1933-03-14

BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. C. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce and moved that it be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the criminal code (lotteries).
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The purpose of this bill is to provide that anyone who wants to

institute proceedings under subsection 3 of section 236 of the criminal code must first obtain the consent of the attorney general. This has to do with sweepstakes. Persons who have received money from sweepstakes have been sued in proceedings taken by private individuals. To obviate the trouble I think it would be advisable to provide that no proceedings under that subsection shall be taken without the consent of the attorney general.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) when we may expect legislation, which according to the press he announced in Montreal on Saturday, for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of the Gibb report with regard to harbour boards?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I cannot say that the report which appeared in the press was absolutely accurate. But I can state to my hon. friend that we are still studying the rough draft of the bill on the national harbours of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: The announcement was premature!


Alfred Duranleau: I do not say it was premature, but I was reported as saying a bill would be introduced this week. That statement was not accurate.



CANADIAN CAR AND FOUNDRY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MERGIER (St. Henri):: On February 16 last I had a question on the order paper asking the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) if the Canadian Car and Foundry Company applied to the government or the minister to secure a contract for the construction of two thousand freight cars to help unemployment, and whether consideration was given to the Canadian Car and Foundry Company. The minister said that such application was made and consideration was being given. May I ask if he has arrived at some decision?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The matter is still under consideration.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Veniot



SOREL, QUE., WHARF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu):: In view of an item I read this morning in the Montreal Gazette, repeating statements made on many occasions by persons connected with the harbour commission of Montreal regarding the port of Sorel, may I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) if it is true that the government spent 82,000,000 for building the wharf on which the present privately owned elevator is erected at Sorel, and if in fact that wharf was not in existence many years before the elevator was built?


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: As the hon. gentleman gave me no notice of this question I am not prepared to give the answer. I have not the information with me. I suggest it stand as a notice of motion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Quite satisfactory.



CANADIAN N ATIONAL-C AN ADI AN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. R. J. Manion for the second reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes.
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate on the motion for the second reading of the measure now before the house let me say that I do not intend to deal very extensively with the bill as it now appears. While I intend to express my opinion later on with regard to certain phases of the measure I wish to confine myself now to certain omissions on the part of the Duff commission and to a certain lack of consideration on the part of those responsible for the preparation of this bill. Before doing so, however, in common with other hon. members who have spoken so eloquently I wish to compliment the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) on the very fair manner in which he presented this bill to the house. His speech was on a very high plane; he appealed to the house to lay aside partisanship, saying that the situation was so serious that every hon. member in this house should give this bill his very best consideration. The hon. gentleman zealously avoided anything that savoured of politics or partisanship, and his appeal was immediately answered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) whose remarks also were on a high level. The right hon. gentleman offered certain criticisms, but he expressed the hope that they would be received in good part, with the knowledge that he was endeavouring to better the measure and make it more operative.
I am glad to be able to pay this compliment to the Minister of Railways and Canals, but I very much regret that I cannot say the same thing with regard to his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett), who undertook to give this house a history of railway construction in this country. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister refer to the terms under which the Intercolonial railway was built, because later on In my remarks I desire to direct the attention of the house to this question. The Prime Minister brought his history of railway construction down to 1914, and directed especial attention to the construction of the railways through western Canada, but when the right hon. gentleman came to 1914 he stopped like grandfather's clock, never to go again. He contented himself with the introduction of the political element into the discussion at that point. The right hon. gentleman said that the Liberal government had subsidized the construction of the Canadian Northern from a point in Ontario to Winnipeg and that, he said, was the beginning of our troubles. Is it possible that the hectic times through which the Prime Minister and his government are passing have shortened his memory? Why did he not give the full history of railroad construction in this country instead of stopping at 1914? Has my right hon. friend forgotten those days we witnessed in parliament in 1914 when he, as a supporter of the Conservative government of that day, derided and berated an hon. gentleman now sitting in another chamber because he introduced a measure that had for its object the construction of the Canadian Northern from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast? Has the Prime Minister forgotten that during that debate he used every condemnatory adjective in the English language? Has he forgotten that he pointed out that the measure meant the creation of a corruption fund; that it would bring about the corruption of the electorate of the Dominion of Canada? Has he forgotten what he called the disgraceful lobbying carried on by Mackenzie and Mann in the corridors of this parliament in order to corrupt the members of the House of Commons? But that measure went through, Mr. Speaker, and that was the beginning of all our troubles; it provided for the establish-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Veniot
ment of the third transcontinental railway in Canada, and from that day to this we have had troubles galore.
The Prime Minister must have had an object in view. I do not wish to impute motives, Mr. Speaker, because that is against the rules of the house, but one cannot help but suspect that the reason the Prime Minister did not give the full history of railway construction in Canada was that if he did so he would not be able to lay the blame on the Liberal party for the transportation problem facing this country to-day. The introduction of that element of politics into the discussion by the Prime Minister has thrown a shadow over this house. The right hon. gentleman should have known that we of the opposition would not allow him to throw into our faces any blame which did not belong to us. As a result of his speech we on this side of the house have been driven to recrimination; we have been forced to define our position, and as a result the debate has not remained on the high level on which it began. I hope that as the debate continues we will get back to the point of view we had in the beginning. Of all men in this country the Prime Minister should have set the example; he should have taken a leaf from the book of his Minister of Railways, but perhaps the Minister of Railways did not consult the Prime Minister and did not make known to him the position he would assume during this debate. But knowing the Prime Minister as we do on this side of the house; knowing that he always glories when he is in a position to attack, knowing that he always feels justified in using recrimination, sarcasm and invective when he is dealing with the arguments of his political opponents, we are not at all surprised that he reached such a level in the debate.
Now, having treated that part of the Prime Minister's speech, I shall refer as briefly as possible to what I consider an omission on the part of the Duff commission in dealing with the railway situation in Canada so far as it relates to the human element. And when I say human element, I am not thinking of the men who were discharged in the past, or of those who are going to be laid off in the future in the interest of economy. We are to-day faced with a situation so serious in connection with our railways that economies have become absolutely necessary. Some sacrifices will have to be made. No doubt our railway employees will find it hard when they are retired and have no longer any work on the railways but must seek employment elsewhere, perhaps at work to which they have not been accustomed. But be that

as it may, be the sacrifice as great as it may, sacrifices all round have to be made and no doubt in the long run these men will understand that they too, forming an integral part of the dominion, will have to bear their fair share of the burden.
But there is another point of view from the human side of the case, and I wish now to refer to what is known as the provident or insurance fund. I speak now with reference to the Canadian National railway system. I see nothing in either this bill or the report of the commission that would in any way protect the men who have been laid off in the past or those who will necessarily be laid off in the future. Under the system now in vogue the railway employee contributing to the provident fund must put in fifteen years of service continuously, and any time he loses in that period is deducted from his fifteen years. He must serve fifteen years before he can claim any of the privileges under the fund, unless through sickness or accident, and on the proper certificate of a doctor. Men who have been fourteen years in the service are being laid off, and dismissal is1 in accordance with the principle of seniority; the lesser the number of years a man has in the service the sooner he is liable to be laid off under the regulations adopted by the railways and by the labour unions associated with them. If under this system a man has not completed his fifteen years and is laid off through no fault of his own, it is absolutely impossible for him to draw any benefit from the provident fund or insurance. The amount he has contributed remains in the fund for the benefit of those who are fortunate enough to be kept permanently employed.
Now I want to put this proposition to the Minister of Railways and to every member of this house. Is it fair or just that men who are retired before the time at which they can claim compensation, provided they are qualified for proper retirement under the Pension Act, should be laid aside and have nothing provided for them in the way of compensation out of the very fund to which they have been contributing for perhaps fourteen years? I want the minister to look carefully into this matter, because there is uneasiness to-day among the railway em-. ployees throughout the country. They fear that because this bill does not deal with that situation, because the Duff commission which investigated the railway problem has not seen fit to consider the question or to make any recommendations in regard to it, those who may be retired before the completion of their
29S5

CN.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Veniot
fifteen years will lose what they have contributed. True, under the system, ordinarily speaking, if they retired before the end of the fifteen years they would not be entitled; but that would be voluntary on their part. To-day, however, they are being laid off through no fault of their own, as a result of that regime of economy which the government feels called upon to establish in the administration of the railways. Surely these men should not be allowed to suffer to such an extent that they are unable to benefit from the amounts which they themselves have contributed to the fund.
There is another point with regard to the human element, and that is the question of seniority. I would call the attention of the minister to this point, No mention is made of the situation which will result from the recommendations of the Duff report with regard to the seniority of these men. Ordinarily under the rules, a man who is laid off for a period of more than one year-I think it is one year, but it may be eighteen months;
I am subject to correction in this regard-loses his seniority. In this case if he is laid off he may not be called again to resume work on the railways for two or three years, until such time as conditions improve and they require more men; and the very moment a man is called upon to resume work he loses all seniority and has to begin at the bottom of the ladder and work his way up again. That is not fair.


Robert James Manion: I may be wrong, but I think my hon. friend is misinformed in that regard. I say this merely to have the record straightened out in case he is wrong.


Peter John Veniot: If I am misinformed on the points I have raised I shall be perfectly satisfied to be corrected, but I wish the minister would look into this matter-


Robert James Manion: I shall.


Peter John Veniot: -before the bill passes out of the committee stage and comes up for third reading. I should like to have him call in the railway men, representatives from the different railway unions who are familiar with the operations of the fund and with the question of seniority, so as to satisfy himself that I am either right or wrong. If I am wrong, then I shall feel that at least I have done my duty in bringing the matter to the attention of the government, so that the responsible minister will be able when the time comes to assure parliament and the people of Canada that no injustice will be done these men.
I come now to a consideration of the Intercolonial railway, to which both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition referred in their speeches. I am not going to tire the house with a detailed history of that enterprise. The Intercolonial railway became the bond between the maritime provinces and old Canada, known at that time as Quebec and Ontario. In 1864 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island met in conference at Charlottetown to decide whether they should link up as a union of the maritime provinces with one government or remain as three separate colonies. When Quebec and Ontario heard of this conference they sent delegates to Charlottetown to appeal to the maritime provinces not to consummate the union. They pointed out that Ontario and Quebec must obtain transportation for their products through Canadian ports to the markets across the sea. They pointed out that the manufacturers of Ontario were at the mercy of the American railways. This did not seem to convince the maritime provinces, but Quebec and Ontario went still further. They appealed to their patriotism and to their loyalty to the British crown. They pledged themselves that if the maritime provinces would forego union they on their part would agree that the Intercolonial railway would be built from a point on the St. Lawrence to the port of Halifax, with a connecting branch line to the port of Saint John. This railway was to be built not only for the accommodation of the people in Quebec and Ontario but it was promised that the commerce going through the ports of the maritimes would bring prosperity to those provinces such as they had never had before.
At that time the maritime provinces were enjoying the height of prosperity. The American markets along the New England coast were open to them and they were the most prosperous section of British North America. However, we were willing to forego that prosperity in order to uphold the greater supremacy of the British Empire. From that day to this although at times there has been uneasiness exhibited in the maritime provinces, nowhere under the British flag will you find people more loyal to the British crown than the people of the three provinces down by the sea. No matter what our differences may have been, no matter how much uneasiness has been created in past years in the maritime provinces because of a lack of fulfilment of the promises of confederation, no matter how much unwarranted ill treatment there has been of the maritime provinces by the central provinces of Canada, there are to be found in the maritime provinces people without
OrvTV JTI KnMQ \J i.vx in VJ1\ o
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Veniot
number who are prepared to stand by confederation. and do everything they can to bring about betterment in the conditions of this country.
We have sacrificed much in the maritime provinces and about ten years ago this burden became so heavy that an agitation was commenced for better terms. That agitation resulted in the appointment of the Duncan commission, and the report of that commission was laid before parliament in 1927 or 1928. The recommendations of this report were implemented to such an extent that the uneasiness gradually began to disappear, and I think I am right in saying that to-day that uneasiness has almost totally disappeared.
If under the terms of the measure now before the house the identity of the Intercolonial railway is to be lost and the government is to have no control over it, then I say the government is doing violence to the act of confederation and to the agreement arrived at at the London conference in December, 1866. It was because of the terms arrived at at that conference that the maritime provinces consented to come into confederation. I refer those who do not know the history of the maritime provinces to section 145 of the British North America Act. What will they find there? I shall not take time to read it all, but in substance this section lays down the reasons why Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came into confederation. The promise of the construction of the Intercolonial railway to link up old Canada with the maritime provinces is definitely set out in section 145 as one of the terms under which we came into confederation.
From that date down to 1912 there was no attempt made to run the old Intercolonial as a paying institution. Even though the freight rates were low there were years of surpluses in that period. Out of twenty-five years of service there were some sixteen years of surpluses and eight or nine years of very small deficits. Those who have used the argument in the. past that the Intercolonial was the sink hole of our railway system did not know what they were talking about.
Let me go one step further in this respect. This bill gives absolute power to the board of trustees to lease any section of the Canadian National road. Up to the present time the government of Canada have never lost their hold upon the Intercolonial. I know it will be said that under the present system they have, but I contend that they have not. The Canadian National system was established in 1919 and the Intercolonial was not included in the bill which amended the 1919 act and extended the area of operation of the (Mr. Veniot.]
Canadian National Railways. Why? Because it was considered as a distinct bond of confederation and so stated in the British North America Act and in the agreement arrived at at the London conference. The London conference took place in December of 1866 and from that date until 1928-those who took part in the conference were all dead in 1928 -only a very few knew just what were the deliberations of that conference. It was a complete secret, kept from the maritime provinces. Why? Because the London conference was not in all respects in accord with the conference held in the city of Quebec in 1865. It was only in 1928 that a supposed copy of the original was discovered in an attic in a parliament building in the maritime provinces. It was forwarded to London for verification and when the verification came back, the government of Canada in 1928 had a print made and placed in this book in the form in which it is to-day.
Further, let me say that the Intercolonial never became a partner either in fact or in practice of the Canadian National system. Under an order in council it is true that the directors of the Canadian National Railway Company were appointed to administer the Intercolonial railway, always subject to the government as the railway board of directors were subject to the government. In that way the government never lost its hold upon the Intercolonial railway. But to-day we are transferring all our rights, placing absolute power in the board of trustees; no, not the board but only one member of that board because, if he is not satisfied with the decision of his intermittent colleagues on the board, he can veto their decisions and do as he pleases. He has the power to lease. What do we in the maritimes fear under that power? For years and years the Canadian Pacific has been looking for running rights over a part of the Intercolonial and a subsidiary of it from Saint John to Halifax. The Canadian Pacific Railway in 1929 demanded from the railway commissioners under the Railway Act that all freight originating east of Moncton and destined to points in the west touched by the Canadian Pacific, should be handed over to that railway at Saint John. That case was fought out with the result that while they did not succeed in having Saint John as the point of transfer, they did succeed in having Ste. Rosalie junction as the point at which the Canadian National would have to transfer its freight destined to points in the west touched by the Canadian Pacific. You talk of undue competition on the part of the Canadian National Railways as against the Canadian Pacific. What could you call that

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Veniot
attempt to grasp from the government railway freight that originated in its own district and at points distant hundreds of miles from the Canadian Pacific? What I fear and what many more people in the maritime provinces fear-and I think we are justified in having that fear-is -that this board of trustees, having the power to lease, may be induced to lease that part of the Intercolonial from Saint John to Halifax. Then what will happen? All freight originating east of Moncton including Prince Edward Island, will be carried over the lines leased to the Canadian Pacific via Saint John and on to the west, and that part of the Intercolonial railway, the location of which was made at the demand of the home government for strategic purposes, will be nothing but a branch line from Moncton to a point known as Levis on the river St. Lawrence and perhaps further on to Ste. Rosalie junction. What will become of the pledge of confederation under which the maritime provinces entered the union? What will become of the interests of the maritime provinces? If such a change arises-and I say it can arise and there is nothing under this measure to prevent it-not only will it make of the northern section from Moncton to Levis or Ste. Rosalie junction a branch line, but it will close out every bit of the work at Moncton, a city that has become one of the finest in the Dominion of Canada, a city that has prospered and been the centre of railway repairs, construction of locomotives and so on for the last thirty or forty years. The doors of that place will be closed and hundreds upon hundreds, yes, thousands of men will be thrown out of employment because, since we shall have to look after only the northern section of the old Intercolonial, it will not be necessary to keep those machine shops going any longer.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Peter John Veniot: Would it be possible for the house to alow me five minutes more? I wish to submit a proposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 'Go ahead.


Peter John Veniot: I wish at this point to make a suggestion to the minister and I feel I need not plead with members from the maritimes on both sides of the house. I know they understand the situation and they will use whatever influence they have to induce the government not to allow this matter to proceed as I have shown it may. I am going to suggest to the minister the following:
Notwithstanding anything in this act contained the board of trustees shall not lease,
or formulate any policy affecting the Intercolonial railway, without first submitting same to the consideration and approval of the governor general in council.
That is a rough draft, but it may be put in better shape. In order to allay the uneasiness which prevails in the maritime provinces I would ask the government to consider this proposition seriously and see if it is not possible for them, when the bill is in committee, to introduce an amendment to this effect.
I have just one or two other remarks to make and I hope the house will grant me the indulgence of listening to me although I hate to go beyond the limit of time. I have already referred to the board of trustees and their powers. I cannot support that clause in the bill; in fact, on that account I may be driven to vote against the measure on its second reading; but if I am driven to do so, nevertheless I wish it to be understood that I agree with the object of the bill in attempting to bring about such economies as will once more place the Canadian National Railways on a proper basis.
In connection with the arbitral tribunal I am irrevocably and unalterably opposed to any coercion. Coercion is not a democratic principle ; it should find no place in any legislation of this house. The railways have in the last two years by voluntary cooperation saved millions of dollars. The minister has told us that the Intercolonial alone has saved us, I think, 844,000,000 in the last year or so.


Mr.   M@: ANION: That is not quite correct. It was a policy of economy amounting to S44,000,000 for the whole system.


Peter John Veniot: For the whole system;
that is what I mean.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry. I thought
the hon. gentleman said the Intercolonial.


Peter John Veniot: No, I meant 844.000,000
for the whole system, and I am glad that the minister gave me the opportunity of making that plain. How much has the Canadian Pacific Railway saved in operating expenses? That is not yet known to the public, but it is reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to suppose that the Canadian Pacific has made a corresponding saving, and if that is the case, why should we be so pessimistic? Our Canadian National Railways in one year, together with the Canadian Pacific, made a saving of from $60,000,000 to $70,000,000 at a time when depression was rife throughout the whole world. The Canadian National also had to its credit in 1932 a surplus of $10,000,000. So I cannot see why
29S8

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. St-Pere
we should be so pessimistic about the railway situation. The Prime Minister, however, in his speech was very pessimistic, and right on top of preaching the pessimism he did he suggested that it might be necessary in the near future to have a plebiscite on amalgamation. I hope that the Prime Minister's pessimism when he denounced the railway situation was not preparatory to placing the principle of amalgamation before the people of Canada.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, the crisis through which we are passing embraces among other economic and social disturbances which it has brought about one known as the Canadian railway dilemma. Popular clamour, protests from various important corporations and demands of boards of trade induced the government about a year ago to refer this so important question of the national railways to a royal commission. I regret that such a question should have been submitted to a commission of men who are not responsible to the government of this country, instead of being referred to a special select committee of the house.
Within the last few years it seems to be a foregone conclusion that such commissions have always a set political purpose in that they relieve the government of responsibilities incumbent on them and afford an opportunity to party politicians to burden such a commission-appointed to study or administer certain public services-with the sins of omission or commission chargeable to the government when the reckoning day arrives.
The royal commission undertook the study of a difficult problem and among the causes of our railway embarrassment it quotes the following:
The over-development of railways beyond the immediate needs of the country.
There is no need of making a deep study of the history of Canadian railways to discover that this over-development of railways, beyond the immediate needs of the country, was never prompted by our present requirements, let us, however, recognize the fact here in the house where we have to assume responsibilities, let us wisely admit it, this over-development must be attributed to the fact that certain large companies or corporations, with no intention of helping the country while operating the railways, took up this work because of the profits they would derive or for purely financial ends; it is now incumbent on us, we from the various provinces,
[Mr. Veniot.l
to foot the bill for the most pernicious of all these large undertakings.
We were told that the Canadian government of that period assumed a great burden. In order that the house may be well informed, let us remember that Quebec represented at the time-I am not playing politics-by Sir Lomer Gouin's government, had refused to endorse the liabilities of the Canadian Northern Railway and that to-day that province of which I am a representative, is called upon, as all other provinces are, to foot the bill of our national railways. We are in Quebec at times too reticent in expressing our views on practical matters. Notwithstanding the fact that it had refused to participate in this huge expenditure and that it is forced to-day to contribute like others to the national deficit, Quebec was always the worse treated when it was a question of railway favours. Help was long in forthcoming.
The report further states:
Aggressive and uncontrolled competition between two nation-wide railway enterprises, a competitor the more disastrous in that one of the competitors was publicly-owned and supported by the full resources of the dominion.
I wonder whether by emphasizing the words "supported by the full resources of the Dominion," it would be possible to have this parliament adopt a bill which to my mind, would be equivalent to a merger in the near future of our Canadian railways. This uncontrolled 'competition between all railway companies became so evident on the other side of the line among the two hundred railways which span the country in all directions, that the United States railways themselves applied for permission from the Inter-State Commerce Commission not to merge but to be consolidated into four main railway systems which are not at present a burden to the country like ours are, but which nevertheless are a burden to the bondholders of these railway companies.
The Esch-Cummings Act allowed these railways to consolidate, however, what is most strange, is that the only trouble which arose came from Mr. Loree, president of the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, and a member of the royal commission which the government appointed to study the problems of our railway systems. Further the report states:
The reactions of the world trade repression which began in 1929 and has progressively increased m its severity with each succeeding year.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. St-Pere
The commission wished to convey thereby that the international system of cooperation that we have always advocated, we the Liberal party in the house is, properly speaking, the only means of solving the present problem.
Again further the report states:
Competitions from other forms of transport, notably road transport.
Those who have studied the competition being waged between transportation companies will be very glad to leam what General Atterbury, president of the Pennsylvania Central had to say on this subject, on December 18, 1932. I shall read the English text so that my compatriots who are all versed in that language, will dispense with me translating it and also that my English speaking colleagues be immediately apprised of the views of General Atterbury who, as we are all aware, carries much weight.
"I believe," he said, "that the motor bus can and should be coordinated with the railroad to the mutual advantage of both and wth benefit to the public.
"Operated in a service supplementary to that of the railroad, it has a real place in the transportation of the future. It will replace unrcmunerative local trains, serve as a feeder of the railroads and speed up through service by making possible the elimination of numerous stops by long distance trains. Our company ha9 already begun to put this into actual practice by taking a financial interest in bus lines and coordinating their service with our train schedules. We have found these bus lines to be paying investments.
"We are doing the same thing in trucking. Motor transportation is best adapted for short hauls, railroad transportation for long hauls. We are using trucks in place of local freight trains and already freight is being moved direct from shipper to receiver without rehandling, through the use of detachable truck bodies hauled by motor to the railroad at the point of origin and again by motor from the railroad at the point of destination.
"We can carry the loaded truck body from city to city by rail for much less than it costs the trucker to move it over the highway. If the railroads act intelligently they will give to the motor industry their terminal deliveries and the motor industry in turn will find it the part of intelligence to give to the railroads the long hauls."
As one may note, this problem of road transport competition can be solved.
Inelasticity of freight rates and railway practice generally which prevents prompt action in the meeting of falling revenues and dealing effectively with competition from other forms of transport.
As we are all aware, sir, the question of freight rates is under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission of Canada. Did the commission which held the inquiry, in pointing out this new cause of the present railway embarrassment, wish to convey to us
that we should amend the Railway Commission Act?
The sixth cause mentioned in the royal commission's report reads as follows:
Contractural arrangements with labour organizations which set up a rigid wage scale and inflexible labour practices generally.
Residing in a county where a large part of the population depend for a livelihood on our railways, may I especially refer to this question. Railway employees were in the past looked upon as the aristocrats of the working classes, however, I wish to state that, within the last few years, they do not deserve this cognomen. During the present crisis, their wages were reduced and the number of those who were suspended is very considerable. First, allow me to quote from United States railway statistics. In 1926, there were in the LTrited States 1,801,180 railway men drawing in wages $2,990,441,936, namely, an average yearly salary for each, of $1,656. In 1929, the number of employees was reduced to 1,686,789 and their total wages amounted to $2,941,000,000. In 1931, the number of employees was reduced to 1,285,000 and wages to $2,150,000,000.
At the recent Chicago conference, where American and Canadian delegates were present, another cut in wages amounting to $210,000,000 was agreed upon. With reference to Canadian railway men may I quote from statistical records which I have just received this morning from the Bureau of Statistics: the largest number of employees registered, in June, 1929, was 201,056, and the number of those at present working on our railways decreased by 90,127 in 1932.
We can therefore state that the situation of railway employees is at present more than critical.
Are we going by a systematic reduction of expenditures to throw out of employment a larger number of men whose wages contribute to the city's welfare in the various sections of Montreal as well as in other cities of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Are we going to destroy, through an exaggerated and systematic reduction of expenditures in various services in order to solve this abnormal problem, the purchasing power of our workmen?
The railway men have addressed to parliament and to each member of the house a memorandum requesting an equitable representation in all services of the Canadian

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. St-Pere
National Railways and in all arbitration tribunals should this bill be enacted, a just and equitable representation of their various organizations. I approve, without restriction, of this memorandum.
I approve of it because it is couched in moderate terms and contains, in my humble opinion, fair distributive measures. One may object, that those suffering hardships in other industries are not given the same advantage to address to parliament requests which they consider just and reasonable. That is, sir, a deplorable fact. In principle, I am a unionist.
If our people insisted on having measures of distributive justice, such as various workers' organizations worthy of that name, have, heretofore, put into practice, to-day, there would be less unemployed depending on the dole.
I cannot, sir, accept or vote in favour of the bill under consideration. Part I is equivalent to the curtailment of certain constitutional rights; it also includes the privilege-more than a privilege-namely, the exclusive right of trustees not to submit to the house their budget. Our constitutional rights will only be recognized, according to this section of the bill, the day when this triumvirate acting as dictators will request parliament to foot the bill of the deficits which may result from their ignorance or poor railway management.
Part II of the bill contains the principle of co-opertion. It adds but little to the rights of the working classes. Very little consideration is given to the recommendations of labour unions and mention is hardly made of them, as we may judge by the following:
The national company, for and on behalf of itself and/or any or all other of the companies and other elements of which National railways as defined by this act is composed, and the Pacific company, for and on behalf of itself and/or any or all other of the companies and other elements, of which Pacific railways as defined by this act is composed, are, for the purposes of effecting economies and providing for more remunerative operation, directed to attempt forthwith to agree and continuously to endeavour to agree, and they respectively are, for and on behalf as aforesaid, authorized to agree, upon such cooperative measures, plans and arrangements as are fair and reasonable and best adapted (with due regard to equitable distribution of burden and advantage as between them) to effect such purposes. They are further directed that whenever they shall so agree they shall endeavour to provide, as part of such measure, plan or arrangement or otherwise, for a fair and reasonable apportionment as between the employees of National railways and Pacific railways, respectively, of such employment as may be incident to the operation of such measure, plan or arrangement.
[Mr. St-Pere.l
I think, sir, that instead of inserting in that section the words "to strive to include" the words "shall include" should have been inserted, so as to afford our railwaymen a further guarantee that their rights of seniority would be recognized. It is useless to further emphasize this point. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) who just preceded me in this debate has fully vindicated that right.
Part III of the bill, sir, constitutes a real danger for the constituency which I represent. As this riding includes railway headquarters and terminal stations were we to adhere to the decisions of this arbitral tribunal, our workers whose rights are in no way protected, would have no voice in the decisions arrived at with reference to the management of this department of the Canadian railways. Property owners who have built houses in the neighbourhood of terminal stations and who depend largely on the wages of railwaymen to meet the payments of mortgages and municipal taxes would find themselves, under the circumstances, unable to put in claims with the Railway Commission; at present, this is the only safeguard that their rights will be protected. This phase of the situation affects not only property owners located in this part of my riding but also merchants who depend on the purchasing powers of these workmen.
This clause in connection with enforced cooperation would give our railway companies a right to the granting of which I have always been opposed in the house: namely, the use in common of the Rouen. St. elevated line, as this would greatly depreciate the value of real estate in the Prefontaine ward.
When the people of Hochelaga elected me as their representative in this house, in 1921, my mandate was to use my own discretion in approving or disapproving of measures submitted to the house; however, one thing that I have not lost sight of, was that they gave me besides definite instructions to protect their private interests, when these were assailed in the house.
I shall close my remarks, sir, by this sound argument. This government can, without this act, reduce the expenditures of the National Railways by decreasing the number of directors. I have never had much confidence in the efficiency which the number of directors brought to the management of the Canadian National, ever since 1922; however, I request that the number of directors be more than three, and that the large Canadian labour organizations be represented.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. St-Pere
1 have no intention of suggesting any particular person to represent these labour organizations on the board of directors. I leave it to the discretion and wise co-operation of those who are at the head of these movements to choose their representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the second reading of this bill because I find in it no suggestion which can be formulated into a workable measure. I shall not support the measure because, as I mentioned a moment ago, the enactment of a number of its clauses would signify, for the constituency I represent and the section where I reside, a complete financial and economic disorganization.
We are sent to this parliament to legislate wisely, with a free mind. I should like to see this parliament adopt a measure allowing our railways to compete with one another, mot an exaggerated but a reasonable competition. Where are we to find this superman, this Chairman of the Board of Trustees which would apply, to the management of our national railways, this practical system which would relieve the present situation? The Atterburys, Harrimans, James J. Hills, Scullys, Van Severingens and others of such administrative ability are scarce in Canada. Why not leave the management to those who are, at present, at the head of our railways, to those officials of the Canadian Pacific who have been chosen by the board of directors, to those men of experience of the National Railway who, having started at the bottom of the ladder, have, to-day, climbed to the highest posts in our railways. The Grant Halls, Hungerfords, etc., notwithstanding what may he said to the contrary, have more experience, more practical knowledge of railway matters than those supposed experts that the government might appoint to manage the national railways. Are we going to brand as incompetent those who have grown up in this railway atmosphere, and have become, to-day, presidents or vice-presidents, after having started as call boys, yard foremen, etc.?' Let us discuss railways! Let us not give ourselves up to absurd notions, absolutely devoid of practical sense. Our railways must be managed by railway men. It does not behoove a lawyer, a doctor etc., without experience, even a great politician to substitute himself to those whom experience has formed and trained, who can solve the particular intricate and important problem of our Canadian railways.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: What
about Mr. Beatty?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	He is an
excellent man.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He is a
lawyer.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	He was
trained in the school of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in railway matters.


Mr. PARENT (Translation):: He has not
practiced law for twenty-five years.


Paul Mercier: He will railroad you.


Mr. BEAUBIEN (Translation):: He is a
good lawyer because he does not practice his profession.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: Mr. Thornton was also a good lawyer.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	It was
Disraeli, I think, who once stated that he deplored the fact that certain statesmen inserted in debates of major import not political questions, but "petty politics." The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to whom I always closely listen, a man whose knowledge I appreciate, quite recently, in the house, fought shy of this question: he endeavoured ,to prove that the responsibility of the present situation could be traced to the Liberal party, he insinuated that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had shown a lack of foresight. Lack of foresight, the man who, by building the transcontinental, brought prosperity to that section of Quebec, so rich in resources that the Rouyn district is sumamed the great gold producing area, whose soil encloses all the wealth of the Pre-Cambrian epoch! Lack of foresight and vision, he who opened up to settlers part of Northern Ontario where, I am pleased to state, my compatriots are highly thought of and co-operate with their English speaking fellow citizens to spread the bonne entente and prosperity!
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Let us, at
least, cease to burden one man or a few with all the responsibilities that governments must, as a whole, recognize as theirs! Let us not lower the debate to such trivial considerations, but let us place this question on a higher level, and as true Canadians, let us endeavour to solve it, by having recourse to means worthy of practical men who have to face a difficult situation.
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons just mentioned, I shall vote against the second reading of this bill.

C.N.R.-CJP.R. Bill-Mr. Reid


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the railway bill now before the house. I believe this is one of the most important bills that has come before this parliament, at any rate since I came here in the fall of 1930. I am glad in view of its importance that the bill has been discussed in a non-partisan way. I am, however, surprised at the attitude of some hon. members who seem to desire to dispose of it hastily. From what I have heard in the house I believe this bill means the end of public ownership of Canadian railways and the setting up of a new system in the conduct of railway affairs in Canada. If I am correct in that view then I think the house may well give ample time to the consideration of such a measure. It is not necessary for me to cover the ground already covered as to the history of the railways, the debt, and the coming into being of the present Canadian National Railways. That has been amply covered not only in this but in previous debates when railway matters were under consideration. But in connection with the debts of the railways I think it is hardly fair just to quote figures. We must not forget that the times when these railways were built were times of prosperity. They were the days of the development of our country. Surely some credit must be given for the development of this country of ours. I am frank to state, Mr. Speaker, that had the development of Canada been left to one railway, the Canadian Pacific, many districts that now are peopled would have remained undeveloped, and Canada would not have progressed to the extent she has. In passing I should also like to say that Canada, like no other country, relies almost entirely on railways and is dependent to quite a degree upon transportation. Our great wheat fields are farther from the seaboard than those of any other country. The average haul in the Argentine is 210 miles; in Australia 218 miles; in Russia 360 miles and in India, another great country, 550 miles. In Canada our wheat fields are about 900 miles from the central provinces to the east and from 600 to 700 miles from the western coast. As Mr. Hungerford has well said, we would have had no community growth in Canada without the railways. In the Canadian railways we have one of the finest and most efficient railway services in the world, and when I say the service is efficient I am not thinking particularly of the de luxe trains. I am thinking of the fast freight and passenger services that are given, and I venture to say that if it had been left to one 
railway, the Canadian Pacific, we would not to-day have been able to travel across the continent in some four and a half or five days; probably it would have remained at seven days. Mr. Beatty himself admitted that this efficiency was due to the competition of the Canadian National.
With regard to competition I should like to refer also to one remark made by Mr. Hungerford which I believe should be borne in mind. Addressing the Duff commission Mr. Hungerford said that competition in railway service in Canada affected only 25 per cent of the mileage, and that the remaining 75 per cent was non-competitive. I believe that should be taken into consideration indealing with this question. At page 953, immediately following Mr. Beatty, Lord Ash-field said that the competition of the Canadian National Railways had the effect of providing an unexcelled system of transportation for the Canadian people. It is true that the railways are not as prosperous as they should be or as we would like to see them, but what railways or what businesses are prosperous? The people themselves are not so prosperous. I think we all agree that what the railways need to-day is trade and tonnage. The lack of freight has contributed in large measure to the deficits shown by our railways, and in passing I might mention that the daily bulletin issued yesterday by the bureau of statistics states that freight traffic is about ten per cent less than it was in 1931. I do not think there is any question, Mr. Speaker, but that the lack of freight has brought about the problem with which we are now faced. I need only refer to the Duff commission, who said very plainly:
In so far as -the position of the Canadian railways is the result of the depression in world trade, they have merely shared the general fate of most industries and of railways in other countries. In the United States of America the recession in railway earnings did not appear until 1930, but by the end of 1931 the net operating income of the Class I roads had fallen from $1,395,348,471 to $662,314,465 (more than 50 per cent), which is greater than the reduction shown by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
If we had the trade of 1928 or 1929 I doubt if the present administration would have dared [DOT]to introduce the measure now under discussion. Advantage is being taken at the moment, I think-and I am only giving my own views- of the opportunity to eliminate- the competition of the Canadian National, not the competition of the Canadian Pacific. As Mr. Beatty said in outlining his proposals, the only alternative to those proposals was com-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Reid
petition, but Lord Ashfield stated that if you secure advantage through cooperation you eliminate competition. There are various kinds of competition, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the competition we have had in Canada with one privately owned and one publicly owned railway has proved to be the ideal system. It prevents a private corporation from securing a full monopoly, and that applies to the state as well. The one railway in competition with the other has been said by leading railway men throughout the world to be the ideal system for a country such as Canada.
We hear a great deal with regard to competition from trucks and ships. I would like to state in passing, Mr. Speaker, that we should take more interest in the competition from ships on canals. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in developing the canals which are used by ships from all over the world, which do not pay any toll for the use of those facilities. The trucks I realize present serious competition, but at least they contribute something to the revenues of our country. If hon. members would look up the amount of freight transported on the canals they would realize that this competition is more serious to the railways than is the competition from trucks. The other night the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) quoted the figures; he stated that the tonnage carried on the canals had increased almost in proportion to the decrease on our railways. This competition, as I say, should be noted, because it is making serious inroads on much of the traffic which could be handled by our railways. In spite of the fact that the country has spent millions of dollars in the development of the canal system these ships do not pay anything for the use of these trade routes or waterways.
In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to voice a little criticism of the St. Lawrence waterway proposal. I do not believe this should be proceeded with at this time, because in my opinion it would only provide more competition and less trade for the railways, and further we do not require more electrical power at present than is supplied by existing services. I believe that it would be wrong to go ahead with that project at this time, and I think the government would be well advised seriously to consider this matter. When we speak of the money that has been spent not only in constructing but also in purchasing railways it would be well for hon. members to look at the money that has been spent on the canals of this country. Many of those expenditures were just as foolish and in many cases just as tragic as some of the expenditures made on railway lines.
For a few moments now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the speeches made by Mr. Beatty, not only those made before the Duff commission but also those made since the bill was introduced in the Senate. I should like to draw this to the attention of the house:
First of all, however, I would say that in my opinion the present bill is based on what I would call the Beatty and the Thornton proposals; it is almost along precisely the same lines as a bill that was presented by Mr. Ruel and Sir Henry Thornton.
With reference to Mr. Beatty, I would like to discuss for a moment his attitude towards one section of the bill, namely, with regard to the tribunal. It does seem strange to me that he should travel throughout the length and breadth of the country speaking against the setting up of this arbitral tribunal, because when he appeared before the Duff commission he seemed to be, and as a matter of fact was, I believe, in favour of it. At page 955 Lord Ashfield asked Mr. Beatty whether he thought the tribunal should deal with services and rates or whether there should be two separate tribunals. Mr. Beatty replied that it was immaterial so long as the tribunal was properly constituted. Then Sir Joseph Flavelle asked him this question: If a separate board was set up, should it be named by the government, and his answer was yes. Sir Joseph Flavelle then said-and this is very important-that Mr. Beatty's suggestion would mean one system of railways in Canada for all time to come. Now the more I think of this bill, the more I hear it discussed, and the more I delve into the proceedings of the Duff commission, the more firmly convinced I am that the bill is the beginning of one railway system in Canada for all time to come. Just what Mr. Beatty's idea was in going throughout the length and breadth of the country opposing the tribunal, after discussing it and practically approving it before the Duff commission, I am not at all sure. Personally I believe that there are one or two reasons for his doing so. For one thing, I believe that the opposing of the tribunal publicly by Mr. Beatty was just so much eyewash. He knew or believed that the government was going to set up a tribunal. It had been previously discussed, and he probably thought that if he opposed this publicly the people would think that there was some good in the tribunal and so parliament would adopt it without much opposition. The other reason, I believe, was this. He probably thought that his opposition
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Reid

would serve as a sort of smoke screen for something else contained in the bill.
I refer to part I of the bill, which I think is the most important part of it, because it deals with the three trustees. It deals with the setting up of the board of trustees, the powers of the men who compose the board, how they are to deal with the Canadian National Railways, and so on, and that I am convinced is the most important part of the whole arrangement with regard to the handling of the Canadian National system. I believe it was Christ who said, with reference to the ten commandments about which he had been speaking:
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I would say that on this part of the bill hang all the law and the prophets, but I would spell prophets "profits." Let us examine what part I provides in regard to the trustees. Subsection 2 of section 4, under Part I, provides:
One of such trustees shall be their chairman. He shall devote his whole time to performance of the duties of his office, and shall not be an officer of any company other than a company which is comprised in national railways, and shall not during his tenure of office as trustee become a director of any company other than a company which is comprised in national railways of which he was not a director at the time of his appointment.
That is a wise proviso, that the chairman shall not be associated with any other railway than the Canadian National system. But it is different with the other two; there is nothing in the bill to ensure the appointment of one or the remaining two trustees who, if not connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway or some other railway, might be more sympathetic to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I suggest now to the government in all seriousness that there should be a provision to the effect that no trustee shall be in any way connected with the Canadian Pacific nor shall have any stock or shares in that company, because I cannot help thinking that when men have invested a considerable sum of money in stocks and bonds one must naturally say of them, what the old book says, that where their treasure is there will their heart be also.
I realize that it is difficult at this late stage of the debate to introduce any new point, or anything that has not been already covered, but I would like to deal for a few moments with some other phases of the bill, and in this connection I would point out that the bill follows quite closely the recommendations of the Duff commission report except

in one particular. I was interested to hear the Minister of Railways, in reply to an hon. member who was speaking, make the statement about something in the bill, to which reference had been made, that it was in accordance with the recommendations of the commission. Well, when they were following out the recommendations of the commission I am surprised that they did not follow them all, because one of the recommendations, with regard to the powers of the arbitral tribunal, reads, at page 66:
The powers of the arbitral tribunal shall be Capable of being invoked by either railway or by the dominion or any provincial government.
I believe that in omitting this recommendation the bill leaves out one of the most important recommendations of the commission, in fact the only remaining link between the railways and the people of Canada, through either the Dominion government or the provincial governments. I cannot help thinking that if the bill passes in its present form-and that is how we must view it at the moment-the control of the railways belonging to the people of Canada will be gone forever, and public ownership in the Canadian National Railways will then be at an end.
Let us examine, however, this recommendation carefully, and frankly, I am opposed to dictatorship in any form, whether in railways or government or business or anything else; I am absolutely opposed to the principle of a dictator. When the commission deemed it wise to insert that provision which I have just read, I suggest that the government should seriously consider putting that clause into the bill, so as to leave some power to the government, either provincial or federal. If that were done, in the event of things not working out right, or in the event of any injustice being done the people, then the people could come to the government and ask that they be heard. Almost every other suggestion made by the Duff commission has been followed; read the bill through and you will see that almost in toto the conclusions set forth in the report have been followed. You will find provisions with regard to budget, annual report to parliament, audit, cooperation between the railways, constitution of the arbitral tribunal, and so forth. Every one of them is embodied in the bill, but when you come to the suggestion that the powers of the arbitral tribunal should be capable of being invoked by either railway or by the dominion or any provincial government, you find this highly important recommendation omitted, leaving entirely to the railways the sole right of appeal.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Reid
Is there any reason at all why the people of this country should be debarred from being heard? If the bill passes in its present form there will be no use in their coming to parliament because parliament will be dissociated from railway matters entirely. In fact, I do not believe that we shall need a Minister of Railways after this bill goes through; his duties will be very much lighter than they are at the present time at any rate. His activities would be much less than they are at the present time because the three trustees would handle the operation of the entire Canadian National railway system.
How' will this political tribunal work out in practice? What will happen when both railways agree to abandon, say one hundred miles of main line or other track? In case of agreement the arbitral tribunal will not of course be consulted, the abandonment will simply be put into effect. If one railway suggests to the other that a certain line of track should be cut off and the other railway does not agree, then it -will come before the tribunal where it will be left to one man to decide. What of the people affected? What of the towns which will have to be abandoned? They will have no right to come to parliament and be heard if this bill passes in its present form. The most important clause of all, and the one which would enable them to be heard, has been left out, the only clause which would have provided a link or connection between the people and this parliament. I maintain that such an omission is very serious. I might state that Mr. Beatty proposed that five thousand miles of track could be abandoned while Mr. Loree thought that ten thousand miles could be abandoned.
Are hon. members fully aware that Mr. Beatty stated that an agreement had been arrived at between the officers of both companies to the effect that 1,582 miles of line should be abandoned? If hon. members will read the report they will see that such an agreement was arrived at. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways have both stated that this bill does not mean amalgamation, but if an agreement to abandon 1,582 miles of line has been arrived at, and carried into effect what else can it mean? Surely the government is not going to set up a dictatorship especially in the face of the statement by Mr. Beatty that it has been agreed to abandon 1,5S2 miles of line.
We have been told that we should treat this bill from a national and not from a sectional point of view. But when I see by the report that certain mileage in British Columbia is to be abandoned, and that the Port Mann shops near New Westminster need not
be used and that the elevator which I discussed the other night is also going to be sidetracked, and that the city of New Westminster will also be isolated, can I be blamed for rising and protesting against this bill? After all, can we entirely dissociate sectionalism from our debate? Are we not elected on sectionalism? I believe that I was elected primarily to represent the people in the constituency of New Westminster and so must look after their interests; therefore I am taking strong exception to the bill.
For the remaining few moments I should like to deal with what may be expected to take place in British Columbia should this bill pass in its present form. In case the Minister of Railways takes exception I may assure him ll cannot speak for the whole of British Columbia, but I shall speak only for my own constituency. If the recommendations of the report are carried out, my section of the country will be affected. I should like first of all to go back into the railway history of British Columbia. Before entering confederation, British Columbia was promised a railway, but it was necessary for that province to send a man to London to interview Queen Victoria before the then Dominion government would come through. The Canadian Pacific was then induced to construct a line through to British Columbia. Although a very excellent route had been chosen by the government they decided to take a shorter but more difficult route through to the coast. They constructed their line through Kicking Horse pass instead of through Yellowhead pass which is some 1,600 feet lower. After completion the Canadian Pacific adopted a very high attitude in connection with freight rates and so in 1910, the people of British Columbia having raised such an agitation against the Canadian Pacific Railway, the government of that day-I believe Sir Richard McBride was premier-decided that it would be wise to have another railroad in competition with and to hold down the Canadian Pacific, and so the Canadian Northern was constructed. Certain guarantees were given by the province which, as the Prime Minister has said, were taken over by the dominion but I believe that we lost considerably by the Dominion government taking over these guarantees. The government of British Columbia intended to use this railroad as a lever against the Canadian Pacific and as a competitor and so they enacted legislation that they the province were to have full control over the regulation of freight rates. When the railway was completed it was taken over by the Dominion government, and the provincial government lost that control



C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Reid
and had no further powers or rights to regulate rates. Freight rates were then put under the Board of Railway Commissioners and so we were still under the domination of the Canadian Pacific. That company always argued against a reduction in freight rates and although British Columbia has protested since that time that company's rates has always been used as the yardstick in the discussion of freight rates, about which British Columbia has spent many thousands of dollars.
The Canadian Northern was built over one of the best grades in the Dominion of Canada. It runs over a low water level grade of some four-tenths of one per cent as against the grade of the Canadian Pacific which is as high as two and a half per cent in many places. In hauling wheat from the prairies to Vancouver, one engine on the Canadian Northern can draw three times as many cars as a similar engine on the Canadian Pacific. The same thing applies with trains coming east from Vancouver, either with empties or loaded cars. An engine coming from Vancouver to Edmonton via the Yellowhead pass can draw three times as many cars as an engine on the Canadian Pacific from Vancouver to Calgary via the Kicking Horse pass.
It is now proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Pacific obtain the use of the best grade through the mountains, and according to the proposals made all traffic from the east shall go over their line from a point seventy-nine miles out from the city of Vancouver. Similarly, all the traffic from the orient, Great Britain or any country will use the Canadian Pacific tracks and terminals and run over the Canadian Pacific line as far as Hope and then branch over to the Canadian National. In my opinion the Canadian Pacific is having the best of it all the way through; it is a case of heads I win, tails you lose. What effect will this have on the territory to be abandoned? As I have stated, the Canadian National has a terminal at Port Mann. No doubt Senator McRae will be glad to see this terminal discarded because it must still be a thorn in his flesh since he got out of the scheme from which I am told he made a considerable amount of money.
Then there are the yards and ships where between 400 and 600 men will in all probability be let out. The city of New Westminster will have no railway connection. It is true that a little branch goes from there to the main line, but perhaps this will also be lifted. Then there is the elevator which was built and has close connection with the Canadian National Railway. In the abandonment of that seventy-nine miles of track, the
IMr. Reid.]
cities and towns in the territory all the way down will be left stranded. All wheat and grain products coming from the prairies will first of all have to go into the city of Vancouver and then out again to the Fraser valley. This will add considerable more to the cost of production on the part of dairymen and poultrymen in that district. The situation is almost too serious to contemplate. Hon. members should go down and read the report and then I think they will agree with me that the proper stand to take is to vote against this bill on its second reading. It is all very well to say: We shall vote for the principle and then we shall make changes in committee. But what is the principle of the bill? I think it is evident to the house now that it will ultimately mean amalgamation if it does not mean that now. It is true that the Prime Minister has told us that the bill does not amalgamate the railways, but in a year or two that is I believe what will occur. The Canadian Pacific will then control all the traffic going into Vancouver from seventy-five miles out and they are going to abandon tracks throughout Canada. In going through the report I notice that the Canadian Pacific were to get the best of the deal all the way through. It was the poorly paying sections of railway that the Canadian Pacific were to abandon and all the best paying portions the Canadian Pacific are proposing to be taken over and controlled by them.
I protest very seriously against this being done. I intend to vote against the second reading of the bill and I ask all hon. members to read, as I have, the statements which were made before the Duff commission. I believe those who are interested and who have sections that are going to be abandoned will act and vote against the bill the same as I intend to do.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCO IS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to thank the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) for what he said the other day, as follows:
We will welcome suggestions from any part-of the house with regard to contributions as to details.
And in order to be polite I shall also thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who said:
If constructive suggestions are offered from any corner of this house, the government will consider them on their merits, and they will be either accepted or rejected as they are considered sound or unsound.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Pouliot
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett) said that the government should be [DOT]supported at all costs. These are his words:
These are times when I believe a government should be upheld, steadied and supported, almost at any cost.
It is a very good thing that the hon. gentleman is not Minister of Railways and I understand the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) told him that he was sorry he should speak in that way. Our motto should be: "Salus populi suprema lex." The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) said on another occasion:
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that if the legislation goes through as the bill now stands many members will come back here at the next session regretting having so voted.
As I do not intend to have any cause for regret, I shall vote against the bill.
One has indeed a high regard for most of the commissioners, but who represented the good city of Toronto and the business men of Ontario? These are the words of the Prime Minister:
Certainly Sir Joseph Flavelle will, by the common consent of all who know him, be regarded as one of the foremost business men this country has yet produced.
He was one of the commissioners. Was he the expert who told the Prime Minister that Canada has potentialities for the production of 8,500,000 hogs by 1937, and 10,000,000 by 1942? This is the question: Was he selected to look after any possibilities of trade in hogs?
Owing to the fact that every section of tne bill is to be scrutinized while we are in committee, I now intend to discuss two matters which are so closely related to the railway problem that it depends upon them for its solution. First is unemployment in its relation to the railway problem. The other day the Prime Minister said:
Human interest centres in the employees of the system only if it continues to operate, for if it does not operate there is no employment, and unless a very, very great improvement is made in conditions the system as a whole cannot continue to operate.
Later, he spoke about "default certain and positive for at least some period of time." He used the language that he used when he was leader of the opposition to paint the conditions of the country; he was painting them with a black brush. The picture is a rather gloomy one. Would it not have been apropos for him to add: "We have succeeded where others have failed." On Thursday last he [DOT]said also:
I feel that the magnitude of the problem that confronts this parliament is little understood or appreciated.
53719-190J
This is not very complimentary to the Canadian people. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), when he spoke in this debate, said:
The Minister of Railways claimed that the railway problem was the most important problem that we have to face at this particular time. I do not agree. I think that the greatest problem in this dominion that we have got to face at this time is the unemployment problem that is now before parliament.
An hon. member interjected:
Both problems are connected.
Mr. Heaps: I am quite ready to admit that there is a connection between the two.
What has been done with regard to unemployment relief? On September 16, 1930, the Prime Minister said:
Our tariff measure is not a general revision of the tariff, but deals only with such items in the tariff as it is believed will ensure additional employment to a large number of men and
women in Canada	 We have very definite
assurances from the producers in this country that as a result of the action we are taking they will increase the number of men and women in their mills and factories.
Such was the expectation in 1930. At that time the total number of unemployed was 107,000. To-day the total number of men, women and children on direct relief is 1,357,562. Such is the failure in 1933. An hon. member said on February 24:
Does that include all unemployed?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All such questions can be properly asked in committee.
With regard to unemployment may I quote what was said by the ex-Minister of Labour as reported on page 2823 of Hansard of March 8:
I have also in mind the fact that several towns along one of those lines are railroad terminals, with populations consisting chiefly of railroad employees. We built and developed our railroads, as I say, by authority of the parliament of Canada. Young men left the farms and other occupations and entered the railroad service; they were sent out to these isolated places in order to serve the people of Canada. They got married, built their little homes, their churches, schools and community halls, and now with one stroke of the pen it is intended, as I regard it, to throw these people with their wives and children and dependents into the discard.
Mr. Manion: May I offer a suggestion to my hon. friend, with all respect? He is making a lot of positive statements about what is going to happen under the bill, regarding which no one knows the outcome in the end at all.
Note that, Mr. Speaker, "regarding which no one knows the outcome in the end at all." The minister goes on to say:
I doubt if it is wise to throw the fear of that sort of thing into a lot of people at least until there is more cause than there is at present.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Pouliot
do now is reduce the tariff to normalcy, and unless he does it at once no successful railway legislation can be enacted. Therefore is not Bill A of the Senate premature and untimely?
I have, sir, a very strong objection to the bill being submitted to committee of the whole house, because the minister did not think it necessary to go to the trouble and expense of hearing the witnesses over again. The hon. gentleman said:
... it is my opinion that it is not necessary to go to the. trouble and expense of hearing these witnesses over again.
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? The railway debt is $2,300,000,000 a figure which "might be almost unbelievable because the aggregate is so large" according to the Prime Minister's own words. Most ridiculous! What would be a few thousand dollars of expense compared with such a formidable figure as that of the debt of the railways? If it is true that the primary duty of the house is to legislate, every member has the unquestionable right to hear any witness in order to be familiar with the facts, and all the facts, before he passes judgment on them, even if this bill is a temporary measure. Therefore I not only oppose the bill; I also oppose the motion of the minister to refer it to the committee of the whole. I am sorry to oppose the legislation introduced by the minister, but I am sure it is not exactly his legislation; I think it has been imposed upon him.
The second reason why this bill is not referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is the fear of the government that trouble will follow. At pages 1875 and 1898 of Hansard I find that although t!he press of the country reported last fall that the Canadian Pacific had bought Dominion bonds to the value of $2,000,000, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) pointed out twice on February 7 last that that company did not even indirectly subscribe to a single bond. How could that mystery be solved unless the Canadian Pacific officials and the press reporters were called as witnesses before a committee. There is much more in that. On February 7 an Italian bond issue of $51,000,000 was oversubscribed in one day, but it took weeks to subscribe the Canadian loan last fall. Why? The Canadian people have no more confidence in the leader of the government, and this is the writing on the wall. Internal trade is much less for that reason, and the railways suffer severely as a result.
fMr Pouliot.]
I suggest that there is extravagance in the administration of the railway, Mr. Speaker. On October 17 I placed a question on Hansard, which appears at page 251. The question, which was No. 22 was struck out, so I should like to place it on record now:
1.	How many superintendents are there in the Canadian National Railways?
2.	How many assistant superintendents?
3.	How many special ears are at the disposal of the superintendents?
4.	Is each superintendent entitled to a special car for his own use?
5.	How many cooks or butlers are in charge of such private cars?
6.	What is the total annual salary paid to them?
7.	What is the total annual cost of:	(a)
food; (b) delicacies; (c) cigars and cigarettes, and (d) liquors and soft drinks paid for those special cars during the last three years?
8.	To what department of the railway are those expenses charged?
The same questions could be asked with regard to the Canadian Pacific railway. On October 17 the Prime Minister rose in his place and made a statement with regard to this question and another which was on the order paper at the same time. Before putting my questions on the order paper I took the precaution of communicating with the Minister of Railways, who had no objection to the questions. The Prime Minister said:
With respect to this question and other similar questions on the order paper, notably No. 22, it will be observed that the government is being asked questions regarding trie internal operation of a railway which it does not in any sense control for the purpose of offering answers to questions such as are asked. This question obviously, from the very language of it, would in any event have to stand as an order for return and the same might be said with regard to question 22. It is quite clear that to ask the government questions regarding matters that are under the control of the railways, for instance in regard to the facilities that are offered to their own servants to discharge their duties, is something that in my judgment cannot be fairly asked and the only answer that could be made would be: The government has no information. With that answer the hon. member will have to be content with respect to questions such as Nos. 19 and 22.
Then I wrote the assistant clerk of the House of Commons on October 24, as follows:
On October 17th instant (Hansard, p. 251), the right honourable Prime Minister made the following remarks about question No. 19: "This question obviously, from the very language of it, would in any event have to stand as an order for return and the same might be said with regard to question 22."
As those questions did not stand as orders for return, I herewith enclose motions to the same effect, in accordance with the Prime Minister's suggestion.
I hope that the attached motions will appear in the votes and proceedings of the day.
Please answer in writing.
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Franqois Pouliot.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Pouliot
The answer was as follows:
In reply to your letter of the 24th instant, enclosing motions that questions 19 and 22 (Hansard, p. 275) stand as orders for return, I am instructed by His Honour the Speaker to advise you that he considers the same were disposed of in the statement of the Prime Minister on OotobeT 17, which was as follows: "the only answer that could be made would be 'The government has no information!'"
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) Thos. M. Fraser, Clerk Assistant.
Since the Prime Minister runs both ways it is hard to follow him. The Prime Minister did not deign to answer. If hon. members look at Hansard for October 11 last, at pages 74, 75 and 76 they will find the facts with regard to the over-staffing of the Canadian National, and the same thing applies to the Canadian Pacific. One article of my railway policy is that wherever possible it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of one high salaried and useless official rather than four or more good employees. In the meantime a lot of idle officials keep their soft jobs while the heads of families are dismissed.
Before concluding my speech, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the superman idea is worn threadbare.' The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said:
.-the Canadian people ought to thank God that in these days of stress we have a superman.
This is not flattery or adulation; it is just a slight exaggeration. The Prime Minister, who perhaps conceals an inferiority complex behind a superiority complex, probably thought of this when two days later he said:
I recognize the fact that no soft words are going to solve this problem, and no criticism of high taxation will pay the bills that result from it.
Was the Prime Minister too shy to mention high tariff? No superman should be the leader of any government; the leader of a government should be human. If the Prime Minister is a superman why has the business of the country gone from bad to worse since he took office? The primary duties of a Prime Minister are many. On March 9 of this year the Prime Minister said:
These are times for plain speaking, and there is no hon. member now looking me in the face who does not know that what I say is true. I know it is as true as the fact that I am looking at hon. gentlemen opposite.
The other afternoon there was an interesting argument with regard to the primary duty of the House of Commons, but is it not high time that we enumerated the primary and elementary duties of a Prime Minister? I conceive them to be as follows: first, not to
allow anyone to bum incense under his nose and call him a superman; second, to attend the sittings of the house of which he is the leader, or to resign if he cannot do so; third, to think before any legislation, orders in council or otherwise, is passed, in order not to have to repeal it later on.
I have very little time left, Mr. Speaker, and since my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) in his eloquent speech yesterday made reference to the utterances of the Prime Minister with regard to Sir Wilfrid Laurier I will only touch on that matter in passing. The Prime Minister blamed Sir Wilfrid Laurier for our railway problem, and here is what the right hon. gentleman said in my home town, Riviere du Loup, during the last election campaign:
Air. Bennett drew cries of "shame" from the audience when he contrasted Premier Mackenzie King with Laurier. When the United States had threatened to cut Canada off bonding privileges Laurier had declared that Canada would build two railways of her own. But when protection was asked against American imports Air. King had said, "Hush, do not provoke the United States."
At that time Mr. King was Prime Minister and Mr. Bennett was leader of the opposition, so he had to say something disagreeable. No one has forgotten the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on November 30 last, during the course of which he invoked the memory of Laurier, the father of our country, no less than thirty times in order to excuse all the wrongs brought about by his nefarious policy of high tariff. So I think his reference to Laurier last Thursday could be described in Horace's four words, Minxerit in patrios cineres.
Thanks to the strenuous battle conducted by the Liberal party last fall the eyes of the Canadian people are open. They see the humbug of the trade agreements that were signed at the Ottawa conference, and the efforts of our party have been supported by the subsequent recommendation of the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, backed by all the banks, that the tariff should be lowered. Our case is just as good to-day as it was then. We are fighting for our principles and for the public good; if the supporters of the government do not understand this, at least it is well known to the Canadian people.
Now I have two suggestions to make, and if they are not welcomed by the government as a whole I hope at least they will be received by the Minister of Railways. My first suggestion is that we should not increase the number of unemployed, and my second suggestion is that the tariff should be lowered to a normal height. We are living in times
3002	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Hanbury
of stress, and this is not the time for beating drums. Every man must be judged by his accomplishments, and when a man is incompetent, whether he be a prime minister or a janitor, he must get. out. We must not make a farce of things. The future of the nation is at stake and I am tired of all the incenseburning and the drum-beating when the business of the country, the strength of the nation, is going to the dogs. Let us put a stop to it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it not possible, instead of having a union government, for all men of good will to join together to expel from any position those who are unworthy of it because of incompetence?


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: I wish to join with others in complimenting the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) on the speed'- he made in introducing the bill, and on ms plea that the discussion should be non-partisan and without prejudice. May I say that if I myself were a minister in the government and had a bill before the house I too would make a very strong plea to all members of the opposition to be patriotic and non-partisan, and would ask them to put my bill through without too much discussion and without prejudice.
The minister says that there is in this bill nothing that is to conflict with the platform of "amalgamation never", and I think it is a fortunate thing for the country that it has the assurance of the Prime Minister that he is going to insert a special clause in the bill which will make amalgamation impossible. The whole purpose of the bill is to join together certain services, to amalgamate; and how the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways is going to bring about amalgamation without amalgamation is something I shall be interested in watching.
Like many other members who have spoken, I am quite in agreement with the suggestion that the president of the railway should not at the same time be chairman. I am quite in agreement that there is considerable room for improvement in the method adopted in the past in financing the railway. I am also in agreement that much can be accomplished in changing the method of auditing and to carry on a continuous audit. After I have stated my agreement in these particulars I must say that, even including the economy which is supposed to be the basis of the whole measure, I am opposed to practically every other clause in the bill.
The various ramifications of the bill are stated in legal verbiage. For my own purposes I have put in the language that we employ every day, my view of it. The bill provides
iMr. Pouiiot.]
for the abdication of all governmental control and all governmental responsibility in connection with the railways, to be placed in the absolute control of one man to be called the chairman of trustees, with full power to do as he wills, without restraint.
The first, section provides for three trustees, two of whom have no authority whatever. Although these two trustees may be and are permitted to vote, their vote, or any other action, shall be without effect. The other trustees shall be the chairman, who shall iiave absolute authority in all things in connection with the national railways, without responsibility to anyone or to the government.
The governor in council will make the original appointments of trustees, and subsequent vacancies may be filled from a panel submitted by a committee, in which committee the present Conservative government have full confidence. This committee is expected to submit only such names for appointment as would continue in these offices the Conservative dynasty, regardless of what political party may be in power in Canada.
The absolute authority of the chairman of trustees will permit him, without any restraint whatever from the government or anyone else, to sell, lease, amalgamate or manipulate in any way the whole or any portion of the assets of the national company.
His authority will enable him to release or discharge, without restraint, any or all of the employees of the national company.
When this bill was first brought before the house considerable credit was given the Duff commission for what it hatched out. It is unnecessary for me to refer again to the report of the committee on railways and shipping wherein this commission was suggested. The commission sat; it spent a considerable amount of the people's money going from one end of the country to the other; it drew up its report and handed it to the Minister of Railways, and we expected some originality in the report, as well as some originality from the Minister of Railways. Certainly we thought that the Prime Minister at any rate would as usual be original. We find however that as in most cases in the history of legislation on the part of the Conservative party, this bill has its precedent-the precedent to take from the people all control over that which the people own. It is a peculiar thing that the Conservative attitude of the present government is reflected in the report of the Conservative royal commission on railways and transportation in Canada; I am referring to what is known as the Drayton-Acworth

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Hanbury
report. The commissioners of that body were Mr. A. H. Smith, Mr. (now Sir Henry) Drayton, and Mr. W. M. Acworth.
I wish for a moment or two to refer to sessional papers 20(c) and 20(g) in volume 52 of 1917, giving the report of this commission, at page 52, and therein I wish to read bill A, which is before this house at the present time:
The trustees should be five in number. The first trustees should be named in the act of parliament constituting the board.
The tenure of office should be the same as that of judges of the supreme court,-
Now we know where the Prime Minister gets his fondness for supreme courts.
-with the exceptions hereafter noted. Three
trustees-
I had wondered where we had come across those words before, "three trustees"; here they are.
Three trustees, one of whom should be the chairman, should, if possible, be men of railway experience. They should be required to give their whole time to their duties, and salaries should be fixed adequate to command the services of the best men. Of the two remaining trustees, we think it would be desirable that one should be selected on the ground of business and financial experience, and the other as specially possessing the confidence of railway employees.
I would direct that clause to the attention of my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and for his benefit I will repeat it:
Of the two remaining trustees, we think it would be desirable that one should be selected on the ground of business and financial experience, and the other as specially possessing the confidence of railway employees. They should not be expected to give their whole time.
Again we have repetition. The report continues:
Their maximum salary might be laid down in the act, to be adjusted later when the requirements of the position became evident. Every trustee on appointment should be required to divest himself of all interest in Canadian railway bonds or stock, and should further satisfy the appointing authority that he has no other interest that conflicts with his duties as trustee.
All appointments other than those of the original trustees should be for a fixed period of seven years,

Some more repetition.
-except that in the case of a casual vacancy, owing to death or disability or resignation, the appointee should hold office only for the remainder of the term for which the trustee whom he replaces was appointed.
Every trustee should be eligible for renomination and reappointment.
Vacancies should be filled, in the case of a railway member, by appointment by the governor general in council, on the nomination of a majority of the remaining trustees;-
That sounds rather familiar.
-and in the case of other members, by appointment from a list of three names, similarly nominated. Should the government refuse to approve a nomination, it should devolve upon the trustees to submit a new name.
That sounds familiar too.
The original trustees should vacate their positions according to the following scheme:
Then follows the scheme of retirement. The next clause states that the suggested board is to be non-political. That sounds familiar and I suggest that we should conduct this argument on a non-political basis. The next clause states that the board is to be permanent and self-perpetuating.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: There
is nothing new under the sun.


Wilfred Hanbury: Not under the Conservative party. I should dike to refer to page 101 of the same report which cover's the minority report by Mr. Smith. He said:
I am unable to join my colleagues in their recommendations. They propose that practically all of the railways in Canada, except the Canadian Pacific and the American lines shall be turned over to a corporation to be managed by a board of trustees appointed by government. They insist that this board is to be permanent and self-perpetuating. I do not know by what means one parliament can bind ite successors to a given policy, especially in so simple a matter as changing the organization of a government board.
I am afraid that Mr. Smith did not realize what an ingenious Prime Minister we have at the present time. He continues:
My friends seem-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It should be "seek".


Wilfred Hanbury: It is "seem" here. I
continue:
-to avoid government ownership and operation, in fact condemn it as inadvisable, but propose a plan which contains so many elements of danger in the direction which is sought to be avoided that I am unable to join them.
Mr. Smith voices in his report many of the objections which I have to this bill. I shall now refer to the renowned Duff commission and the findings they brought in. I submit to the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Mc-Gibbon), the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) and the hon. member for YorkS unbury (Mr. Hanson), all of whom were very valuable members of the committee on rail-
Toronto Board oj Trade

ways and shipping, that if they had gone to the trouble of referring to this Drayton-Acworth report they would not have thought it advisable or necessary to recommend to the government that a new commission should be appointed. Not only would we have saved a lot of money but we would have realized that the Conservative party was prepared to consider precedents and we could have shown them where a precedent could be found.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 29, to amend and consolidate the several acts relating to the Board of Trade of the City of Toronto-Mr. Geftry-Mr. Hackett in the chair.
Sections 1 to 14 agreed to.
Section 15, subsections (1) to (4) agreed to.
On section 15, subsection (5)-Powers of arbitrators hearing a case.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was there not some
amendment regarding the powers of arbitrators to hear cases? Have we this bill reported as amended from the committee on banking and commerce? I think some amendments were made.


Mr. GEARY:: On the next subsection.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 15, subsection (6)-Issue of subpoena.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the amendments?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hackett):: The
amendment is the change of the word "my" to "may" in the third line of the subsection. It is a typographical error.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 15, subsection (7)-Compelling attendance of witnesses.
Mr. BOTHW'ELL: Will the chairman read the amendment?


John Thomas Hackett: In the
eleventh line the word "trail" is changed to "trial." Then there is an addition in the seventh line after the word "shall":
Subject to the provisions of the Judicature Acts of the various provinces and/or of the code of civil procedure of the province of Quebec.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does that give the right to that body to subpoena persons from all over Canada? There is a reference to the laws of the province of Quebec.


George Reginald Geary: Only if the jurisprudence of the province allows it. The reason for the amendment was that it was thought the section was too broad and subpoenas might issue out of one province and run in another, which was contrary to the validity of the subpoena as it exists at present. This amendment was inserted to make it quite clear that this was only a provincial matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like to have
from the hon. member who has charge of the bill, more information as to why this board of trade and this board of arbitration thereof should have the right to subpoena persons coming from various provinces. I do not know that other chambers of commerce or other bodies have a similar right.


George Reginald Geary: I think all boards of trade,
the larger ones at all events, in the dominion are incorporated by federal statute. The board of trade of Toronto has members in Great Britain as well as in all the provinces of the dominion. One of its functions, as my hon. friend well knows, is the holding of arbitrations in regard to commercial matters. If an arbitration be held in Quebec, then under the rules of practice of Quebec-I do not know how it is termed in that province, probably the civil code, while in our province it is under the Judicature Act-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is the Code of Civil Procedure in Quebec.


George Reginald Geary: The result of the bill as amended is that the attendance of witnesses beyond the confines of the province cannot be compelled. The subpoena will run only according to the code of the province in which it is issued- or according to the Judicature Act of that province.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if this bill has been examined by the law clerk of the house and if it has received his approval?

Railway Act-Return Tickets


George Reginald Geary: I believe so; the bill comes here in the ordinary way.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsections 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Affirmations may be substituted for oaths.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: There is an obvious misprint, Mr. Chairman, in the third last line where "or" is intended for "of".


John Thomas Hackett: Shall the
section be amended accordingly?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: This section makes wilfully swearing or falsely affirming in any case where an oath or solemn affirmation is required an act of wilful or currupt perjury. Is that not already covered by the criminal code?


George Reginald Geary: It might be covered, but this relates to the matter of procedure in an arbitration. It is really to carry the law into arbitrations.	.


John Campbell Elliott: But we are here defining a criminal act and what shall constitute perjury. Perjury is already defined in the criminal code.


George Reginald Geary: You find this in many statutes.


Mr. SPENCE:: In thousands of them.


John Campbell Elliott: In view of the experience of my hon. friend that he has found this in thousands of criminal acts I make no further
objection.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
Schedule "A" agreed to.
On schedule "B".


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I understand that there is an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to this schedule?


John Thomas Hackett: The amendment deletes in paragraph 6 the words "the various acts relating to the board of trade of the city of Toronto and the by-laws made in pursuance thereof," and substitutes therefor the words "this act and the by-laws made in pursuance thereof."
Schedule "B" agreed to.
Schedules "C", "D" and "E" agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay, for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 39, to amend the Railway Act (return tickets).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Robert James Manion: I regret to say that on account of the hon. member who is moving this bill not being in his place I had not noticed the bill being called. I was looking at another matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I moved this bill because Mr. Jacobs asked me, if the bill came up in his absence, to do so. If there is no objection the bill might be allowed to stand.


Robert James Manion: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Immigration Act.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: This is a simple amendment, and I think not very controversial. It is that section two of the Immigration Act, chapter ninety-three of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(w) 'public charge' means a person who is in charge of or supported by a charitable or public institution but does not include any person in receipt of unemployment relief from any charitable or public institution or otherwise, or any inmate of an unemployment shelter, camp, or other refuge."
It is sought definitely to define "public charge," in order that the people who to-day are forced to accept unemployment relief will be excluded from deportation proceedings. Section 40 of the Immigration Act, deals with the deportation of prohibited or undesirable classes, and among such are those engaged in or in any way deriving benefit from prostitution, those guilty of any crime involving moral turpitude, those who are professional beggars or a "public charge," those practicing polygamy and so on. Under the act as it stands "public charge" is not defined; the words are:
. . . has become a professional beggar or a public charge . . .
Evidently the idea of the act is that people can be deported from this country who
Immigration Act

obviously are unfit to have any place in Canadian life. "Public charge" is closely connected with professional begging. Under this clause a large number of people have been deported from Canada. I have the figures here for the fiscal years 1930-31, 1931-32 and up to September, 1932, giving a grand total for that two and a half years of 9,446 persons deported for becoming public charges. I have not the figures for the last five months; they were not available the other day, but I am informed that the proportion is about the same w'hich would bring the number up to 12,000 or 13,000 people deported on the ground of being public charges. In the twTo and a half years to which I have referred, 2,146 people were deported because of their having been convicted of criminal offences, and 458 because of misrepresentation or stealth. These, with those deported for other causes make a total in that two and a half years of 15,658 persons. It is obvious that with 12,000 or 13,000 people deported on the ground of their being public charges, the matter is rather serious. I am informed that a great many of those people were deported with their own consent. In fact I think the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) issued a statement not long ago in which he said that something like 46 per cent of the British deportees had made application to be deported; also that something like 6 per cent only of the British ordered to be deported had appealed, and about 14 per cent of the non-British. It does not seem to me that these latter proportions are very significant, for I think most people, once ordered deported, would hardly think it worth while to appeal, and would accept the deportation order without further protest. I am not in any way blaming the department for having deported this large number of people. As long as the law stands as it is and the phrase " public charge " is not clearly defined or definitely limited, it is quite within the authority of the minister to deport anyone who is in receipt of relief.
Further than that, I think we all recognize that in most cases the initiative in deportation proceedings has been taken by the various municipalities, which have found themselves carrying a tremendous burden in carrying the people coming on relief. Many of these have come in in comparatively recent years, and municipalities have said: " We cannot carry the burden; why not ship them out of the country?" I can quite understand the pressure that municipalities may put on the department, but I do not think that warrants us as a country in deporting people of this class. If people have shown that they

are criminals or professional beggars, or are not qualified to earn a living in normal times in this country, I think it is quite right that they should be deported. In fact they should never have been allowed inside our gates; there should have been stricter supervision to begin with. But we all recognize that at present we are in the midst of a great depression, that there are tens of thousands of our own native born Canadians who cannot get work to support themselves and have had to go on relief. That is no crime, and no indication that they are incapable of earning a living under normal conditions; it is their misfortune. It would seem to me that in such conditions we should carry immigrants of this class, just as we are trj'ing to carry our own native born Canadians.
I would recall what all members of the house know, that we spent millions upon millions of dollars to induce these people to come to this country, and I would also note that the greater number deported have been returned not to Europe but to the British Isles. We sent people to England and Scotland to tell what a grand country this was. I did not think it worth while to take up the time of the house in reading the glowing advertisements which were inserted in the English newspapers begging people to come to Canada and assuring them that they could make a good living in this country. Many of them took us at our word; they sold their little homes, disposed of most of their furniture, gave up their jobs and came out here. Some of them prospered when there was an opportunity for them to prosper, but when hard times came they were thrown out of employment with many native-born Canadians. Perhaps because they were not so deeply rooted in this country they were among the first to be thrown out of work, but that is no reason why we should try to evade our responsibility of caring for them during this time of depression. I am quite sure hon. members must have had individual eases brought to their attention. Very often when men were sent back to the old country their family ties were broken and their former occupations were gone, and there was a depression in their own country. Whether or not they would be able to establish any claim for relief; would depend upon the particular country. Under these circumstances it seems to me that wre should not continue this process of deporting people simply because they have had to accept relief. I think we might accomplish the purpose I have in mind by a definition of a public charge which would exclude this particular class of people from the operation of this act.

Immigration Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
ask my hon. friend a question? Does he not consider that the definition of a public charge in this amendment shows very poor draftsmanship? It reads:
"public charge" means a person who is in charge o-f or supported by a charitable or public institution-
To me that would mean a person who is in control of or who directs such an institution, but I think the hon. member has in mind a person who is in the care of such an institution.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the legal gentlemen here think they can improve the wording of the amendment I have no objection at all. I sought the advice of a legal friend of mine who is rather familiar with legislation of this kind, and this is the draft he gave me.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, the
phraseology of section 40 of the Immigration Act, to which reference has been made, has been on the statutes of this country for many years. If my memory serves me correctly, in the years prior to 1930 and since this legislation was enacted some 45,000 persons were deported from Canada under this section. It is true that since 1930 a slightly greater proportion have been returned from Canada to the land of their origin.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may do so without interrupting the minister, I should like to ask a question. The hon. gentleman said 45,000 people had been deported under this section. Could he say how many were deported under the specific charge of being on relief, or becoming a public charge ?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures separated in that way, and I am speaking from memory. The migration of people to Canada is and has been under the control of the federal government, and as soon as a person is legally admitted into Canada that person has the right to go from place to place with perfect freedom. He may become a public charge or he may become undesirable in any municipality or province of Canada. It has been said many times by provinces and municipalities, when these questions arise, that it was not at their invitation that these undesirables came to Canada, and with some justice they have turned to the federal authorities and said, "You permitted them to enter and now we find them to be public charges or undesirables within our boundaries." Heretofore the federal administration has made no provision for the maintenance and care of those found to be undesirable persons as defined by the act.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does not the hon. gentleman distinguish between an undesirable and a person on relief?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh, quite; I do not see why the hon. gentleman should ask such a question, because it is so obvious and so apparent. The hon. member might be undesirable though not on relief, or he might be on relief and not be undesirable. The suggested amendment to the Immigration Act has an effect which I do not believe the mover of the bill intended. If the bill should pass as it now stands the hon. member might find that he had introduced into the Immigration Act something that was far from his intention. If the bill passed through this house in its present form a person who had not acquired Canadian domicile and who was in the charge of the Salvation Army, we will say, or of a church organization, deriving his support in that way for a temporary period, would become liable to deportation. I do not think the hon. member had that intention at all, but undoubtedly that would be the effect of the amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister explain what he means?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is obvious from the reading of the bill, which seeks to define a public charge. The amendment states that a public charge is a person in charge of or supported by a charitable institution. I think the Salvation Army might be called a charitable institution, and that might apply to a church as well. Some minister of immigration following me who might not be so kindly disposed to the people within our borders might take these people from the control of the Salvation Army and send them back to their country of origin. I am sure the hon. member was not thinking of that, but I think that is the effect of this amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But under section 40 as it is now those who are in the charge of a public charitable institution are liable to deportation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: A public charitable institution ; quite true. And again, probably I should agree with what the hon. member said about changing his counsel when he has a bill to be drafted. This says, "a charitable or
300S
Immigration Act

public institution," thereby incorporating in the language of the proposed amendment all those various organizations who so very kindly extend their help to people coming to Canada for the first time in an effort to establish themselves. I merely point this out in passing, because the language of this bill is hopeless from the point of view of accomplishing the purpose sought by the mover of it.
There is however another and more serious side to the proposed measure and I intend to oppose the passing of it for this reason. In common with every other country to the shores of which there is a migration of people, we have encountered many pure malingerers who will not work. Indeed, it might be illuminating to hon. members to know that there are in one city in this country something like 3,000 to 3,500 people who are being fed and of whom at least 700 will not work although they have been offered jobs. I do not say that they are whife collar jobs or anything of that sort, but these people are offered honest toil with a going rate of wage, and they refuse to take the work. In fact, I have received communications to the effect that they will not take the work because they have only to wait a short time until another party comes into power when they will not have to work at all. I can scarcely subscribe to that, but that is the feeling amongst them. In another city in Canada we have a similar condition, where our colonization field staff was requested by the authorities not to solicit for any more jobs for single men because they would not accept work at the current rate of wages. These men are malingerers, and if we restrict the effect of the language of the present section we simply divest the person who is administering the law of the power to take care of cases of that kind.
There is a section of the Canadian press- fortunately this is confined to a few newspapers, although the}' are widely read-which has consistently, in season and out of season, made the business of immigration a political football; and I think I am fairly safe in making this assertion, that never since railroad expansion commenced in this country has the question of immigration into Canada been dealt with on the basis of national business. It has been dealt with on anything but that basis, and I might go on to criticize what was done in the recent past with respect to the practice, not perhaps of inviting people to the country, but of entering into contracts and agreements with people whose eye was not single to the purpose of seeing that immi-[Mr. Gordon.!
grants that came into the country should be those who were best suited to citizenship in the country in which they were seeking to establish themselves. I do not wish to dwell on that but it is obvious; it cannot be denied, because the facts are there in the department. Anyone who cares to review the history of any of these efforts can see that there was one cardinal outstanding weakness, namely, that those who promoted the migration of people into Canada did not throw around that movement, so far as it could be done, those safeguards that would restrict the number of those coming into the country by excluding those who were totally unfit to take up life here with any hope of success.
This bill goes on to state that "public charge" does not include any person in receipt of unemployment relief; and, again, words are used that appear in the preceding part of the subsection-"any charitable or public institution, or otherwise." The hon. member will see that if this is analyzed he falls into the same error again, and instead of restricting deportations, instead of divesting the administration of the right to deport, he is rather widening the interpretation of the section. I think I fairly well understand what the hon. member intends to accomplish: he wishes to restrict the right of the federal power to return to their country of origin people who are found unable to get along in Canada and who consequently become public charges. He wishes to have that power restricted. With regard to the policy of the department in that respect, I should be glad to know of any person who is receiving relief and whose case is associated with no other consideration than that, where deportation has been carried out against the will of the deportee.


Mr. FACTOR:: Plenty of them.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My hon. friend says that there are many such cases. Can he name one?


Samuel Factor: Yes, I could name half a dozen in my own constituency.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I should be glad if the hon. member would name them.


Samuel Factor: I can bring down my file.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Just name one for a starter.


Samuel Factor: I know of a gentleman who came from Poland and was in receipt of unemployment relief for over a year, and he was ordered deported.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Does the hon. member know his name? Perhaps he would not like

Immigration Act
to mention it here, but I should be glad to have the name of that person so that I might look up the facts, because I am sure that I should find in the record something else besides his merely receiving relief.


Samuel Factor: Would the minister favour the principle of not deporting people merely because they are in receipt of unemployment relief? If he is in favour of that principle, surely he can draft legislation to that end.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not at all; I am not responsible for this bill. The policy of the department is simply this. If application is made for the deportation of an alien not having domicile, and it appears before the board of inquiry that that person is to be deported solely on the ground of having received relief, then the officials of the department will take every possible step to get that person into some useful vocation, and deportation is delayed in almost every case-I might not be correct in saying one hundred per cent of the cases-until some useful occupation is found. It almost invariably happens however that people who have been recommended for deportation by the municipal or the provincial authorities are of that type who are not willing to take whatever work is offered them. That is the position. Cases have come under my own review where people desired to go back home; they felt they could not get along here. They were comparatively recent arrivals and they considered that if they were returned to the land of their origin they could be reunited with relatives or friends and could probably tide over this time better than they would amongst strangers. That is not a desire to which we could take exception, it is a very natural desire. The only method which this government can invoke generally is to return people to the land of their origin when they apply for deportation stating that they cannot get work. I cannot see that we could do anything else. If we are to be precluded from taking that course by the definition of public charge set out in this bill, then we will be unable to return to the land of their origin those who desire to be returned. A very large percentage of those who have been returned so desired.
I receive from some sources serious criticisms of the policy of the government with respect to these matters where I think it should receive a degree of commendation. At times some churches take an active interest in matters of this kind. Only a month ago I received a copy of a resolution passed on December 18 by the Deer Park United Church of Toronto. I might say that I think the least reliable source from which to obtain the
facts with respect to deportation is the newspapers. I say that with great respect for the press, but nevertheless I think it is abundantly true. There is one newspaper which I have to read in order to keep abreast of the times, and I say, I think with little fear of successful contradiction, that in no single case has the report of a deportation in that particular paper not been saturated either with half truths or whole falsehoods. Resort to the official records will bear out this statement.


Hugh Guthrie: What paper is that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Toronto Daily Star.
The resolution which I received from the church authorities in Toronto reads in part as follows:
From time to time this session has learned from newspapers and other sources of information, that the deportation of inhabitants of Canada to their respective countries of origin is proceeding on a large scale, at the rate of thousands of deportees per annum. The persons so dealt with are not only of foreign birth, but also from England, Scotland and other parts of Great Britain. This process is secret in its nature. No public trial, or trial of any kind, seems to be required, but at the discretion or caprice of some public official, men, women and children whose only crime is their poverty or illness, are haled away and sent overseas, in many cases without money, without proper clothing, and even without food.
Until recent years, it was the policy of every successive government in Canada to foster and encourage immigration, not from Britain only but from the countries of continental Europe. People of these countries, attracted by the highly coloured advertisements of Canada, its vast and varied resources, its cheap and fertile lands, came in numbers up to 400,000 or more per, annum. Much of this immigration has already been absorbed into Canadian life, and in industry, intelligence, and the essentials of citizenship, the newcomers have proven not inferior to the average of native born Canadians. Many of them have struggled hard and valiantly with the inevitable difficulties attending their efforts to establish a permanent footing. Some have failed, and in these distressing times are regarded as "likely to become a charge upon the public." Hence, they are ejected from the country to which they had been invited and in which they had hoped to find a home. Even an English widow, temporarily ill and out of work is, with her helpless children, driven off with the rest.
This session has no sympathy whatever with revolutionary or so-eailed communistic principles. but it is constrained to protest against this inhuman, wholesale and secret deportation, resembling in essence as it does the expulsion of the Greeks from Turkey after the great war, the activities of the Ogpu in Soviet Russia, or the historic carrying away of the people of Israel by their Assyrian coriquerors.
I answered the letter enclosing that resolution and gave these gentlemen the facts. I do not remember receiving an acknowledg-
Immigration Act

ment. A similar inquiry from another church was received and similarly answered. The following is the reply received:
Thank you very much for your letter of January 11.
I do wish that the press would on all occasions endeavour to secure accurate facts and that they would not use their news columns to play politics.
I am sending you a copy of our annual report.
I suppose there are people who like to foster reports of that character. If those who have the position of these people at heart would resort to the department in order to obtain the facts, more accurate statements would be made. If hon. members would endeavour to obtain the facts before entering this chamber, we would get along a great deal better. Let me say to the mover of this bill (Mr. Woodsworth) that no one will be deported from Canada solely upon the ground that he is receiving relief unless that charge is linked up with something else that falls within this section, or he is a malingerer or desires to be returned to the country of his origin. We are finding jobs for hundreds of these men every week.
In the perilous times through which we are passing every department of the government and every hon. member of this house is faced with great difficulties and it is no time to be stampeded. We should not attempt to emasculate a law which has been upon our statute books for upwards of forty years. I oppose this bill because I do not think it is in the best interests of this country. Its intention is to divest the government of certain powers, and if that is done I am sure it will be regretted. I think we can rely upon the officials of the department and the minister in charge, whoever he may be, to see that hardship is not cast upon those who temporarily find themselves unable to obtain employment in Canada. In the meantime the work of the colonization department, and in fact of all departments of government is being directed towards seeing that people who want to work are absorbed into useful vocations.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Manion for the second reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes'.
Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, before recess I was
attempting to show that the bill now before

the house was based upon the Drayton-Acworth report of 1917 and that the high praises sung for the members of the Duff commission would perhaps have been better deserved by the members of the Drayton-Acworth commission. I would point out that the provisions of this legislation were before the Conservative government in 1917, but the government of that day did not see fit to accept the suggestions made at that time, which suggestions are now contained in this bill. The government of this day now places these provisions before the house. There have been some changes and the principal one has probably been in connection with the one who as Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is directing the affairs of this country. For that reason I believe the mentality and the personality of the Prime Minister, the individual who has inspired this particular bill, become a question for the people of Canada and for the members of this house, and it is from that perspective that for a few moments I should like to analyze the bill now before us.
We know the right hon. gentleman has a very broad fund of information; we also know he is a man of great and singleminded purpose; we know he is one of those who at times go through the world with a vision before their eyes, with a mission. In the past we have had similar illustrations and demonstrations. We have had men whose purpose has been singleminded, whose vision has ever been before them. I would refer as an example to Napoleon of France. He had a vision, an inspiration, an objective. For another, we have one equally inspired, Kaiser Wilhelm. I am not suggesting that in levity; I think this is a matter for the serious consideration of every hon. member. Who is to judge of the mentality and the integrity of Napoleon and the motives that inspired him? Who is to judge of the motives that inspired Kaiser Wilhelm? There is no precedent by which we can judge those men. They were not subjected to the ordinary laws by which common individuals are judged. They were above the law, above restraint; they were men who invariably felt called upon by the Great Ruler of the universe, men who had a vision, who had to take the people along a certain course whether they would or not. They said: The people must go to my goal, not to their own; the people do not always know what is best for them. So sometimes we have before us a Napoleon, a kaiser, or someone equally inspired. We

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Hanbury
may criticize some of the means adopted by such gentlemen as these to attain their ends, but we should not criticize the endeavour that they are making from their own standpoint. They are here not to accept, but to establish precedents. Precedents established through generations mean nothing to them; constitutions mean nothing to them; they are above them; they are above ordinary human considerations, and even human life itself must, if necessary, be sacrificed in the attainment of the great objective. They believe there must be one man above the law, above the people, above the government, and that is what we have before us in this bill.
The mind that conceived this bill, the inspiration behind it, could well decide that in the interests of the efficiency of the nation, the necessity for rigid economies and for provision for taxes with which to pay bond interest, the country could best be ruled by one man above the people and above the law. Let me make a forecast: that if in the provisions of the bill before us the railway situation needs greater efficiency, greater economy and the dictation of one man, so the affairs of Canada will be shown to need greater efficiency, greater economy, and I would not be surprised if before the session is over we were told that we needed the dictation of one man, yes, not only one man, one dictator, but a dictator who will arrange for the succession of this power in perpetuity and so in that way will bring about the "kingdom of Canada" which is being espoused in this chamber by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). I am not at present concerned with what the ultimate goal of the right hon. gentleman may be, whether it is a commonwealth of the free nations of the empire or whether he intends to establish an empire demanding tribute and collecting tolls from the other nations of the world. My attempt will be to relate to the present bill the mentality which I have described, a mentality that would take everything from the people and would concentrate all power in one man.
We have this tendency illustrated starting in the special session of 1930 and continuing to date. We have the bill known as "peace, order and good government" devised to take the power from the people; we have the bill known as a "blank cheque" for the same purpose; we have in the tariff board an attempt to inflict the will of the present Prime Minister on all future governments, another endeavour to get away from the will of the people. Again in the railway bill now before us we have the setting up of a dictator and 53719-191
a further getting away from the will of the people; the people cannot be trusted; the dictator must be followed.
I would refer to some of the Prime Minister's words that we have to guide us in connection with his thoughts on these and other matters. We know he believes that if a people are to be made great, they must be put through the crucible of sacrifice and of adversity. I would refer now to the Prime Minister's statement on October 10, 1932, as reported at page 51 of Hansard:
We have no desire to undermine that high courage, that resourcefulness and ability of our citizens to emerge out of difficulties, strengthened by trials as by fire.


Mr. COTNAM:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is that the hon. member is out of order in quoting from a speech that was made during the present session of parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, certainly not.


Wilfred Hanbury: The Prime Minister went on:
We have no desire to remove those characteristics from our citizenship. We know what made this country great; we know what courage the pioneers had.
I would refer that to the hon. gentleman who raised the point of order, and I would repeat it for him: "We know what courage the pioneers had." Evidently the Prime Minister does not expect to find courage in the people of Canada to-day.
Again quoting the words of the Prime Minister, speaking in the present debate on Thursday of last week:
This is a surgical operation and it must be a radical operation. In order to make it effective and successful we must eliminate every political consideration which would interfere with the success of the operation.
Again:
It is the greatest problem that confronts the Canadian people; it is the problem beyond all others that calls for the exercise of patience and in my judgment of much sacrifice on the part of the taxpayers.
Once again:
We are all human, but we must not forget that we have a larger obligation.
We are all human, but we must not forget that we have a larger obligation. What larger obligation is there than to be human and humane? The obligation under this bill to provide interest to the bondholders! There is a larger obligation than humanity. "Those opposed to my will must be put under the iron heel of ruthlessness." Who was it that

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Hanbury
used that expression of the iron heel of ruthlessness? Was it Napoleon to whom I have referred, or one of the czars or even the kaiser? No, it was the Prime Minister of Canada.
What is the objective of this bill? The Prime Minister is going to establish a liquidator to operate the railroad, not for the benefit of the people, not to give service to the people, not to protect the human individuals who are engaged in this industry. No, the only interpretation that can be placed on the bill before us is the intention by the iron heel of ruthlessness to crush from the Canadian people sufficient tolls and blood money to feed his golden calf.
Again, I should like to quote what the Prime 'Minister has to say about this liquidator. Speaking in this house on Thursday of last week he said:
The position is not, as has been suggested so frequently in this house, that these are the properties of the people of Canada. They are now the properties of the people who loaned their money to build them, and under normal conditions they would take possession of them.
The Prime Minister says that the railroads no longer belong to the people, that they belong to the money lender, the money lender in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain, and he must operate these roads through a liquidator for the interests of the bondholders, and the interests of the bondholders only. The Prime Minister might have continued and said what he would have done had these bondholders been in Russia.
Again he said:
For we are now dealing with very simple matters,-securities, property in default, and security owners having a right to enforce their claims. . . . But this enterprise belongs to the investors; let us keep that in our minds.
It belongs to the investors, not to the people of Canada. The people of Canada have no further interest in these roads, according to the Prime Minister, and we must simply run the roads in order to get the interest that is due to the bondholders. In this bill the Prime Minister says:	We will
have to create a Frankenstein, and we will put him in a watertight, bullet-proof case, and the Frankenstein will crush out every last mile of unprofitable road. To use a railroad man's expression, this Frankenstein is going to bump off every employee that is not absolutely necessary, everyone who can possibly be dispensed with.
This Frankenstein, this chairman of trustees, what is his job? What is this legislation built on? It is built on squeezing out the last dollar. It means tearing up all agreements that there may be in connection with the

operation of the road in order that more money may be provided for dividends on stock and interest on the bonds. To provide money, through a Frankenstein, a monster whose humanity cannot see beyond dividends for the stockholders and interest for the bondholders. This bill, if I may use the expression, is begotten in lust, lust for power-


Mr. McDADE:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is reading his speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, he is not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Get a
pair of glasses.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is referring to his
notes.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Gagnon):: The hon. gentleman has the right to refer to his notes. I do not think he is reading his speech.


Wilfred Hanbury: I would say to the hon. member who raised the point of order, that if he wishes to read my speech he will be able to do so to-morrow in Hansard.
I was just suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Frankenstein being created by this legislation has been begotten in lust, lust for power, and not only power until death but power after death. And it is born of fear, fear of political interference, fear of interference by the right hon. gentleman's own followers perhaps, possibly fear of political interference by his successors, fear that his successors in the government would lack the ruthlessness to effect the economies deemed necessary by himself.
This bill is based on efficiency and economy. I agree with reasonable efficiency and economy, but I do not favour the ruthless economy which is visualized in this bill, and which is going to force thousands of railway employees into the bread lines. Many merchants who are now supplying their requirements will be forced out of business, and many employees in those industries will also be in the bread line. I do not favour the efficiency and economy to be established under this one man, this chairman of the trustees, this kaiser, and I submit to the railway employees of this country that the running trades agreements, the shop employees' agreements and all others will be made a scrap of paper by this dictator. Wages will be cut to the bone, the number of employees on trains and other operations will be reduced, working hours will be increased, hundreds of miles of railway will rust and rot, towns and villages will be without their railway-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Totzke
Mr. MeDADE:	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The hon. gentleman is unquestionably reading his speech, and that is against the rules of the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: The Ivon, member far
Northumberland (Mr. McDade) is shortsighted.


Onésime Gagnon: To my mind the hon. gentleman is a very clever reader, then, because he does not seem to read.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will make allowance for the interruptions. I have referred to the fact that employees will be discharged, their agreements scrapped, their wages cut, many miles of railway will be tom up, towns and villages will be without transportation, and the lives of citizens will be endangered by virtue of the deteriorated condition of road and equipment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Turn over the
page!


James Houston Spence: You have lost your place.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, it is evident from the remarks of hon. members on the other side of the house that they are quite prepared for the condition which I have pointed out. I feel that I have done my duty in drawing to the attention of the railroad people of Canada particularly what this legislation forecasts, and I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, and on this side of the house as well, that if they have any humane feeling, any humanity, they will give most careful consideration to this legislation, which proposes to place one czar in charge of such a large operation as we have in the Canadian railroads.


Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks I wish to make this evening on this very important bill I would first of all congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) on the tenor of his remarks in moving the second reading. To us who have been in the house a number of years it came rather as a surprise that the Minister of Railways could be so moderate in tone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Albert Frederick Totzke: We all like the Minister of Railways, we like his style, and we feel that perhaps it is not so much the red-blooded Canadianism that is in him as his racial ancestry that makes him so fond of a fight. But on this occasion I am sure we are able to congratulate him upon the moderation of his views.
I should like very much to be able to say the same thing for his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I have a high admiration for the abilities of the Prime Minister, but I believe he does not always do himself justice in speaking in this house. He does not need to go to the extremes of ridicule and almost vituperation that he employs od occasions towards members on this side ot the house. Sometimes I think perhaps the Prime Minister does this with a purpose. I think he undertakes occasionally to give us a castigation in order that he may arouse the ire of members on this side and prolong the debate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be asked why at this stage of the debate anyone should join in and prolong the discussion. Perhaps everything that can be said on the matter has been said. But I have no apology to make for taking part in this debate. I believe that, as has already been said, this is one of the most important problems that is before the people of Canada at this time. I do not admit that it is the most important problem; I join with some of the hon. members who have spoken previously in saying that the most important problem in Canada to-day is that of unemployment. But this question is to my mind next in importance, therefore I wish to put my views on record.
I desire to review shortly the provisions of the bill, explain in the briefest way possible my views with regard to them, and give reasons why I am going to appose the second reading. I feel I have a duty, as representative of a constituency the people of which are vitally interested in the railway transportation problem, to let my constituents know just where I stand and why I vote as I intend to vote. We have had many excellent speeches during the debate, and much valuable information has been put upon the records of the house. It it unnecessary to repeat information that has already been put on Hansard, so with the exception of a few figures which I will quote to bear out certain statements I shall make I do not intend to weary the house with figures.
The bill now before us affects not only the transportation system known as the Canadian National Railways, with which we as members of this house are more particularly concerned, and which is of such vital importance to large sections of our country, but also that other great railway system which we have in Canada, the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific is just as vital to the interests of Canada as the Canadian National, and in my opinion nothing should be done which will in any way interfere with the efficiency

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Totzke
of these two great roads. We have every reason to be proud of the great transportation systems of this country, greater than almost any others in the world. But the difference between our responsibility in connection with the one and the other of these two roads lies in the fact that representing the people of Canada we are directly responsible for the policies of the Canadian National, in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister a few days ago that the people of Canada really do not own this great railway. The service of these roads affects the economic life of the entire country. It affects eastern as well as western Canada, but to my mind it affects the western provinces more than it does the eastern provinces. The west is a country of great distances, rather sparsely settled. In eastern Canada the population is more concentrated, and the people have other means of transportation which they can use in case of emergency. In western Canada, if the weather is not propitious and our railways are not in operation, we are without transportation facilities. Settlement in western Canada in some instances followed the railways, while in other instances it went ahead of the railways, but where settlement went ahead to any great degree it was always with the understanding that eventually the railways would supply the transportation required. It is of vital importance to western Canada that adequate transportation facilities should be afforded, because of the very commodities we produoe. Every member of the house knows that our main products are wheat and other coarse grains, cattle and so on, and that it is necessary for us to ship those commodities over long distances. The only method of transportation available to us is the railways. It has been estimated that a farmer in western Canada who must haul his grain more than ten or twelve miles cannot do so at a profit. Of course at the present time, Mr. Speaker, if the farmer must haul his grain half a mile he cannot do so at a profit, but these are abnormal times and I for one am sufficiently optimistic to believe that conditions will improve.
I am entirely in favour of practising economy in the operation of our railways. Every business corporation and every business man throughout the world at this time is practising economy, and necessarily so. But we must be careful when we practise these economies not to go too far and jeopardize the very existence of this country. I am aware of certain duplications of service rendered by the two companies, and as I have already said I am ready to admit that in some cases
; Mr. Totzke.]
this duplication might be done away with, without impairing the efficiency of the service at all. I am afraid, however, that this mania for economy and for cooperation, for bringing together the two roads wherever there is the slightest suggestion of duplication, may be carried too far. It is my belief that at least a very large proportion of the people of Canada are opposed to any amalgamation of the two roads; I think the people want to see both roads prosper and give the service they were intended to give. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister state that there was no move towards amalgamation hidden in this bill, and the right hon. gentleman has promised to replace the section giving a definite assurance to that effect which was deleted in the Senate. I am afraid, however, that in spite of that clause the provisions of this bill are definitely leading towards the amalgamation of the two roads, but with that point I shall deal at greater length a little later in the course of my remarks.
A good deal of discussion has taken place during this debate as to where the responsibility lies for the condition in which our national road finds itself. A number of hon. members opposite have sought to put the blame upon the late administration, headed by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), but I think hon. members on this side of the house have succeeded in demonstrating that at least equal blame must be attached to hon. members opposite. But with this question of where the blame should be placed I am not concerned at all; the only thing with which I am concerned at this time is the possibility of getting our railways into a better financial position in order that they may give better service.
At this point in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay a tribute to the late Sir Henry Thornton. I am sure his death came as a shock to all members of the house. I went to Saskatchewan' about thirty years ago and have seen the railway development in that province since that time. Almost thirty years ago I moved to a town situated on the old main line of the Canadian Northern from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and I have lived there ever since. I was there during the time the road was being operated by the Canadian Northern; I was there when it was being operated by the Canadian National Railways before Sir Henry Thornton took charge, and I was there after Sir Henry became president. In all those years I have had a good deal to do with the movement of goods to and fro over that line, and I have had a good opportunity to study the service we were given. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that until Sir

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Totzke
Henry Thornton took over the management of the Canadian National railways we did not know what railway service was. Sir Henry Thornton was able to develop in the men working under him a spirit of loyalty and pride in the road which made all the difference between poor service and excellent service.
For a few moments now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the provisions of the bill. As I said at the outset, I do not know that I shall have anything particularly new to contribute to the debate, but I should like to express my own views on some of these provisions and to make my position clear with regard to this legislation. Just here I might suggest that if the whips were withdrawn and hon. members opposite were allowed to vote according to the dictates of their conscience, and properly to represent the people of their constituencies, I am not so sure that this bill would pass this house. But if the bill passes part I will provide that a board of three trustees shall be appointed instead of the present board of directors. It has been said that this is the main portion, the most important part of the bill. With the view that a small board would perhaps function better than a large board I am inclined to agree, and whether it should be a board of three or five does not concern me very much. I rather agree with the suggestion that the smaller board could function better and with less delay than the larger one. I am not particularly in agreement with those who say that certain sections of the dominion should be given representation on that board, nor am I inclined to agree that any particular class should be represented, with the possible exception of labour, in view of the fact that it occupies so important a place in the working of the railways. But if we are going to appoint a small board such as this, the utmost care must be taken that only men of the highest integrity, men who have been zealous in public service and who have faith in the Canadian National Railways, should be appointed to the board.
Another thing I would emphasize is that if a board of three is to be appointed all three men should be full time officials. If we have only the chairman full time we shall find that the other two members of the board may not be sufficiently in touch with the affairs of the railway and may become more or less rubber stamps for him. Section 4 of the bill provides that the first board shall be appointed by the governor in council. To this a good deal of objection has been made; but here again I find that I have no particular objection to the government appointing the board of trustees
I believe that the government should appoint the board of trustees and I believe they should appoint their successors; in my opinion the government should take full responsibility for everything that is done by the board. Neither this nor any other government in Canada can pass the buck to anyone else. They must assume responsibility for the work of the board of trustees in carrying on the business of this great transportation organization. I too agree that there should be no political interference with the working of the board of trustees. But political interference and the assumption of responsibility are two different things, and again I say that we in this House of Commons are the elected representatives of the people who own this railway. It may be a technical point with the Prime Minister but it is not a technical point with me; the people of Canada own this railway, and so long as we pay the interest and keep up our obligations with respect to the system, the people continue to own it, and the government should take full responsibility for the appointment of the trustees and for their actions.
Section 7 of the bill deals with the removal of trustees. I find myself entirely opposed to this section. I think it is too cumbersome; it is too difficult to remove trustees in this way. Let me read the provision:
No trustees shall be removed from office, nor suffer any reduction in salary, during the term for which he is appointed, unless for assigned cause and on address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.
It takes time to get the House of Commons together, and this is cumbersome and difficult as a means of rescinding an appointment of this kind; it is difficult to rescind such an appointment through action of the House of Commons and the Senate. Again I say that the government must accept the responsibility both of appointing and of removing trustees whenever there is cause for removal.
Subsection 6 of section 9 gives the trustees absolute power in all matters:
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.
Again I oppose this section. I regard this as a most unusual ancf dangerous power to give to any board of trustees. Sometimes similar powers are given to managing directors of incorporated companies, but they are always subject to review of shareholders at the annual meeting. This perpetuates the power of the trustees for at least the time of their appointment, or until they are removed from office, and according to the provisions of this bill

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Totzke
they may be reappointed to office and therefore be there in perpetuity. In my opinion therefore this clause is dangerous and most unusual, and once again I say that the government should take the responsibility. The cabinet acts as the executive for members of parliament. Members are here representing the shareholders of the railways, and to this clause I am therefore absolutely opposed.
Subsection 2 of section 11 is another provision with which I find myself in disagreement. It provides that the vote of the chairman must be included in a majority vote of the trustees. The majority vote of the trustees shall carry any resolution or any matter which may be under discussion, but in all cases where the trustees divide, the decision of the chairman shall be final. I could understand perhaps those who had to do with the drafting of the bill giving this power to the chairman of the board of trustees, if he were the only full time member of the board; but in that event there would be a one man board, a dictatorship for this great corporation, and he would have absolute authority to do whatever he wished. Should this bill receive the second reading, I suggest that this section should be amended in committee to provide that the decision of the majority of the board of trustees shall carry.
Section 12 provides that the budget of the Canadian National Railways shall be under the control of the trustees, and subsection 6 of section 9, as I have shown, gives them absolute authority to do whatever they may wish. Here again is an instance where the government should take responsibility and should have some control. Perhaps the late administration gave the railway company a little too free a hand; but we should profit by this experience and should therefore put a little more restraint on those who are now being appointed. But to say that to remove political interference means taking aw'ay the exercise of governmental authority is going too far. Subsection 2 of section 14 provides for the routing of freight through Canadian seaports:
The trustees shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea which is consigned within Canada for carriage to national Railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian seaports.
I am opposed to this section. I have nothing to say in opposition to the use of our Canadian seaports as much as and wherever possible, but I say that the board of trustees and the management of our Cana-

dian National Railways should not be handicapped in this way. They should be in a position to ship in a manner that seems the most feasible and most profitable at the time.
Part II of the bill deals with cooperation. The idea of cooperation is veiy good, and I do not think anyone will deny that economies can and should be practised. During this debate as well as during the past two years we have heard a good deal about the reckless extravagance of the Canadian National Railways. There has been extravagance by the management of that railway, but it was not the only railroad or institution in the country guilty of extravagance during the last two years. What about our friends the Canadian Pacific Railway? What about the Royal York hotel in Toronto and the Empress of Britain? I am sure hon. members will agree that there was extravagance in that company. If the prosperous times of 1929 had continued these things would not have been considered as extravagant.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Lucerne-in-
Quebec.


Albert Frederick Totzke: My hon. friend says,
Lucerne-in-Quebec. I wonder if that was not extravagance, just another case of trying to keep up with the Joneses. Because of something the Canadian National Railways had done, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company thought that it should go one better. I heard a story about Lucerne the other day; I do not think it is true but perhaps hon. members would like to hear it. It appears that the Canadian National Railways wanted to buy a gravel or sand pit convenient to Montreal and they found what they wanted in the vicinity of Oka. Some Canadian Pacific officials heard of this and thinking that perhaps the Canadian National were trying to open a summer resort, they immediately jumped in and bought Lucerne.


An hon. MEMBER:: More truth than
poetry in that.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I should like to quote a
few remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in connection with some statements of Mr. Hungerford. I believe that economies can be practised, but I believe also that there are many false economies. As reported on page 2772 of Hansard, the minister quotes (Mr. Hungerford as follows:
From the standpoint of efficiency the system was in a strong position. "Never in its history." Mr. Hungerford asserted, "has this property been in such good physical condition or so well organized to handle traffic cheaply and efficiently as it is to-day."

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Totzke
He quoted a further statement of Mr. Hungerford's as follows:
In gauging measures of economy to meet declining revenues, the executives of a railway system must guard against jeopardizing the condition of the property. Facilities and equipment must he maintained on a standard of safety and efficiency. This factor has been carefully considered by the Canadian National Railways management and at the present time the property is in fit and proper condition to handle all traffic offering safely and efficiently.
The minister then said:
That. I think, should set at rest any suggestion which occasionally is made to the effect that the efficiency of the railways is being in anyway sacrificed to economies.
That is very interesting and it is only as it should be. The Canadian National railways should be kept in an efficient condition to handle all the traffic offering; but is that all that is required? The physical condition of a railway is not the only measure of efficiency; the efficiency of a railway is more than simply the handling of traffic offered-it means getting the business. Any hon. member can quote instances where business men and merchants, though well equipped to handle all the business offering, have gone to the wall because they did not go out and get business. The minister has told us that the decrease in operating expenses for 1932 amounted to $44,000,000. That is a most commendable decrease in expenses, but can the minister say that that decrease was not made at the expense of the procuring of business?


Robert James Manion: Last year the railway
handled fifty-three per cent of the business and the Canadian Pacific handled forty-seven per cent. Apparently it is doing pretty well.


Albert Frederick Totzke: How does that compare with the previous years?


Robert James Manion: I can give it to my hon. friend, but I had intended to give this information when I speak later on. It compares very favourably with previous years.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The minister mentioned also the dismissal of officials. I shall not quote his exact words, but I think he said that the saving affected in this way amounted to about $1,000,000. This would be commendable if it were not for the fact, as my information is, that certain of the officials dismissed were those whose work was to procure business. If that is the case, then it was false economy.


Robert James Manion: That is not the case.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I will give the quotation in a moment. The following is the number of passengers carried one mile by the two railroads in 1931 and 1932:
Canadian Canadian National	Pacific
Railways	Railway
1931	 788,423,849 743,036,667
1932	 632,465,682 644,797,144
The decline in the number of passengers carried one mile was 156,000,000 in the case of the Canadian National and only 98,000,000 in the case of the Canadian Pacific. In 1931 the Canadian National carried more passengers than the Canadian Pacific; in 1932 the situation was reversed and the Canadian Pacific carried more than the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: The percentages I gave covered all traffic.


Albert Frederick Totzke: For some reason or other the decline	in	business of	the Canadian
National was more than the decline in the case of the Canadian Pacific. This would seem to bear out the statement I made that possibly some of these officials whose business it was to get business for the road had been dismissed Again I say that if that is so, it is false economy. The following are the figures for the revenue freight ton miles:
Canadian	Canadian
National	Pacific
Railways	Railway
1931	. 12,635,804,000	10,812,004,0001932	. 11,321,381,000	10,067,420,000That is a decline of freight ton miles for the Canadian Pacific of 744,000,000 and for the Canadian	National of	1,314,000,000.	I
would say to the Minister of Railways that if those figures are correct-and I have every reason to believe they 'are-he should look into the matter whether the responsibility lies in the dismissal of officials who iare primarily there for the getting of business.
I am sorry my time will not allow me to make all the remarks that I wish to make, but there is one tiling I do not want to miss. In all these economies that are being effected on our Canadian National Railways, the position of the railway employees should be very carefully watched. We have at least a moral obligation to look after those men who have spent all these years in the service of our great railway. We have an unemployment situation in this country, and it is not wise to aggravate that situation by throwing out of employment a good number of those railway men, thus adding them to the list of those at present unemployed. To do so would

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Beaubien
only mean that we shall have to look after them in another way, and therefore in the economies that are being effected nothing should be done that would in any way cause unnecessary loss of employment to our railroad men.
I wanted to say something about the Prime Minister's statement that this board was in the nature of a receivership. How it can be a receivership is more than I can understand. He said that the people of Canada do not own this railway; that it belongs to the bondholders; that they are virtually the owners of the road. My idea of a receivership is that the receivers work in the interests of the owners of the property. In that case it can be seen that under that assumption the trustees are going to work for the bondholders and not for the people of Canada. I am going to vote against the second reading of the bill.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the legislation before the house, and I intend to follow my usual practice of being brief. I was rather surprised the other day in listening to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) when he moved his motion for the second reading of this bill. Having sat for two years on the committee on railways and shipping with the genial minister, and having heard him on many occasions make unfair statements in that committee and also in the house with regard to the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways and its 'management-


Robert James Manion: I do not think any of
them were unfair.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: -it is a surprise and a pleasing one to me to find that my hon. friend is seeing the error of his ways and, as he is getting older and has more responsibilities on his shoulders, is trying to place before the Canadian parliament a true .picture, one which ultimately will go before the Canadian people. I would commend his speech to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) and the bon. member for York-Sunbuiry (Mr. Hanson), who was chairman of the committee last year.


Mr. GRAY:: And the Prime Minister.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: And the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), but especially those gentlemen whom I have mentioned; because I have sat on that committee for two years with them and seen the unfair methods used and heard the uncalled-for and insinuating remarks made against the administration of the Canadian
[Mr. Totzke 1
National Railways. I am not here to defend the Canadian National Railways, Sir Henry Thornton who has just passed away, or anybody else, but it behooves any hon. member to speak, especially when hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches are trying to make the Canadian people believe the government are favourable to the Canadian National Railways when their actions since they have been in power have been to the contrary.
I should like to quote some of the remarks of the Minister of Railways, but time will not permit me to quote them at any length. When he moved the second reading of the bill, he stated that, the Canadian National Railways had done more to economize than any other railway in the world, one might say; that their decrease in expenditures should have been between 60 and 70 per cent of the decrease in revenue, but instead of that it was 112 per cent. He paid that tribute to the Canadian National Railways. How was it able to effect those economies? Because it had efficient management under the direction of Sir Henry Thornton and the road was put into such shape that in times of depression and decreasing revenue it was able to effect those economies.
Has the Canadian National been extravagant? Perhaps it has spent money where to-day we see that expenditure could have been avoided. We will all admit that, but can anyone show me any organization in this country, any individual in this house, any government that spent money that, if present conditions could have been anticipated, would probably not have been spent? Why have the government and its members for the last two or three years been throwing stones at the Canadian National Railways in relation to its expenditures? I could talk about Canadian Pacific expenditures which were unwarranted so far as I can see and so far as that railway itself can see to-day; but would I be doing any good to that railway, or would I be solving the railway problem of Canada by doing so? No. The only one thing for the government and the members of the House of Commons to do is to tell the people that the Canadian National is our railway and that they should make every effort to protect their property.
What is the cause of the present railway situation in Canada? Lack of business. How has this situation been brought about? By the policies of the present government since they have been in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: If any hon. members
do not believe this, all they have to do is to look at the trade figures and my statement

C .N.R .-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Beaubien
will be proved beyond any question of doubt. What is our solution of our railway problem? It is tonnage. So long as we continue the trade policies which have been in effect since 1930, the railways will not get tonnage, and if they do not get tonnage, the railway problem will not be solved. I am going to ask you, sir, at the moment presiding over this chamber (Mr. Gagnon): Can you, as one of the bright legal minds of the province of Quebec, show me anything in this bill which is a solution of our railway problem? No solution is provided there. It is a bill to effect economies. We do not have to have this legislation to do so. The Minister of Railways in his speech proved that our national railway has been effecting economies greater than have been effected by any other railway on the American continent. Why then the necessity for this legislation? Any man living along the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific does not need this legislation to show him that economy is being practised. He sees it in the curtailment of service, in the reduction of the numbers of section men and employees generally, in the closing down of stations, and so forth.
Why this legislation? This legislation is brought down in order to create a dictatorship in this country for the purpose of amalgamating the railways. I am prepared to take the interpretation of my hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), another bright legal mind from the province of Quebec, who says that he is in favour of the bill because he interprets it to mean amalgamation. I am opposed to this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it means amalgamation, and, if time permits, I am going to prove my contention that it means amalgamation before I am through.
The railways, from a revenue and business standpoint, I admit, are in an unfavourable position. But how about the farming industry? When I went home at the adjournment of the session last November I found that every farmer in western Canada who had produced a bushel of grain, raised a steer, fattened a hog or a turkey or a chicken, was disposing of all those commodities at a loss. But did that farmer tear up his farm in consequence? Did he tear up his fences? Did he quit farming? No, Mr. Speaker. When I went back home the land was all turned over ready for next spring. The farmers had gathered their hay into their barns to feed their stock during the whole winter, even though a grasshopper plague threatens to attack their farms in the spring. I say that the railways in this country, both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, have to do exactly as every other
industry in this country' is doing, and that is do as best they can, effect intelligent economies, but give the people the service. A railroad is judged by the service it gives to the public. Any fairminded man who will get away from legal technicalities can come to no other conclusion than that if yrou amalgamate the services-and that is what this bill really means-you are amalgamating the railways themselves, and once we have amalgamation of the railways in this country the minister and the government and the members of the House of Commons, who represent the shareholders, are absolutely powerless. Why? Because under this bill we are going to appoint a board of trustees, and the chairman of the board of trustees is to be appointed as such for a term of seven years. Some say that this bill does not mean amalgamation, but suppose the chairman of this board of trustees, appointed for seven years, is in the frame of mind to amalgamate the roads. Can the government prevent him doing it, or can any succeeding government prevent him?


Robert James Manion: We are putting a clause in the bill against that.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: That will not prevent him.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: No, that will not prevent him, because what powers are you giving to this dictator, this superman? If he is in the frame of mind to amalgamate the railways, then under the powers that are given to him by this bill, neither this government nor any succeeding government can prevent him from doing so.


Robert James Manion: Oh yes, they can absolutely replace him if they want to, and my hon. friend knows that perfectly well.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: They can what?


Robert James Manion: They can put him out of his position.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am going to prove that the minister cannot put him out of his position. Let me read section 7 of part I of the bill. It says:
No trustee shall be removed from office, nor suffer any reduction in salary, during the term for which he is appointed, unless for assigned cause and on address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.
Suppose the House of Commons does pass an address asking for the dismissal of this trustee and the upper house refuses to concur; what then? Would the minister answer my question right now?

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Beaubien


Robert James Manion: The upper house would not refuse if the trustee was breaking a law that had been passed by the parliament of Canada.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I have been in the house since 1921 and I have seen many pieces of legislation passed by this house which were rejected by the Senate.


Robert James Manion: We have reformed the Senate.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I do not wish to criticize the upper house, but as a representative of the Canadian people, who are the shareholders of the Canadian National Railway, I am certainly not going to delegate my power to the upper body, which is not responsible to the electors. That is my contention, and that is why I say that if this chairman of the board of trustees, this superman, is in the frame of mind to amalgamate the railways, neither this government nor any succeeding government can remove him from office unless they get the sanction of the upper house, which is not responsible to the electorate.
What powers do we confer upon this superman by this bill? In the first place we appoint a board of three trustees, but we might just as well throw two of them in the Ottawa river and keep the chairman, because no decision of the board can be put into effect unless the chairman concurs in it. The other two trustees are nullified entirely except they agree with the chairman. Then why appoint three? Why not let this superman run the show? Of course, I suppose there is no place for two supermen in Canada.
Section 11 of part I provides:
The trustees may decide or act at meetings only by unanimous vote or by majority which includes the chairman.
The Board of Railway Commissioners can give a decision without the chairman of the board concurring in it, and many such important decisions have been given by the Board1 of Railway Commissioners, with the chairman dissenting from the judgment. But in this case we give the chairman of the board of trustees power to do what? There is nothing under the sun in regard to the railways that this trustee cannot do. He can give leases, he can dismantle, he can do anything. Have the railways of this country got into such a, position to-day that we, the people's representatives in this house, representing the shareholders of the Canadian National Railways, are going to pass legislation which will take away from us any control with regard to the national railways and put complete power in the hands of one man?

I do not think the minister is fair in asking the house to pass this legislation. I do not think the government is fair in expecting us to cooperate in passing it, nullifying, as it does, the power of parliament in connection with the Canadian National Railways, making the minister nothing more than a messenger to bring the report into the house and lay it on the table. Surely the minister is not serious in wishing to belittle his office to that extent. I should be more confident of the results if the minister would retain the responsibility he has to-day instead of delegating it to this board.
Has the public any rights under this bill? Can the public appear before any of these tribunals? I do not see any place in it where the public is considered at all.


Robert James Manion: The chairman of the
tribunal can allow the public to appear and make representations before any tribunal that is sitting. It is in the act.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Well I have read it;
probably I am not as quick mentally as the minister, but there are many things that he does not know about the act or he would never have introduced it. I say that to the minister, because if he knew as much as I think he should know about it, he would not have it before us at all in its present form.
Then we come to part III, which deals with the tribunals and provides for cooperation. We are going to force them to cooperate. I would ask, how many times will the railroads cooperate after they have been forced by this tribunal to do something they do not want to do? A decision of the tribunal must be against one railroad or the other. Will the railroad against which the decision is given be very much enamoured of this arbitral board? You cannot have cooperation and compulsion together. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) last night compared this compulsion to the wheat pool contract in western Canada. There is no similarity whatever; the wheat pool members were all assembled at meetings in their local districts, at conventions for the whole province; they had their say and formulated their plans. But by this bill only one man has anything to say, and that is the chairman of the arbitral board.
The more I read this bill, Mr. Speaker, and listen to the speeches made in this house, the more I am against it. The bill makes no contribution to the solution of our railroad problem.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The minister is against it.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: My hon. friend says he
thinks the minister is against it. I think my-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
self if the minister sat another week hearing the good speeches being delivered from this side of the house he would be against it. One of the important things that should be done with the Canadian National is recapitalization, but there is nothing in this bill to bring that about.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What good would that
do?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It would put the Canadian National before the Canadian public at its real physical value instead of the value my hon. friend has been trying to put on it for the last two years.


Peter McGibbon: You are only trying to
fool yourself.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am not trying to fool
myself, and you have not fooled me either.
I am against this bill because it is going to bring about amalgamation. I am against it because the public are not going to have any say in the administration of the Canadian National Railways. I am against it because it is going to throw thousands and thousands of men out of employment and demoralize the business of a good many parts of the country. The country is demoralized enough now. The policy of this government has stifled business enough without making it worse with this legislation. 8o I intend to vote against the second reading of the bill, and I am sorry I have not more than one vote.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this late stage of the debate to add a few words one naturally realizes that most of the ground has been covered and that not very much new material can be brought in. I find myself largely in agreement with my good friend the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) as far as this bill is concerned, and I also say to him that he has to quite an extent taken my speech. However, my remarks like his, will be brief.
The railway problem of the Dominion of Canada, as well as the details of this bill, first dealt with in the Senate and then passed on to the House of Commons, have been given a good deal of consideration and ably discussed, I think every one will agree, by hon. members on both sides of the house. I think that the people of Canada will now have an appreciation of the country's railway problem such as they never had before. Regarding the matter of amalgamation, and the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a few days ago that he would be prepared to have reintroduced into the bill the clause definitely stating that there shall be
no amalgamation between the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, I confess I do not know how the public of this country will interpret that statement. The bill provides for very extensive cooperation and joint use of facilities throughout the country, but I am afraid that this is just the thin end of the wedge to bring about amalgamation of the two railways. Much has been said in the country regarding the proposal of Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific, who urged at least amalgamation of management, and stated at different times that unification of control of some character would effect a saving in operation in the neighbourhood of S75,000,000 a year. I think it is only fair that the people should know that that statement was based on some 5,000 miles of railway mileage being tom up and service discontinued to a large number of people, as well as throwing out of employment many railway men, together with others who serve railway people in different parts of the country. So that as regards the concession of the Prime Minister as to reintroducing the clause prohibiting amalgamation, I think the people will be rather dubious as to its effect and they will be disposed to say they would prefer not to part with the control of their railway.	[DOT]
I think it oan fairly be said that our railway problem has not been created in toto by either political party in this house. The speeches of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell), and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), clearly indicated that the Conservative party prior to 1920 played no small part in the creation of the present problem.


Peter McGibbon: A good deal smaller part than the Liberals.


William Gilbert Weir: I am not so sure about that. I will say to the hon. gentleman that if this problem has been intensified since 1920 it has been largely because of the policies inaugurated previous to that time by the Conservative party, and that it was done in order to give to the people of this country the railway service to which they are entitled and to bring the road up to a state of efficiency where the Canadian people would be proud of it. I think hon. members will agree that this has been accomplished. I am generous enough, Mr. Speaker, to go so far as to say that the railway problem is in reality not due to either political party, or perhaps it would be better to say that it is due to both political parties. I was almost going to be generous
3022	COMMONS
C.N.R,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
enough to say that the railway problem in the main was created by the Canadian people themselves. Certainly it is their problem today. Whether or not it was theirs in the beginning may be doubtful, but the fact is that the people demanded branch lines and other services. They may have been encouraged to request some of these services through propaganda and other inducements held out to them by certain sections of the country, but I think it is safe to say that in the main, and particularly so far as branch lines construction is concerned, the people wanted the branch lines and the country needed them. So I say again that to a large degree at least the problem is the responsibility of the Canadian people and it is for them to solve it.
The railway problem in Canada will not be solved simply by passing this legislation. The people are anxious that their burden of taxation, so far as the railways are concerned, should be lifted as much as possible, but I want to say to the minister and to the government that in working out a policy in connection with our railways the people must be given more consideration than appears to be shown in this bill. I say the people must be trusted in this matter; their interest in the railways cannot be delegated to any board of trustees that might be appointed by any government for all time to come. I think everyone appreciated very much the frank presentation made by the minister with regard to this matter, and I should like to say to him that I think he should make the same statement to the Canadian people as often as possible. I believe that if this railway problem is to be solved at all it will be done by presenting the facts in connection with our railways to the people frankly, honestly and conscientiously. In that way and no other we will secure their whole hearted cooperation in the solution of this problem. I have in mind cities, towns, villages, boards of trade and other community organizations that may be materially affected by the passing of this legislation. I believe they will make vigorous protests to the government if their particular services are unduly curtailed, but I submit that if the situation is placed before them frankly and honestly by the minister or the government, or both, the people will submit to hardship and the curtailment of service much more readily than if they have to submit to the arbitrary jurisdiction of a tribunal composed of three men.
I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is too much to ask the Canadian people to place

their railway affairs in the hands of three men who shall have absolute control of the Canadian National system and all that belongs to it, while the Canadian people have nothing whatever to say as to the manner in which the railroad policy is carried out. Here we are setting up a board of three trustees to control the Canadian National railways. I believe that if the problem were placed before the people frankly and honestly they probably would not protest too vigorously against the curtailment of services which may take place. But when the time comes, as we all hope it will, that the railways present a better front to the Canadian people, the people have a right to demand that the Canadian National be handed back to the jurisdiction of their representatives. I must say that I have never had much sympathy with any government policy which attempts to delegate governmental responsibility to a commission. I do not say this with regard to the federal government only; I do not agree with the idea of any government handing over to a commission the control and administration of public utilities. After all is said and done the government must assume responsibility, and this bill merely provides the government with an opportunity to escape responsibility so far as our railways are concerned.
According to the bill there are to be three trustees and the first appointments are to be made by order in council. Probably that is all right. The term of office is for up to seven years, though some of the trustees may not be appointed for that period. According to the act, however, their successors are to be selected from a panel, which is to include the two remaining members of the board. In other words this is a device of the government whereby their appointees shall continue in office, so far as the Canadian National railway trustees are concerned. The point that confuses me is this:	In the event of
a change of government, which is always possible, the incoming government will be saddled with a board of trustees appointed by their predecessors in office, which they cannot possibly change, in spite of what my hon. friend the minister said. In the next parliament there may be a Liberal or a Cooperative Commonwealth government, but while we have a Conservative majority in the upper house there will be no chance of removing any of these trustees. Only one of these men is to be appointed as a full time trustee; presumably the other two are to work part time. I have no particular objection to the appointment of three trustees; I would as

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
soon have three as five or seven or any other number, but I submit that they should be full time men. I think the job is big enough for that, and I hope the government will see to it that they give all their time to the handling of Canadian National railway affairs. Again I submit, however, that it is unfair to ask this House of Commons to appoint these men for a period of seven years, and to give them the chance of remaining there for all time to come. I should be prepared to support this bill if the government would undertake that these trustees should be appointed for a period of say three years or five years; and then, according to the success they had achieved in handling the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, succeeding governments could judge as to whether or not they should be reappointed. That is important. It is asking too much of the people's representatives to have them appointed for the long period which this bill contemplates.
A good deal has been said with reference to the different sections of the bill, but I submit again that the real importance of it is part I. The whole essential set-up of the bill is contained in that part, and if part I does not work satisfactorily then the rest of the bill does not matter. We have examples at the present time of cooperation on the part of the railways and an endeavour to curtail expenditures as far as humanly possible, so that I do not think we need worry about the other features of the bill. The important part is the selection of the men who are to operate the railways at the outset, and the term of their office. This section of the bill takes the absolute control of the Canadian National Railways away from parliament, the people's representatives, and gives to these three men unlimited powers to do as they see fit with the national system, regardless of its effect on the Canadian people. The object is, as everyone has said in this debate, primarily to effect measures of economy, and we are all in support of that. But I submit that the Canadian people should have the right to appeal from certain actions which this board might take. I think it is asking too much of the Canadian people to place absolutely under the control of three men the administration of the Canadian National Railways, men from whose decisions no one can appeal. They are virtually a dictatorship in the handling of the affairs of this railway, and that is unfair both to the people's representatives in this house and to the people themselves.
With respect to part II, subsection 2, if that can be interpreted to mean that these three
men shall have the power to tear up tracks and utterly discontinue services through certain sections of the country, then I find myself in strong opposition to it. I can picture many communities which have been built up around a railway. People have gone in there with all their worldly resources in an effort to make a living, and I say that it is a national responsibility that they shall continue to have necessary transportation service supplied by the country. We cannot afford to sacrifice their interests and disregard them entirdy through any action on the part of the board of trustees in tearing up tracks, discontinuing services and so on. I cannot conceive how parliament can agree to a policy that contemplates as farreaching powers as are here given.
In my humble judgment, and it is a very humble judgment, the greatest protection both the Canadian National Railways and public ownership have in this country is .to be found right here in the House of Commons, and I cannot understand how members of parliament can give up that control. Some may argue that there are also in the House of Commons the greatest dangers to the Canadian National Railways and to public ownership. If that is so, then I suggest that we should adopt a code of ethics whereby it would be a disgrace to any member of parliament, or any member of the upper chamber, to use his influence, and the force of circumstances in which he might happen to find himself, with the Canadian National Railways or any other public utility, to thrust upon such organizations expenditures which were unjustifiable. It seems to me that the sooner we adopt some code of that sort the better it will be for the public utilities of the country.
There is one other point to which I would refer and in which I think the Canadian people are most vitally interested just now, with respect to the operation of the Canadian railways. The Canadian people, I think, realize their responsibility so far as railway matters are concerned, and in the effecting of economies they are most concerned with what might be called luxury expenditures in connection with the railway system. They are very strong in the opinion that such luxury services should be curtailed to the very limit. In this connection I might read a paragraph from the report of the * Interstate Commerce Commission for 1931 at page 37:
Unnecessary services should be abandoned.
The expenses chargeable to passenger and allied services were 110-82 per cent of the
3024	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Weir (Macdonald)
revenue from the services, whereas for freight the corresponding figure was 68-62 per cent.
In other words, the passenger service took 110-82 per cent of the revenues, whereas the freight service cost to the railways required only 68-62 per cent of the revenue received. A similar comparison in the case of the Canadian railways would show, I believe, an even wider discrepancy because of our greater mileage and the fact that our population is less dense. This is one of the expensive items in railway operation which the people are particularly interested in. We have only to look at what has been done; we find railways running de luxe trains with very few passengers, building huge hotels and steamships that will never pay, and undertaking other services that could have been dispensed with. The money wasted on such items could have been used to reduce operating expenses and to cut down costs, and this would be reflected back in a reduction in freight rates and in passenger and express rates as well. This is one of the important things to which attention should be given, and something which the people are looking for. If these so-called luxury expenditures are not cut to the bone or practically eliminated, I am afraid the people of the country are not going to accept with very good grace the discontinuance of certain essential services which their communities have been enjoying in the past and which we hope will be continued in the future. We cannot afford to see communties that are entitled to service entirely cut off, and I hope there is nothing in this bill which can be interpreted to mean that these three trustees shall have the power to tear up railway tracks and to refuse to give needed service in certain communities. I submit that the tracks should be left there and at least a modified service given those communities which have been built up around such railways.
There is also reference in the Duff commission's report to truck and automobile service as a competitor with the railways. I understand also that the Minister of Railways has made representations to the provincial governments regarding uniformity of regulations so far as truck service is concerned. I just wish to submit -this point without enlarging upon it: I hope no action is contemplated which will mean the elimination of the truck services. These trucks provide a very valuable class of service to certain communities and I submit that it would not be fair for the government to take such action as would put them out of business. The so-called

freight truck might be curtailed to a certain exten-t, but if curtailed too much I am afraid that business concerns throughout the country will join together and purchase their own trucks and do their own freighting and I doubt very much if the government could control that to any extent.
The most important part of this bill is part I. If the government was prepared to accept the amendment which I mentioned a few moments ago, whereby the term of these trustees would be limited to a period of three or five years, I could support the bill. The set-up of this board is to be continued in perpetuity, even after the present government may have gone out of office, and I submit that is asking too much. These trustees are to be continued in office for all time to come, which means that the people of Canada wall not be able to get this great public utility back under their control when conditions improve, as we all hope they will. I submit that at the present time the railways are cooperating very effectively and eliminating duplication, so that the other features of the bill, particularly those in part III, may not be called upon very much, and probably may not be used at all. The real kernel of the bill is part I, which sets up the board of trustees. I submit to the minister and to the government, and I hope the word will be passed along to the trustees, that what the Canadian people are looking for so far as railway operations are concerned is the preservation of the essential services to the various parts of the country and the elimination of unnecessary or luxurious services which do not bring in a return in keeping with the outlay made. The Canadian people are asking that there be no further expenditures of that kind.
I submit that it is the duty of the minister to place the whole railway problem frankly before the Canadian people and to ask for their cooperation. If he puts the matter before the Canadian people in as frank and as straightforward a manner as he put it before the House of Commons when introducing the bill some days ago, I think he will find a very decided willingness on their part to cooperate with this board of trustees in the working out of the railway problem of this country.
On motion of Mr. Factor the debate was adjourned.


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

Railway Act-Rate Structure
Wednesday, March 15, 1933