing on the clause now before the committee. I do not like to interfere with the hon. gentleman, I am trying to treat him with courtesy, but I do not think he should be permitted to make a political speech before this committee under cover of a clause with which he is not dealing at all.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: I shall have to ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item under discussion. I did not know the item myself when I took the chair, but I understand it is clause 1, namely the title. I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to that.


Peter Heenan: I would like to give it
a title, but not the title on the bill!


Mr. MARCIL:: It is customary in debating these bills to deal with the title last.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The
hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has the floor.


Charles Marcil: I am just raising a point
of order. I think this clause should be allowed to stand until later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the short title, it is not even the title.


Charles Marcil: Well 'the title might be
-much shorter than it is. I think it should be allowed to stand until the last.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will read Clause 1-


Mr. POWER:: On the point of order, supporting the point raised by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Air. Maircil) I suggest that if we are on clause 1, the short title, my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River is in order in discussing anything. But I suggest that the custom of the committee has been not to discuss the title until the rest of the bill has been passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
short title itself is out of order. It relates to last year, and we are dealing now with 1933. It is a year out.


Peter Heenan: Mr. 'Chairman, I do not
know whether you are going to give a ruling on that point, but I suggest that if we are speaking on the title of the bill it should be:
This act may be cited as an act for the amalgamation of the operation of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, 1933.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

On that I want to point out that as such it is designed to throw thousands of railway men out of employment, consequently the title as presented to the house is not a proper title. Now I am not going into at, because the Minister of Railways evidently does not like to hear me making the same speech as I made on second reading, but if I have opportunity I am going ito make that same speech, with a little latitude, on the third reading as well. The point I want to make is this, that if this measure had been submitted to a committee of the houses-and I ask the minister to consider it even yet-the railway employees could, through the members representing the various constituencies, have seemed from the railway companies the information that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has now asked the Minister of Railways for-and I say in all fairness to him I do mot see how he could expect it. I want to point out that the government has some responsibility in connection with the employees. I read during the election campaign of 1930, not the slogan amalgamation never, competition ever," which has been repeated so often, but the report that the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) promised the people in the maritime provinces on the 10th of July that if he were elected he would split these big heavy freight trains in two so as to give employment to double the number of engine and train crews in the maritime.?. Surely we have to have some regard .for this kind of thing. I notice some members of the committee looking askance ait me, but I have it here in the Halifax Herald of July 10, 1930, on page 4, under the heading:
The Railway Herald and the Labour Men's Forum
It is a Conservative writer, who writes during election times especially, presenting the railway men's viewpoint and regarding the government railways, he says:
He (Mr. Bennett), will, until times improve, break up present buge freight trains into two trains, thus employing double as many men, extra trains and engine men, as are now employed. He will restore local passenger trains that have been cut off and thus make further employment for engine and train men, and give people the service they are entitled to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who said that?


Peter Heenan: That was Mr. Bennett. Then the writer goes on to say:
Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, says this cannot be done, and apparently will not

be done if he can prevent it. Hon. Mr. Bennett declares it can be done and will be done if he is elected to power on the 28th. There you may make your choice on the 28th.
I want to point out to the Minister of Railways-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to read paragraph (2) of standing order 58, because I do not see that the hon. member is confining his remarks to the section under discussion. Section 1 of the act reads:
This act may be cited as The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1932.
The minister will have to explain whether that date should be 1932 or 1933. Paragraph (2) of standing order 58 reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the section having to do with the short title.


Mr. VENIOT:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before you give a final decision. It is customary to leave the title to be taken up last, but in this case the title has been taken up first. That being so any hon. member has a right to say in general terms why he opposes section 1. He opposes it because he does not think the bill should be cited as the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1932; he does not think that should be the title, so he has a perfect right to give in general terms the reason wihy he does not agree to section 1. If section 1 is defeated the whole bill is defeated. That is my point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I think your ruling that we are out of order in carrying on a general discussion under section 1 is erroneous.


Peter Heenan: I know you want to be fair, Mr. Chairman, but before you took your seat a general discussion was proceeding and the minister was being asked questions which he was not able to answer. We are just carrying on from that point. Even though I may be out of order I do not think I should always be the butt who is called to order either by the Speaker or by the chairman whenever I rise to defend the workingmen of this country.
The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that in my riding, which is not large numerically but which covers a wide area, there are several railway terminals. I feel there is the danger, and if I know what the railway companies contemplate there is the possibility, that some of those towns will be

CJV.R.-C.P.R. Bill
blotted out. So if I speak with greater feeling than I have shown in other matters it is because I feel for these people. As you all know I am a railroad man; I earn my living in that way. I have so much seniority that I do not think the government could possibly draft a bill that would put me out of business, unless they knock off my head, and I believe the provincial minister of lands and forests is going to do that very soon. So I am not appealing for myself; I am appealing on behalf of the men and women with whom I have been associated for more than thirty years. I see the great danger of these men and their families being thrown in the dirt and sacrificed in the interests of the financial institutions of this country and the money barons of New York.
What is it all for; what is the reason for all these economies? Last year the railways paid more than their operating expenses; I think they had a surplus of income over operating expenses of about $5,000,000. We need the money to-day to pay the interest on the bonded indebtedness; we must sacrifice hundreds and thousands of people in this country so that those who invested their money may get the last pound of flesh. So I think we have a right to ask the minister and the government what is contemplated before this measure is passed. That is why I speak with so much feeling. I do not know how long I can speak or how often I can speak, but I am going to speak as long and as often as possible until I get sufficient information to make clear that the people whom I represent are protected.
I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that if this measure passes, no matter what assurances we may get from the government these people will not be protected. Once this bill becomes law the government will have no more responsibility. They are going to hand over that responsibility to a board of trustees, so far as the Canadian National railways are concerned, and that board will be headed by a man who, once he is appointed, cannot be dismissed though the whole House of Commons and the government want to dismiss him. He can only be removed from office by an address of both houses. I do not care who that man may be; I will not support such a proposal. We are going to put a dictator in charge of the whole investment of the Canadian people in our railways. No matter what assurances the government may give, once this measure is adopted they will have no more control over this man than I will have. He can snub any minister of the
crown or the whole government; they will have no come-back unless they can obtain an address of both houses of parliament.
It is easy to see what this means to the railway people in Canada. In the very beginning this bill prevails over all inconsistent provisions and acts which may have been passed previously. All the acts that have been introduced in and passed by this parliament are subordinate to this bill. The chairman of the board, who has the deciding vote in all these matters, is above all the acts that have been passed by the parliament of Canada, and when any matter goes to the tribunal that gentleman has the last word again.
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, all I want is some consideration for the railroad men of this country, and I would bring forward the same arguments if we were considering those employed in some other line. A few minutes ago the minister said it was about time the industries of this country got together to see that men should not be employed when profits were being made and then discharged when there was no future for them. I admired the minister for that statement; I give him all credit for it, because it is not very often that we can agree. But what better time could there be for the introduction of that policy than the present, when the government of Canada is asking parliament to pass an act which will have the effect or depriving men of work? Why does not the government give a lead to employers throughout the country? We can do it here. I am not going to object very seriously to the economy that is being practised so long as we make some provision for the railway men and their dependents who are going to be thrown on the streets. If you can save $75,000,000 a year surely you can afford a few millions a year to take care of these men, as the hon. member for North Winnipeg put it, for five years. Give them an opportunity to get on their feet. The railway men of this country have had no consideration from the beginning. When the commission was appointed they had no representation on it but there was a gentleman named Loree on the commission, a man on whose railway there are the worst working conditions in the United States. He was brought here to serve on the commission, and if you will read the evidence you will see that from the day he sat down on the commission until he got up he could think of nothing 'but to slash the wages of Canadian railway men and to pull down their working conditions. In other words, his whole purpose

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
was to see whether he could not lower their standard of living. That is the evidence before us. Not one working man in Canada was appointed to serve on the commission, to say God bless them, although the present government when in opposition went through the country in 1930, felling the railway men and other labouring classes that they would be given representation on all important commissions. You should have heard how that sounded in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River-representation on all important commissions. Well, what commission' is more important to the railway men of Canada than this one? I am only reiterating the protests of twenty-one general chairmen of all classes of railway men who met in Montreal and wired their protest to this government when they saw in the newspapers that certain gentlemen were likely to be appointed. No notice was taken of them by the government then, nor is any notice being taken of them now, because the minister refuses to allow the bill to go to a committee so that the railway men might be able to present their views. They have no possible way of letting this House of Commons hear their views as to how they will be affected; they are not afforded an opportunity to ask for some protection. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the fact that you did not rule me out of order.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member said
that this act would prevail over all other acts. It does not say so; it says:
The provisions of this act . . . shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts . . .
That is vastly different. The hon. member made another point in regard to compensating men. It is well to remember that in part II provision is made for compensation of men, so far as the Railway Act in the past has compensated them, at terminal points which are being eliminated. I mention that to show that there is some compensation for that class of labour, just as there has been in the p-ast.


Peter Heenan: There is mo guarantee of
compensation in the bill.


Robert James Manion: There never was any
guarantee of compensation.


Peter Heenan: The point I make is that
we are now passing a measure which is going to throw men out of work, and I submit that we should incorporate in. it some guarantee of compensation.


Robert James Manion: I have already given my
reasons for opposing that suggestion; I do not think we should compensate one class of labour when it is thrown out of work and ignore all other classes, much as we desire to compensate the men in this case. The leader of the opposition has directed attention to 'the fact that this clause reads:
This act may be cited as The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Aot, 1932,-
whereas 'this is 1933. The reason for the apparent error is that this bill was introduced in -the Senate in 1932. I am going to ask my colleague to move an amendment substituting 1933 so as to avoid any possibility of misapprehension in 'that regard.


Peter John Veniot: I aim opposing clause 1 for
reasons which I consider very important. If clause 1 goes through it means the adoption of this bill practically as a whole; if it does not go through, then my views may prevail with regard to leaving certain railway conditions in the 'maritime provinces os they exist to-day. Before going into details, showing the reasons for my abjection to this first section, I wish to -correct -the minister on the question of compensation. The minister tells us that under pant II of the bill there is compensation for the men at the terminals. That compensation is provided for in the old act and it has reference only to cases where a terminal is closed -or changed and men are moved from one terminal or station to another. But the only compensation they get is expense caused -by removal fro-m one point to the other. Surely that cannot be called compensation under this act, when men are being retired from the service.
One of the reasons I gave on the second reading of the bill for my opposition was that there was no guarantee in it with regard to seniority. If laid off for a certain number of months or years the men lost their seniority. I wish now to correct the impression I may have left at that time. I have since gone fully into the question of seniority and I find that it is not governed by any act of parliament; it is covered by an. agreement entered into between the different railway unions or lodges and the railway affected. I will therefore leave that argument entirely out of consideration.
Let me however call the attention of the minister to the provident fund- or, as we now call it, the pension fund. Up to 1929 there was a provident fund, but the statute has been changed and the new Pension Act appertaining especially to railway employees on the Canadian government railways, was

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
passed in that year. All new employees on the government railways must come under the new Pension Act and they can no longer be considered as eligible under the old provident fund. They are empowered to make certain rules and regulations, and such rules and regulations have been drawn up governing the administration of that pension fund. I have here a copy of the rules and regulations and it is provided that a man laid off, if he has not been fifteen years in the service, having reached the age of fifty, cannot get compensation. He may get it, but it is not absolute. It is only permissive, depending on the decision of the board and backed by the approval of the minister. A man who has been in the service of the railroad for a shorter term and is laid off because of changes contemplated, we will say by this bill, has absolutely no guarantee that he will benefit from the amount he has paid into the pension fund. For instance, if he is under fifty years of age and has had less than fifteen years of service, under these regulations there would be no guarantee that he would benefit. Under the regulations, the rule of seniority applies in the contracts between the railway and the men. For instance, if I have been fifteen years in the service and my colleague has been only twelve years, he would be laid off if there was a necessity to lay off a man. Take another case: if I am employed, say on section 50 of the Intercolonial and it is found necessary to drop a man from that section, if there is another man employed on another section who is junior to me in service, he will be laid off and I will be transferred to that section. Under the act of 1929 there is no guarantee given to a man that he will enjoy the benefits of the amounts he has paid into the pension fund. The railway commission knew that if their recommendations were accepted the railways would lay off many men and they should have seen that those men were protected. They should have examined the regulation governing pensions; they should have examined the pension act of 1929 and if necessary, called in an experienced railway man to give them any required information. They failed to do that and that is why I contend that this bill should be sent to a special committee so that complete details could be obtained and the necessary protection afforded to these men. The minister should study the regulations in conjunction with the act of 1929, and he should study also the bill now before the committee in conjunction with that act and in conjunction with the regulations. A clause
should be placed in this bill so that the men would not have to be dependent upon the whims of the board of trustees as to whether they were entitled to compensation.


Robert James Manion: The deputy minister has
handed me a copy of The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act. Clause 19 reads as follows:
Employees who are discharged from the service for .any cause other than those mentioned in paragraph (b) of section -17, after they have been three or more years contributors to the fund, may be paid out of the fund the total amount of their contributions to the fund, hut without interest and less the cost and expense of medical examinations.
I do not think that clause agrees with what the hon. gentleman has said.


Peter John Veniot: If that act were in existence to-day, then I would admit I was wrong, but it was superseded by the pension act of 1929. That act brings the Intercolonial, the Prince Edward Island road and the ferry service under its provisions. Any person employed from that time on would come under the provisions of the act.


Robert James Manion: My deputy insists that this is still the law.


Peter John Veniot: Then I differ from him; I am right and he is wrong. A list is given of the railroads that are to come under these very regulations,- and that list-includes the Intercolonial and all branch lines which are purchased by the government. I would advise the deputy to study this thing very carefully before giving a legal opinion. I maintain I am right but I 'hope I am wrong.


James Dew Chaplin: You are.


Peter John Veniot: If I am wrong, the men will be protected.


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to attempt to show that the hon. gentleman is wrong, but I am sure that he has no desire to give the committee any inaccurate information. My deputy informs me that where a man joined the service since 1929 he would not be contributing to the pension fund.


Peter John Veniot: If the minister had followed me closely he would have seen that I agreed in part with that statement. I was referring more particularly to those men who have had only a few years of service on the road, to men who have come in since 1929.


Robert James Manion: They do not contribute anything.

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


Peter John Veniot: They are contributing now.


Mr. MAN ION:: No.


Peter John Veniot: If they are in the pension fund.


Robert James Manion: No; the Canadian National Railways has no contributory pension fund.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that they are addressing one another instead of the chair.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad you called me to order because I am not the only guilty one. Perhaps this practice will be stopped.
Under these regulations a man would obtain no protection unless he had served a stated number of years and had reached a certain age upon retirement. I want to see that the men are fully protected. If the government believe that they are not as fully protected in this way as they should be, I wish to have a clause placed in the act giving the employees the protection which I feel they should have.
I come to another reason why I am opposed to clause 1. As I said in my remarks on this bill when it was before the house for second reading there is nothing in the bill itself to conserve the status of the old Intercolonial railway. The act, I think it is chapter 172, defines what the old Intercolonial is or shall be. I may be told that we have sufficient protection under the British North America Act, and that nothing contained in this bill can or will supersede the British North America Act as relating to the Intercolonial railway. That may be so, but if power is given under this bill to a board of trustees to lease the road or any section of government owned road or any branch line connected with the government main line, without reference to the governor in council or to parliament, and if the board did put such a lease into effect, the people of the maritime provinces would have the burden cast upon them of protesting before the governor in council or carrying their case to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is something we wish to avoid, and I suggested to the minister on the second reading that a general clause might be inserted at the end of the bill or in any part of it which would absolutely guarantee and safeguard the status of the old Intercolonial railway.
The minister may reply that that is not necessary. But on the question of amalgamation, when there was a great deal of doubt on this side of the house whether the bill as

laid before parliament might not mean amalgamation, the Prime Minister in order to satisfy that doubt on this side of the house consented to insert a clause stating absolutely that there would be no amalgamation. All I ask the Minister of Railways to do now is to insert in this bill, before it goes through, a clause absolutely guaranteeing the status of the Intercolonial. Here is the clause I would suggest, and while its phraseology may be a little on the rough side as I jotted it down hurriedly, it could easily be put into legal phraseology that would meet the occasion:
Nothing in this act contained shall authorize or empower the board of trustees to lease in whole or in part the Intercolonial railway so called or any branch line constructed connecting with said Intercolonial railway constructed or purchased by the government of Canada.
The reason I include the branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial railway is this: While in the original construction of the Intercolonial they did not form a part of it, and while perhaps they are not included in section 145 of the British North America Act, the Intercolonial at Campbellton, New Brunswick, is connected with what is known as the old International railway from Campbellton to St. Leonard, a distance of 108 miles. That International road, constructed in 1908, was acquired (by the Canadian government to become part and parcel of the amalgamation which is known to-day as the Canadian National Railways.
There as also the old Canada Eastern railway connecting Newcastle with Fredericton, a distance otf 113 miles. In each case the Canadian Pacific almost joins these roads at St. Leonard and Fredericton. There is nothing in this bill to prevent the board of trustees, if they see fit, leasing the old International from Campbellton to St. Leonard to the Canadian Pacific, thereby giving a deep wafer terminal to the Canadian Pacific in northern New Brunswick. Should such a thing happen what will take place? All freight from Montreal destined for northern New Brunswick would .be carried over the Canadian Pacific to St. Leonard, then cross over to Campbellton, and the Intercolonial w'ould become a mere distributing agent for that freight as local freight. The same thing might be done with the Canada Eastern line from Fredericton to Newcastle or to Chatham, where again the 'Canadian Pacific would get a deep water terminal. We know in northern New Brunswick that the Canadian Pacific have had an eye for a deep water terminal either on the baie des Ohaleurs or the gulf

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
of St. Lawrence. That would give them an opportunity of entering into a slaughtering competition with the Intercolonial right from Montreal down.
Again, supposing that the Canadian Pacific goit running rights from Saint John to Halifax over the road which was not a pant of the Intercolonial under the act of confederation but was attached to the Intercolonial at a later date, then as I stated before, and it is worth repeating, the Canadian Pacific would have an absolute monopoly of traffic, both passenger and freight, from Halifax to Montreal, because 'the freight traffic in particular would no longer go by the northern route. It would be routed by the Canadian Pacific over their leased lines from Halifax to Saint John, and from Halifax to St. Rosalie, and into Montreal.
I think I can safely say that I am expressing the fears of the inhabitants of northern New Brunswick when I deal with this question in the way I am. We fear that these things may happen. Some may say that I am suggesting an extreme case. Not at all. The Canadian Pacific has been looking for years and years for running rights over the Intercolonial from Saint John to Halifax. Fifteen or twenty years ago the Canadian Pacific had their eyes on what is known today as the Gaspe road. It was constructed by English capitalists who, after they had put their money into it, felt that it was not a paying proposition and wanted to get clear of it, and the intention at that time was to construct a line from Matapedia across country to the border of Maine.


Mr. PRICE:: May I ask if those trains from Halifax and Saint John operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway have not always had Canadian National crews?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, when the Canadian
Pacific had no running rights over the road, but when they had running rights away back in 1910 or 1911, the trains were run by Canadian Pacific crews.


Otto Baird Price: They were never run by
Canadian Pacific crews.


Peter John Veniot: At the present time when
the Canadian Pacific runs a passenger or mail train from Halifax the train may be manned by Canadian National workmen. But when the Canadian Pacific has a lease on a road from Saint John to Halifax the train
will be run by Canadian Pacific railwaymen, just as trains were run when the Canadian Pacific had running rights from Saint John to Halifax as far back as 1912, 1913 and 1914.


Robert James Manion: What is the hon. member suggesting? Does he suggest that trustees would be appointed who would be so insane as to lease the Canadian National from Saint John to Halifax to the Canadian Pacific and not use the Canadian National? I do not understand the hon. member's suggestion.


Peter John Veniot: It has been done before. It was done in 1914, not under a lease, but under running rights.


Robert James Manion: That is different.


Peter John Veniot: The Canadian Pacific was allowed to compete with the Canadian National over their own lines.


Robert James Manion: Running rights is a different matter.


Peter John Veniot: I am opposed even to running rights. Why should the Canadian Pacific have running rights over the old Intercolonial from Saint John to Halifax, and compete with our own railroads?


Robert James Manion: I do not say they should, but there might be a decision arrived at between two railway companies whereby in return for running rights on one section the other company may give running rights over another section. Certainly there is no intention or thought on the part of the government to appoint trustees who would lease any portion of the Canadian National railway in a way that would permit injury to be done to the Canadian National system.


Otto Baird Price: In regard to running rights over the Canadian National-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would ask the hon. member to take his seat until the hon. member for Gloucester has completed his statement.


Peter John Veniot: I fully appreciate it is not the intention of the government to appoint trustees to do what I say might be done. But I should like the minister to point out to me, what power the government has to stop the trustees from such action, once they are appointed. The trustees will have absolute power, and the Minister of Railways, or the government, have no power over them at all. The House of Commons would have no power over them. Parliament, consisting of the combination of the two houses, is the only body which would have power.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

Therefore I say the situation is such that the government should not hesitate to allay the feeling of uneasiness and mistrust which has been created by this bill, by inserting in the bill a clause such as I have suggested to the minister.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to take up much time of the committee dealing with my own bill, but there are one or two points mentioned by the hon. member concerning which I should like to make some observations. In the first place, there is no action that this parliament could take which would interfere with the rights of the Intercolonial, as set out in the British North America Act, and to which the hon. member referred earlier in his remarks. He is an old parliamentarian, and is well aware of the fact that the proposed measure cannot overrule the British North America Act.


Mr. YENIOT:: I said that.


Robert James Manion: In regard to the amendment suggested by the hon. member, may I say that we have some amendments under consideration, one of which would probably cover the ground taken by the hon. member. I just wish to mention one other point raised by the hon. member for Gloucester, in connection with the running rights of Canadian National crews when the Canadian Pacific Railway runs trains over Canadian National lines in the maritimes. The hon. member asked me a question a moment or two ago concerning which I had not complete information. I am informed that he is entirely right in the statement he made a moment ago, and that the arrangement he set forth is the result of an agreement made between the two railway companies. There is no thought of changing that agreement. In regard to Canadian National crews handling Canadian Pacific trains over Canadian National territory there is no change in view or under consideration.


Peter John Veniot: That provision applies
only under certain conditions, in the event of certain steamships coming to Halifax. It is not a direct privilege of running rights granted to the Canadian Pacific, as they were granted in the old days. The hon. member for Westmorland is quite correct in his statement as to the conditions under which crews are operating, but I maintain I am quite correct when I say that in general running rights are granted over that road. In 1913 and 1914 the crews manning the Canadian

Pacific trains were, absolutely, Canadian Pacific crews, and were not Canadian National crews at all. At that time there was no such thing as the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: An agreement has been
recently made to protect those rights.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Did the minister say he
had in mind some provision with regard to the pension of those men laid off as the result of cooperation proposed under this legislation?


Robert James Manion: No, the hon. member must have misunderstood me. Replying to the hon. member for Kenora I pointed out that under clause 2 subsection] (a) conditions of compensation which exist under the Railway Act are not changed at all. I mention that merely as one instance. The other question to which the hon. member has referred has not been given serious consideration by the government.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to mention
a matter which is giving a good deal of concern to employees who in all probability will at least run the risk of being laid off as the result of a reduction in the number of employees engaged. As I understand it employees who have been forty years in the service, upon attaining the age of sixty-five years are entitled to a certain pension. Representations have been made to me, and I have no doubt have been made to the minister, that in regard to employees who have served for forty years but have not reached the age of sixty-five, pensions should be given now, before reaching the required age. It is urged by those interested that an advantage would be gained due to the fact that the period of employment would cease and that the pensioners would make way for persons who hitherto had mot been employed. The rate of pension drawn would be less than that which would have been drawn had they reached the age of sixty-five years.
I happen to know of some persons who would be affected. They feel, and I believe with some cause, that great hardship would be worked upon them if, through no fault of their own, they were laid off before attaining the age of sixty-five years, unless in the meantime the pension to which those employees over forty years in the service are entitled were allowed to those mem who were laid off who had not attained the age of sixty-five years.

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: I have had some representations along the lines outlined by the hon. member. I must point out to the hon. member however that the men can be retired only in accordance with the agreements made between the mens' unions and the railway companies. Whether or not a .railway company can retire a man who has been, say, forty years in the service and has not reached the age of sixty-five, I cannot state positively. However I shall look into the matter and give further information to the hon. member. Generally speaking however the railways may retire an employee who has served up to the age of sixty-five years. When they reach the age of sixty-five years they may be retired, and when they have been fifteen years in the service they are entitled to a pension. The matter of pensions to which the hon. member has referred and to which the hon. member for Gloucester referred earlier in the afternoon, is complicated.
There were three different pension systems. They have been changed at various times. I confess frankly that I am not fully familiar with all their intricacies; it would take a great deal of study to become so, consequently I do not care to make dogmatic statements as to details. But I believe that men can be retired on pension-in fact I know they can-if they have served fifteen years and have attained the age of sixty-five. But the different pension schemes vary in these respects. At any rate the thing is complicated and I do not care to make definite statements without more information than I have. The point made by my hon.. friend that men may be retired before reaching the age of sixty-five so long as they are pensionable is, I suppose, worthy of consideration, in these times when we are endeavouring to make as much employment as possible. But the consideration would have to be given by the management in association with the men's unions. I do not know that parliament would have the right to take a very strong attitude in regard to it without some careful study. I shall certainly see that the representation made by the hon. gentleman is put before the railway management.


John Campbell Elliott: I realize the difficulty of
working out in a way entirely satisfactory to the employees the question of pensions. The pension payable to a man who has served for fifteen years but has not attained the age of sixty-five will not be as great as if he had continued in the service right up to sixty-five;
the pension that will have to come out of that fund will not be as large. I may say with regard to the right to discharge, apart from misconduct, that according to the regulations,
I think under subsection (d) of section 8 of the Canadian National Railway pension department rules and1 regulations, there is a provision to pension an employee of the age of fifty or upward who has to his credit fifteen or more years of service and is discharged from the company's service otherwise than for misconduct. That makes it perfectly clear that men who have attained the age of fifty may be discharged from the company's service otherwise than for misconduct with fifteen years of service.


Robert James Manion: Any man is eligible for
pension after fifteen years of service.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to urge this upon
my hon. friend-I am not so particular about an answer immediately because I realize that perhaps that would be unreasonable; but I do ask that before this bill goes out of committee we should have some statement as to what the minister thinks can be done to meet the case of the men to whom I have referred.


James Dew Chaplin: A few minutes ago objection was made to the nomenclature of the bill, as being the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 19*32. This bill came into the house from the Senate; it entered the Senate in 1932 and was so named there. But in vieiw of the objections that were made I beg to move:
That in clause 1, line 5, the figures 1932 be struck out and be superseded by the figures 1933.
I am advised that for purposes of reference in the future the figures 1933 will be better.
The CHAIRMAN <Mr. MacNicol):	The
committee has heard the proposed amendment, that 1932 be struck out of section 1 and 1933 be inserted in lieti thereof. Shall it carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I am quite agreeable to the amendment carrying, but I think as the minister is considering amending the section at all, in view of his statement that the act was in no way intended as a measure of amalgamation of the two railways, he might well consider whether another title would not be better than the short title selected. It seems to me that, if he were framing a measure designedly in the nature of amalgamation, he could not

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

have chosen a better short title than that which he has chosen. This act deals almost wholly with the Canadian National; it does not deal to any extent with the Canadian Pacific. It has one part which deals with possible cooperation-


Robert James Manion: Part II and part III
deal with both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But as to the parts of the act that are really vital it is in the nature of an act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act. I think it ought to be called the Canadian National Railways Amendment Act, 1933, unless the minister wishes to further in a quiet way the idea of amalgamation by just introducing at the outset this hyphenated title.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I did not
make the title; the title was framed in the Senate


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the
minister must take responsibility.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I do. But with all due respect to my right hon. friend I do not see much in his argument, because as a matter of fact, while it is true that part I deals with the Canadian National, parts II and III deal with both railways. Part II deals with cooperation between the two railways, and part III sets up an arbitral tribunal for cases of dispute as to cooperation. So that the Canadian Pacific Railway has to do with II and III,, while the Canadian National is entirely dealt with in part I. While there may be something in what the right hon. gentleman says that someone might draw the conclusion that this is for the purpose of hinting at amalgamation, I am afraid we cannot prevent people from drawing such conclusions as they may choose to draw. But the Prime Minister has made the statement, and I have made it several times, that there is in the mind of the government no thought of amalgamation in any shape between the two roads. Under the circumstances I am ready to accept the title as it stands, with the modification as to the year suggested by the right hon. gentleman himself.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Shall the section as amended carry?


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to speak on the section before it carries.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the committee will permit, before the hon. member speaks I think I should say that so

far the debate has not been confined to this section, namely the title, and I think before the discussion proceeds the committee should say whether they would like the debate to be carried on along the lines it has followed, along the line of second reading, or confined to the title. I am in the hands of the committee and will take my directions from the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let the debate go on *-general policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to make a few observations arising out of some statements made by the minister in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I agree with the hon. member that practically no consideration was given to the human element engaged in the transportation industry of this country, in connection with the setting up of this commission. Mr. Loree who has been mentioned this afternoon, is the president of the Delaware and Hudson Railway, which is in some way connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Mr. Loree has been known for many years as perhaps the best labour hater on the North American continent. That is the general understanding among railway men. I believe that the employees should have been represented on that commission. After all, when the evidence is in it is the commission that determines what the recommendation and report to the parliament of this country shall be.
The minister has said that in the Railway Act there is already some measure of protection for the workers in cases where a divisional point is shut down. I understand that the section does not operate unless there is a complete shutdown of that divisional point. All they have to do is leave one crew there, and the section becomes inoperative. I think last session the railroad organizations endeavoured to get an amendment to that section to cover cases where there was an almost total shutdown of the divisional point, but they were unsuccessful. I do not think the men who may be laid off under this scheme of cooperation or amalgamation, whichever you wish to call it, receive very much protection under that section of the Railway Act.
I think in our consideration of this problem we must recognize the fact that the railroad industry is different from almost every other industry in Canada. It must give continuous service, yet it must hold enough in reserve to handle whatever business may come along. Its structure is radically different from that of any other industry, and the men engaged in it have spent their lives in that work and are

C JV .R ,-C B .R. Bill
specialists in their particular callings. The railway engineers, dispatchers, conductors, trainmen, shop workers and track men, while their services are essential to the conduct of the railroad, find it very difficult when they are laid off and thrown upon the general labour market; their only chance of obtaining employment is to go into the unskilled class.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, we are discussing section 1, the short title, and the hon. gentleman's remarks would be perfectly in order under a later section of the bill. I must ask the committee either to adhere to the section we are discussing or to leave it wide open for any speeches that might be made. I would request the hon. member to confine his remarks strictly to the section under discussion.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but certain remarks were made by the minister and other hon. gentlemen with respect to pensions. I have certain suggestions to make, and I understand that the debate will close at six o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I am not sure as to that. Some hon. members asked me if that would be possible, and I told them it would, but I am not sure that it will be done.


Humphrey Mitchell: All that I want is some continuity to it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. gentleman shall continue to discuss something absolutely foreign to the section before us?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled-


Peter John Veniot: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This question was brought up previously, and I directed the attention of the committee to the fact that, quite contrary to the usual practice, we are dealing with the title first. This section has to do with the short title, and in dealing with this section I claim we have a perfect right to deal with the bill as a whole, because we wish to give our reasons for opposing the adoption of section 1. That is the point of order I take now and it is the point I took previously. I think it should be decided now once and for all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I rule that what we are now discussing is section 1, the short title.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Then may I ask a question. Does not the title of the bill bring in the whole principle of the bill?
53719-242J


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I took the chair the clerk advised me that we were discussing the short title. I therefore presumed that the title had been discussed previously. If that is not so are we to go back now and discuss the title? I refer the committee to standing order 76:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
The first section, has to do with the short title, and as I understand it that is what we are now discussing. The title is at the beginning of the bill, but it will be discussed later.


Peter John Veniot: I claim that the short title should have been the last section in the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The standing order I read a moment ago gives the order of discussion. I am informed that we are now discussing section 1, the short title, and I am under the impression that the committee should confine its discussion tb section 1.


Mr POWER:: Then may I make a suggestion to the minister? He might facilitate matters if he asked that section 1 stand; probably then we might get on.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I might be permitted to say just a word. I have no desire to do anything but to facilitate matters, and earlier in the afternoon I did object to the general discussion. According to my understanding of the rule Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a slight misapprehension. The general discussion of the principle of the bill is carried on when the motion is made for second reading; once second reading is given it seems to me the discussion should be on each section in turn, as you have ruled. Before section 1, which deals with the short title, is reached, there is the title;
An aot respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway System, and for other purposes.
So far as there is a preamble I should say that is it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the title.
.Mr. MANION: That is the title and the preamble, if you like, and that should be left to the last. Apparently my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition agrees. Now we are discussing the short title, and quite frankiy I believe the discussion has been a bit wide of the mark. I only wish to facilitate the passage of the bill, but at the same time I should
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

like to point out that all this discussion could have been carried on under part II, and I think it should have been carried on under that part of the bill. Part II has to do with cooperation, and whatever loss of employment may take place will come about under that part. As a matter of fact it is my personal opinion that the general discussion carried on this afternoon should have been carried on under part II, and I believe we would facilitate matters-because I suppose no one desires to stay here all summer-without in any way limiting discussion or debate if we adhered pretty closely to a discussion of the sections as they come along. I suggest that with all due reference, but I am content to abide by whatever the committee may decide.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: On a point of
ofder, Mr. Ohanrman; from the section of the rules -which you have just read, it is obvious that we have been completely out of order all afternoon, because i't is definitely stated there that the title-and there is only one title-should be left to the last. Throughout the time we have been discussing this matter, Mr. Chairman, it has been understood that we were discussing the title, so that evidently the whole discussion has been out of order. Objection was taken some time ago to -any broad discussion under this heading, "title," and it was then stated very definitely that the section was broad enough to admit almost everything. I think that undoubtedly that is so and under that tacit ruling, not & definite ruling of the chair, we have had considerable discussion, for example on the part oif my ban. friend from Rainy River and the ex-Postmaster General. It seems very strange now, when someone else gets up to talk along precisely the same line which the discussion has followed for the last hour or two, that 'the chairman himself should say that the bon. member who wishes to speak os out of order. I do not 'think there should be any discrimination. The hon. member is as much justified as any of the previous speakers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: An
hour ago I asked the committee to confine its remarks to clause 1, the short title, pointing out that if that clause carried the committee could go on to clause 2 under which, as I understand, almost anything can be said in connection with the bill.


Mr. DUFF:: I suggest that clause 1 be
allowed to stand and that we go on with the rest of the bill.


Robert James Manion: Why not pass it?
IMr. Manion.]


William Duff: Because under the rule it
is not supposed to be passed now. The title is passed after all other sections.


Robert James Manion: I think there is confusion
in regard to the title. What we are discussing now is >the short title. The title itself reads:
An act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway System, and for other purposes.


William Duff: That is the preamble.


Robert James Manion: It is the title.


William Duff: No, it is the preamble too.


Robert James Manion: It is the short title we are discussing.


William Duff: What the minister read is the preamble. If it is the title it is not very short.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest again that it would be far better to let clause 1 stand.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to
the clause standing. We have been discussing it all afternoon and I had hoped that by five minutes to six we should be able to carry it. If we could carry it, it would be so much progress made. However, if it pleases my bon. friends, and I am always so anxious to please them, I have no objection to having it stand. I suggest that the clause as amended stand and we will come back to it later.


Charles Gavan Power: To facilitate the business
of the house, will the minister hand to someone on this side the amendments which he proposes to move. He said he had certain amendments to propose as we go along, and though I know that it is not customary to do as I suggest, it is extremely difficult to discuss amendments on a moment's notice. If the minister would lay on the table copies of his amendments, in connection with the next four or five clauses at any rate, the committee would have an opportunity of studying them and it would expedite matters.


Robert James Manion: As the hon. member says, that is really not customary and I do not think I should care to do it. I will go as far as this, however. When we come to a clause which is to be amended, unless the amendment is a simple one, such as the one before us now, I shall give it to the committee and let the clause stand and go on with other clauses, so that the committee will have plenty of time to study the amendment. None of them is complicated; I believe that

Samia-Port Huron Tunnel
most of them will be readily accepted. There are however one or two that are not so simple and I will put them before the committee as soon as we come to the clauses affected, and then proceed with others.
Short title stands.
On section 2-Inconsistent provisions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the hon. member for East Hamilton wish to go on now?


Humphrey Mitchell: The question I wish to discuss was raised largely by the minister himself. He said that the government could hardly take the responsibility of providing in this legislation for people who might be thrown out of work through the passing of this act. He left the impression that he could not differentiate between the railways and other industries. I could understand that contention if legislation had been passed or proposed that had for its purpose the laying off of men and women in other industries, for I have always held that neither a government nor any other employer has the right to take away work from the wage-earner or interfere with his ability to earn his living, without assuming some responsibility for that act.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Bradette.
Bill No. 56, respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Auguste Bur-day ron.-Mr. Myers.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Nora Tulloch Carr.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Alberta Grace Wood.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Hilda Nice Allen.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Louise Robinson Reid.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Elizabeth Bernstein Schmerling.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 41, to incorporate the Samia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company-Mr. Gray.-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 2-Declaratory.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. GRAY:: As sponsor of Bill No. 41, now before the committee, I appreciate what the Prime Minister has just said in respect to it and especially his view that so far as possible we must safeguard the investing public. Therefore I am quite pleased to allow the bill to stand until such time as the matter can again be adjusted, if possible. But might I suggest

that the clerk of the house have the members' bill files brought up to date so far as this bill is concerned. I find that in some of the files it has been brought up to date, but in the majority that I have looked at during the afternoon, only the original bill as first presented is to be found. This bill was amended and reprinted twice before the railway committee. If my suggestion is taken and the amended bill as reported by the railway committee is placed on all the members' files, so that when the amendments suggested by the right hon. gentleman are placed before the committee of the whole, confusion will be avoided. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



VANCOUVER, VICTORIA AND EASTERN-NORTHERN PACIFIC AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 48, to confirm an agreement between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McDade-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement ratified and confirmed.
Mr. STEVENS:: I was not at the railway committee when this bill was considered; in fact, I had not known before that it had passed the railway committee and was before the house. This is a rather more serious bill than on the face of it would appear. It will be noted that the bill ratifies an agreement between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway Company, which is really the Canadian end of the Great Northern Company, over the tracks of which the Great Northern has access to Vancouver from the boundary on its Seattle-Vancouver line, and the Northern Pacific Railway Company. From a hurried reading of the agreement set out in the bill for ratification, it appears that the two railways are entering into an agreement whereby, on the one hand, the Northern Pacific will tear up its tracks from Colebrook to Sumas and run over the Great Northern line, that is the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern line, into Vancouver. It is pretty well known that the regular service of the Northern Pacific has for many years run over the line that is indicated in the bill.
But if I am not very seriously mistaken the agreement affects another line altogether. The Great Northern Railway Company proposes, I believe, to take up its line from Osoyoos at the boundary, in the

Vancouver, Victoria Pacific Agreement
south Okanagan country, to Princeton. That is part of the whole rearrangement of the operations of this American line in British Columbia. Now if they are permitted to take up or abandon that line from Osoyoos to Princeton it will seriously affect a highly productive and important section of central British Columbia, and before giving permission for the lifting of the tracks on this section I should like the committee to have all the facts before them so that they may be in a position to give consideration to the proposals of the railway.
It may be advisable-I am not for a moment prepared to dogmatize-to permit the company to take up this particular section of track mentioned in the agreement from Colebrook to Sumas. I will admit that it is a line that runs through a section that is pretty well served by a trucking system, and so forth; so that may be quite all right. But that is only part of quite a scheme of abandoning roads, and before parliament ratifies this agreement and permits this American railway company to abandon several pieces of railway in Canada, in the province of British Columbia in this instance, we ought to be sure that the rights of the communities through which run the lines proposed to be abandoned are safeguarded. After a railroad has operated as this one I mentioned from Osoyoos to Princeton has been operating for twenty-five years I should say, and scores of families have built up a fruit farming industry along the line, before the company is permitted to abandon that road, parliament, if it has any control over the matter, ought to make sure that the rights of the people in the locality affected have been properly considered and that their representations have been heard. I do not know whether the sponsor of the bill or the chairman of the railway committee, whom I do not see at the moment, or any other member of the committee is in a position to give all the information that is necessary to assure us that the step to be taken is one that is warranted having regard to the rights of the settlers along the lines affected.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very much more serious matter than it appears to be on the surface, and I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill or any other member of the railway committee who knows the facts if he could inform this committee in regard to the points I have raised.


Mr. McDADE:: I regret that I am not in a position at the moment to give the Minister of Trade and Commerce the additional information he requires. So far as this bill is
concerned, it simply involves the elimination of running rights, as the minister has stated, between Sumas and Colebrook. Those running rights have not been exercised since 1918. In view of the request of the minister, however, it is agreeable to me that the bill should stand, and I will make inquiries from the solicitors, Messrs. Tupper and Hamilton at Winnipeg.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the hon. gentleman is investigating, I suggest that his attention be particularly directed to the clauses that provide for the dismantlement of a portion of the line and to the provisions with respect to the payments that will be made in consequence thereof, and determine whether or not there are any settlers' rights that should be dealt with having regard to what was said in this house a year ago with respect to a similar matter when another railway company was dismantling a portion of its line to the detriment of the settlers. After all that is investigated, I think he would be in a position to answer some of the questions that are in the minds of this committee.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In justice to the railway committee I should like to indicate that there was not any such laxity as it might be supposed there was, because the committee did with some care ascertain the opinion of the Department of Railways with respect to this bill. We were particular to ask whether the department had examined the bill and if they had any objection to it, and the point now raised was not raised by the department at that time.


Robert James Manion: In appearing before the railway committee with respect to a matter which does not directly affect the Department of Railways or the Canadian National Railways, I am there just as an ordinary member of the committee, and I do not think I expressed myself on this matter at all. I simply sat there and listened, and was informed in regard to it. I saw no reason to oppose the bill, as it did not affect the Canadian National Railways. I say that just to indicate my position in the matter.


Alfred Speakman: The query was not directed to the minister, but to the officer of the department who, I suppose, spoke for the department.


Robert James Manion: Only in a legal way. The officer was one of the legal officers of the department, and his purpose there is merely to advise from a legal standpoint.
Hospital Sweepstakes


Alfred Speakman: He would share the responsibility?
Mr. MANIO'N: Quite right.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved the second reading of Bill No. 67, with respect to hospital sweepstakes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading perhaps I had better explain to the house how it came about that, perhaps unconsciously, I assumed paternity of this bill. I assure hon. members that when the bill was called yesterday I had no intention of intervening in any way, but it appeared that there was no sponsor for it in this house. Knowing the high esteem in which the sponsor of the bill in another house was held when he was a member of the House of Commons, and the deep feeling of gratitude which should animate many hon. members opposite toward him, I thought perhaps they would be grateful to some hon. member on this side of the house who would give them an opportunity to express their views on this bill respecting hospital sweepstakes. Moreover, I felt that a matter of this kind which had been so much debated in the public press and by the public generally throughout Canada should come before the House of Commons in order that the principle underlying it might be either accepted or rejected by hon. members.
The measure passed the other chamber with a reasonably good sized majority. I assume hon. members of that chamber believe that the time has come for people in Canada to do away with a certain amount of the hyprocrisy to which for many years we have been the slaves. Most of those men have reached mature age, they are men who are not influenced by public outcries, men who have lived perhaps longer than most of us in this House of Commons, and have had the experiences of life. If the measure commends itself to them-
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The hon. member's sense of humour still prevails.


Charles Gavan Power: I can assure my hon. friend that in moving the second reading of the bill I had no intention of being humorous, but I might derive a certain amount of amusement from watching the vote of a number of hon. members in this chamber. Many of whom, I have no doubt, if left to their own devices and given the assurance that their actions

would not be reported in the local press or to the local church, would be very happy to buy a ticket on, let us say, the sweepstakes in the native land of the hon. member who has just spoken.
In passing this legislation I believe the Senate took into account the ordinary feelings which animate nearly every citizen of Canada. We are a new country; our citizens are accustomed to taking chances. My western friends take chances on the harvests and on the climate, and the statement has been made by one hon. member that in order to eke out their existence they even take chances on the wheat pit.
Mr. MelNTOSH: And on the government, too.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Yes, a long chance.


Charles Gavan Power: It has even been said that the government itself takes chances on the wheat pit. I have heard it said outside of the house that not since the time of Joseph has there been such a strenuous attempt made to comer the wheat market as has been made by -the government. If any hon. -member opposite gets the impression that I was in any way offensive or blasphemous may I tell him that I referred to Joseph Leiter of Chicago, who along with Arthur Cutten and other operators, is well-known to those who have been interested in wheat.
There is no douibt that throughout the length and breadth of this land there are thousands of people Who are willing to take chances on the races, on the stock markets or in the businesses in which they are engaged, and who would foe only too glad to be given the opportunity of risking a very small sum of money in the hope of acquiring great wealth. Many of us hold tickets on these sweepstakes. I make no bones about it when I say that there has not been a sweepstake in the last ten years to which I have not subscribed willingly. We have dreamed sweet and pleasant dreams, and built ourselves castles in the air on the more or less problematical winnings we expect to make. Why not permit our people to continue to have these dreams-to continue to build these castles? The days of depression are hard enough and long enough, Lord knows. Why not give them at least a few minutes of joy and pleasure in anticipation of what might be or what might happen?
I commend this bill to hon. gentlemen opposite having regard to the responsibility of another house, to those of my friends who

Hospital Sweepstakes
hold the views I do with respect to the so-called sin of gambling, and generally to all the members of the house.
To explain the bill, as I suppose I must, may I say that one clause provides that the attorney general of any province may authorize sweepstakes and may make regulations. These regulations shall be printed so that the public generally may know the rules of the game, and be assured that they are getting a run for their money. Authority is given to sell tickets, notwithstanding anything which may be in the criminal code, and penalties are provided for those who sell tickets without authorization. That is about all there is in the bill. It may appear to a number of honi. members, as it does to me, that we might strike from the bill altogether the provisions regarding hospitals. There is no necessity for being hypocritical about it; let us just put the bill on the basis on which most of us [DOT]ojju^sdaaiis n ut [DOT]jaqat'} v jfnq, o:} ansap os oqAi upuncQ jo suozrpa roj ifynm} -joddo me Suiprogu jo peq^ 'aq pjnoqs p quiqi


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I am a little in doubt whether the hon. member who spoke 'last (Mr. Power) was speaking seriously or jocularly. I could not help but remember, as I listened to the first part of his argument, based on the action of the Senate, the argument along absolutely opposite lines made I think, by him, certainly by some hon. members on the opposite side, in connection with the railway bill which is now in committee. Hon. members on that side were vociferous in their protestations that the mere fact that the Senate had given its blessing, its imprimatur to the railway bill after most elaborate and careful consideration, after hearing an enormous amount of evidence at great expense, was no argument for its acceptance here; they were none the less disinclined to accept the findings of the Senate. They were not even prepared to give any weight to these findings.


Charles Gavan Power: I was dealing with the
morality aspect.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: They said that this house must stand on its own feet and consider the question independently, without taking into consideration any argument of the Senate or any result at which the Senate arived. That being so, when we come to this bill, which certainly had not the support of the Senate to the extent the other bill had, which certainly had not the consideration given to it by the Senate which the other bill had. I can hardly
believe that my hon. friend is anything but jocular when he asks us to give any weight to the fact that the Senate has passed this bill.
He has referred to the conditions in which the country unfortunately finds itself, the condition: of depression, from which people in all positions are suffering. He has urged that this is one means of dissipating the mental state arising from the depression, that if we put this bill on the statute books the sun will shine again, the clouds will roll away, the birds will sing and all will be for the best in this best of all possible worlds. I can hardly believe that. My own strong feeling is that one of the things which we need-and in that need I associate myself with every other citizen of Canada,-more than anything else at this time is not the spirit of gambling but the spirit of hard work and of thrift. I am quite conscious from my experience in the small circle in which I move that one of the great curses of the last few years has been the spirit of gambling. I do not think there is anything which this parliament could do that would be worse than to pass a bill which gives countenance to the institution and practice of gam-[DOT]SuqqmnS jo ^uids oq^ 0} 'aqq nojf ji 'oai; -uooui pun piq ^oui^stp u si qoiqAi pun 'Suiiq My hon. friend skated over the provisions of the bill with consummate skill; I think if he had dwelt upon them he would have found that the ice was not strong enough to bear his weight. As I look through the provisions of this bill I find that the sweepstakes that are to be made legal are virtually the sweepstakes of the attorneys general of the provinces. The attorney general of each province is linked with this machinery from first to last. He does almost everything except to advertise and sell the tickets. It is he who gives sanction to it; it is he who decides among what hospitals the money is to be divided ; it is he who is to determine the proportions in which the money is to go to such hospitals. It is he who does almost everything from first to last, and the committee is very little more than his agent. I therefore think it would be the worst possible action on the part of this government to pass a bill of this kind. I have, as perhaps hon. members of this house know, a profound1 admiration for the legislative wisdom of the people of the motherland1, and I cannot refuse to allow myself to be influenced by the fact that notwithstanding that in England gambling is practised to a very great extent and society indulges in that pastime and indulges very extensively in betting on horse races, the coursing of greyhounds, and every other con-

Hospital Sweepstakes
ceivable form of sport, none the less the British parliament has not legalized sweepstakes. And while it is true that the parliament of the south of Ireland has done so, I do not know that that would be any argument to me for considering it particularly good. I have no great admiration for the wisdom of-the parliament of the southern part of my native island.
If the argument of my hon. friend is true, why not go the whole ray? Why not completely abolish every restriction on gambling? If my hon. friend is right in his argument that what we want is to have the gaiety of nations increased by the passage of such a bill and by the removal of the restrictions on gambling, why not go the whole way; why not lift the cloud of depression and put this country on. its feet again by encouraging everyone to gamble on every possible pretext and occasion and on every possible form of chance? That is the logic of it. If gambling is good to any extent why not use it to the limit? But the bill does not propose that. The bill proposes to take a practice which has been declared illegal, which stands now as an illegality in our criminal code, and, because the object is worth}', to clothe it in a garment of white and send it out as a good and pure thing. If it is bad, how can it be argued that the fact that the money it produces is to be used for hospitals makes it good? If it is good, why is it in our criminal code? Why not sweep away all the restrictions and withdraw the prohibitions that now make gambling illegal?
I have no intention of labouring this matter any further because I imagine there are other hon. members who desire to speak on it. For the reasons I have given in a rather rapid and sketchy form, I am opposed to the passage of this bill.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: 
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hour for
private and public bills has expired. The Minister of Railways moves that the house go into committee to resume consideration of Bill No. 37.


Peter John Veniot: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the house to go into committee on this motion, having been in committee this afternoon, and progress not having been reported?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: According to
the rules, on Friday night at nine o'clock the house automatically resumes in committee on the subject matter under consideration before six o'clock.


Peter John Veniot: Under what rule?	.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Of course, the hon. member may raise a question of privilege at any time; otherwise I shall have to leave the chair automatically.


Peter John Veniot: But you did not leave the
chair automatically, Mr. Speaker.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No. I put the motion; I should not have done so.


Peter John Veniot: Then I am in order in
taking objection.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: At nine o'clock I should have left the chair, and if the hon. member had a question to raise he could have raised it in committee.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. MacNicol in the chair.
On section 2-His Majesty bound:.
Abraham Albert Heaps: When the committee rose
at six o'clock, we were discussing section 2 and I think some hon. members had previously discussed the question of compensation as contained in paragraph (a) of this section. Paragraph (a) deals in a very limited manner with compensation to employees, and for a few minutes I am going to discuss the question of compensation to those employees who are likely to lose their positions through the operation of this measure.
The fact is-and I think it is generally realized-that the personnel of the commission appointed to inquire into the railway situation was not very much concerned with the well-being of the men composing the staff of the two railway systems; it was more concerned with the financial structure of the railways and with the prospect of the two companies being placed upon a dividend paying basis. For the time being I have no fault to find with that aspect of the case, but I feel it would have been better had serious consideration been given to the probable plight of many thousands of men who have been in the employ of the railways for quite a number of years. During the past few years, on account of contraction of business and other minor reasons, large numbers of railway employees have been compelled to leave the service, and those who are to-day employed on the railways are mostly men who have given them long years of service. It is hard to arrive at an exact figure as to how many men are likely to lose their positions as a result of the operations of this bill, but I believe, as mentioned by Mr. Beatty in his speech to which reference was made this afternoon, there is likely to be in the next five years half the number let out of employment as would be let out were actual amalgamation of the two railways put into effect. I think I am stating a conservative figure when I say that 20,000 employees will find themselves without work in the next feiw years. It is also claimed by Mr. Beatty that the actual saving to the railways if amalgamation took place would be in the neighbourhood of

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
$75,000,0000. Whether that be an extravagant figure I cannot say, but I presume the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, with his usual thoroughness, would have investigated the matter with extreme care and used those figures only after mature consideration. I figured out rather roughly this afternoon that in at least the next few years there is a possible saving to the two railways of $25,000,000 in the form of wages, and I feel no injustice would be done to the railways if a fairly large percentage of that amount which they are to save were used to compensate the men who will lose their positions as a result of this measure.
This afternoon we had it as the opinion of the minister that because he is in favour of granting compensation to all employees who lose their positions, we should not deal simply with railway men. Now is the appropriate time to initiate measures to take care of men who lose their jobs, because so far as I know, this is one of the very few cases where men are likely to lose their positions on account of the operation of a measure to be put into effect by parliamentary action. The time has come when practical application should be put to those phrases which we use in regard to the human element in industry. I should like to take the opportunity of moving an amendment to clause 2 along these lines:
Any employee of the railway companies affected by this act or any employee who loses his employment as a result of cooperation of services between the railways shall be entitled to such compensation to be determlined by a board of three to be appointed: one by the employees, one by the railways, and a third to be selected jointly by the preceding two parties.
In oa.se of failure to select a third party, who shall be chairman of such board, then such selection shall be made by the Minister of Labour.
Tire funds for siuoh compensating board shall be derived from a levy oil the gross receipts of the two railways and the award of such board shall in all cases be final.
I move that as an addition to clause 2.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Miay
1	ask the bon. member to what part of clause
2	this amendment refers?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would put it at the end.
Mr. MAN10N:	Before we deal with the
merits of the amendment, I should like, just for 'the information of the committee, to suggest that it is possible the amendment may be out of order, the reason being this: there is a rule that no one but a member of the government may introduce legislation to increase public expenditures. My hon.
friend has introduced an amendment, it is true, that the railways out of gross earnings shall pay to men who are dropped because of cooperating measures such compensation as may be decided upon by some board. It is true that technically the railways would pay that, but as a matter of fact if we take the earnings of the railways for the last year o.r, at any rate, for 'the last few years, it would be the people of Canada, through the government, who would be paying it, because the deficit last year on the national railways, including eastern lines, was over $60,000,000, the operating net revenue of the national railways being $5,000,000, and the interest on both eastern lines and the general system amounting to so much that the total deficit, as I say, was over $60,000,000. I merely' draw that to the attention of the committee as a point that should be considered before we discuss the merits of the amendment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The point raised by the minister is a peculiar one. It appears that a motion will be quite in order if the Canadian National has a surplus and be out of order if it has not. You cannot have a point of order based on such conditions. If the government is providing funds for the railway, it is doing so of its own volition. Parliament has the power to vote it down, if it so desires. So far as the Canadian Pacific is concerned, it does not come in the same way under the provisions of the act; consequently in my opinion the amendment is not out of order.
Take the case of the workmen's compensation boards in our provincial legislatures; in certain of our legislatures private members have introduced bills to increase the compensation paid to men who are injured and who come within the scope of the board. If it is in order for a private member in a legislature to make a motion to increase compensation by a levy on industry, whether the industry pays or not, the same thing applies to this case.


Robert James Manion: In the case of the compensation board, the money is paid by the industry from which the compensation, is collected, so that it would not be a payment by the government at all. Therefore a private member could introduce such legislation.
Mr.HEAPS: We are told that the Canadian National Railways is a private institution and that the government had to take over the assets of the company. I cannot see how putting a levy on the receipts of the two corporations can be regarded as spending government funds. I would like to have the com-
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

mittee consider this amendment because I believe it is one of the most important questions that can be considered in connection with this bill.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Speaking to the point of order, as this bill removes entirely from parliament the control of the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, I do not think the point of order is well taken, because the levy proposed is upon an industry which by the terms of this legislation is no longer within the purview of the minister or of parliament. If it were otherwise, the point of order raised by the minister would be well taken.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am advised that the amendment is not in order, and my authority for so ruling is standing order 61. Paragraph 561 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 167, says:
Bills for appropriating a.ny part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons. B.N.A. Act, sec. 53.
And paragraph 562 reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax^ or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by a message _ of the governor general in the session dm which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
I therefore rule the amendment out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the effect of your ruling-I am not quarrelling with it-is that the government does accept complete financial responsibility for the operating revenues and the operating deficits, as the case may be, of the Canadian National Railways from now on.


Robert James Manion: We cannot help ourselves so far as the deficits are concerned. If we do not accept responsibility, I do not know who will.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is important that mention should be made in the chairman's submission of the fact that the essence of the amendment is that the moneys required will not necessarily be appropriated by parliament but may come out of the revenues of the railway. That is a very essential point in considering the ground on which objection has been taken to the chairman's ruling.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not for
me to decide that. I take the amendment as brought before me and the decision of the chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the house
should understand that feature of it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have read the amendment to the house, and it is for the house to decide whether it is in favour of the ruling of the chairman or not.


Mr. NEILL:: Do not the rules call for the point of order to be put in writing by the chairman? Was that done?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, it has been put in writing by the chairman.


Alan Webster Neill: Would you be kind enough to read it?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have just read it. It is as follows:
Amendment ruled out of order on the ground that it calls for the expenditure of money, which amendment cannot be moved by a private member. Mr. Heaps appealed from the ruling.
That was the ruling of the chairman.


Alan Webster Neill: That was the ruling, but not the point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The point of order has been raised in committee and it has been referred to me by the chairman for decision. Those in favour of the chairman's ruling will kindly say "aye", and those against, "nay."

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill
The house divided! on the question: Shall the ruling of the chair be confirmed? And the ruling was confirmed on the following division,:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Barber,
Baribeau,
Bennett,
Bourgeois,
Bowman,
Bury,
Cowan (LongLake), Dickie,
Duranieau,
Esling,
Fraser (Cariboo), Garland (Carleton), Gobeil,
Hay,
Jones,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Macdonald (Kings), MacLaren,
MacNicol,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McLure,
Manion,
Myers,
Nicholson,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Plunkett,
Price,
Rogers,
Ryerson,
Shaver,
Simpson
(North Simeoe), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Spankie,
Spence,
Spotton,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stewart (Leeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Stitt (Nelson), Sutherland,
Weese,
Weir (Melfort), White (Mount Royal), Wright.-49.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Beaubien,
Bradette,
Carmichael,
Garland (BowRiver), Golding,
Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Hepburn,
King, Mackenzie, Lucas,
Maclnnis,
MacLean,
McIntosh,
Mitchell,
Motherwell,
Munn,
Neill,
Reid, Spencer, Taylor, Totzke.-21.

(The list of pairs whips.)	is furnished by the chi(
Messrs:	
Baker,	Bertrand,
Barrette,	Rheaume,
Beaubier,	Ahearn,
Bell (Hamilton),	Mercier (St. Henri),
Bell (St. Antoine),	Raymond,
Bell (St. John-Albert)	, Dubois,
Beynon,	Euler,
Black (Halifax),	Dubuc,
Bowen,	McKenzie (Assiniboia),
Boyes,	Coote,
Burns,	Butcher,
Cahan,	Rinfret,
Ca utley,	Cardin,
Casselman,	Howard,
Charters,	Blair,
Cotnam,	Hurtubise,
Cowan (PortArthur),	Ilsley,
Davies,	Irvine.
Dorion,	Verville,
Duguay,	Dumaine,
Dupre,	Ferland,
Edwards,	Elliott,
Embury,	Bothwell,
F ortin,	Fafard,
Gagnon,	Boulanger,
Ganong,	Hanbury,
Geary,	Mercier (Laurier-
Gordon,	Outremont), Deslauriers,
Gott,	Rutherford,
Guthrie,	Lapointe,
Hackett,	Perras,
Hanson	Veniot,
(York-Sunbury),	
Harris,	Jacobs,
Johnstone,	Donnelly,
Lafleche,	Girouard,
Larue,	Thauvette,
Laurin,	Fontaine,
Lawson,	Gray,
Lennox,	Pouliot,
MacDonald	Urquhart,
(Cape Breton),	
MacMillan,	Mackenzie
McDade,	(Vancouver), Dupuis,
McGibbon,	Power,
Maloney,	Young,
Matthews,	Moore (Ontario),
Morand,	Parent,
Mullins,	Howden,
Murphy.	Stewart (Edmonton),
Perley, Sir George,	Marcil,
Pettit,	Bouchard,
Pickel,	Speakman,
Porteous,	Macphail, Miss,
Rhodes,	Ralston,
Robinson,	Desrochers,
Ross,	Roberge,
Rowe,	Lacroix,
Ryckman,	Chevrier,
Sauve,	Seguin,
Senm.	Sanderson,
Short,	Keenan,
Simpson (Algoma),	Casgrain,
Smith (Cumberland),	Duff,
Smoke,	Cayley,
Stevens,	Malcolm,
Stinson.	Hall,
Stitt (Selkirk),	W7eir (Macdonald),
Sullivan, Thompson (Simeoe),	Br asset,
	Jean,
Tummon,	St-Pere,
Turnbull,	McPhee,
White (London),	Gershaw,
Willis,	Brown,
W7ilson,	V alanee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paid with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted for the *chairman's ruling.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted for the Chairman's ruling.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma West):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.


Alfred Speakman: I was paired with the
hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Peter Heenan: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


George Manning McDade: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.


John Campbell Elliott: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryck-man). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted I would have voted for the chairman's ruling.


Mr. BOULANGER:: (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system -Mr. Manion-Mr. MacNicol in the chair.
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think we were on section 2, which reads thus:
The provision of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts, but so that

And then it goes on, referring to compensation for employees who are removed from one place to another, the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the statutes providing for specific or special freight rates, meaning I suppose the Crowsnest pass rates and things of that kind. If this clause is left as drafted it is going to override many other acts which should not be overriden in this way. For instance, the Canadian National Railways Act distinctly states that terminals and many other services of the railroads cannot be abandoned without an order of the railway commission. The Canadian National, especially with the powers given to the trustees under this bill, will be able to do many things that I do not think should be permitted. It might set aside the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and many other acts of parliament having to do with railway matters and services. I do not want to speak at length on the point, but I intend to move an amendment, which I will send to the Minister of Railways:
* That all the words after the word "prevail" in the second line of section 2 be deleted and the following substituted:	"when not inconsistent with the provisions of any other act."
The clause as amended would read:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail, when not inconsistent with the provisions of any other act, but so that-
And then going on to (a), (b) and (c).


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry again to raise a point of order, but I must submit that this is entirely out of order, because to my mind it is a complete negation of the clause.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Why would that put it out of order?


Robert James Manion: Because an amendment cannot be a mere negative. A negative is accomplished by voting against the section. An amendment may change words or some portion of the meaning but cannot completely

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
negative the proposal; that is expressed by simply voting against it. I do not know the rule, but I am sure the chairman will be able to find it. I should like to hear the rule read.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: When the minister introduced this bill he asked the cooperation of every member of the house, and in moving this amendment I am trying to cooperate. The Minister of Railways said he was willing to accept amendments. If we are going to have an appeal to the chairman on a point of order on every amendment we might just as well go home.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend's reasoning is extraordinary. Neither he nor I can move amendments which are inconsistent with the rules of the house. I draw the matter to the attention of the chairman, not in order to oppose my hon. friend, but simply to point out what I think is the fact. It is not due to any lack of desire to cooperate. I will appreciate very much the cooperation of my hon. friend and his friends, but I take it the rules must be followed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon, member for Provencher has moved an amendment to section 2, commencing with the first sentence. I will read the section:
The provisions of this act shall bind Hia Majesty and shall prevail-
And then the amendment is that the words following be deleted and the following substituted:

when not inconsistent with the provisions of any other act-
I am advised that this amendment is not in order, on the ground that it is an expanded negative, a new clause. My authority for so ruling is paragraph 778 on page 223 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which reads as follows:
In the commons all the clauses of the bill are considered before any new clauses are brought up and added to the bill. But this practice is not rigorously followed and the committee is generally guided by what is most convenient in each particular case.
In this case I rule that the proposed amendment is out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I discuss the point of order? Do I understand your ruling to be that the amendment as moved by my hon. friend is a direct negative of the section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An expanded negative, he said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suggest with all respect that it is neither a negative nor an expanded negative. It is certainly an 53719-243
alteration, because the terms of the legislation as submitted by the minister "shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts." The amendment moved by my hon. friend is:
-when not inconsistent with the provisions of any other act.
Surely that is not a direct negative; it is an alternative. The hon. Minister of Railways has the opportunity of voting this down, but 1 suggest with all respect that this is not in any sense a negative of the provision as submitted.


Robert James Manion: With all due respect I think it is a negative. I am in the hands of the chair. I have no particular desire to have it ruled out of order unless it is out of order. However, there are other reasons against it, apart from the rules of order-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the point of order, there is no doubt the amendment does limit the resolution, but it does not negative it. It limits it by eliminating, to begin with, (a), (b) and (c).


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he leaves those in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, they come out, he says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is the point, he said they were to stay in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not so understand it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: After receiving the advice which you were so good as to give me at the table, with the consent of the committee I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I suggested
this was out of order was that the hon. gentleman proposes to leave in clauses (a), (fo) and (c).


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am going to amend
those.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are going to strike
them out?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: With the consent of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I warn the hon. gentleman that if he does that he will be destroying the object he is trying to achieve.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not see how the
Prime Minister can take that view. If the amendment I intend to propose is accepted, I believe I will attain the object I am trying to attain.

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


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are saving clauses.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I move that the words
"over all" in the second line of section 2 be struck out and that the words "when not" be substituted therefor and that clauses (a), (b) and (c) be struck out. Would that amendment be all right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It would be necessary to add the words "with the" after the words "inconsistent." Subsection 2 would then read as follows:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail when not inconsistent with the provisions of all other acts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
the way it is now except that the words "but so that" would be struck out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be negative of what is desired to be achieved. The first provision of this section is, "The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty." The next is, "shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts." That is, where there are provisions that are inconsistent, this act shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts. As has been pointed out, it is desired to preserve three things, whether consistent or inconsistent with the provisions of this act. They are:
(a)	that part of section one hundred and seventy-nine of the Railway Act which relates to compensation of employees for financial loss caused to them by removal, closing or abandonment of any railway station or divisional point,
(b)	the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act; and
(c)	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, toll or tariff by reference to any other and the making of deductions or allowances,
shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of this act or to be in any manner affected thereby.
It will be observed that the section as amended would read:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail when not inconsistent with the provisions of all other acts.
The rest of the section is struck out. There then would remain doubt as to the consistency or inconsistency of at least one of the three matters contained in the remainder of the section, The decision as to whether a provision is consistent or inconsistent is not quite as simple in a court of law as it seems to be in a committee of this house. This clause was framed with the idea of protecting beyond peradventure at least two of the three matters 
I have mentioned. The first is that of compensation to be paid to employees. It might well be that nothing in this act would be inconsistent with that provision, but in order that all doubt may be removed, it is specifically stated that this section is not intended to deprive any employee of compensation to which he may be entitled.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but will the hon.
member wait until I finish? The next clause refers to the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Obviously there is nothing inconsistent between this bill and that act but it is desirable that it should be made perfectly clear that that act shall survive. The provisions covered by clause (c) are so numerous that it is hardly necessary to mention them. We had one before the committee to-might in connection with contracts approved or ratified by the house. The special toll or freight rate obviously refers to the Crowsnest pass rates. If the legal members of the committee will look at this section they will see that it has been drawn with adroitness and skill and with the idea of making it clear that it shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts, but it was provided that those enumerated should not be regarded as being inconsistent.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Under the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Act a decision of the board has to be referred to the governor in council. If the bill passes as it is now, how would that provision be affected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Clause (a) covers section 179 of the Railway Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must respectfully take exception to the interpretation of the Prime Minister that the amendment would be a negative one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is no amendment before the committee.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I move the following amendment to section 2:
That the words "over all" in line 7 be struck out and that the words "when not" be substituted therefor; that the words "but so that" and subsection (a), (b) and (e) be also struck out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amendment would read, "shall prevail when not inconsistent with the provisions of all other acts."


John Ritchie MacNicol: The
committee has heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Provencher.

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was discussing the point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The effect of this proposed amendment is to negative these provisions as they now stand; that is all. I might again refer to- the serious consequences that would follow; the loss of the Crowsnest pass rate is one consequence that would follow the adoption of this amendment. Moreover, the other provisions intended to be safeguarded by this act would be destroyed. I do not think the hon. gentleman desires to destroy the Crowsnest pass rate, but that it what he is doing.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is that the Prime Minister's interpretation of the amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about it: "The provisions of this act shall bind his majesty and shall prevail when not inconsistent with the provisions of all other acts." Now there is nothing in this bill inconsistent with the Crowsnest pass rates act, and therefore it prevails; that is all. It is not an accident that this clause reads as it does. The hon. member says that these saving provisions should be inserted, and in order to protect from inconsistency the supremacy of this act, it is provided by (a), (b) and (c) that, with respect to them, they shall prevail whatever happens, and this act does not affect them, the reason being that the Crowsnest rate, the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and the provision with respect to compensation for the financial loss suffered by employees were three important matters which, after much consideration, it was thought should be saved, whether consistent or inconsistent with the provisions of this act.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It saves those three, but it abolishes all the other acts.


Robert James Manion: No, it does not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I find myself at variance with the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister. The difference between the amendment and the terms of the clause as it stands is this. Clause 2 as it now stands makes this act supreme over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except with respect to three.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
coming to that, and then it specifically makes three exemptions referred to in (a), (b) and (c) of section 2. The intention, the purport and the effect of the amendment is to make this act prevail only where it is not inconsistent 53719-243 %
with other acts. In other words, there is not a single right that exists to-day in any other statute which is abrogated by this act, because it cannot prevail where it is inconsistent with the others. So that the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pro-vencher is to safeguard not only the three exemptions that are specifically set out in section 2 of the bill but also many other rights. In other words, this bill shall prevail only where it is not inconsistent with the Crowsnest rate structure, with the Maritime Freight Rates; Act, with the provisions in regard to compensation, or-and this is important-with a hundred other rights that may exist in a hundred other statutes. That is the intention of the amendment, and with all respect I must take exception to the point raised by the Prime Minister. I must take issue with his interpretation of the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Provencher. The intention of the amendment is to safeguard rights that now exist under all statutes; it is intended that Bill No. 37 shall prevail only where it is not inconsistent with rights and functions that already exist with respect to employees or companies or corporations or citizens under the various acts now existent and which might be affected by the terms of this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there is
any doubt that that is the intention. The point of order I withdraw, but the effect of the amendment, if it ware adopted, would mean the abandonment of this bill. The bill is abandoned if the amendment is accepted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is true the bill is abandoned in part-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the whole thing falls.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the clause
is drafted, it necessitates parliament legislating wholly in the dark, because it declares that, notwithstanding all statutes which may exist on any subject whatever, if their provisions conflict with any section of this bill, those particular provisions shall not be considered. Let me illustrate. There is a statute known as the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act which deals for instance, with matters of dispute between employees and the railway companies. If this section is permitted to remain as it is, and it suits the convenience of the person, whoever he may be, who is interpreting this statute to say that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act are inconsistent with its provisions, out that statute goes, and, I venture to say, without
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

any intention on the part of this House of Commons to bring about any such effect. What should be done is for this particular act to amend by its provisions existing acts in such a way that the effect of the amendment will be self-evident, we would then be enabled to see how far we are overriding the provisions of other acts. We should not; however, have a clause that goes the length of obliterating provisions of statutes passed for a variety of reasons and which undoubtedly, were they known, this house would wish to safeguard. To make my point clear, I shall ask the minister this question to which I venture to say he will not be able to reply: Will he tell us what particular statutes and what provisions in those statutes are there that may be inconsistent with this bill?


Robert James Manion: I should not like to
attempt to give a list of such statutes because I might omit some of them, but I will tell the right hon. gentleman that the statement he has made with reference to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is not correct because this would not affect it one particle. My right hon. friend is confusing inconsistent provisions with inconsistent statutes. He says that this would wipe out different statutes. It does mot propose to wipeout statutes but inconsistent provisions. May I, while agreeing with what the Prime Minister has said, point out also one most important respect in which this act would be made nugatory if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Provencher should carry. This legislation provides for cooperation and it provides for tribunals in cases of dispute. These provisions do not exist in the Railway Act and therefore the provisions in the Railway Act which are inconsistent with the provision in this act with respect to tribunals and also with respect to the bringing about of cooperation will be prevailed over by this act. The Railway Act is not prevailed over by this act except in so far as certain provisions of the former are inconsistent with this legislation, and that is the only effect this has. If however the amendment of the hon. member were to carry, it would indisputably have the effect of rendering the rest of this act null and void, because you would not then have tribunals as provided for in part III of this bill. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre sees the point. You could not have tribunals under this act at all if the hon. member's amendment carried, inasmuch as they would be inconsistent with the Railway Act and therefore that act would prevail and nullify this one. May I point out to the committee that this legislation has been 
considered by many lawyers in the Senate, and as the Prime Minister has pointed out it was deemed advisable after careful study that with respect to these three acts which are specified here, namely, section 176 of the Railway Act which deals with the matter of compensation in the case of moving a terminal; secondly, the Maritime Freight Rates Act; and, thirdly, the Crowsnest Pass legislation, they should be specifically set out by way of exemption.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It may be that, in the language of the Scotch, I am slow in the uptake, but as I read ,the first clause in section 2 I am still of the opinion that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Provencher is a direct negative. The clause as it is in the bill reads:
The provisions of this act. . . .shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions.
The hon. member wants this changed to read:
Shall prevail when not inconsistent.
If this act is to prevail only when the provisions of other acts are not inconsistent, it surely cannot prevail over inconsistent ones. The effect of the amendment therefore is virtually to say: "The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall not prevail over inconsistent provisions of other acts." Is that not simply to introduce a negative in front of the word "prevail"? The clause as it stands, reads, "shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions." The proposed amendment in fact reads, "shall not prevail over any inconsistent provision."


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There is no point of order before the chair.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The statement was made that the amendment was not a negative. In my opinion it is a distinct negative. May I call attention to another difficulty that, it seems to me, exists arising out of the proposed amendment? The clause as it now reads is that this act shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions. In other words, it makes this an overriding act. I do not have to search other acts to find out inconsistent provisions;
I simply go to this act. Its provisions alone are relevant; the only relevant provisions of other acts are those that are inconsistent, and this measure provides that I do not need to bother my head about them. But if you insert the amendment which my hon. friend

C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill
is suggesting, what you are providing is this, that this act shall prevail only when the provisions of another act are not inconsistent. How, then, am I to know whether the provisions of this act are to prevail or not? I can ascertain that only by looking into all other acts to see whether there is in any of them any inconsistency with this act? I take this Railway Act and I cannot say whether upon a particular point it is the ruling, dominant act, because I am saddled with a condition which tells me that this provision may be of no use to me; that I must look at all the other acts to find out whether there may not be in them some inconsistency; and if I find some inconsistency in some other act, it overrules this. This will put a tremendous onus on people who are construing this legislation and will raise a great deal of difficulty concerning it; whereas as it now stands, it is quite simple. The clause makes this act rule, and you have not to consider anything but its provisions.


John Campbell Elliott: Is there any point of order before the Chair?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. The committee has heard the amendment and I presume it is now ready to decide the question.
Amendment (Mr. Beaubien) negatived.


Robert James Manion: I should have moved a minor amendment in regard to paragraph (c) of section 2, which reads:
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

I wish to have an amendment moved by one of my colleagues for the removal of the rest of the words of that paragraph, because they are unnecessary-that is, the words following the word "tariff" in the eighteenth line, to the end of the paragraph, will be dropped.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the minister whether he knows what was in the minds of those who drafted this bill when they added the words which he now wishes to strike out and which read:
Or for the ascertainment of any one freight rate, toll or tariff by reference to any other and the making of deductions or allowances.
Surely the persons who drafted this bill had something in mind when they added those words which the minister now wishes to strike out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is simply this: the Orowsnest Pass legislation, as is known,
dealt with certain commodities that were to bear certain rates. There are rates that have been fixed by reference to that particular act and the question was whether they were adequately covered by the provisions of this measure. These words were added to make this abundantly clear. The minister is satisfied that these words are unnecessary, having regard to the interpretation to be placed on the other portions of the act. If, on the other hand, the committee thinks there is any doubt about the matter, these words should remain.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to their remaining. I still adhere to the opinion there is no necessity for the words, but as they do not do any particular harm, they may remain.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not objecting; I only want an explanation and I am satisfied with the one given by the Prime Minister.


Robert James Manion: Those who drew up the original bill thought the words were advantageous for some reasons I do not know. When we studied the bill in this house, we considered the words unnecessary and after we had discussed the matter with those who drew up the original bill, they agreed. But as my hon. friend and my leader, who are lawyers, consider there is some doubt, and as these words are merely redundant, there is no objection to their remaining.
There is a certain amendment in regard to the word "or" which should have been placed in subsection 2 of the same section. Paragraph (a) of section 2 reads:
Any manufacturing, land, mining or ocean marine company, undertaking, property, work or service-
The word "or" should be inserted1 there, to make the bill more complete.


Maurice Dupré: I move that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ross Wilfred Gray: Before section 2 passes the committee, I should like to say a few words in connection with it and to add another saving clause.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the hon. member now discussing section 2, subsection 1?


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes. In my opinion this is a dangerous section. It may be designed to and it certainly will relieve unemployment among the members of the legal profession, because from now on we shall have plenty of work deciding what is consistent and what is not. I suppose as a lawyer I should be in accord with that part of the provision. It

C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill
seems to me, however, that we are going a long way when we enact legislation such as section 2, subsection 1, saying that this act shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts. I am sorry at the attitude taken with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Provencher. There come up in the house almost every year private bills in which special provisions are inserted that certain sections are to prevail so long as they are not inconsistent with, for instance, the Companies Act. The bill under consideration is in its nature a railway act, and in many private bills we have special provisions that the Railway Act, so far as it is not inconsistent with the bill at the time under discussion shall prevail. What the hon. member for Provencher is trying to do by his amendment, and what we are trying to do is to see that all this legislation which has been passed and has withstood the test of time shall not simply be wiped out by Bill A, No. 37, introduced by the Minister of Railways into this house. But now that we have been told that this thing is going through as it stands,
1	hope that I may have some better success than has been accorded to my hon. friends who have already moved amendments. I am hoping that mine may be one of those of which the minister was thinking when he said on the second reading that he would welcome amendments. I am hoping that my amendment to add to the saving clauses will be accepted. By the way, I am wondering just when those saving clauses came to the minds of those who framed this bill. I am told, for instance, that certainly paragraph (a) had not been thought of by the framers of this bill when it was introduced into the Senate, and I think I am on safe ground when I presume that pargraphs (b) and (c) had not been thought of when this bill was introduced. I think I am almost safe in saying that this bill when it was first drafted simply read, so far as section 2 is concerned:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts.
I think I am safe in that supposition. Then there came a doubt; there came pressure, "we must make certain". I commend my maritime friends for their insistence on matters of this kind. They' have made certain that the Maritime Freight Rates Act will not be made inconsistent with the provisions of this act, and that there shall be exports through Canadian ports, as is provided by subsection
2	of section 14. Someone else suggested that we must make sure that the members of the various railway organizations be protected. And so in a great gesture paragraph (a) was

inserted as a saving clause. I wonder if hon. members know how far that paragraph (a) does go in the protection of railway employees in the light of further provisions of this act and in the light of what we know is happening and will happen in respect to the laying off of railway men in this country. Paragraph (a) refers to section 179 of the Railway Act. which is chapter 170 of the revised statutes of 1927, which provides for compensation. Section 179 of the Railway Act provides that where there is a change,
The company shall compensate its employees as the board-
Meaning the Board of Railway Commissioners.
-deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence-
Change of residence only.
-necessitated thereby.
Suppose terminals are closed and men are dismissed, as I submit they are going to be wholesale, then section 179 of the Railway Act and this saving clause (a), which hon. gentlemen opposite boast of having put in. is absolutely worthless to the employees of the Canadian National Railways.
If we are going to start putting in saving clauses, let us stop right here at section 2 until we have gone through all the various acts which have been passed and which have withstood the test of time, and see whether any of their provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this bill. The minister says: I cannot tell you how many such there are. That is going to be a very interesting question. Let us pause before we legislate in this house for the future by a bill as drastic as this. In order to show the absurdity of having a provision of this kind, having simply saving clauses (a), (b) and (c) and not going on and inserting saving clauses (d), (e) and (f), and so on, I am going to move an amendment to add one other saving clause. I could add a dozen, but I am going to move to add only one simply to show what the minister is getting into and what we may expect for the future of this bill. The amendment I am going to move is with respect to section 23 of the present Canadian. National Railways Act, which I say is entirely inconsistent with the powers given to the trustees under this bill. I say now, as I said on the second reading, that under this bill the trustees are permitted to allow lines to be abandoned without any regard to parliament, without any regard to the Board of Railway Commissioners, without any regard to the governor in council. If the bill means anything, certainly that is what it is intended to mean. It was to give

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
the board of trustees this power without any regard to the Board of Railway Commissioners or tihe governor in council or parliament.
Let me read section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, not the Railway Act to which the minister referred a few moments ago in speaking to one horn, member. The Railway Act proper is chapter 170 of the statutes of 1927, but the Canadian National Railways Act, as the minister well knows, is a special act that was passed in 1920, at which time the Canadian National as we know it was created. It deals with the appointment of directors, the powers of directors, and matters of that kind. Section 23 of that act, being chapter 172 of the statutes of 1927, has this marginal note: "Power to abandon line, and dismantle or dispose thereof by consent," and reads as follows:
23. With the approval of the governor in council, and upon the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the company may abandon the operation of any lines-
I draw attention to that, that it must be with the approval of the governor in council:
-or parts of lines of railway and incidental works, the operation or continued maintenance whereof has, in the opinion of the Board of Railway Commissioners, become unnecessary or inexpedient through duplication-
That is exactly what we find to-day, and the minister has pointed out, and in many cases rightly so, that these duplications make for certain abandonments, which is quite true:
[DOT]-or other economical considerations;
The very tenor of this bill.
-and with the consent of a majority in value of the registered security holders affected may dismantle or dispose of the lines of railway or works so abandoned.
I think I should also read subsection 2 of section 23, in order that it may be a matter of record. It deals with the consent of the security holders for such abandonment, and reads, the consent having been referred to just prior to that in subsection 1 of section 23:
Such consent may be given by a majority ini value of the registered security holders present ait any meeting, in person or by proxy, called by the president of the company, to be held at any time or place stated by him, on notice in writing sent by registered mail to all of the registered security holders at least one calendar month before the date of the meeting; or may be given by a majority in value of the registered security holders by written consents filed with the company upon a circular stating the facts being sent by registered mail to all of the registered security holders.
It is interesting to note that when this section was discussed in the house at the time the original Canadian National Railways Act was considered in the House of Commons in
1919-many hon. members, including the minister himself, were in the house at that time 

the gentleman piloting the bill through the House of Commons, now the leader of the government in another place, them acting Minister of Justice, had this to say with respect to section 23. Someone had raised the point with respect to the security holders, and the whole debate turned on many of the subject matters that we are now considering, namely, the control by parliament over matters dealt with in the legislation that was then being considered-and by the way the government had eventually to put closure, on in order to pass that particular bill. It had been suggested to Mr. Meighen, then Acting Minister of Justice, that clause 23 was a far-reaching clause, and he replied, as reported in Hansard of 1919, volume 2, page 1709:
In so far as the security holders are concerned, their consent is obtained, but their security is not lost. This would only be a small part of their security that would be dismantled and abandoned, and they would see the wisdom of adopting that course and would consent accordingly. Inasmuch as the whole idea of this measure is the joining together for operating purposes of lines that were formerly under several managements, there will presumably be cases of duplication that may be cut out without injury to the public, and the intention of this section is to provide that that may be done.
Then, let me call the attention of the minister to this part of Mr. Meighen's speech;
The Board of Railway Commissioners is entrusted from the point of view of public convenience and safety with deciding what is necessary and what is not in the way of service. Consequently that is the tribunal, it seems to me, to which resort should be had to determine whether any small part or branch is a duplication or for other reasons may be abandoned.
Those are the words of the right hon. gentleman who introduced and piloted this present bill through the Senate only a few weeks ago. I submit that we should hesitate before we place in the hands of trustees, I care not who they may be, this power which up to the present has been exercised only after careful consideration by the Board of Railway Commissioners, with the governor in council as the final body to whom appeal may be taken from a decision of the board, we should hesitate before we take out of the hands of these men control of abandonments which would be to the detriment not only of eastern Canada but of western Canada as well, where lines have been built, and around which community centres have grown up. If, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a saving clause, then let us add another to (a), (b) and (c) which will save the rights of these branch lines and community centres, and
CJV.R.-CR.R. Bill

which will protect those who have gone into new communities, and not place them at the mercy of trustees who think only of dollars and cents and not of the welfare of the community as a whole. With that in mind I beg to move the following amendment to the bill:
That section 2, subsection 1, be amended by adding thereto a clause to be lettered (d) "and the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, 1920."


Robert James Manion: The hon. member has elaborated the point of his amendment, but I should like him in a few words to state his meaning. I do not suggest that he has confused the issue, but I should like to have explained to me the object of the amendment he has proposed.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am glad the minister is not the judge before whom I sometimes appear, because if he were I am afraid I would not win many cases. I am attempting to show to the minister that I want to preserve what is contained in. section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, so that the board of trustees to whom he is giving all these powers shall not be able to go out and abandon lines, considering only the dollars and cents, without there being someone to whom we as members of parliament and, if you like, shareholders of the Canadian National Railways can go. Under section 23 the abandonment of a line must first have the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and then on the recommendation of the board the governor in council are for the time being directors acting on behalf of the people-I care not what you call them-the cabinet of this country. Those directors come into their places and we the shareholders can rise in our places and condemn or approve the abandonment of those lines. I know the minister will be fair in the matter, and I plead with him not to pass this section until he provides for that safety with respect to the abandonment of lines.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, to deal
instantly with an amendment such as the hon. member has just moved, and apparently to which he has given considerable thought, is difficult. However, may I offer one or two suggestions to him? In the first place, so far as section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act is concerned-and I am giving my interpretation only as a layman, because as he knows I am not a lawyer-the section will remain to a large extent in force, with the exception that the trustees will act in the place of the directors. So far as the abandonment of lines is concerned I have this to say: Suppose under the present bill the Canadian 
National wished to abandon some portion of its territory, irrespective of the possibility of any cooperative measures, the trustees would still have to come before the Board of Railway Commissioners and obtain consent. But suppose it were dealing with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the change was being made for cooperative purposes, if there was any objection made by either of the companies an arbitral tribunal would1 be set up. Even then the arbitral tribunal would not have the power to carry out a cooperative measure unless the chairman of that tribunal agreed with the measure. And hon. members must bear in mind that the chairman of the arbitral tribunal is the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I do not wish to interrupt
the minister's line of thought, but may I point out to him that in addition to the powers given to the directors as outlined in the Railway Act, he must take note of subsection 6 of section 9 of the bill, which reads that:
(6) No order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty-
And I presume His Majesty in this instance means the governor in council, if it means anything. Certainly it must mean parliament, but let us assume for the sake of argument that it means governor in council. Let me proceed with subsection 6:
-or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies.
The section referred to is that which transfers to these trustees the powers of the directors of the Canadian National Railways as they obtain under the Canadian National Railways Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree
with the hon. member who has just spoken, and I am sorry I cannot follow the argument of the minister in connection with the bill. He said the trustees will still have to go before the Board of Railway Commissioners in regard to the abandonment of branch lines. I cannot find provision for such procedure.


Robert James Manion: I refer to the abandonment of services. The directors have to go to the board at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but they are being abolished'. You are appointing a board of trustees.


Robert James Manion: Under the Railway Act
the board of trustees would not be able to abandon services to any greater extent than they are abandoned at the present time.

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But there is no safeguard ini this legislation. That is what the hon. member is stating, and' that is the condition we wish to guard against in the amendment submitted. I think the minister confuses the trustees with the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal has nothing to do with the point raised by the hon. member for West Lamlbton. They come into play only when there is a dispute between the two railway systems. In this legislation the government is seeking to appoint what may be known as an arbitral board of trustees. They are given sweeping powers whereby they are not subject to the approval of the governor in council. They could abandon branch lines without going before the Board of Railway Commissioners, without going before the governor in council or before this parliament.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member referred to subsection (6) of section 9. I call to his attention the fact that in subsection 2 of section 9 page 6 of the bill we find the following:
The trustees shall and may thereafter, subject to the provisions of this act, have and exercise all the powers, rights, privileges and immunities, and perform and be subject to all the duties, responsibilities and restrictions, which now appertain to the board of directors of the national company.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Chairman, if the minister
will agree here and now to the deletion of subsection 6 of section 9 I might consider the withdrawal of my amendment.


Robert James Manion: I believe we should deal
with subsection 6 of section 9 when we come to it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I did not raise the question
with regard to that section.


Robert James Manion: Yes, my hon. friend did
raise it a moment ago. We should deal with subsection 6 of section 9 when we come to it, not under section 2.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
point applies equally to the minister, who has just dealt with subsection 2 of section 9. May I reread part of it:
The trustees shall and may thereafter, subject to the provisions of this act, have and exercise all the powers, rights, privileges and immunities. . . .
These are new powers which the directors never had under the Canadian National Railways Act. You are giving them powers apart from the governor in council, apart from parliament, and without any limit whatever. Subsection 2 is subject only to the provisions of this act. There is no comparison whatever between the powers of the trustees under this act and the powers of the directors under the old Canadian National Railways Act.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend
should read all of it, not merely part of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say a word, Mr. Chairman? I do not desire to trespass upon the time of the committee, but I am amazed at some observations that have been made. That, of course, may be because I have been unable to grasp the situation as it has been presented. Section 9 provides that-
When the governor in council shall proclaim in the Canada Gazette that he has vacated all nominations to the board of directors of the national company and has appointed trustees as by section 4 of this act provided the said board shall^ cease to exist-
That eliminates the board.
-'and, by force of this act and without more, the direction and control of the national company and its undertaking shall be vested, subject to the provisions of this act, in the trustees.
That is the substitution of the trustees for the directors. Then follow the subsections to which attention has been directed, by which it is perfectly clear that the trustees are clothed with wide powers additional to those they may exercise by virtue of succeeding the former board of directors. But will the committee be good enough to look at subsection 4 of the Caandian National Railways Act? It says:
(4) The National Act and all statutes, charters, letters patent and orders in council of Canada which relate to any of such companies in Canada shall, in so far as they may be inconsistent with the provisions of this section, be read in the light hereof and be construed so as to conform herewith.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That makes it perfectly clear that the Canadian National Railways Act, so far as it is possible to read that act with this, muS be read to conform with the provisions of this measure, letter A of the Senate, Bill No. 37. If the hon. gentleman will examine with a little more care the provision at the top of page 7 of the bill, subsection 6, of section 9, having given evidence of his astuteness as a lawyer he will realize that that subsection does not deal with orders in council, has nothing to do with orders in council. The shareholder of all the national railways is His Majesty, in the right of the dominion, and he is registered as such. It will be observed that inasmuch as you have to appeal to ithe shareholders under the pro-
C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill

visions of some statutes, and inasmuch as His Majesty is a shareholder, when it says-
No order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies.
-that means His Majesty qua shareholder- not the governor in council, not the cabinet, not anything else except His Majesty as a shareholder. The crown is the shareholder of the Canadian National at the present moment, and it shall not apply to His Majesty or to any other shareholder, that is the half dozen people who have been selected for the purpose of constituting quorums and matters of that kind. That is the reason that provision wias put there. I think the hon. member for West Lamb ton will remember the rule of law, ejusdem generis. Here you have the words, "H>is Majesty or any other shareholder," the words "His Majesty" mean His Majesty as a shareholder or any other shareholder. Under the general rule affecting railways as provided by the Railway Act and other statutes you have to call a meeting of shareholders to deal with certain matters that the directors have set in motion, their power being to set the machinery in motion. This subsection merely provides that no appeal is necessary to the .shareholders. Neither the consent of the crown in the right of His Majesty is required, nor that of the other shareholders of the company. That is all it means. As I read section 23, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, there is nothing in the bill inconsistent with this section. As far as I am concerned at the present moment, without looking at it in more detail, section 23 is unaffected by this legislation. It has not yet been pointed out in what sense it is affected. Just let us look at it:
With the approval of the governor in council, and upon the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the company may abandon the operation of any lines or parts of lines of railway and incidental works, the operation or continued maintenance whereof has, in the opinion of the Board of Railway Commissioners, become unnecessary or inexpedient through duplication, or other economical eonsiderati ons;-
As I see it at the moment there is no inconsistency between the two; this section in its force and vigour is retained. Nothing that has been said this evening, no reference that has been made to the statute affords a reason for changing that view. The supreme purpose of the statute is not to take from the security holders any powers they possess or any rights they enjoy, but rather to say, as this act has said, that unless they consent

to action being taken the action cannot be taken. After all, as I said the other day, although an endeavour was made by many people to have it misunderstood, the equity of redemption in these roads is all that we have, and inasmuch as they were built without a single dollar of capital being put up other than that represented by the securities, the non-payment of interest on the securities put them in the defaulting class had it not been for the guarantee given by the Dominion of Canada. That guarantee is what saves them from receivership, and the trustees in this case are merely trying to preserve the rights of the security holders who really built the roads in question on the bonds guaranteed by the dominion. There never was, although it was hoped there would be, any value in the equity of redemption; there is none now. As far as this section of the statute is concerned I see nothing at the moment that would induce me to believe, unless I hear arguments more powerful than I have yet heard,-and I do not reflect on the power of the arguments made-that there is any inconsistency between that provision and section 23.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If . that were the effect of this provision there would be no trouble at all so far as the amendment is concerned, and if the right hon. gentleman will accept the spirit of the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton I think all on this side will be satisfied. The Prime Minister cited subsection 4, which exactly proves the contention of the hon. member for West Lambton. The Canadian National Railways Act, and all statutes, and so forth, which relate to any such companies, shall, in so far as they may be inconsistent with the provisions of this section, be read in the light hereof and be construed so as to conform herewith. What does that mean? It means where there is any inconsistency between the Canadian National Railways Act and Bill No. 37, the Canadian National Railways Act must be subsidiary to the provisions of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has just made one mistake. If he will look at subsection 4, he will observe that the inconsistency must be "with the provisions of this section," and that is the section which substitutes the trustees for the directors. I am sorry the hon. gentleman should think that the inconsistency must be with the act; it deals only with the trustees, and the substitution of them for the directors. Any inconsistency between the Canadian National Railways Act and this-and there are many-must be read in the light of this section.

C.N.R.-CF.R. Bill


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Section
9 gives the trustees certain powers. In the first place, it abolishes the directors and, in the second place it constitutes the trustees. The powers of the trustees are practically set out in this section 9.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member
look at section 3?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
read that. I am now referring to the subsection which the Prime Minister read, subsection 4. There may be inconsistencies with the provisions of the section which confers the powers upon the board of trustees which is to take the place of the board of directors created by the Canadian National act. Let us now consider subsection 6, also referred to by the Prime Minister. This reads:
No order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies.
It is not material whether this refers to His Majesty in the capacity of a shareholder or in any other capacity, the effect of the subsection is that His Majesty has no control over any order, any regulation, any by-law, any act, any decision or any proceeding of the trustees which is being set up under section 9. That is the fundamental and vital difference between this bill and the Canadian National act. A board of trustees is being substituted for the old board of directors and the trustees are given powers which the directors never had. The directors were always subject to the governor in council and there is not a single clause in this bill which subjects the board of trustees to the dictates of the governor in council. Their acts cannot be discussed even by parliament. There is no comparison between the powers granted to the trustees under section 9 and the powers granted to the board of directors under the Canadian National act. Subsection 4 of section 9 specifically states that where the provisions of the Canadian National act are inconsistent with the provisions of this section, then the provisions of the act shall be of no avail. It is intended that this bill shall override the provisions of the Canadian National act. That has been our fight all along. As I stated on the second reading of the bill, it means the abandonment of government control and government ownership of the Canadian National railways.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to add a word or two to the argument of my hon. friend from Vancouver. If the argument made by the Prime Minister is sound, surely he would have no objection to stating in the bill that
section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of this bill or to be in any way affected thereby. There seems to be some dispute between those who believe they are capable of interpreting the meaning of this bill, and its provisions should be made dear. Apparently a similar dispute arose in the other house in connection with the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and in order to make it quite clear subsections (a), (b) and (c) were inserted. As I understand it, there is no difference between hon. members on either side of the house in .connection with the principle that before any branch line or section of road shall be torn up someone other than the trustees whom we have set up shall pass upon the action, that the human element shall be taken into some consideration and that responsibility shall be placed upon the shoulders of someone other than this irresponsible board of trustees. I submit that this matter could be easily settled by the government accepting the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton.


Robert James Manion: In connection with section 23 of the National act, I still adhere to the position that where the trustees decide upon the abandonment of any branch line or service, they would have to appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners just the same as the directors must appeal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is that?


Robert James Manion: The Railway Act still
applies except those sections which are inconsistent. That section is not inconsistent. Another point which I should like to bring out is that if section 23 were put into the present bill as proposed by the hon. member for West Lambton, the arbitral tribunals would be rendered useless. There will be times when an arbitral tribunal will meet for the purpose of deciding whether a branch line shall be abandoned or a joint service inaugurated.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am hopeful that the tribunal will be the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Robert James Manion: That is another matter.
I take the position that section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, while perhaps not completely, will be to a large extent still in operation even after this bill goes into effect. I differ from my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. If that section were included in this bill it might and I think it would interfere with the power of the tribunals in dealing with cooperative abandonment of certain branch lines or the decision to operate
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

a joint service or something of that sort. I do not think the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton should be accepted.


John Campbell Elliott: It has been intimated that we are agreed on both sides of the house that no branch lines shall be scrapped without the trustees having to appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners. If the minister accepts that view, surely we could agree upon some clause which would make it absolutely clear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Apparently the Prime Minister and the Minister' of Railways are not in agreement as to the effect of this amendment. The Prime Minister has stated that there is sufficient provision in this bill to safeguard what my hon. friend wants to obtain by his amendment. The Minister of Railways tells the committee that he is afraid of the effect of including a safeguarding clause in the bill which would retain the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian National act. The minister is afraid that such a section would disturb the functions of that august and majestic arbitral tribunal. I suggest that there is nothing in the amendment which would hinder the work of the arbitral tribunal; it would mean that the consent of the governor in council would have to be obtained to whatever was proposed by the private and national systems in connection with the abandonment of lines. We want to safeguard against the wholesale slaughter of branch lines throughout Canada without parliament having a single word to say. I repeat what I said before:	This is a final abdication of the principle of democratic control and ownership of the Canadian National system. The Prime Minister says we are not losing that and the Minister of Railways says we are. The minister has stated that if this amendment is added to the bill it will interfere with the work of the tribunal. The Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways might agree among themselves that the abandonment of a branch line would be in the interests of economy. Cooperation by direction is covered by part II of the bill, and cooperation by compulsion is made possible by part III. I ask the minister to show me one clause or one sentence in this bill which will give us the right asked for by the hon. member for West Lambton, that section 23 shall be preserved for the people of Canada in the legislation we are now considering.


Robert James Manion: I do not know offhand [DOT]
that I can show my hon. friend the section,

but I still maintain that the trustees are in exactly 'the same position with regard to the abandonment of lines as are 'the directors under the legislation which exists at the moment. Dealing only with section- 23 of the Canadian National act, I say that the trustees will be in exactly the same position in having to go 'before the board as the directors are now. That is my claim.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister show me where that appears in the act? I understood him to say that the trustees were in the same position as the directors of the Canadian National Railways in regard to obtaining the consent of the governor in council-


Robert James Manion: I did not say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understood him to say that the board of trustees under this legislation was in exactly the same position as the directors of the Canadian National Railways under the Canadian National Act and I submit that that -is not so. Even though 'the minister may find some section here which I cannot find, which might make it desirable for the trustees to go before the Board of Railway Commissioners, there is nothing in this legislation that makes it necessary for them to obtain the consent of the governor in council in regard to the abandonment of a single branch line.


Robert James Manion: I am informed by the
legal advisers that there is nothing in this act that takes away reference to the governor in council so far as the trustees are concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then
will the minister agree to the representations made on this side of the house to have a specific clause inserted that will maintain the right of endorsation. by the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be certain fundamental principles to apply to the case. First, if I followed the hon. gentleman fairly, and I think I did, let me ask: Where in this bill do you find any section that provides that section 23 of the Canadian National Railway * Act does not apply?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what the Prime Minister has said this evening with regard to subsection 6 of section 9, he gives an entirely different interpretation of the measure from that which all of us on this side of the house had given it up to the time he spoke. If he wishes to be understood in the light of what he has just said, I will say at once that many of the objections which we have to the measure are removed; we want, however to have the point made perfectly clear. As

Official Report of Debates
we have understood the subsection up to the present time, we have taken it to mean that all provisions in the former act, which require consent on the part of the governor in council to certain actions by the trustees, were being wholly removed, and that no order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty. We were reading that in absolute terms as referring to all acts-any act of the trustees. As I now understand it the Prime Minister interprets the section as follows: No order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees, in so far as it relates to this section and this section only, shall require the approval of His Majesty or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said. I desired to convey to the committee this meaning: that His Majesty, here, was referred to as a shareholder-"or that of any other shareholder''-and that the rule ejusdem generis applies, namely, that where you have the words "His Majesty" they must mean His Majesty as a shareholder, because that is clearly what is meant. All our legislation is based on the assumption that the shareholders must express their approval. For instance, in the Canadian National Railways Act there is a list of several pages of companies-a page and a half-to which it applies; and under the general law, whenever certain acts or bylaws have to be made effective, the shareholders must be called together to give approval. Now, we have provided in subsection 6 that no order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 10, 1933