1933-04-20

[Stage Direction]
Hon. O. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 77, to facilitate compromises and arrangements between companies and their creditors.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the present time any company in Canada, whether it be organized under the laws of the Dominion of Canada or under the laws of any of the provinces of Canada, which becomes bankrupt or insolvent is thereby brought under either the Bankruptcy Act or the Winding-up Act. These acts provide for the liquidation of the company under a trustee in bankruptcy in the one case and under a liquidator in the other, and the almost inevitable result is that the organization of the company is entirely disrupted, its good-will depreciated and ultimately lost, and the balance of the assets sold by the trustees or the liquidator for whatever they will bring. There is no mode or method under our laws whereby the creditors of a

Companies and Creditors
company may be brought into court and permitted by amicable agreement between themselves to arrange for a settlement or compromise of the debts of the company in such a way as to permit the company effectively to continue its business by its reorganization. Sections 144 and 145 of the Companies Act of Canada provide that the shareholders of a company may meet to adjust the relationship between classes of shares in the company. Several of the provincial acts also contain provisions whereby the shareholders may meet to make compromises and arrangements between the shareholders. Under the British North America Act, bankruptcy and insolvency fall exclusively within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
At the present time some legal method of making arrangements and compromises between creditors and companies is perhaps more necessary because of the prevailing commercial and industrial depression, and it was thought by the government that we should adopt some method whereby compromises might be carried into effect under the supervision of the courts without utterly destroying the company or its organization, without loss of good-will and without forcing the improvident sale of its assets. Therefore, we have studied carefully the provisions of the English Companies Act of 1929. This act contains a provision to permit such compromises and arrangements with creditors and I should like to read section 153 of that act upon which this bill is based. It reads:
153.

(1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed between a company and its creditors or any class of them, or between the company and its members or any class of them, the court may, on the application in a summary way of the company or of any creditor or member of the company, or, in the case of a company being wound up, of the liquidator, order a meeting of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members of the company or class of members, as the case may be, to be summoned in such manner as the court directs.
(2) If a majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors or class of creditors, or members or class of members, as the case may be, present and voting either in person or by proxy at the meeting, agree to any compromise or arrangement, the compromise or arrangement shall, if sanctioned by the court, be binding on all the creditors or the class of creditors, or on the members or class of members, as the ease may be, and also on the company or, in the case of a company in the course of being w-ound up, on the liquidator and contributories of the company.
In attempting to draft an act which will certainly be within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada we felt that we should not seemingly entrench upon provincial jurisdiction so far as to provide for compromises between classes of shareholders of provincial companies, and therefore we have provided in this bill, which I am about to introduce, that the provincial law shall apply in respect of provincial companies in so far the the compromise may affect the shareholders, but we provide also for the convening of a meeting of creditors of any company which is bankrupt or insolvent under supervision of the court, so that, if possible, an amicable compromise or arrangement may be arrived at; and, in so far as such compromise or arrangement may necessitate with respect to provincial companies compromises or arrangements between classes of shareholders we have authorized the court to proceed conjointly under this proposed act and the provincial acts for the purpose of convening meetings of shareholders or classes of shareholders.
The bill as drafted is quite simple. It seems to the government very necessary that such a measure should be introduced, and I commend it to the careful consideration of the members of the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed for political partisanship (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in all other sections of the country, since November 1, 1932?
2.	How many of these postmasters have been replaced temporarily or permanently by a person who had lodged a complaint or given evidence against them?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) 17; (b) 16.
2.	10.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. LUCAS:: 1.	What was the total revenue for each of the past five years from post offices at the following points in Alberta, Banff, Camrose, Hrumheller. Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer, and Wetaskiwin?
2.	What remuneration did postmasters receive at each of the above points, for said years, by way of a cash salary?
3.	Where postmasters did not receive a cash salary, what remuneration did they receive at each of said points, by way of total commissions, box rents, or any other form of remuneration allowed by the department for each of said years?
Question as order for Return

4.	Does the government supply buildings, office equipment, including postal boxes, etc., at each of above points?
5.	How many assistants were employed at each of said points, for each of above years?
6.	Who pays said assistants?
7.	What salary do they receive?
S. What salary is paid to the postmasters at Calgary and Edmonton?
THE GOLD STANDARD On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if, in view of what transpired in the United States yesterday and to-day in regard to the gold basis, we may hope that the government may change its policy in the very near future in regard to the gold basis, managed currency, and the control and expansion of credit.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: If I were to make any reply offhand, it would be to say that the situation referred to by my hon. friend is rather a vindication of the attitude which has been taken by the government heretofore.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT On the orders of (the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Marine
if the government intends to introduce the Shipping Act in whole or in part during the present session?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I understand ithait some amendments may be brought before the Senate and the bouse before the end of the session, but the revision of the whole act has been postponed until next session.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will there be an opportunity given next year for the house itself 'before a special committee to investigate the provisions of the bill?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say at this session just exactly what will take place next session.


Mr. NEILL:: Will the shipping bill to be
introduced deal with coastal certificates?


Alfred Duranleau: Does my bon. friend refer to amendments to the Shipping Act?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say positively, but I think that the amendments which will be brought before the house will mostly concern the coasting trade in Canada.


SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of Marine if anything is going to be done about Sir Alexander Gibb's report with regard to the national ports? Will there be any legislation or any change in any respect?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that the Prime
Minister answered such a question a few days ago.


Ernest Lapointe: No, he transferred it to my hon. friend.


Mr. POULIOT:: We want an answer from
the Minister of Marine.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that
upon representations the bill following Sir Alexander Gibb's report on the national ports of this country will also be postponed until next session.


ADVANCES TO PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of 'the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Yesterday the
Prime Minister said that he would see that the house was given as much as possible of the correspondence on file between the provinces and the Dominion government respecting financial arrangements. I would ask my right hon. friend who is leading (the house, or the Minister of Finance, if he would make sure before the Prime Minister takes his little trip to Washington to see the president about reciprocity and other matters, that the Prime Minister gives the bouse all the correspondence that is available.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: The Prime Minister is detained to-day for a short time but I shall speak to him about it.


FRUIT MARKING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: May I ask t'he Minister of Agriculture if he is contemplating a revision of the Fruit Marks Act this session?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I cannot make a statement in that connection as yet.


PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MaeLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

Pension Act
That it is expedient to amend the Pension Act to give effect to certain recommendations of the committee appointed to investigate the administration of the act; to provide for the elimination of various provisions relating to the pension tribunal; and for an increase in the number of members of the commission and to prescribe their tenure of office; for the continuation of the pension appeal court as a court of appeal and of review; for the appointment of an ad hoc judge as a member of the pension appeal court and his remuneration; for the appointment of a travelling _ inspector of the veterans' bureau, and of pension counsel, and a reviewing officer; for the payment of awards by the comptroller of the treasury, and generally to simplify and improve procedure under the act.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Explain.
Mr. MacLAREN; I wish to take this opportunity of making a preliminary statement regarding the resolution which we have just heard read from the chair, perhaps not in any detail for it is probably the wish of the house that the subject matter of the resolution should be more fully explained at a later stage.
The resolution proposes certain amendments to the Pension Act. The amendments relate especially to a certain portion of the Pension Act, namely, that dealing with its administration. In September of last year the government appointed a special committee to inquire into the administration of the Pension Act. It was composed in all of eleven members. Five were representatives of veterans' organizations, five were representatives of the different branches of the Department of Pensions and National Health, and Mr. Justic Rinfret of the Supreme Court of Canada acted as chairman. So far as I am aware the committee was composed differently from any I previously recall. It met in Ottawa, and over a period of about six weeks heard witnesses from various parts of Canada, after which a final report was submitted to the government. During the course of the meetings it was found that on account of the urgent necessity of his attendance to duties in the Supreme court, the chairman could not continue to act. Mr. Justice Audette took his place, and completed the duties which fell to the chairman of the committee.
The report of the committee was submitted in three parts. While in matters of detail there are indications of some division of opinion, yet in connection with larger and more important matters there is substantial agreement. I am making a general statement, and am not speaking absolutely. I believe I am speaking correctly however when I state that in connection with important matters of
principle there is general agreement. The reference to the committee, in the terms of the order in council, was to examine and report on the administration of the Pension Act. Since that time the report has been printed and distributed to hon. members.
The appointment of the committee, and the hearings before it were due, to a great extent, to representations made to the government by allied organizations, to the effect that there was dissatisfaction due to delay in making decisions, congestion in the different courts, and an undue number of appeals to the pension appeal court. There were other troubles, but I believe I have indicated the three chief ones. The attention of the committee was directed naturally, to the special conditions about which complaint had been made. The resolution now before us sets out the nature of the amendments proposed, and in connection with which I shall mention briefly the more important features.
At the present time there are three adjudicating bodies administering the Pension Act. There is the board of pension commissioners, the pension tribunal and the pension appeal court. Under the amendment it is proposed that there be only two adjudicating bodies, namely the board of pension commissioners and the pension appeal court. Under these circumstances the pension tribunal, which has been functioning for a few years and still functions, will cease to operate. On the other hand there will be an increase in the personnel of the board of pension commissioners. Then there will be provision for the enlargement of the pension appeal court, if necessary. In any case it will be arranged so that there may be two courts sitting at the same time in order to expedite and dispose of the business. One of the essential features of the pension tribunal has been preserved, namely that a quorum of two shall be what one might term a travelling board, so that when necessary those quorums may proceed through the country acting as travelling boards, as now obtains under the tribunal. Secondly, those boards will have the right to make a decision. The two essential features of the tribunal as it now exists will be safeguarded and preserved.
There are one or two further points which I might mention before moving the adoption of the resolution. The first is in regard to the reviewing officer. The objection has been taken frequently in the house that the official or officials who take appeals should not be subject to the pension board or to the minister. The provision which will appear in the bill is that this officer, known as the reviewing officer, shall first be a medical man so that
Pension Act

he may determine on questions of disability. On his advice appeals shall or shall not be taken. Secondly, he is to receive direction from the president of the appeal court.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
only in regard to crown appeals.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I am speaking of cases
upon which decisions have been made favourable to the applicant. Of course applicants who have not been successful are always at liberty within a certain time to take an appeal.
I think possibly the house has heard enough of the details now, I would like to make this general statement, that there are a number of provisions, of amendments, which will I think go far to expedite and simplify the machinery, so that matters can move more rapidly in the future. There will be less delay. Personally I recognize that there has been delay. I do not hold the officials responsible for it, I regard the impossible amount of work as the essential cause. In any case the amendments will have the effect of disposing of thousands of cases that are almost dormant yet cannot be removed. Applicants who are not taking further action will be communicated with, will be given ample time to express their views as to whether or not they desire to proceed, and if they are not proceeding then their cases will be removed. In this way much will be done, I feel, to clear up the work more promptly and satisfactorily. This will go far towards disposing of the complaints that have been made, especially as regards delays in giving decisions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In rising at this time for a brief
discussion of the resolution submitted by the lion. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), I do so not with any idea of deferring the passing of the resolution, nor indeed of discussing its merits or demerits, because I realize that these can be discussed better when the definite and particular legislation based on the resolution is before the house. There are however two or three considerations that I think call for attention at the present time.
The resolution is divided into seven parts. It refers to the elimination of various provisions relating to the pension tribunal. This is not the time to discuss the pension tribunals, which have been functioning consequent on the legislation of 1930, but my own judgment, after mature observation, has been and is that the pension tribunals have been the best friends that the exservioemen of Canada have had since 1930. So I am indeed 
glad to hear the observation of the minister that in effect the pension tribunals are not being abolished but that their functions are being merged with those of the enlarged board of pension commissioners with their travelling quorums functioning in various parts of the dominion. That is the second part of the resolution.
The third refers to the continuation of .the pension appeal court as a court of appeal and review. I presume that new title has something to do with the institution of a new officer who is to be appointed under the terms of the legislation to be introduced.
The fourth provision is for the appointment of an administrative judge as a member of the appeal court. I think that provision will command 'the entire sympathy and support of this house.
The fifth is for the appointment of a travelling inspector of the veterans' bureau. That, I think, is one of the recommendations made by General Ross in part II of the excellent report submitted by him.
The sixth provision is for the appointment of pension counsel, who I understand, are to take over, in an altered form, some of the duties of the commission counsel appointed under the 1930 legislation. Speaking for myself, I am very glad indeed to see that the commission counsel are to be finally abolished. The appointment of a reviewing officer must be looked upon with a great deal of care by all members o,f this house, because as I understood the remarks of the minister, under the legislation to be introduced a single medical officer is to be appointed who is going to have complete power to advise the crown in regard to which cases should be appealed and which should not. I think this may be-I am not saying it is-giving to one individual powers of a very far-reaching and important Character.


Murray MacLaren: May I say that he will
be under the direction and control of the president of the pension appeal court.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, I
am not going to discuss details at the present time. I have every respect for the president of the pension appeal court, but to my mind that would be an objection to the reviewing officer. When an appeal is going to a judicial body, a court of final instance, and the president of that court has under his control the person who is to decide whether the appeal should go to that body for final judgment, I think there is a fundamental weakness there. However, I am not crticizing it at the present moment.

Pension Act
The seventh provision is for the payment of awards by the comptroller of the treasury; which, as I understand it, is transferring from the department the authority for paying pensions or awards made by the tribunals.
The history of pension legislation in this parliament ever since 1919 has been a very fortunate one indeed. It has been entirely removed from every suggestion of partisanship. We have had, I think, nine select committees of this parliament in various years considering all possible phases of pension administration. We had a royal commission under the chairmanship of my hon. friend the member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) who submitted to this parlia-men a most voluminous and excellent report upon which the legislation of 1923 was based; we had the legislation of 1930 resulting from the very excellent work of a committee presided over by my good friend the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). So if there have been mistakes in regard to the administration of the Pension Act they have not been intentional mistakes on the part of either side of the House of Commons. But the point which I rose to mention is that every single important revision of the Pension Act in previous sessions has been submitted to a committee of this House of Commons. Legislation based upon these seven provisions to which I have referred is to my mind nothing less than a complete recasting of the Pension Act. That act, as hon. members know, is one of the most complicated acts we have upon our statute books at the present time. I agree with my hon. friend the minister in regard to the splendid abilities of the gentlemen who formed that committee whose report I have before me, but we have now in this house an example of the consequences of introducing to this house a very complicated piece of legislation namely the railway bill. That bill is based on the report of a very eminent commission, yet we find a marked division of opinion among hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house in regard to its provisions. So I suggest to the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health that before this bill is thrown into committee of the whole it should be referred to a committee of this house, not to hear further evidence, not to function as the committee whose report we have before us, but to examine the details of the bill, to call in experts, if they desire, either from the department or the associated veterans. But I think it is vital to the success of this legislation, in case there may be some controversial sections, not to have it thrown into committee of the whole without hon.
members on either side of the house being thoroughly familiar with it. In all sincerity, in the interest of the legislation and to preserve the nonpartisan attitude of former years, I suggest that when this bill is ready for presentation it be referred to a small committee of this house, of members thoroughly familiar with the details of pension administration and legislation, so that if possible we may have the unanimous judgment of the House of Commons in regard to what is to my mind one of the most important pieces of legislation in Canada.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I only wish to add a few words to what has been said by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). As I understand it, although I have had no information with respect to the provisions of the bill, essentially it is to destroy and do away with the principal provisions of the pension legislation of 1930. I do not think it is my duty or that the burden should be placed upon me to defend that legislation, because it was passed unanimously by the committee that dealt with it; it was confirmed unanimously by this house and received the approbation of all soldier bodies throughout the country. I must say, however, that before taking away from that legislation its most important feature, namely the right of the returned soldier to have his day in court and to be heard by a tribunal as to the justice or otherwise of his case, we perhaps should have given the matter more consideration and should have had a more unanimous report.


Murray MacLaren: That is carefully preserved in the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: I am very glad to learn from the hon. gentleman who is in charge of the measure that this right is preserved in the bill, but I wonder why the pension tribunals are to be abolished. Is it simply because we wish to change the name? If that is the reason I do not know why so much fuss was made about this bill. If we are preserving the essential functions of the pension tribunals and simply changing their status, putting them under the board of pension commissioners instead of leaving them independent tribunals, then I think perhaps we have very strong reascti for opposing this bill. The tribunals and appeal courts were established in order to get away from the final jurisdiction of the board of pension commissioners, which in the minds of the soldiers throughout the country had not been functioning satisfactorily. After having read over the report
Pension Act

of the commission, which was composed of very able gentlemen, it appears to me that only a minority of the members recommended the action now proposed by the government. However, I will leave that point for discussion when the bill is brought before the house.
In support of what has been said by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), if the correct information has been given to us, namely that there will be some sixty or seventy sections in this proposed bill, I respectfully submit to the minister that it will be extremely difficult to discuss these sections in this House of Commons. There is no legislation on our statute books more complicated and more difficult of understanding to the lay mind-and to the legal mind as well-than the Pension Act. It requires constant study and application, and to throw this matter into the House of Commons without some preliminary study having been given to it will, I think, bring about the evil effects pointed out by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. If the minister has not definitely made up his mind on that score I would ask him, in the interests of the legislation, in the interests of the soldier, and to keep to the practice followed hitherto in this house, to reconsider the matter and, if it is at all possible, form some small committee which need not hear witnesses but which could take means to be informed as to the reasons why these new sections are being introduced into the act. I very much fear that unless something of the kind is done we will have misunderstandings as to the purport of the legislation, and with all the goodwill in the world and the greatest desire to cooperate, which I am sure will be found on all sides of the house, those misunderstandings will occur.
There is one other matter to which I should like to direct attention, ll would ask the minister, and doubtless he will reply When we reach the committee stage, whether this bill will reduce the number of pensions granted to ex-soldiers or whether it will increase them; in other words I would ask whether the purport of this act is to be more generous or less generous to the ex-soldiers. If it is designed to save money I think perhaps the minister should tell us. If it is designed further to extend the application of pension^ and bring more returned men within the scope of the act I think we Should know it. As to the new machinery provided, I understand that eight or ten new pension commissioners are to be appointed.


Murray MacLaren: No, not ten new ones; there will be eight in all.


Charles Gavan Power: There are to be eight pension commissioners, so there will be five new members of the board.


Murray MacLaren: No, four new ones.


Charles Gavan Power: There are three members at present and the chief medical officer? There will be four new members who will replace the eight or ten members of the present tribunals, and to that extent I am sure there will be a certain saving of the public money. Apart from that, however, I am at a loss to understand what saving there will be. If we are accomplishing this saving by placing the control of pensions once more under the jurisdiction of the board of pension commissioners I very much fear that this move will not give satisfaction, at any rate to the people most concerned, the returned soldiers.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (Toronto South):: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the speeches we have just heard from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) show the utter futility of attempting to discuss something of which we know nothing. They surmised that the bill would contain something, and went on to say that in that event it would be right or wrong. If we are to take information we may gather, not surreptitiously but by conversation and discussion, and consider the resolution in that light we are not helping the measure in the slightest degree; we are only stirring up objections that perhaps will not otherwise come to the surface.
However, I do agree with one point brought up by each of the hon. members who spoke; that is, that we should consider very carefully the way we take up the provisions of this bill. This is a complicated matter; those of us who have had to do with pensions know that the provisions of the act are many and that often they are difficult to reconcile. It should be made as clear as possible, for it is a bill that we should have so plain that he who runs may read if that can be accomplished. It comes up for consideration by men who are not lawyers and who perhaps are not able to comprehend all its provisions, so I submit that we should use every effort to make it quite clear. I do not propose, however, to discuss hypothetically the provisions of this bill. There are many suggestions I might make at the moment, but I do commend to the very serious consideration of the minister the suggestion that every opportunity should

Pension Act
be given to have this matter properly considered in committee, though whether that should be a select committee of the house or the committee of the whole we do not know and will not know until we see the provisions of the bill and see what difficulties will be encountered in its consideration.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The minister will close the debate if he speaks now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Stirling in the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the minister intend to proceed with the bill this afternoon?


Murray MacLaren: I was going to ask leave to introduce the bill. That is as far as it is intended to go.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister be good
enough to give me an answer now to some of the questions I submitted to him a .moment ago? What will be the effect from the standpoint of economy in administration after this bill has been passed?


Murray MacLaren: There will be considerable economy; I have .been told it will be something like $400,000. But that is not the point.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the question I am
asking.


Murray MacLaren: The question has been
asked, why have this legislation? Is it because it will be more favourable or less favourable to the applicant? My answer is, that has nothing whatever to do with it. It is not whether it is more favourable or less favourable; it is a question of what is fair and right, no matter what happens. I have explained that the action of the government followed the presentation of views by representatives of the allied organizations, who asked that the administration of the act be reconsidered by a committee; so that primarily and basically the action taken and the amendments now presented are the outcome of representations made to the government by veterans' organizations.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister has not
answered my question and for the moment I will not discuss it. I would refer now to the last statement he makesj that this legislation is the result of representations made by the associated veterans. I suppose he refers to a memorandum presented to the government by the associated veterans in January, 1932.


Murray MacLaren: I cannot give the date,
but I know that they appeared before the government.


Charles Gavan Power: My information is that they appeared before the government in January, 1932, and submitted a memorandum entitled:
Legislative and other proposals affecting ex-service men and women in Canada, submitted to the Prime Minister and members of the government of Canada by The Army & Navy Veterans in Canada; The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League; The Amputations Association of the Great War; The Canadian Pensioners Association of the Great War; The Sir Arthur Pearson Club of Blinded Sailors and Soldiers, January, 1932.
I believe there were also representations from the non-affiliated veterans of Canada.
I do not find anywhere in that memorandum a recommendation that the tribunals as such be abolished, nor do I find anything referring to a reviewing officer, nor anything which would tend to show that the soldiers, at that time at any rate, favoured placing the full jurisdiction in these matters under the control of the board of pension commissioners. As a matter of fact, the commission which was appointed following these representations and, as the minister very well says, as a result of these representations, was very far from unanimous in its findings. I have not before me the report of the commission but as I understand three or perhaps four made one report, three others made another report, three more another report, and perhaps there was a fourth. Generally speaking, however, the majority of the commission was not in favour of legislation such as is about to be introduced. The majority, taking the three or four reports, in other words, the consensus of the majority of the members of the commission did not favour legislation such as this.


Murray MacLaren: In toto?


Charles Gavan Power: Well, the principal points
of the legislation brought down by the minister to-day were not approved by any but a minority of the commission. Am I right?


Murray MacLaren: No, I do not think so.
The hon. gentleman will find that there was a majority in most cases.


Charles Gavan Power: Was there a majority in
favour of the abolition of the pension tribunal?


Murray MacLaren: Six. It occurs in two
reports.


Charles Gavan Power: Six out of how many?


Murray MacLaren: Eleven.
Pension Act


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister say positively that six members of this commission reported in favour of the abolition of the pension tribunal? I have not the report by me but I am somewhat surprised, because I was under the impression that that was not the tenor of their report. Now to refer to the question I asked at the beginning, as to whether or not the tendency of this legislation will be to make, it easier for veterans to obtain pension, or more difficult, will the minister answer that?


Murray MacLaren: The machinery will be simplified and improved, so that it will be easier for applicants to get their applications dealt with. It will not change the basis for pension one way or the other, but it will expedite matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister take into consideration the suggestion made on this side to refer the bill to a committee of the house?


Murray MacLaren: Certainly; it will be
considered.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there anything in the bill dealing with the section of the Pension Act which consecrates the principle that, whatever the earning capacity of the veteran who is receiving pension may become, his pension is not to be interfered with? In the Pension Act there is a section-I am informed it is section 24, subsection 4-which provides that the veteran shall, not be deprived of pension nor have his pension reduced as a result of his having become more proficient in his earning capacity in any profession which he may follow.


Murray MacLaren: That point is not dealt with. As I mentioned some time ago, these amendments deal with the administration under the Pension Act, and as regards the awarding of pensions, the grounds for pensions, and the amount of pensions, those are questions that are outside the scope of the report and are not dealt with under this.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Having unfortunately
been absent while the resolution was under discussion, I will not discuss it now but will reserve until the bill is brought down whatever I have to say. I should like to support very strongly the suggestion which has been made, I believe from this side of the house, that the bill to be founded upon this resolution should be referred to a special committee. This matter is of tremendous importance and the implications are so wide that they could not be discussed with intelligence in the committee of the whole.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacLaren thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. .
.CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes-Mr. Manion-Mr. Hanson (York^Sunbury) in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunibury):: We are dealing with section 16,
subsection 1.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: When the committee
rose last evening it was discussing an amendment which had been suggested by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. At that time I pointed out that I felt the amendment did not go far enough. The latter part of this subsection reads:
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.
That subsection refers to ithe amalgamation of services, whether the running of trains, the operation of shops and stations, or whatever it may be. It will be noticed that the question of the allocation of employment is left to the officers of the two railway companies with the direction that they shall endeavour to provide for equitable distribution of employment. It seems to me that if the interests of the railway employees are to be protected, something will have to he included in .this section to make the equitable distribution of employment obligatory or binding. Many years ago I had some experience in these matters, although in a much less complicated form. In those days the railways were taking over other small lines to incorporate in their general operations and the question as to ho.w the employees of the small lines were to be dealt with was constantly coming up for consideration. In a case of this kind it would be impossible, under the agreements existing at present between the employees and the railway companies, for the management of the roads to


C.N.R.-C.P.R. BUI
[Stage Direction]
do the things suggested by this section. There should be some obligatory provision to provide for the proper allocation of employment.
Let me give one or two illustrations. It might be decided that the Canadian National shops and the Canadian Pacific shops in Ottawa be amalgamated. I am not suggesting that that will happen, but it is a possibility. The work would be concentrated in one seit of shops and there is now no authority vested in the officials of the railways to take employees from the National shops and put them into 'the Pacific shops, or vice versa. This could not be done as long as there were sufficient employees on the lists of the one company to do all 'the work involved. Another illustration would be in the running of trains, say from Ottawa to Toronto or Montreal. One train might be taken off leaving the other train running over the line of the other railway to do all the work. Let us assume that the train left would run over the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The officials of the railways cannot decade that two Canadian National and two Canadian Pacific crews will be utilized. Under the agreements now existing, 'the Canadian Pacific men would 'have the ultimate decision. The same would apply to the Canadian National if it were decided to run the train over that line.
It seems to me that if there is to be equitable distribution of employment, some plan must be worked out by which a representative of the men will be clothed with authority to allocate the work upon some basis of seniority or percentage; otherwise, we will be having a continuous dispute between the employees of the two roads and injustices will certainly be done. I feel that the words "endeavour to provide" should be struck out and "shall provide" substituted therefor. There should also be an added clause to provide that the accredited representatives of each class of employee concerned would have authority to allocate employment equitably between the several classes of men involved. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is more directly involved in this matter and has been more recently concerned than I have been, and I expected that he would have brought forward an amendment which would cover this point. Unless these things are provided for, I believe there will be a very serious effect upon the employees of the railways.
George Reginald Geary: Does not the hon. member think that the word "respectively" in line 15 provides for distribution as between the two companies?


George Brecken Nicholson: My point is that under the agreements existing between the companies and the men, the companies have no authority to do any such thing as is herein provided. If two shops at any terminal are brought together and all the work of the two railways is to be done in a National railway shop, so long as there were sufficient employees on the list, perhaps not in active employment-there are hundreds of men on the list who are not now in employment-they would have first preference in getting a job and taking extra work before a single man could be transferred from the other shop, and any who were transferred would come in as new employees altogether under existing arrangements. The same is true with regard to train service men, bridge men, track men and any other class of employee covered under the agreements now in existence. The agreements as between the employees of one company and the employees of the other are vastly different, covering different districts, and varying as to seniority rights and all that sort of thing. If the bill is left in its present form there will be utter and complete confusion and the interests of the men will not be properly taken care of.


Olof Hanson: May I observe to the committee
that we are discussing subclause 1 of clause 16, to which an amendment was proposed yesterday by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, which I understand was not put. I 3hall now read it. It is moved by Mr. Heenan that subclause 1 of section 16 be amended by adding after the word "arrangement" in line 17 the words:
But in no event shall such measure, plan or arrangement become operative until the representatives of the employees affected have been given sixty days' notice.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: If there is no
objection at this stage I was going to make some observations on the question of compulsory cooperation. I wonder if the minister or the Prime Minister would entertain the idea, if they feel so strongly on the question of compulsory cooperation, of having a clause providing for it inserted in the bill, but providing also that it shall not come into effect at present or until they think it is desirable, and then only upon proclamation by the governor in council. I may say that I have put bills of that nature through the Saskatchewan provincial house, and also through this house. We wanted a provision of that nature in certain acts, but we did not know whether it would be required or not, and so we in-

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

serted it and then provided that it would only be brought into effect by proclamation.
The reason I make this suggestion is twofold. Out in the west we have been fed up, if I may use that term, on the policy enunciated by some of the members of the wheat pool favouring compulsory cooperation. To a great many of the contract signers of the pool such a policy was abhorrent, so muoh so that they started up an organization against it and defeated it, and that was the end of that campaign. The case might not be wholly parallel to this one, but nevertheless some of us feel quite strongly that so long as the two railways are doing such excellent work in the way of cooperation as they are at the present time, even though it as under the disciplining effect of the times, it might be wiser to let them run along just as they are doing, but always conscious of the fact that there is a provision in the law that the government may at any time in their wisdom invoke the provision for compulsory cooperation if the railways do not continue their good work in voluntarily cooperating. Such a course would be very gratifying to myself. I have no authority to speak for anybody else. The thought has just come to me now, and I make that suggestion. If it will not work in this case I shall be glad to be enlightened as to why it will not work, but if it will work I think it would help to bridge quite a gulf between this side of the house and the ministerial benches.
To repeat, my suggestion is that the principle of compulsory cooperation be inserted in the law but that it foe invoked only by proclamation at the instance of the government, and in the meantime let the railway companies run along as they are doing mow. They are doing magnificently, as was so eloquently and forcibly described by the minister in his very first speech on this subject. Why spoil that splendid work of voluntary cooperation by saying, "You must cooperate," when they are already doing it? You know bow cranky and cussed human nature naturally is, and how you hate to be told to do a thing when you are doing it. That is very much the ease here. The railways are being told by law that they must cooperate when everybody testifies that they are cooperating magnificently now in a voluntary way. As a matter of diplomacy, as a matter of gratifying that trait of human nature that exists in all of us, and in some more than others, it seems to me that it would be the part of wisdom, as well as good parliamentary tactics in connection with this knotty question, to adopt such a course as I have suggested. I

admit that I am against compulsory cooperation. The courts in Saskatchewan have decided that there "ain't mo such critter," if I may use that language and not attribute it to the bench. Injunctions have been taken out on the ground that compulsory cooperation was contradictory in its terms, and judgment has been given accordingly. So I have authority for my view. Unfortunately I have not the judgment here, but it was given by no less a judge than a member of the appeal court of Saskatchewan. With that as my authority, and with my experience of 'the terrible conflict that ran for years' through the farmers in the wheat pool on the subject of compulsion, I say that there is something fundamentally unsound and undesirable in the principle of compulsory cooperation. If the railways will noit cooperate, then as a last resort the government can say: We shall have regretfully to invoke this compulsory feature which has been provided in the law.
I have no motion to make, Mr. Chairman. I am simply making this suggestion. Maybe it is no good at all, but I know that it has worked out in both provincial and federal legislation. On one occasion we had to invoke the clause, and in the other case we did not. That is all! I have to say at the moment.


Mr. BENNETT:: The suggestion which has been made by the hon. gentleman regarding the adding of a clause to the bill providing that Part III shall not come into force except by proclamation has been considered in another chamber, with the result that it was not favourably entertained-


William Richard Motherwell: It was discussed
there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The vote against it was very small, only one, I think; I am speaking subject to correction.


William Richard Motherwell: Pretty close, but I had not heard of it previously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the observations made by the hon. gentleman are worthy of every consideration.
This affords me the opportunity to say that there has been some misapprehension on the part of many people as to the effect of this part of the bill. Some have thought that this was a provision in the law to dragoon the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the corporation as such, to do what they did not want to do regardless of what the views of the shareholders might be. Now, first of all, the law provides that whatever action is to be taken is action that is favour-



[Stage Direction]
able to both roads. That is, it must be of benefit to both in the minds at least of those responsible for the setting up of the tribunal.
Secondly, a tribunal will never be set up unless there is a difference of opinion between the two roads as to whether or not it is desirable to do some particular thing. One road may think that the- benefits that will result from taking a given course are not anything like what have been suggested by the other road; the other road may think that the benefits may be very great. It is not compulsion in the ordinary sense of the term, but an arbitration between two contending views-the view of one company that the benefits would be very great, and the view of the other that the benefits would be, we will say, very trifling. In such an event a tribunal may be set up in the manner provided by the act to arbitrate, to resolve and determine the differences between the two roads.
As I see it at the moment, in view of what the hon. gentleman has said and in view of what has been said by others, the suggestion that compulsory arbitration should not be provided for in the bill except by proclamation would merely mean that when a difference arose that was so acute that it could not be disposed of by compromise between the contending parties, an arbitral tribunal should be set up to resolve that difficulty. The suggestion is worthy of every consideration. Between now and Monday, namely on Saturday, when there is an opportunity to consider these matters in full, the council will carefully consider what has been said. It may be that possibly in view of the strong opinion expressed by the hon. member, and by others who have discussed the matter in another chamber, such action should be taken. We will give it every consideration. At any rate debate is not closed on the section.
Charles Gavan Power: Lest the opinion expressed
by the hon. member for MelviLle should appear to be the opinion of all hon. members on this side of the house, may I say-and I am not doing so out of factious opposition- that the arbitral tribunal feature commended itself most to me when I voted for the second reading of the bill. I do believe if there is anything in the legislation worthy of being retained, it is exactly that provision.
Mr. BEiNNETT:	This will Tetain it. It
is only a question of when the law becomes effective.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not making this statement wiit'h a view to being disagreeable or indulging in any carping criticism, but it 53719-2591
seems to me that a tribunal which would be set up more or less automatically on the application of one or other of the railroads would be more in the interests of both railroads than one set up by proclamation of the government. Such a tribunal would be more in the interests of the government itself, and those of the railroads.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To correct my hon.
friend, may I say that the tribunal would not be set up by proclamation; the law would become effective to enable it to be set up.


Mr. EULER:: On that point may I ask
this question: If the government should adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Melville, would it then by proclamation bring into being a tribunal each time a dispute arose, or once they proclaimed the act in farce would it be in force from that time forward? It would mot be proclaimed at intervals?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, a statute could not
be in force off and on.


William Daum Euler: Unless it were framed in
that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that would be a
very difficult thing to do. The statute would at once become effective, and be binding for the future. The tribunals, of course, are separate tribunals with respect to each dispute. I may say that giving the matter my own personal view I was of the opinion that it was not desirable to provide for it coming into- force by proclamation. In that respect I shared the view 'held by the hon. member for Quebec South. However, I have listened to a great many arguments, including that of the hon. member for Melville, as to the desirability of having it come into force by proclamation. As I have said, my personal view was the other way. .


Jean-François Pouliot: Yesterday afternoon I
showed that section 5 of the bill -is mot in accordance with the report of the royal commission, and that there is nothing in that report with regard to the removal from office of the trustees, as stipulated in section 7 of the third draft of the bill. Therefore the government cannot pretend that the bill is entirely in accordance with the report.
In regard to section 16 of the bill the report of the royal commission at paragraph 210 is as follows:
We have emphasized the fact that a principal weakness of the past decade has been the failure of the railways to act together in their own interests and in the interests of the public. Jt is not enough that each should take all practicable measures of economy in respect of
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Mr. HEAPS:: This clause deals with the question of men who are likely to be laid off and those who are retained in the service of the railway companies. It directs the companies to make a fair apportionment of the services of men as between the two companies, in case of consolidation of services. Now the first question that arises is: What is a fair apportionment of such employment? Secondly, who is to be responsible for making this apportionment? If this house enacts legislation to create a tribunal or direct a body to make this division of labour, then I am afraid we will get into great difficulties. Personally I think that the less we have to do with 'this question of apportionment the better it will be, because any legislation that we enact, especially in view of the fact that there are in existence agreements between the railway companies and their men, is bound to get us into difficulties either between the railway companies or between the companies and the men or between ourselves and the employees. So, personally, I would rather leave the question to the companies and the organizations of the men affected; in that way I think we may save ourselves a great deal of trouble. If we take any action we then become responsible for the apportionment. If we had not faith in the men's organizations or the companies to do the fair thing in this respect this might be a proper body to make provision that a fair apportionment be made. But at present the men are satisfied that they can depend on their organizations to do what is right, and therefore I would rather see the matter left in the simplest form possible to save future embarrassment.
Perhaps the minister may have in his possession now -particulars of the method by which the apportionment was made in the case of the recent pooling of train services between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. That may give some idea how the thing was worked.


Mr. MANION:: I heartily agree with the remarks of the last speaker. I believe that as
the clause is framed it protects the men of both companies as far as it is possible for this legislation to protect them. I have given the matter further consideration since the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) moved his resolution; I have listened to my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson); I have discussed it with railway men and I am informed that to leave it as it is would be the most practical way of getting beneficial results for those concerned. This may be pointed out, that the two companies-	*
are further directed that whenever they shall so agree-
On cooperative measures.
-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.
So the companies are directed to endeavour to see that their employees get a fair and equitable apportionment of the employment, and I know enough about the management of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National to know that both managements are very jealous of the rights of their men and would do everything in their power to see that the employment that remains, if there be some curtailment, would be fairly and equitably divided. I think to attempt to make the clause any stronger would really complicate' it so that it would be very difficult of oj)or-ation.
My hon. friend the member for Kenora-Rainy River moved an amendment yesterday:
But in no event shall such measure, plan, or arrangement become operative until the representatives of the employees affected have been given sixty days' notice.
I submit that the amendment would hold up the review of any forms of attempted cooperation by the two railways and would not accomplish the end desired to any greater extent than the clause already in the bill.
There is still another point to remember; it is that there may be and no doubt will be forms of cooperation which will save money otherwise than at the expense of the men. Let me explain that by an illustration. Let us suppose two pick-up lines are serving practically the same territory, and we have many cases of that kind in this country. It is decided to abandon one of the lines and both railways are given running rights over the remaining line, without diminishing the number of trains at all. There the saving would be in the cost of maintaining that section of track which was abandoned. It is.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

true that a certain number of men in the section gangs might be let go, but after all there are other matters in connection with maintenance than pick and shovel work; there is the matter of rails, the ties and so on, and a considerable saving would be made. So after listening to the whole discussion I submit with all respect that the clause which has been inserted in the act will accomplish the end desired. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg asked about the arrangement made in regard to the amalgamation of the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial with the Canadian National.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I was referring to the
more recent consolidation of services between Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa and Toronto; I thought perhaps the minister might have some information as to how the men were dealt with in that case and what apportionment of labour was made.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry 1 have not that information; I thought my hon. friend was referring to the original coordination of the different portions of the Canadian National system. My submission is that under this provision, when there had to be a decrease in the number of men each railway would get an equal proportion of the jobs remaining, and those men would be appointed in accordance with their seniority. As my hon. friend pointed out, the seniority of the men is arranged between the unions and the railway companies, so it would merely be a matter of taking the men in the regular order of seniority. The senior men on one line would not prevail over the junior men on the other. If fifty men were to be kept employed on each railway the fifty senior men on the Canadian Pacific and the fifty senior men on the Canadian National would be retained. I think that is all provided for in the act, and I trust that my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River and my hon. friend from East Algoma will accept that provision. I may add, however, that if after the act has been in force for some time it should be found that any injustice was being done that could be remedied by this house, most assuredly I would be one of those to ask that action be taken. I come from a railway city which is served by both lines, and I am most anxious to see that the railway men get justice and a fair deal so far as it is possible to accord it by this act.


Mr. HEENAN:: I am still assuming that
the minister is sincere in his desire to understand all the complications that really arise with regard to seniority rights. I could give
TMr. Manion.]
an illustration to show that the case cited by the minister might not work out at all. We might have the two railways running side by side, and when it is decided to abandon one line the railway companies will apportion the employment. The minister says the men will be taken by seniority, and I think probably a good many people who are not acquainted with these complications would look upon it as the minister does. But let us suppose that all the men on one of the lines were senior to all the men on the other line. Then the junior men could not get in at all.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend misunderstands the clause, because it provides that the employment will be divided. I pointed out a moment ago that the senior men on one road would not prevail over the junior men on the other; that the intent of the act is that the men retained on the portion of the road operated jointly, or whatever the case may be, should be divided equally between the two roads. The senior men on the Canadian Pacific would get their proportion of employment and the senior men on the Canadian National would get their proportion.


Peter Heenan: This shows the difficulty
of legislating along these lines. In that case we would have the junior men of one line coming in to displace the senior men of another line in that particular district. I submit to the minister that this is a complication that cannot be dealt with by legislation, and that is why I submitted my amendment. If it is carried out it will not cost the railroad companies or the government a dollar. Let me point out. to the minister once more just what we are doing. Here we are doing something by legislation which I never heard of before; the railway companies themselves, without consultation with the railway employees, will apportion the employment. According to an act- of parliament the railway companies can dovetail these men as they wish. A short time ago the minister stated that he had consulted some railway men in this regard. I do not know whether he meant the representatives of the employees, but I have in my hand a letter that was sent to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen when this' bill was in the Senate, and this is one of the provisions requested in that letter. It also asks for compensation for employees who may lose their jobs and for other matters with which I have not dealt, because the amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg with regard to compensation was declared out of order. Therefore I have only suggested that

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
when any cooperative arrangement is considered, it shall not become operative until the representatives of the men have had sixty days notice. I think I know enough about railroad operation to feel sure that in these cases the companies know what they are going to do two or three months ahead of time. All I want is some provision in this act under which the companies shall advise the railway men of what is going to happen so that they may get together and consult with the management as to what is fair and reasonable.
There are some other points, to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister, which may not 'have occurred to him. This is a gigantic problem; I am glad he is looking after it instead of myself, because I am sure he will make a better job of it. Even where there are running rights over different sections of the railways, because of our gre>aiter motive power and the greater capacity of our rolling stock we will not require so many trains; they will be hauling greater tonnage and there will not be so many men employed. I think it must be taken for granted that after this legislation is passed the train crews all through Canada can give up all thought of operating with much less than full tonnage. There will be a saving in that to the country and the companies, but undoubtedly fewer men will be required, and I want to provide that where these men are to be changed from one pant of the country to another or to be dovetailed in the matter of seniority the government should grant them at least sixty days' notice to kiss their families goodbye.
An bon. MEMBER: Too long.


Peter Heenan: Some of the single men
think sixty days too long. If we sentence a man to be hanged in this country we give him a few months to make peace with the world, but here we are providing for the slaughter of thirty or forty thousand men and the minister is refusing to .give them sixty days' notice. In this amendment I am not asking for compensation, so 'that my amendment is fair and reasonable. Suppose we adopted a system of compensation as between Canadian National and Canadian Pacific employees. We close shops in Halifax or Winnipeg on the Canadian National and operate Canadian Pacific shops. How are we to dovetail the men into seniority districts? How are you going to pay the pensions of these men? Take an example? Suppose you closed the Canadian National shops in one part of t'he country and transferred some of the employees to Canadian Pacific Railway shops.
Who would pay them? W'ho would make provision for their pensions-because some might be on the verge of acquiring pension. These are matters that can be. dealt with only between the men and the companies. Having regard to all the adjustments that they make between themselves, I am satisfied that these things could be satisfactorily disposed of much better between the men and the company affected than on the floor of this house. This bill provides that the companies shall do this without any consultation at all with the men; t'he men have not a word to say in the matter. I would point out to the minister that this is an act of parliament and not an ordinary agreement, and I would again ask him in all fairness to give some consideration to this amendment. I am satisfied that if it were accepted it would iron out a whole lot of troubles in the future.


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to be at all stubborn in dealing with the hon. gentleman's amendment, but I do not think it would advance the interests of the men. If it would do that I should be agreeable to it, but my best information is that it does not in any way protect them; on the contrary, it only complicates the legislation. At this very moment, while this legislation is being considered, before it has become law, the cooperative measures which we are now supporting are being carried on just as they have been for some years, though not to the extent that we should have liked.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why bother with this legislation then?


Robert James Manion: Because the railways did not cooperate on a sufficiently extensive scale. That was the opinion of the Duff commission and it is equally mine. As soon as we came into power both the Prime Minister and I advised the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific to cooperate more fully than they had done in the past, and they promised to do so. They did not do so however, each blaming the other for the lack of cooperation. That was the report I received, and the Prime Minister was informed likewise whenever the officers were spoken to about it. Each claimed that the other wanted the big share of the benefits accruing from the proposed cooperation. At this very time such cooperative measures are being taken, and arrangements with regard to employment are now in the hands of the union. I think my hon. friend will agree that when there is a dispute between one of the railways and the men as to seniority the union of the railway employees
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

concerned have a right to interview the officers of the company and argue the case, and in the last resort they now have the right to ask for a conciliation board. I think therefore that the men are amply protected. I do not see that my hon. friend's amendment would do more than complicate the measure and for that reason I regret that I cannot accept it.


Peter Heenan: I agree that the men are cooperating with the railways as they have done before, but I want to point out again to the minister that there is not now in force, nor has there ever been in force an act of parliament that precluded them from negotiating. Now, however, we are passing an act that practically precludes the men from having any say in the matter. It is provided that the railway companies shall make provision for a fair and reasonable apportionment. This is an act of parliament, and it makes all the difference. Prior to this time the men did cooperate and they would do so in the future were it not for the fact that we are now passing an act that precludes them from having any say.


Robert James Manion: This does not interfere with agreements between the men and the railways.


Peter Heenan: I am trying to point it
out to the minister; it may take me a long time to do so but I think it is important that the minister should grasp the significance of it. The agreements between the railways and the men are agreements between the men and the individual company-an agreement, for instance, between the Canadian National and Canadian National men, or the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Pacific employees. In this bill we are giving running rights and providing for dovetailing and the merging of services, something entirely different from anything we have had before. Formerly it was an easy matter when a station was to be abandoned, or anything of that kind, for the men to get together with the company and make an adjustment; but now we are going to have Canadian National services merged with Canadian Pacific in some parts of the country and vice versa, and there is no agreement existing that safeguards the interests of the men in this regard. The more I think of it the more necessary an amendment such as I propose appears to be. What possible injurious effect could it have? When the railway companies are going to merge services or dovetail men or abandon some service, ought they not to give the men notice? What possible harm could that have? 
All they have to do is to advise the representatives of the men, as they have done for the last fifty years, that so and so is going to be done.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I understand the amendment correctly the gist of it is that the men should be given sixty days' notice or sixty days' pay.


Peter Heenan: No, that is not the amendment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, sixty days' pay in lieu of their services if they are not required.


Peter Heenan: No. I want the hon.
member to understand my amendment. I am not talking about pay or compensation. There are certain things here which the railways have a right to do with regard to new companies, leases, entrusting agreements, or licences, or agreements for the pooling and division of earnings arising from the joint operation of any part or parts of freight or passenger traffic, or express, telegraph or other operating activities or services, joint trackage, running rights and so on. I am asking that the representatives of these men be given sixty days' notice before these measures are put into operation.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Just what has my hon.
friend in mind? He has mentioned certain things which I am sure his amendment does not cover.


Peter Heenan: If the hon. member will
look at section 16-


James Langstaff Bowman: I have followed the section with my hon. friend.


Peter Heenan: -he will find that it reads:
Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such measures, plans or arrangements may include and be effected by means of-
(b)	leases, entrusting agreements, or licences, or agreements for the pooling and division of earnings arising from the joint operation of any part or parts of freight or passenger traffic, or express, telegraph, or other operating activities or services;
(c)	joint trackage, running rights, joint ownership, or joint operating agreements, depending upon the nature of the property or services included in any cooperative plans.
Undoubtedly that means the merging of services which in. turn will mean that a certain number of men will be put out of employment. As the hon. member for East Algoma has said, where 400 men have been employed, there might be only 300 retained. According to this bill the railroad companies are directed to apportion the work to the men on each

C.NJt.-C.P.R. Bill
road and I want the companies to be obliged to give sixty days notice to the men before they put any measure inlto operation.


James Langstaff Bowman: Why?


Peter Heenan: So that they can do what they have been doing for the last fifty years, sit around a table with the railroad companies and adjust and agree upon seniority rights, fitness and other things. In that way the men entitled to work would get it while it would be just too bad for the others.


James Langstaff Bowman: A moment ago the hon.
member pointed out that there might be adjustments to be made and I am pointing out that the amendment he has suggested would give no authority to the representatives of the men to arrive at any settlement. The amendment only provides that sixty days' notice shall be given before any plan, arrangement or measure shall become operative; it does not go nearly as far as the hon. member intimates he wishes it to go. He wants the men given authority to arrive at a settlement of the matters which might be in dispute. I agree with what the hon. member for North Winnipeg has said as to arriving at settlements. My reading of the section is that negotiations will be carried on between the representatives of the men and the companies as they have been carried on in the past. The old agreements are still in effect and what the hon. member has suggested should take place, will take place as it has been taking place in the past. The amendment gives no authority to the men to settle any differences, it calls merely for sixty days notice to be given prior to any arrangement or measure coming into effect. So far as I can see the bill as it now stands carries out the idea which the hon. member for North Winnipeg had in mind. The additional words contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River do not add anything to the authority given to the men.


George Brecken Nicholson: There seems to be a lot of confusion in connection with this question of allocation. As the section now stands it asks the railway companies to do something which they cannot do under the agreements as now existing. If this section passes in its present form it will prove to be a source of injustice to the railway employees. As I said a moment ago, many years ago I had some experience in endeavouring to graft the employees from one line into the ranks of the employees of another company. The agreement between the men and the company in one case is different from that in the other; in one case the seniority rights are spread out
over a large area while in the other they are very limited. In the case of the amalgamation which has taken place in the services between Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa and Toronto disputes have arisen already. Under the terms of the agreements, no Canadian Pacific train crew can take a train out over the Canadian National line and no Canadian National train crew can take a train out over the Canadian Pacific line.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the hon. member any information as to the conditions now existing or complaints made with respect to the allocation of work on the Toronto-Montreal section which was recently consolidated?


George Brecken Nicholson: It is not official, but I have received some from the railway employees. They tell me that they have not been able to arrive at a mutual understanding as to the number of men that should be employed from each company. It is not easy to get men to agree to step off a line to which they feel they are entitled in order that men from the other company may be given employment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How could we do it here?


George Brecken Nicholson: The only way is to clothe the representatives of the men with complete authority to allooate work. I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River should have included in his amendment something similar to the following:
In the event of disputes arising as to the equitable distribution of such employment between the employees of the National railways and the employees of the Pacific railways, accredited representatives of the different classes of employees involved shall be called upon to adjust such disputes.
That does not go a sufficient distance in order to make certain that it is going to be effective, because the representatives of the organizations will be up against the selfishness that can naturally be expected in the hearts and minds of the men. To make it effective they should be clothed with authority to enable them to refer the whole dispute to a conciliation board.


Robert James Manion: If I am not very badly mistaken, just what my hon. friend says should be done, will be done and must be done. In the matter of seniority rights, for example, the representatives of the men will meet the railways and discuss the situation, and if they cannot come to a satisfactory arrangement a conciliation board can be set up under the present law. This legislation will not take away that right in any way.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is not a dispute between the railways and the employees, but a dispute between the employees themselves, and no conciliation board can be set up to settle a dispute of that kind.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend were a minister he would soon realize how many disputes there are amongst the men about seniority. How are we going to go into that in this parliament? That is something that we cannot decide. I receive letters every day from men complaining that they have been unfairly dealt with. In addition, we have what my hon. friend points out, two sets of railway unions in Canada. Is this parliament going to get in between those two sets, and decide questions of seniority? It is a most complicated question, and one that this parliament would do well to keep out of. This will neither start nor stop disputes. The disputes, as my hon. friend has said, started long ago amongst the men arguing over seniority rights, and I, as minister, who have nothing whatever to do with the matter, receive letters every day from men in different parts of the country complaining that they have been unfairly dealt with by the railway company or by their own organizations. We have also that dispute which has been going on for a year or longer as to the number of hours the men should work. This very day I received letters, as I do every day, about the number of hours the men should work per month.
I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but while I am on my feet may I say that I cannot see how this legislation can interfere in any way with the agreements of the men. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River seemed to imply that this will interfere with the agreements between the men and the railways. I do not agree with that at all. My hon. friend said, if I understood him aright, that because the two railways would be working together, it would make the agreements with the men null and void. I do not agree with that contention. The men who have agreements with the Canadian Pacific will still have them, and they will have to settle their seniority rights with that railway, just as the National railway men will have to settle questions of their seniority rights with the National railway. That is the situation to-day.
I do not think my hon. friend from East Algoma is right when he says that the railways cannot run trains over each other's tracks. That is occurring to-day. On. the Intercolonial, between Monoton and Halifax,

the Canadian Pacific has the right to run its own trains over the Canadian National.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not suggest that they could not run 'trains over each other's tracks, but that '.they could not take train crews from one line and transfer them to the other.


Robert James Manion: I did not suggest that.
May I finish what I was saying? Suppose there is going to be a joint shop, that in a place where two shops have been operating it is decided to have 'one joint shop for the two railways. Both railways would have the right to the same number of men. Suppose one hundred men are required. They would be divided roughly, fifty from the Canadian Pacific and fifty from the Canadian National. Each railway would put in its own men. In reply to my hon. friend's question, I take it that these men would look for their pension rights to the company to which they look for pension rights to-day. There would be fifty men of the Canadian National and fifty of the Canadian Pacific working together in the joint shop.


Peter Heenan: Is the minister sure of
that?


Robert James Manion: I am not. I am simply
saying that 'that is probable. I am not endeavouring to work out nor do I believe this committee can work out, all 'the details. The railways are directed to work out these details in consultation with the men. This committee could not pcrasibly go into such details.


Peter Heenan: The minister and I are
coming very close together now. He says that the companies are directed to work this out in consultation with the men. All I want to do is to provide in the bill that they will consult with the men.


Robert James Manion: I do not think that they
can do anything else but consult with the men, as they do now. The men's unions have their agreements with the railways and reference is being continually made to them. Every complaint that I get about seniority rights has reference to these agreements. I pass these complaints on to the railway generally without comment unless the case seems an extraordinary one, and then I would draw it more emphatically to the attention of the company and suggest that it should be looked into. The railways in every case point out that they have their agreements with the men's unions, and between the railway companies and the officers of the men's unions, the difficulty is worked out.

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


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has been good in giving information and in allowing clauses to stand for further information. I should like further information as to the effects of the consolidation of train services between Ottawa and Toronto, and Montreal and Toronto, and to know what was the apportionment of labour in that consolidation. The hon. member for East Algoma said that there was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction over it, and I expect a great deal of dissatisfaction when further consolidations of service take place in future because naturally every man laid off will have a grievance.


Robert James Manion: I agree with that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish the minister would
allow this clause to stand because in a very short time, perhaps to-morrow, he could show us how the consolidation took place on these lines and give us information as to the number of men affected and the number of men laid off. Perhaps we might be able to learn what arrangements the men's representatives made with the companies, and see whether it worked out all right. I hope the minister will be good enough to accept that suggestion and look into the matter.


Mr. HOWARD:: The remarks which the minister made a moment ago cause me to say what I am now going to say. No matter what attitude we take on either side of the house or how we try to solve this railway problem, we are going to run into all kinds of difficulty, which has been the case ever since this bill was introduced. I have in my constituency two sets of absolutely opposing opinion. I have one set of people who right along have been favouring handing over the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific as the only way to solve this railway problem. On the other hand, I have another group of people who are absolutely opposed to that idea. The funny part of it is that those who have been favouring amalgamation, now that they have had a chance to study this bill, are absolutely dissatisfied wth it because they say it does not mean amalgamation. There are others, and I am quoting this to show how strongly opinion runs, who happen to have been Liberals and who have stated to me that if the Conservative government solve this railway problem they will have to support the Conservative party for the rest of their lives. On the contrary, other people who are in favour of government ownership and against amalgamation are absolutely dissatisfied with this bill because the only thing they can see in it is amalgamation and the handing over of the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific. I
put that on record just to show that the more we study this bill the better we realize the opposing views that are held.
This bill was first introduced in the Senate. It passed the Senate and was introduced into this house as a non-partisan measure because the government did not want to take the responsibility for it until they had felt out the situation. Now the government is fathering the legislation. I think that right from the start, if we are going to maintain a democracy in this country, the government should have taken full responsibility for introducing this legislation into this parliament instead of letting it be brought in as a nonpartisan measure.
May I put this on record? Here is what I believe will happen:	You will have all sorts
of dissatisfaction; the arrangement will not work out any more satisfactorily than it is working out at the present time; we will not effect the savings we expect, and there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction from people holding different views. It has been argued that the new arrangements will stop extravagance. Surely at this stage of the game, in 1933, after what has happened nobody will suggest that we need legislation to put an end to extravagance. The privately owned Canadian Pacific Railway will not go ahead with extravagant schemes, as they did in the past, any more than the Canadian National will. We were all guilty of it. I say we have to decide one of two things, either that we will maintain the Canadian National Railway as a government owned system, or place it under private control. If we maintain it as a government owned railway we cannot have private control. There is only one reasonable course to pursue, namely that the government railway must be in the control of the people's representatives. I support one hundred per cent the suggestion made by the hon. member for Quebec South to the effect-


George Reginald Geary: We are
discussing an amendment by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, sure we are.


George Reginald Geary: Oh, you are?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes. I have supported
right along the suggestion made by the hon. member for Quebec South to the effect that the salaries of trustees should be placed in the estimates. In that way we can maintain control, if we wish to have the national railways continue operation under government ownership. There have been many suggestions


Mr. HACKETT:: That is not restricted to any one class.

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


Charles Benjamin Howard: Certainly not, but in this
bill we are not helping to remedy such situations. As I said before, and now repeat, personally I will vote against the bill. I should prefer not to have the bill pass, so that the situation may be left as it is. With voluntary cooperation, with the general trend toward economies and different trade policies which can be put into force to increase business, I believe we can pull out of the railway situation without passing a bill which in my view is neither one thing nor the other.
Mr. MclNTOSH:	Hear, hear; a little
more tonnage is what we want.


Charles Benjamin Howard: A few evenings ago I
picked up a copy of the Montreal Star, and noticed that in one month, February last, the net earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway had dropped $132,825. In the same month the earnings of the Canadian National had dropped $812,506.


Robert James Manion: That was in a week, not
a month. Both those figures referred to the drop in a week.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What is the reason for that decrease? Why should not the decrease be a little more proportionately divided? I admit that if mileage is greater there is greater opportunity for shrinkage in traffic, but if it is possible I should like someone to tell me why there is that difference between the falling off of the revenues in the two railways. There must be something wrong. Are we losing to the Canadian Pacific Railway business which should naturally go to the Canadian National?


Robert James Manion: Let me answer that question at once; it has been raised three or four times. I do not like the thought to go out that the Canadian National is getting any unfair deal. The Canadian National Railways has been holding its proportion of traffic in the past year, as large a proportion as in previous years. I have looked into that question and I find that is the case. Here is a statement issued recently: I will put the figures on record and I hope they will stop the implication going out to the people that in some unknown manner the Canadian National is getting an unfair deal and that the Canadian Pacific is stealing the traffic. I do not mean to suggest that my hon. friend was saying that, but the implication is in the question. Here is a report showing the percentages of total traffic, both passenger and freight, handled by each railway system for the twelve months of each year, 1928 to 1932 inclusive:
Canadian Canadian
Year-	National	Pacific1928	
51.8	48.21929	
52.6	47.41930	
53.0	47.01931	
53.8	46.21932	
53.1	46.9
This should stop any further suggestion or implication by anyone that in some way under this government the Canadian Pacific has been getting a greater share of the traffic than formerly. I point out that in 1932 the Canadian National got 53-1 per cent of the total traffic, and that in no other year except
1931	did it equal that. Its share in those two years surpassed 1929 and 1930 when my hon. friends were in power-I am not desirous of getting into a political discussion, but I want to clear this up. In other words, in 1931 and
1932	the Canadian National Railways had a bigger proportion of the traffic than in the three previous years. These are the percentages as officially published.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Has the minister the passenger and freight traffic separately?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I have, but I do not want to put a lot of figures on record.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I have a copy some time?


Robert James Manion: Yes; I have no objection. If the committee want it I will put it on record.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Has the minister any further information to give regarding the question asked yesterday about the transfer of mounted police from Regina to Saskatoon?


Robert James Manion: No. The fact is I have
been driven pretty hard since yesterday; we had a railway committee meeting this morning and a council meeting at two o'clock, and this information is in the Justice department. But the fact remains that according to the official figures the Canadian National in the past two years has had a slightly larger proportion of the total traffic than it had in the three previous years, so surely the Canadian National is getting a fair deal. Every one who is fairminded knows it is getting a fair deal. I do not like the implication to go out that it is not-and it was more than an implication. The reason I looked this up-this is as foreign to the clause under consideration as was the speech of the hon. gentleman; he made a general speech, and this is general also-


George Reginald Geary: Who said it was on the clause?
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: The reason I looked into this pretty thoroughly was that R. J. Deachman has been sending out literature through the west and made the absolute statement that we were sabotaging the Canadian National Railways. As a matter of fact he was not choosing his words very accurately, because if there were sabotaging it would be done by employees. He confused passenger miles with passengers carried and combined this and ton miles of freight into a sort of salad, and handed figures out to suit his purpose. Passenger miles and ton miles are simply work units employed by railways in the production of averages; the total passenger miles or ton miles cannot be cited as a measure of earnings. One railway might carry more passengers than the other and yet have fewer passenger miles, and the same is true of the freight tonnage carried. But he did worse than that. He set up 1922 as an index and for some years following he made use of statistics with respect to Canadian National traffic, secured from the annual printed reports of the railway, including United States lines. For other years he used statistics compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics covering lines in Canada only. In short, he took what happened to suit his purpose and achieved the greatest conglomeration of misinformation and falsehood that a man could very well get together and he palmed it off on a lot of newspapers in various parts of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tell us
what he said.


Robert James Manion: I will read one or two sentences.
Mr. MoINTOSH: He will have something further to say.


Robert James Manion: I have no doubt. He has been a hired writer for some years.


Mr. McINTOSH:: And a good one.


Robert James Manion: Not about this; if he knows as little about the tariff as he knows about railway matters he is not very good. He may be in the judgment of my hon. friend-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And in the minds of most people.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister is not answering my question.


John Vallance: He must be fairly important for the minister to give him so much notice.


Robert James Manion: No, but I do not believe it is a good idea for anyone, whether Mr. [The Chairman.]
Deachman or anyone else, to spread the poison-because it is mental poison-throughout the country that the national railway, owned by the people of Canada, is being crucified or wrecked by any government, whether this government or the late government.


John Vallance: Probably Mr. Deachman construed the figures differently from the minister, but what did the Minister of Trade and Commerce do on the budget speech?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my hon. friend is getting far away from the point under discussion. I am not construing figures; I am giving facts. The statistics I have given show that the Canadian National has more than held its own in these years, and that is a complete answer to Mr. Deaehman's statement. The figures are not mine; they are the figures of the railways themselves.


Mr. YOUNG:: Would the minister mind giving us the figures Mr. Deachman used and telling us wherein they are wrong?


Robert James Manion: If the committee wants me to take the time I will do so.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly; we have wasted a lot of time already.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I would not pay any attention to a mudslinger.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I think it is a good idea to have your viewpoint now, and we will have Mr. Deachman's later.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think the minister should be fair to me. So far as my statement is concerned I did not mean it as the minister has taken it-and then he quotes Mr. Deachman. I distinctly said I saw the item in the Montreal Daily Star.


Robert James Manion: That does not prove its truth.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, but the hon. gentleman is the Minister of Railways of Canada. I admit he has not the power he should have, and that is one of the points I am arguing for; I claim that a minister of railways when he received a report like that should do what I would do if one branch of my business showed a deficit-investigate and ascertain the cause. When the statement goes out that the earnings of the Canadian Pacific have shrunk so much, and those of the Canadian National have decreased away out of proportion, the minister, if he had the control which he should have, should investigate and then he could answer such questions with the actual figures.



[Stage Direction]
We must have either one thing or the other, either private ownership or public ownership, but not mix the two together.
Now I have not said a word on this railway bill until to-day. I thought that before the bill passed it was only right that I should give my opinion, because I believe that anyone who may represent the county of Sherbrooke in the future should know the view I took in connection with this bill. I am against every clause in the bill; I think the legislation is terrible, because it gets us nowhere.
Mr. HEENAN; The hon. member for Sherbrooke asked the committee to be fair to him. I ask the committee to be fair to the mover of the amendment now under discussion, because this clause represents about the only consideration that has been given the thousands of railway employees who are tc be slaughtered by this measure. There are two classes in the bill relating to railway labour. When we go back to section 2, we will deal with one clause which in my opinion humbugs the railway men of this country because it means nothing in its practical working out. The other clause referring to labour is section 16, which we are now discussing, which provides that the railway companies shall apportion the work that is left among the employees of the two roads. That is the effect of it.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg moved an amendment this afternoon asking for compensation for those who might be dismissed, but that amendment was ruled out of order. Now I am asking that when this division of work takes place the representatives of the men should be given sixty days' notice before any new plan is put into operation. I ask the committee if that is unreasonable. I agree with the hon. member for Dauphin that I have not gone far enough; I agree that this might be regarded as a pious wish. I have eliminated many of the requests that have been made in this regard by the representatives of labour, and have only asked that they be given sixty days in which to say their prayers before being thrown into the gutter. Yet the Minister of Railways, who says he has a great railway constituency, refuses this request because he is afraid that in some way or other it may hurt the working out of some plan.
Robert James Manion: I say it is not necessary,
that they are protected sufficiently now.


Peter Heenan: When the Minister of
Railways says that, he does not know what he is talking about. I might say with regard to the Minister of Railways what he said concerning Mr. Deachman: If he knows as little about this bill as he knows about the working out of seniority and other rules, he knows very little. So far as I am concerned I do not propose to give way or to allow this measure to go through, so long as I can prevent it, without some specification as to the working out of this arrangement. The minister says that if the men cannot agree they can appeal for a board of conciliation. On what grounds could they appeal for such a board? Could they conciliate the laws of Canada? Under the Industrial Disputes Act provision is made for an appeal only in industrial disputes between the men and their employers. Here is a law of Canada; are the men to ask for a board of conciliation with regard to the provisions of an act of parliament? I cannot quite understand why the government does not jump to its feet immediately and say, "We will give these men sixty days in which to adjust themselves."
I am going to take a cue from my hon. friend from Dauphin and ask the hon. member for North Battleford to move an amendment to my amendment so that it will appear in Hansard for the assistance of the minister. I hope that even yet the government will accede to this request. This is not the only suggestion I shall make even in connection with this clause, but I may say to the minister that if this amendment is adopted it will eliminate many of the suggestions I have in mind. I am against the bill from cover to cover. I voted against the second reading and I may tell the minister that I am going to vote against the third reading if I am here.


Robert James Manion: I must say that grieves me terribly.


Peter Heenan: I want to ask how the Minister of Railways and some of the other hon. members, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre the hon. member for Brandon, the hon. member for Regina, the hon. member for East Calgary and others can rise in their places and vote in favour of throwing out of work thousands of men in their constituencies without even sixty days' notice. I will tell the hon. member for East Calgary that one of his back shops will be closed as surely as he is sitting here.


Mr. STANLEY:: Nonsense.


Peter Heenan: I know it is nonsense to the hon. member because evidently he does not care a continental about his constituents. The two or three yards at Fort William and Port Arthur will be made into one; there is no doubt about that. The three yards in Winnipeg will be made into one; two of the
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

back shops in Winnipeg will be made one; two of the yards and the operating activities surrounding the terminals in Brandon will be made one. That will be the case also at Regina, Calgary and Saskatoon, and Sutherland will practically disappear. How the hon. members representing those constituencies can rise in their places and support a bill which directs the railroad company to do these things is something I cannot understand. I cannot even get support from these hon. gentlemen when I ask the government to insert a provision giving sixty days' notice to the men about to be slaughtered.
It is close to six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the minister to take this under consideration even yet. I know it does not go far enough, but the hon. member for North Batt.leford will move an amendment to my amendment which will cover the ground suggested by the hon. member for Dauphin, and I hope the hon. member will support it.
Mr. MolNTOSH: I am pleased to move the amendment referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. His amendment will be found at page 4089 of Hansard; it reads as follows:
That there be added after the word "arrangement" at the end of subsection (1) the following words:
"But in no event shall such measure, plan or arrangement become operative until the representatives of the employees affected have been given sixty days' notice.
I move that the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
-and endeavour to agree with such representatives to an adjustment of the seniority or rights to work of the employees affected thereby.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the report of the royal commission, at page 60, there are a few lines with regard to contractual relations with labour. Paragraph 191 reads:
With the continuance of good relations between the management and employees of both systems, and a frank recognition of the serious financial situation, much can be done to ease the position of the railways, without imposing any undue hardship upon the employees.
The report is dated September 13, 1932, and since then the position of many employees has become a good deal more serious. If the employees do not all complain at the same time it does not mean that they are not suffering.
I had occasion to write to Mr. Hungerford on December 1, 1932, the following letter after I had asked certain questions in the house. I will read the letiteT:

Mr. S. J. Hungerford,
Acting President,
Canadian National Railways,
Montreal, P.Q.
Dear Mr. Hungerford,-
On October 28th, Hansard page 696, I asked the following questions:
1.	Up to what age and after how many years of service _ can an employee be appointed permanent in the locomotive and car department of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Can a temporary employee replace such a permanent employee in said department?
3.	What is the schedule in force as regards the appointment of permanent and temporary employees and the right to seniority of each in said department?
The Hon. Minister of Railways answered me thus:
"This question refers entirely to the internal management of the railway. The government has no information whatsoever in regard to the matter and I would suggest that if the hon. member would address his question to the railway company, they would probably be glad to give him any information he desires."
On October 31st, I brought the above to your attention and asked you to give me that information.
On November 3rd, you wrote me that the schedule in force does not specifically cover my questions.
This is the letter from Mr. Hungerford:
Canadian National Railways,
Montreal, Quebec,
November 3, 1932.
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 31st. The schedule in force does not specifically cover your questions.
If you care to let me have the particulars of any case you are interested in I will he pleased to ascertain what regulations are applicable.
Yours faithfully,
8. J. Hungerford,
Acting President.
Jean-Franqois Pouliot, Esq., K.C., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My letter continues:
On November 3rd, I tried to combine those three questions in the following one: What is the difference between a permanent and a temporary Canadian National Railways' employee and on what conditions does a temporary employee become permanent?
Since then I have received your two letters of November 14th and 30th, your file 330-427 PO, but my question is not answered in either letter.
Does the Canadian National Railways management make a difference of any kind between temporary and permanent employees especially with regard to seniority rights? The answer to that question would be yes or no and I want to know it.
Now, if the above answer is affirmative, what does the management consider as the difference between a permanent and a temporary employee and on what conditions

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
does the management appoint or promote a temporary employee as permanent?
If the schedule in force does not specifically cover my questions, the management must have issued some orders or there must be some regulations of some kind in that regard.
Therefore. I will be very thankful to you to supply me with that information.
With thanks,
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Franqois Pouliot.
P.S.-Please send your answer to the House of Commons, Ottawa.
The reply reads:
Canadian National Railways.
Montreal, Que.,
December 6, 1932.
330-427 PO:
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
I have your further letter of December 1st and note your specific question:-
"Does the Canadian National Railways management make a difference of any kind between temporary and permanent employees especially with regard to seniority rights?"	_
The answer to the above question is in the affirmative. In reply to your further question I would state that a permanent employee has seniority rights, etc., which a temporary employee has not.
A permanent employee is assigned to regular -work, whereas a temporary employee is used only for intermittent jobs that may arise from time to time. In the locomotive and car departments the wage agreement provides that an employee who has been in the service of the railway over thirty days shall not be dismissed for incompetency nor be discharged for any cause without his case being given an investigation. This thirty day period marks the recognition of the rights of a permanent employee.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) S. J. Hungerford,
F/E	Acting President.
Jean-Franco is Pouliot, Esq., K.C., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house now discussing this matter but I will ask the minister this question. Will this bill allow anyone to submit grievances to the board of trustees in order to have them redressed?


Robert James Manion: I regret that I did not hear all of the hon. member's remarks. I could not follow the letters he was reading, being distracted at the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister is familiar
with the whole situation because I sent him copies of my correspondence with Mr. Hunger-ford. I am not discussing any particular case now, but I want to know whether, should employees complain of grievances, they will have the right under this legislation to submit such complaints to the board of trustees for redress.


Robert James Manion: Generally speaking, neither the directors of the Canadian National nor those of the Canadian Pacific take any part in the disputes between the men and the management; that is usually regarded as distinctly a managerial affair. From Mr. Hunger-ford, of the Canadian National, and Mr. Grant Hall, of the Canadian Pacific, down the line of officers, the management in both companies deal with the men because the directors do not understand the complications of the agreements between the unions and the companies. Generally speaking, disputes between individual men and the company concerned go no higher than Mr. Hungerford as vicepresident and general manager of the Canadian National and Mr. Grant Hall, vicepresident and general manager of the Canadian Pacific. Neither the trustees nor the directors would be capable of dealing with such questions and that is one of the reasons I have endeavoured to keep away from such matters.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just before six o'clock the minister told us that when an employee had any complaint to make, it was referred to the management of the railway through the brotherhood. However, there are some employees who do not belong to a brotherhood. In certain parts of the country, especially along the old Intercolonial, railway employees are in the habit of coming to their member of parliament for assistance in cases of trouble. This afternoon the hon. member for East Algoma referred to human nature. Men are not perfect and they sometimes make little mistakes. I do not consider it to be political interference for a member of parliament to intervene with the management on behalf of an employee who has been charged with drunkenness or something of that kind. I have followed this practice ever since I was elected and I am not ashamed of it. These men have always come to me for assistance, and it never made any difference whether they were Liberals or Conservatives. I investigated their cases and drew up briefs to be submitted to the management. I was not always rewarded with gratitude but I felt I was doing only my duty. The only time I was ever insulted during an election was once by a Tory whom I had had reinstated in the employ of the railway. I recall another instance where a man was

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

accused of being drunk while on duty. I went with him to see the superintendent who gave him a calling down and he was finally reinstated because of his family and upon the promise of behaviour in the future. On the station platform he wanted to kiss my hand after he found he was to be reinstated, but I would not stand for such a demonstration. But a few months afterwards he voted against me.


An hon. MEMBER:: He kissed someone
else.


Jean-François Pouliot: I recall another instance
where I had a man reinstated and when I visited the polls in my home town I found him representing my opponent. Some years ago there was a rumour that the shops at Riviere du Loup would be closed. I at once wrote to the former Minister of Railways, Mr. Dunning, and stated that I would object very strongly to the reengagement of Sir Henry Thornton if my people did not receive justice. I sent copies of that letter to the members of the cabinet. I met Sir Henry Thornton in Montreal with Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Appleton and in my presence Sir Henry told Mr. Appleton that I should have justice. After several trips to Montreal I was able to find out definitely that the shops would not be closed.
There was another man who had twelve or fourteen complaints made against him. This man had been most unfair to me upon a previous occasion but when he came to me for assistance I wrote to the management. Because of the numerous complaints, the management did not feel like reinstating him. He telephoned me to ask for another recommendation. I refused to give it to him, but immediately sent one to a friend of mine who lived in his vicinity and told him to tell the man not to speak to me again but that I was ready to assist him provided that such assistance was asked for by someone else. Every member of parliament should be ready to assist any railway employee who is in trouble or who has not been treated fairly either by the brotherhood or by the management. I do not intend to recite all the cases of injustice to railway employees in my district but in endeavouring to help these men I have made no difference between Conservatives and Liberals.
When a man once has a job, every effort should be made to see that he retains it. When an opening occurs we can favour our political friends, but I do not think any effort should be made to replace a man already in a position. These men rely upon ["Mr. Pouliot.]
their jobs for their living and they should not be displaced because of political considerations.
I do not intend to propose any amendment before asking the minister if he would accept an amendment to section 16 to provide that the trustees shall investigate and reconsider every case submitted to them by a member of parliament.


Robert James Manion: I do not think it would be
possible for the trustees to do that because it would mean that their whole time would be taken up in the consideration of these cases. During the last three years since I have been minister I have received complaints practically every day from -men who felt they were not getting a fair deal from either their own union, some other union or the management of the railway. It is the duty of the managing officers of the railway to consider such cases. I do not think the trustees should be asked to deal with matters of this kind. I have no reason to believe that the officers of either railway have any desire to do other than to give the fairest consideration to every case with which they have to deal. Of course the personal equation enters into the matter but I do not believe they have any desire to be unfair. I am sorry I cannot offer any encouragement to my hon. friend in regard to the matter he discusses because I do not think it would be fair to the trustees. I believe it would detract from the possibility of their doing good work from a business standpoint for the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I quite agree with the minister, that it is an absolute impossibility for this parliament to interfere with the seniority rights of the railway men. They have their agreements and the necessary machinery to deal with a matter of that kind. Reading the clause before us as it stands, I do not think it means anything, and I believe that something is needed along the lines of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to give what I consider very necessary protection to the men who might be involved in any cooperative effort by the railways of this country. The section is not mandatory. It simply says that they shall endeavour to provide as a part of such measure, plan or arrangement, for a fair and reasonable apportionment as between the employees of the National railway and the Pacific railway. In my judgment that would place too much power in the hands of the management. The amendment gives the necessary opportunity

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
to the men's representatives to meet with the management, and if necessary have a board of conciliation set up.
It is absolutely essential that there should be a clear definition of the rights of the men in this regard. The way I const-rue the section is that the railways themselves have absolute power, and can ignore the existing arrangements between the men and the railways, because, since this is an act of parliament, it would take precedence even over the award of a board of conciliation. The minister would be well advised to incorporate in this section the idea expressed in the amendment of the member for Kenora-Rainy River. From my practical experience in many years of negotiating agreements between men and employers I can say that the question of seniority rights stands oust even above that of wages. Men are deeply concerned over their seniority rights and more trouble is experienced in negotiating the seniority rights of the men than in negotiating wages and working conditions. I think we should see to it that these rights are protected prior to the passage of this bill into law. I am not unmindful of what the minister said this afternoon- that in the practical application of this legislation amendments may be found necessary, but I would rather see the amendments made n-ow than take a chance on making them after the railways have probably got into difficulties with the employees over this particular section.


Peter Heenan: I had hoped that after the recess the minister would have been in a position to say that he accepted both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, because I think it is only fair and reasonable. The amendment provides that the men shall receive sixty days' notice in any readjustment of the railway services in this country. It is quite evident from the silence of the minister, however, that the government is not prepared to accept the amendment; consequently I hope that more members on this side of the house wall take part in the discussion in appealing to the government for a square deal for the railroad men of this country.
Here we are with a measure before us that contemplates throwing out of employment thousands of railroad men, and yet the minister and the government practically refuse, or have done so up to the present, to allow the men to be given notice so that they can readjust their working arrangements with the company. I wonder if the minister is not now prepared to close me off by saying that he will accept my amendment even though he reduces the sixty days to fifty, or even 5371&-2601
forty. If only the railroad men of this country could look in at the spectacle that is presented in this house at this moment and see how they are being treated by the government!


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Cheap
stuff.


Peter Heenan: That is all they have ever got out of the Conservative party, just what they are getting now; they never got anything else. Here we have a commission appointed to investigate all the ramifications of the railway situation in Canada, and not one solitary railroad man in Canada was appointed to that commission. Instead, two gentlemen were chosen whose appointment was protested by the railroad men of this country on the ground that with their appointment the railroad men could not expect a square deal. In the Duff report we have a reflection on the railroad men of this country.


Robert James Manion: Quote it, please.


Peter Heenan: On page 60 of the Duff
report, dealing with the contributory causes of the position of the railways in Canada and mentioning the contractual relationship between the railroad unions and the railroad companies in Canada.. Mr. Loree was appointed to that commisison and from the very first day of its sitting to the last he suggested that we cut down the railroad men's wages in this country to the level of 1911 or 1913. Is it any wonder that the railroad men of this country have protested against that gentleman's appointment? I shall not say anything about the one Canadian whose appointment has been reflected on by members on this side of the house, but with reference to Mr. Loree's appointment I say that the wages and working conditions on his road are worse than on any other railroad in the United States, and many of the men to-day fear that he is going to be the chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian National.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is across the line.


Peter Heenan: You sent for him from
across the line. We have had enough of him if you have. I read in the papers only a few days ago of some very prominent gentlemen from this side of the canal going across to the other side. I am not reflecting on conditions across the line; there is no doubt that the government is now trying to do what the Liberal party tried to do in 1911.
There are two clauses in the measure before us referring to railroad labour. One of them
41 IS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

I called humbug this afternoon, because in its practical application it can be very little less than humbug.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is less than humbug, it is just bug.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for North Winnipeg moved an amendment providing compensation to the men who would be dismissed. That amendment was declared out of order. I notice that every member on the Conservative side supported Mr. Speaker. No doubt some of them will go out to their constituencies and say they did not vote against compensation, but voted to sustain Mr. Speaker's ruling. So far as I am concerned they voted against compensation to dismissed railroad employees. When my right hon. leader one day this week moved an amendment to the effect that one of the trustees should be a railroad labour man, or a man representing railroad employees, that amendment also was defeated by the Conservative party.
Now we come to another amendment, the only one left to discuss. It provides that when these men are to be slaughtered they be given sixty days' notice in which they can say "God bless them." The government is not prepared to grant even that. I wonder if my hon. friends in this corner of the house will sit idly by, as they sat this afternoon, and tolerate a slaughter of 20,000 men, without raising any opposition. The Prime Minister may smile and laugh-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am laughing at the hon. member's language.


Peter Heenan: It is the only language I have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Slaughter."


Peter Heenan: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Did you ever see that?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Peter Heenan: "I will restore all these branch line passenger trains, and give more
fWr. Heenan.]
men work." Yes, it is reported in the Halifax Herald of July 10, 1930. The Minister of Labour said it could not be done, but Mr. Bennett said it would be done if he were elected on the twenty-eighth. Now I am appealing to his Minister of Railways to give these men sixty days' notice in order to enable them to adjust themselves. The government will not agree even to that. Will the Minister of Railways now say he will give us fifty days instead of sixty?


Ernest Lapointe: Be kind.


William Richard Motherwell: Have a heart.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Railways says that the men will adjust their grievances in the same old wray. He overlooks the fact that he is passing legislation which will prohibit them from adjusting their grievances in that way. He says: "Well, if there is any dispute the men will apply for a board under the Industrial Disputes Act." Did you ever hear of a commission being appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act to settle a grievance which, as a matter of fact, is part of the law of Canada? What could any Industrial Disputes Act, or a board functioning under that act, do, when there is an act of parliament legislating on the point at issue? Could the board override the legislation? The act of parliament says what? Probably I had better read it; the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways may be able to tell me what it means. The part of section 16 I should like to have explained is as follows:
. . . 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.
That is the language appearing in the bill. Evidently it has been placed there by some eminent lawyer, and after reading this part of the section I believe I need not apologize for my language. If I do not use proper language it is because I have been reading this bill so much. W'e find the expression "to attempt forthwith to agree." To agree to do what? After they agree to amalgamate the railroads of Canada, that is what it is. Will the Minister of Railways tell us what rights the railroad men wTill have after the new amalgamation? Could the new company not say: "You had rights under the Canadian Pacific and under the Canadian National, but under this new company you have neither seniority nor rights." Subsection 2 further provides that plans or arrangements made may be effected by means of "leases,'entrusting agreements, or licences, or agreements for the pooling and

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
division of earnings arising from the joint operation of any part or parts of freight or passenger traffic, or express, telegraph or other operating activities or services." They have the right to use joint trackage; they have the right to use running rights over one road or the other. There is provision for joint ownership,-and yet the Prime Minister says it is not an amalgamation We find the expression "joint operating agreements, depending upon the nature of the property or services included in any cooperative plan." Yet, while these companies are authorized to enter into all these ramifications, all my amendment does is to ask that the men be given sixty days' notice so that they may make some adjustment of their services.


James Dew Chaplin: You suggested forty days a minute ago. Why not auction it off?


Peter Heenan: I wonder if the Minister of Railways will listen to the appeal, and if sixty days is too long, make provision for fifty days.


James Dew Chaplin: Auction it.


Peter Heenan: Or forty days.


James Dew Chaplin: Auction it off.


Peter Heenan: I wonder if the Minister of Railways will agree to give one day's notice, or is he going to sit still like the rest of the government and say that they do not give a continental what becomes of the railway men in Canada.


George Reginald Geary: Nobody has said that.


Peter Heenan: Nobody has said that, do you say? By their silence now, hon. members opposite say nothing else. I say that; if nobody else says it, I will say it.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: I say that the government of Canada and the Conservative party does not give a continental what becomes of the railway workers.


Mr. SPENCE:: Nobody believes you.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not know what you are talking about.


Peter Heenan: And they never did. If I did not know what I was talking about any more than the hon. member who has just spoken, I would go back and resign my seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The seat is vacant, then.


Peter Heenan: In 1921, just before the Conservative party left power, the railroad men had to take a 12i per cent reduction in wages. Since that party have come bach they have
had to take a 10 per cent reduction, and now the railroads are demanding a 20 per cent reduction.


John Thomas Hackett: Who is responsible for the cut in the United States?


Peter Heenan: I heard the Minister of Railways suggest that the government of Canada had nothing to do with the reduction of wages of railroad men. I say that is not true; they are responsible for it.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I resent that; I object to it. I have stated that the government of Canada have nothing whatever to do with the cut in wages of men on the railroads, and I repeat it. I object to the hon. gentleman making statements which are untrue. An hon. gentleman from the back concessions may be as irresponsible as he likes, but not in the house.


Peter Heenan: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call the Minister of Railways to order. I have the floor and I will relinquish it to no man. I repeat what I said, that the government of Canada is responsible for the initiation of this 20 per cent reduction.


Robert James Manion: That is not true.


Peter Heenan: Who is it that initiates a reduction in wages in any corporation? The directors.


Robert James Manion: The directors did not.


Peter Heenan: And the directors of the Canadian National Railways, the deputy minister representing the minister-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Tom Moore, you
mean?


Peter Heenan: -initiated this 20 per cent reduction.


Robert James Manion: He did nothing of the sort.


Peter Heenan: That is quite in line with what was done in 1921. The Minister of Railways and the government and the leader of the Senate glorified the great savings that were taking place under the jurisdiction of the present Minister of Railways, and he got credit for it all. You have to take the bitter with the sweet. The Minister of Railways said he reduced the salaries of the heads of these railroads; yes, and he is reducing in a more insidious way the wages of the rank and file of the railroad men of the country. The Prime Minister said in this house when he introduced the ten per cent reduction in civil service salaries that someone had to take the lead in this country, and everyone has been following the lead of the Prime Minister in the reduction of wages.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

I ask the minister now-I pleaded with him most humbly all yesterday afternoon; I pleaded with him this afternoon until I saw that the minister was decided-or the government, I suppose I should not blame the minister any more than the rest of the government-not to give tihe railroad men of this country a chance. Now I have to use the only language that seems to be understood by the members of the Conservative party. Amalgamation never, competition ever! Yet we have a bill here that is nothing more or less than amalgamation of the railroads of Canada. Pooling of freight, pooling of pssengers, pooling of earnings-what is left?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pooling the public!


Peter Heenan: Fooling the public! It is a bill to fool the public of Canada, because it is an amalgamation. The minister says that the railroads always treated their men well. Of course they did, until the minister or the government introduced a bill here to prevent them from doing so. The men can get along with the railroads. I have shown how impossible it is from a practical standpoint to work out this provision. The Prime Minigter and the Minister of Railways may be able to tell me whether the t's are crossed or the i's dotted or the sentences correctly punctuated, but as far as the practical operation of this bill is concerned-and in this respect I take my hat off to no man in Canada-how can you take men out of the Canadian National shops in Toronto and balance it by taking men out of the Canadian Pacific shops in Winnipeg? How are you going to dovetail these men in according to seniority unless the men sit down and agree with the company? Who is going to decide whether the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific is to be responsible for the payment of those men's wages? Who is to be responsible for their pensions-because many of them are on the verge of getting pensions. All these things have to be ironed out. Yet the government will not even give the railroad men of Canada one day's notice so they might sit down with their employers; instead they would pass an act of parliament practically prohibiting the railroad men having any say in the matter. If I feel pretty strongly on this it is because I have worked with these men for thirty years. I have never been a salaried officer of any brotherhood or organization and never will be, but I am saying what is in my heart-


An hon. MEMBER:: Your gizzard.


Peter Heenan: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Only a spleen.


Peter Heenan: No, they have not a spleen or they would not vote for such a measure. Again I ask the Minister of Railways and the government of Canada-and I ask the members on this side of the house to make an appeal and see if we cannot touch the heart of the Prime Minister-


An hon. MEMBER:: Impossible.


Peter Heenan: -to make an appeal and show the railroad men of Canada that there are some in this house who feel for them and will uphold their rights. Before I sit dowm I am going to ask the Minister of Railways again, if he does not like the sixty days, will he give us fifty or forty days?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Peradventure there will be ten righteous men!


Peter Heenan: I do not know what the Prime Minister is muttering.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say peradventure there are ten righteous men, and the city will be saved.


Peter Heenan: I do not hear even yet. Yes, we have rights, but the only rights that are taken into consideration are the rights of the men who lend the money, the moneylenders of New York. These are days of sacrifice, we all know that; but have we to sacrifice human beings in Canada so that the moneylenders of New York may get their last pound of flesh? It is about time the government of Canada told these moneylenders:	"You have had your innings, and
before we sacrifice the lives of the people of Canada you will have to wait a year or two for your interest." Sacred contracts! Yes we hold contracts sacred, but the men who invested their lives in these railroads also invested them in good faith. These railroads

CJV.R.-CR.R. Bill
were constructed, as I said before, after the parliament of Canada had granted authorization to construct them. Parliament should have taken into consideration whether or not the railroads were likely to pay, what lines were likely to compete against them, and so on. After these charters were granted the boys left their farms and their homes and entered the service of the railways. During the war they were called our civil heroes because they promised the government that not a wheel would be stopped during the war no matter what might be their grievances. Our big daily papers carried headlines stating that these were our civil heroes, the men of sanity and so on. Well, they are receiving their compensation to-day. I wonder if there is any one else ready to speak?


William Richard Motherwell: You seem to be
stumping anyone on the opposite side.


Peter Heenan: I do not expect any hon. gentleman opposite to rise, except the hon. member for East Algoma, who is my only champion over there. On the second reading the hon. member for Dauphin said that if he thought this measure would throw railway men out of work he would not vote for it. Let him read the bill; it is nothing more or less than an amalgamation of the railways of Canada, and if it does not throw from twenty thousand to forty thousand men out of work what will it do? Let me read those sentences again, and ask what they mean if not amalgamation. This section provides that arrangements may be made for:
(a)	New companies controlled by stock
ownership, equitably apportioned between the companies;	_
(b)	Leases, entrusting agreements, or licences, or agreements for the pooling^ and division of earnings arising from the joint operation of any part or parts of freight or passenger traffic, or express, telegraph, or other operating activities or services;
(c)	Joint trackage, running rights, joint ownership, or joint operating agreements, depending upon the nature of the property or services included in any cooperative plan; and
(d)	Joint or individual highway services, or highway and railway services combined, in any form.
Then if you turn over to the section dealing with the arbitral tribunal you will find that the government gave the tribunal a little more power. Listen to this:
-the power and jurisdiction of tribunals shall extend to-
(a)	joint use of terminals;
(b)	running rights and joint use of tracks where there are actual or functional duplications, or where such may be avoided;
(c)	control and prohibition in respect of the construction of new lines and provision of facilities and additional service-
(d)	joint use of facilities-
(e)	abandonment of lines, services or facilities;	.
(f)	pooling of any part or parts of freight traffic or of passenger traffic; and
(g)	things necessarily incidental to the above enumerated matters.
If any hon. gentleman opposite can coin, a better phrase than amalgamation I should like to hear it. Then when an hon. member gets up to speak he is heckled and chewed at, with ignorant sneers coming from the Conservative benches because he tries to defend the working men of this country. The Minister of Railways, together with the other members of the government, sits idle, lounging back in his chair, without offering a suggestion of any kind. The only suggestion to come from hon. gentlemen opposite was offered by the hon. member for East Algoma, yet hon. gentlemen opposite will go to the railway men during the next election and say they made jobs for them. This government was elected to end unemployment, but here they are creating unemployment by an act of parliament. Of course this is not the first measure they have put through which has had that effect; we have seen their tariff measures and their actions in regard to the civil service. Practically every act of parliament they have put through has created more unemployment, I asked the Minister of Railways to accept an amendment which would give these men sixty days' notice before they were thrown on the streets, but he refused. I asked if he would accept fifty days, or forty days; I asked if he would give them one day, but he remained silent. I hope this parliament will not allow this measure to go through until some provision such as I have suggested is included in order to protect the railroad men of this country.


Robert James Manion: At this stage of this debate I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house in replying to the irresponsible misstatements of fact made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. My hon. friend's methods of attack are always the same; anyone who has sat in the house with the hon. gentleman for the last few years realizes that his method is to put on. record as many misstatements and as much abuse of his opponents as possible, quite irrespective of the facts of the case. Then he reads them in the back concessions, when he goes to attend political meetings, and tries to show how quietly we sat in our places and took it from him. The hon. member's object to-day is obvious to anyone who knows him; it is to make himself appear the great champion of labour, and to have it seem that none of the
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

rest of us has any regard at all for labour. He even attacked his own party because they did not support him, when as a matter of fact most of them were laughing at him.
My hon. friend's very first statement tonight was that the Duff commission had belittled or reflected upon labour. I asked the hon. gentle-man in what section that appeared, and he said in section 6. There are several sections 6 in the report, and there is no reference ini any of them to labour. The only reference I can find is in section 5, and I -presume that is what the hon. gentleman had in mind. I intend to read that reference; it is very brief, and I should like the house to judge as to whether or not it contains any reflection upon labour. As a matter -of fact it compliments labour, and so far as I know it is the only reference to labour in the entire report. I read section 5, paragraphs 190 and 191:
190.	The wages and conditions of employment of _ a large majority of the employees of both railways are fixed by agreements with the trade unions concerned. A majority of these employees -are members of trade unions which include not only employees of the railways in Canada but also of the railways in the United States. Whether by reason of this close affiliation, or for other reasons, it is the fact that the wages and conditions of service of railway employees in both countries are substantially on the same basis.
Listen to this:
In recent months the wages of the officers and employees of both systems have suffered certain reductions which have eased the burden upon the railways, and it is satisfactory to record that these changes have been made without any disturbance.
191.	With the continuance of good relations between the management and employees of both systems, and a frank recognition of the serious financial situation, much can be done to ease the position of the railways, without imposing any undue hardship upon the employees.
Would anyone say that there is a word of anything but commendation for the railway men in that reference to labour? So far as I know that is the only reference contained in the entire report to the labour situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are wrong there.
-Mr. HEENAN: Paragraph 155:
Contributory Causes of the Railway Problem
1.	The over-development of railways beyond the immediate needs of the country.
2.	Aggressive and uncontrolled competition between two nation-wide railway enterprises, a competition the more disastrous in that one of the competitors was publicly-owned and supported by the full resources of the Dominion.
_ 3. The reactions of the world trade repression which began in 1929 and has progressively increased in its severity with each succeeding year.
4.	Competition from other forms of transport, notably road transport.
5.	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.
And listen to this:
6.	Contractual arrangements with labour organizations which set up a rigid wage scale and inflexible labour practices generally.


Robert James Manion: There is no reflection in
that.
-Mr. HEENAN: No reflection in -that?


Robert James Manion: No, there is not.


Peter Heenan: Well, according to the
D-uff report that is one of the contributory causes of the railway problem.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
read the part of the report that is of interest. He has brought out -the reference in it that I had -not found, but I do not admit that there is any reflection upon labour in that reference to contractual relations. The hon. gentleman this afternoon was very abusive in his remarks with reference to the conciliation board which it was indicated might be set -up in connection with seniority, and he made any number of statements regarding myself which were anything but flattering. Indeed, he indulged in so many abusive adjectives that I hardly remember -them. He spoke -of -my stupidity, and so on. I understood him to 'take the attitude that a conciliation iboa-rd co-uld not be set up in connection with seniority matters. May I ask him whether that was a correct understanding of what he said.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend has been able to find any reference reflecting on labour 1 should like to have him read it.


Peter Heenan: Very well; I would refer to the paragraph headed "Contributory Causes of the Railway Problem," which is chapter IV, appearing on page 53.


John Thomas Hackett: What section?


Ernest Lapointe: Look at your copy.


Peter Heenan: In connection with this
bill.


Robert James Manion: That is a different matter. I do n-ot admit that this bill changes the position -of labour at all. I do not need to cite i't, but in the Montreal agreement dealing with the seniority of employees a conciliation board was set up under the Lemieux Act to take into- consideration the very subject which the -hon. gentleman this afternoon railed at

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
me for having mentioned. That, was dealt with in the Montreal agreement.


Peter Heenan: I said that after the
passage of .this act the position would be changed.


Robert James Manion: I do not admit that the
passage of this legislation will affect it. I submit that if the hon. gentleman had taken the attitude which other hon. gentlemen opposite have taken throughout this discussion the committee would make better progress. After all, we need not get into any serious row about it; we do not need to abuse one another. Surely we can all hold our opinions honourably and .tenaciously without resorting to abuse. This discussion has gone on now for two weeks, including the second reading of the bill and its consideration in committee, and practically no personal abuse has been indulged in nor has any political strife been stirred up except by the hon. gentleman. Not one hon. member, so far as I can recall, has taken any unfair partisan attitude except my hon. friend, and I submit again that we shall gat on much better if we adhere a little more closely to the attitude taken so far, and not be abusive. This afternoon the hon. gentleman abused the Prime Minister and myself and all on this side of the house. Let me assure him that we are just as anxious as he is to do everything possible for labour, and if I were inclined to accept the amendment at all the attitude he took this afternoon would be the very thing to dispose one to reject his amendment, even if it were good, which I do not admit. Other labour members are of the opinion that there is nothing in the amendment that would improve the situation, and others again take the opposite view. This afternoon I read the clause, which has been read a number of times in the house, in regard to the position to be taken by the two railway systems whenever they bring about cooperation. That direction given to them places them in the same position in dealing with the representatives of labour as they are in at the present time under existing railway legislation.
I have no reason to object to the amendment except that in my opinion it does not help matters. If it would improve the legislation I should be glad to accept it. May I point out that a number of amendments have been suggested by hon. members opposite, some of which we have shown our readiness to accept. My hon. friends claim that they inspired them and I will not quarrel with that. If the amendment of the hon. gentleman would serve any purpose I should be glad to
accept it, but I still think that it does not improve the situation. It does not add one iota to the strength of the railway employees in dealing with the railways so far as cooperation is concerned.
My hon. friend from East Algoma this afternoon, although he did not support the amendment, intimated to me that he had a suggestion to offer and I shall be glad to see whether it satisfies the labour members. He read it to me and my opinion offhand would be that it would rather strengthen the section. If it tends to improve it, I shall be glad to accept it, but I do not admit that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River does improve this legislation.


William Richard Motherwell: May I intervene for a moment while these two Irish gladiators get their second wind? I object a little bit to the minister taking the ground that we are laughing at our colleague. We are not laughing at him; we are rather amused at his ability to put the whole ministerial side up a tree-that one Irishman can trim the whole outfit, and a lot of them over there Irish too, or halfbred like myself. Now, what is there unreasonable about the hon. gentleman's amendment? What is there unreasonable in suggesting that sixty days' notice should be given to railway employees about to be dismissed? Notice is required even in the case of a farm labourer-and I do not say that by way of reflection on that form of labour because I have been a farm labourer myself. In fact, my first year's earnings I got as a labourer on a farm, so I know what it is to be a labourer, and I know that under the law they have the right to be given notice. It is a long while since I had anything to do with administering the law as a magistrate, but I know that in some eastern provinces domestics hired by the week have a right to a week's notice, if hired by the month, to a month's notice, and if by the year to two or three months' notice.


John Thomas Hackett: There is no change at all in that regard.


William Richard Motherwell: Why have not these railway men the right to sixty days' notice? My hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River wants to have it stated in the law, and nothing prevents its being adopted but the deliberate stubbornness of the minister. I am not going to have my colleague laughed at by the ministry because of their incapacity to answer him.


Peter Heenan: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all. I want my remarks- to be as persuasive and conciliatory in tone as possible, but at the same
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

time when it comes to a showdown I am not going to stand for any kind of answer which my hon. friend opposite chooses to give my colleagues. And then he tries to pass the buck and to have the laugh on him, pretending to give an answer when he has not given one at all. I see no objection to the amendment but on the contrary many advantages. The minister says that even if he had been disposed to accept it he would be inclined now to reject it because of the manner in which it has been presented. Well, we all have our own style of saying things. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has his manner, and whatever else it may lack it is in my opinion mighty effective. I myself have been lectured quite often in this house for my peculiar way of presenting things. I cannot help that; I cannot help my way- that is the way I am built. The language I use is the language I understand. I have never swept the halls of a university with a gown and all that sort of thing, and so I have to make use of such language as I learned in my youth, trimmed up a little bit if you like.


Ernest Lapointe: It's pretty good.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, if I tried any other way I would be an utter failure, and the same with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. He would not be the same man if he tried to be somebody else.


Ernest Lapointe: You are a doctor.


William Richard Motherwell: I know, but a
different kind. Anyhow, I will try to be worthy of it just the same. It took me seventy years to earn it and I should try to be a credit to it. At any rate, I say that the minister has not met the situation at all. He has not answered the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. The minister had to say something, of course, and I was just wondering what he was going to say.


Ernest Lapointe: You are still wondering.


William Richard Motherwell: I suppose anything would be better than saying nothing at all. It would be a confession of weakness if after all the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had said no one on the other side should make any attempt at all at a reply.
I shall now try to come down from the heights that the two gladiators attained. Last week end I travelled on one of the new pooled trains to Toronto. Previously the service of the Canadian National Railways to Toronto was one of the finest in the country. It used to be a crack train running over a crack track.


John Thomas Hackett: It cracked our purses.


William Richard Motherwell: But a great dbange has taken place, and I was wondering if that change was brought about by voluntary action. If it was, it says a whole lot for our national railway officers. Now there is a mixed train made up of one coach, one baggage car and about fifty freight cars to be distributed between here and Toronto. It took four hours to cover the distance from Ottawa to Portland formerly covered in less than two. How long does the railway expect to retain passenger traffic with such a service as that? Unless something is done the remnant of passenger and small freight traffic will soon be lost to the buses and trucks. I was unable to find any change made by the Canadian Pacific to correspond to the change made by the Canadian National, although the fast train between Montreal and Toronto has been cancelled. I understand that some kind of pooling in connection with revenues is taking place, and I do not object to that. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River did not exaggerate the state of mind into which the labour on these lines has fallen. They are just going around in a daze, not knowing what the next day or hour may bring forth. They see the heads of their fellow labourers dropping into the basket one after the other like apples falling off a tree. Surely it would be only humane and considerate to give some notice when making these dismissals. The hon. member asked for sixty days notice; if we cannot get sixty, give us fifty or forty.
In all sections of the country where the service has been reduced to a mixed train three times a week, the railways will get precious little passenger or light freight traffic with a service like that, without installing a railway bus and truck sei'vice themselves. Our object is to try to make this 'bill as little objectionable as possible, as it is bound to go through and receive royal assent. Suppose the Canadian Pacific concludes to operate a bus and truck service in an effort to catch the remaining express and light traffic available; the Canadian National will want to do the same. I am not sure whether the inauguration of such a service by the national railways would be classed as capital expenditure, but if so they would have to come to the government before the expenditure could be made. If it is not considered as a capital expenditure, they will have to go to the trustees for authority to invest money in a service of this kind. The trustees will have the authority to refuse, and if they do refuse-and this possibility is not imaginary-the freight and passenger traffic will gravitate to the buses and trucks operated by the Canadian Pacific. A

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
mixed train running three times a week will not be able to retain such traffic. I heard of one station where only one ticket had been sold since this new service was put into effect. Pour more were sold during the Easter week-end, but that was because of the special rate. Can they afford to operate even one coach with that kind of result from the point of view of revenue? This board of trustees will have the power to refuse permission to the Canadian National to put on a bus and truck service similar to that which is sure to be operated by the Canadian Pacific, and such power should not be given to any three men born of woman or who ever walked in shoe leather.
We are then to have a government owned system of railways operated by three private individuals-the trustees. I have heard of government owned utilities under controlled operation ; I have heard of government ownership and government operation, but I have never heard of a government owned institution being operated privately by three individuals appointed by the government but not supervised by it. There may not be any private gain but there will mot be any public control. The arbitral board is in much the same position.
If the government would permit us to save them from themselves, they would hearken to what we are saying. We are not open to the charge of deliberately obstructing this bill; we are interested in this great property. Some of us have spent a part of our lives helping to develop it. When 1 say that I do not want to put the Canadian Pacific Railway in second place. I believe it would be better for that railway if it were left out of this legislation. I have every confidence that it will make the grade after these times blow over and I question very much the advisability of hooking it up with something which had already gone almost bankrupt prior to being nationalized. It is bad enough to have one crippled railway without endangering the other. The Liberal government found it crippled in 1921, but with that great man, the late Sir Henry Thornton, at the head and helm of it, it soon came to be a real road. We have faith enough in Canada-
Mr. SPENCE; Don't go crazy!


William Richard Motherwell: Who is blathering over there? Why don't you get up and talk on your hind legs instead of sitting there and wearing out your clothes?


James Houston Spence: You are wearing out your brains.


William Richard Motherwell: I trust my good friend has some to wear out. We do not forget what the party to which this government belongs did to the Hudson Bay Railway. In face of that hon. members opposite now say we are narrow and small because we suspect them. I suspect every step they take in connection with the Canadian National Railway and I have mighty good reason for that suspicion. I gave those reasons the other day so there is no use my repeating them. I certainly do not expect anything more than is given by this bill to the Canadian National Railways, but I want to see as little evil as possible contained therein and as much good. I do not hope to be able to make it worthy of the name of a bill that should be passed. My hon. friends opposite cannot help being Conservatives, but we are told by the best authority in the world that spiritual things cannot be discerned with the natural eye, and it is equally true that Liberal things cannot be discerned by the Tory eye. That is impossible, and therefore I do not blame them because they cannot help themselves. Nevertheless it is our responsibility to try to show them the error of their ways. The illustration I have given is by no means a hypothetical case. Anyone who will once travel by that mixed train to Napanee and back again will see that the little remaining passenger and light traffic will not be there possibly in one month. AH that light business will be swept off by any kind of buses put on by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or by the ones that are operating on that route now unless the National is similarly equipped.
I do not know that I have anything further to add to the discussion. I do not know whether my hon. friends opposite think I am trying to frustrate or block or thwart this bill in its passage through the house. I did not say one blessed word yesterday, and that is rather a trial for me when there are so many wrongs to redress. The trouble with the government is not that they are lacking in ability. I want to make that clear, that there is no lack of ability in the government or among their supporters, but the trouble is they took a rather ingenious method of getting this bill across. First of all they appointed a commission as a buffer between themselves and the country. I had no abjection in the world to that because I have always been in favour of commissions, good commissions, to deal with a specific question, and I am in favour of them yet. I am in favour of the monetary commission that is to be appointed, and dear knows the government meed one badly because they have no very high authority among
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

themselves on that particular question, and I, of course, am no authority at all upon it.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if the government want to be saved from themselves they will listen to the Commons. The Duff commission was all right so far as it went. They looked at this question from the standpoint of faithful, honest men, if you like, but they could not possibly look at it from the standpoint of those who represent the electors of Canada and have an interest not only in the road itself but in the service it gives as well as the question from the human standpoint taken by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. As for the Senate, this bill was drafted by an expert draftsman, by the father of the WarTime Elections Act. Oh yes, he is a skilful draftsman, but there is just as capable a man at draftsmanship in that other place in the person of the Hon. James Calder. I have known him as a draftsman, and he can draft. He took the stand that has been taken by a number of hon. gentlemen in the Commons. I do not agree with him in all his attitude, as he seemed to be acting largely on behalf of the Canadian Pacific. When I made my suggestion this afternoon I did so without knowing that the hon. leader in the other house had .attempted to contradict the Hon. Senator Calder who had made a similar suggestion to the one I made this afternoon.
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we should lie down and meekly accept the Duff Commission report or the Senate's bill no matter how thoroughly they may have looked into the question, because they have not the same sense of responsibility to the people that we have to have. What excuse would it be for me to tell my constituents when I go home: Oh, well, the Duff commission knows more in a minute than I would know in a year on this question, and the Senate, too, gave the matter deep and concentrated study from the time the leader of that other house first began to draft the legislation until it left that august chamber. My constituents would not be pacified by that. They would say, "We didn't send the Duff commission or the Senate there to investigate this question. We sent you there, and we want you to consider this question for yourself, and we want to know why you let this bill go through in this objectionable condition." I do not want to say harsh things, but I want to be true to the trust that my constituents have reposed in me. I may not have any constituency, Mr. Chairman, when I get back home, but I am not going to act on that assumption. I am going to be their representative for the remainder of this term. I may not have a fMr. Motherwell.]
seat-yes, I will have a seat after the redistribution, but I am told I will have no place to put it. But that is another story.
I do hope that the government will not be disappointed because we do not swallow this bill holus-bolus in three or four gulps. I am afraid it would cause acute indigestion if we did. It would be far more acceptable to our political conceptions and to our political tummies if it was corrected along our lines of thought than if left entirely in the form in which the government introduced it into this house. I am not going to taunt the government if they make changes in the bill. They invited us to assist them with suggestions and then they repel our approaches. What kind of treatment is that to give to the opposition in this house? First, to herald across Canada that this was not going to be even a government bill, that there was going to be a love feast over it, and then because we took them seriously, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and I and others did, and offered suggestions, they repel our advances after having invited them.


Robert James Manion: Must we accept everything you propose?


William Richard Motherwell: No. If you accepted half of them you would have to redraft the bill.


Robert James Manion: We have accepted about
half of them now. The trouble is you want us to accept them all.


William Richard Motherwell: No, I do not. Cull them out. My hon. friend will have to give a little better answer than he did to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to convince us that many of our amendments should be rejected. The first thing I know I shall have living evidence in myself of how evil communications and habits and attitudes corrupt my manners, because I am gradually assuming the scolding attitude of the government itself, and I do not want to do that. I just want to stand up for the rights of the people and to accept the invitation of the government to make suggestions and assist in improving this bill. I know that there are men on the other side who know that our proposals are sound, and if they had their way they would like to see them go through. They would go back home feeling much better and easier if some of them did go through.


George Brecken Nicholson: When the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River introduced his amendment last evening I took the liberty of telling him in the first instance that I did not think it at all met the situation he was aiming at.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
Furthermore, I do not think it is practical. If it would serve any purpose in assisting the men concerned, and if it was practical, I would support it, but I do not think it would serve the men and I do not think it is practical. The discussion which has taken place on this amendment indicates to my mind that there is a complete misunderstanding on the part of many members of what is involved. It would seem to be the idea that by the provisions of this bill men are being dismissed from the service of the railway altogether and that the men are entitled to sixty days' notice, and so forth. Nothing of the kind is involved. All that is involved is what takes place already in many, many cases, as the hon. member knows, in the changing of a time table, for instance, on the railways. Sixty days' notice was not given when the Trans-Canada was taken off the service. Time tables are changed sometimes within a week and sometimes within fifteen days of the new schedule going into effect, and the crews who had been operating the train have to adjust themselves or be absorbed into the service in some other way. That is just what will take place under this bill. To suggest that sixty days' notice must be given of every change is to suggest something which I submit is utterly impracticable in the operation of a railway. It would not be practicable so far as any endeavour to carry out an amalgamation of services is concerned.
There is however another amendment to the clause which I intend to move, after the present amendment is disposed of. I know the amendment I have before me will meet the wishes of railway employees. I happen to represent a community in which, in proportion to the total population, there are more railway employees than there are in any other community in Canada. I have discussed the amendment with them and in all good will I ask the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to consider it. The suggestion is that we insert in the last part of subsection 1 of section 16 the words, "through negotiations with the representatives of the employees affected." The clause would then read,"
They are further directed that whenever they shall so agree they shall endeavour to provide, through negotiations with the representatives of the employees affected, as part of sudh measure, plan or arrangement or otherwise-[DOT]
And so on. I believe this amendment would meet the wishes of the railway employees. It will be a mandate to the representatives of the railway companies, if such were necessary- and I doubt very much, after considering the whole matter, whether it would be. The suggested change would indicate clearly the will
of parliament, that it is through negotiation with the representatives of the employees that the adjustment shall be made. I cannot move the amendment now, because already there is one before the house. However if the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River will accept it, he is assured of my support.


Peter Heenan: I agree, right off the bat, that the suggestion made by the hon. member is far better than the original clause as it appears in the bill. I would say if we can get nothing better from the government I should foe glad to accept the hon. member's suggestion, provided he would add the words "after the employees' representatives be given sixty days notice."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: No?

Well then, what is the use of talking? The Minister of Railways says I should not get cross. He has told us if we speak in a peaceful humble manner we will receive more consideration from his side of the house. I am not worrying at all about the curtain lectures of the Minister of Railways or the Prime Minister. Yesterday afternoon I tried to be as peaceful and humble as I could possibly be. I tried this afternoon to get down on my knees. When I saw that there was nothing but ridicule and humbug from the other side of the house I admit I became slightly vexed. I have no apologies to make, although the Minister of Railways may choose to laugh at me. I should like to thank the hon. member for Melville for giving me a breathing spell. By the way, I wish the hon. member for East Algoma would remain in his seat, because I want to tell him something; I want to say to him that the amendment he proposed would be of no use. 1 say to the minister that my amendment is that of the representatives of twenty-one railroad organizations of Canada. They know what they want. They know their needs better than the Minister of Railways, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, the hon. member for East Algoma or the whole government combined. They are men sworn to do their duty towards the railway men of Canada. To put off their suggestions just because the member for Kenora-Rainy River has sponsored them will not go down with those men.
I shall read a resolution before me, and ask the minister whether or not he can discern any difference between it and my amendment.
Railway company or companies concerned shall be required to give at least sixty days' notice of such contemplated changes to the representatives of the respective organizations and the employees directly concerned holding
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

contract with the railroad, and before any changes are made endeavour to agree with such representatives to an adjustment of the seniority or rights to work of the employees affected thereby.
That was the resolution of the representatives of twenty-one railway organizations. It was presented to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, leader of the government in the Senate. For the hon. member for East Algoma to say that because he comes from a railroad town he knows what railroad men want, when there are twenty-one men behind this resolution who receive salaries to represent the railroad men of Canada, is something I cannot accept. The little bit of ridicule that the Minister of Railways shot across the floor of the house does not turn one hair of my head. 1 have become accustomed to his irresponsible statements. I listened to them before he was Minister of Railways. During the last election campaign he spent several days in my riding during which time he broadcast the same kind of ridicule and irresponsible statements as he now makes on the floor of the house.


Robert James Manion: During the last election campaign I was not in your riding at all.


Peter Heenan: You spoke at Dryden; that is in my riding.


Robert James Manion: If I spoke at Dryden it took one day, not several days.


Peter Heenan: Then the minister coaxed the Hon. Howard Ferguson, then Premier of Ontario, to come up to my riding to act the part of the clown. That gentleman is now acting as high comedian for Canada in London. Had it not been for the activities of this Barnum and Bailey I believe the Conservatives might have licked me in the last election.


Mr. GOTT:: The comedian is talking now.


Peter Heenan: Every time you squeeze an onion it makes your eyes water. I say to the hon. member for East Algoma that I should be glad to accept his amendment, and if my amendment is voted down I shall support his. I still say, however, his suggestion does not carry out the wishes of the railroad men in Canada. I am going to ask the government to take the responsibility of voting down the amendment which I have proposed. The hon. member for East Algoma should not take this matter too lightly. He has been out of railroad service so long that no doubt he has forgotten a good deal of it.
He likens this measure to a change of time table. Surely the hon. member for East Algoma must realize that here are several railroads going to amalgamate, to merge their

services, to abandon branch lines and portions of main lines, to close stations, to pool freight, pool passengers, pool earnings. Is there any comparison between that and a change of time table? Anyone who says in this house or anywhere that this is going to throw less than
20,000	railroad men out of work is only trying to deceive. That is the whole purpose of the act; if it does not throw thousands of railroad men out of employment it is useless. And here we are trying to run our railroads by act of parliament. The president of the Canadian Pacific and Sir Henry Thornton were regarded a few years ago as the greatest railroad men on the North American continent, yes, in the world-and they were, there is no doubt about that. The complications of railroading are such that we ought not to attempt to run a railroad by act of parliament. When I went back to work last summer I had to write an examination, a book of eighty-two pages, just to be an ordinary engineer; and here we are, a few politicians who know no more about railroading than the government knows about ending unemployment, attempting to tell the presidents and managers of these railroads how to carry on their business-and, worst of all, bringing a slave driver from the United States of America to act on a Canadian commission. The railroad men of this country have cooperated for years and years, shown their willingness to	cooperate-when has this
country seen a strike on its railroads? The men have been and are willing to sit down and negotiate, and to take their losses. In 1931, the first year this government was in power, the railroad men of Canada earned $74,000,000 less than they did in 1929, and last year they earned $120,000,000 less than they did in 1929, according to the government's own reports. They have taken a ten per cent reduction on top of that, and they are asked to take a further ten per cent reduction. Now we are passing an act of parliament the effect of which will be that when their jobs are done away with, their seniority taken from them, they shall not have even one day's notice to adjust themselves to that condition.
I will not withdraw my amendment. It was suggested and pleaded for by the representatives of the labour organizations; it is fair and reasonable, and as far as I am concerned I want that amendment put through.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: Does the amendment to the amendment carry?


Humphrey Mitchell: Before it is carried I
would like to ask the minister whait is the government's objection to sixty days' notice

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
of termination of an agreement or working conditions in a railroad centre? It is the standard practice.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to take up any more time; this point has been discussed all afternoon and for one and a 'half hours this evening and all the arguments for and against have been heard. In all sincerity I do not believe the proposed amendment increases the opportunities for the men at all, but I believe it complicates the act and interferes to a certain extent, as I explained this afternoon, with some proposals that might be made. I sincerely believe 'that this section gives the protection even without the amendment of my hon. friend from Bast Algoma, which however, I am willing to accept, not because it is from him but because I do not think it changes the meaning at all; it may make it a little stronger. I submit this section does protect the men-I am just as anxious to protect them as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, but I do not wish to put in clauses that will only interfere with the act without accomplishing anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Aot apply as they do to-day, assuming this bill goes through?


Robert James Manion: They would apply in
exactly the same type of cases. I made inquiry during the dinner hour from railroad men Who I believe speak authoritatively, men who gave me this report on the Montreal agreement. It is true that in the case of that agreement it was not two independent railroads that were involved, as the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National; it was a consolidation of the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial, and as a consequence of that amalgamation the employment of certain men was affected. As a result the men's unions and the railway management got together and worked out what they called the Montreal agreement, which settled the terms of seniority. After that was arranged still other disputes arose, juat as they will under this. It cannot be avoided, because each man who is laid off, if there are such, and no doubt there will be on both railroads, will dispute the right to drop him. But under the Montreal agreement the men asked for a conciliation board and got it. Under this present act I am informed, and I believe it, they would have, exactly the same right to ask for a conciliation board. Let me go a little further-I have no desire to mislead the committee. In certain cases
there would not be a possibility of dispute. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg this afternoon asked what was the effect on the men of the pooling which had taken place already. I did not know then. I asked some officers of the Canadian National and they tell me that on the Ottawa-Toronto run the Canadian Pacific took over the service-that, by the way, may be why my hon. friend from Melville found the service rather poor the other afternoon-whereas the Canadian National took over the Montreal-Toronto service. May I interject here that these luxurious services which my hon. friend from Melville referred to and which I admit were in existence, cost this country over $25,000,000 a year loss on passenger traffic during the last few years. I mention that to show why they had to be cut down. That is what these luxurious accommodations were costing the Canadian National, over S25,000,000 loss in 1932. As a result of the pooling arrangements, the employees of the Canadian Pacific will remain on between Ottawa and Toronto because the Canadian Pacific operates the trains. On the Montreal-Toronto run the Canadian National employees remain on. That is just the kind of case pointed to by my hon. friend from East Algoma. I do not suppose under those circumstances any of those men would be entitled to bring up a dispute. The Canadian Pacific drops some trains on the Montreal-Toronto run, so the junior men on those trains are out of luck. On the Ottawa-Toronto run Canadian National men are dropped; they are out of luck. But I do not suppose they can claim a dispute. But as far as men to-day would have a right to a conciliation board under the Lemieux act they would have the same right under this act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point was not concerned so much with what may relate to the raising of a dispute as to the principle which underlies the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and to having a similar principle applied under this act. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act requires that before a change can be made in a wage schedule or affecting working conditions or hours of labour, at least thirty days' notice shall be given-


Robert James Manion: There is no change in that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That notice has to be given for even a change of wages. If a board is applied for, the change cannot go into effect until after the board has made a report. That gives men who are to be affected some opportunity to look around and make necessary adjustments. They have the
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

feeling that they are secure at least until someone has looked into their case. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is aimed at the same thing, making the same principle apply with regard to this act and not anything further, namely that before men are dismissed or ordered off as a result of coordination and economies they should be entitled to some notice, a stated period, thirty or sixty days- sixty is proposed, and that is short enough. That would at least free them from the sense of fear of instant dismissal that many of them have at the moment. That is what the proposed amendment amounts to. I think that is reasonable.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest first that as far as this act is concerned there is no change whatsoever, so far as I know-and I have made inquiry-no change whatsoever in the men's position under their agreements with the two railroads. They will be in exactly the same position under their agreements in regard to wages, conciliation boards and so on under this act. I thought my right hon. friend was not listening when the hon. member for East Algoma made a suggestion that would cover the very point desired. I think his suggested amendment would be much more useful than the one moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and for that reason I am inclined to accept it if it is acceptable to the committee, as I hope it will be. If my right hon. friend will look at page 9 of the bill I will read the section as it would appear with the amendment of the hon. member for East Algoma:
They are further directed that whenever they shall so agree-
That is, as to cooperative measures.
-they shall endeavour to provide, through negotiations with representatives of the employees affected-
That is added.

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.
In my belief this gives them if not absolute protection, at least protection equal to that proposed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and it does not complicate the act. As I suggested, the amendment dealing with a sixty day notice does complicate it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend has just read relates only to an apportionment between the two roads. The

amendment of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has to do with the length of time a man shall have in which to prepare himself for what is really instant dismissal. T-hat is the hard feature of the situation for those who will be affected by it. Let us take our own individual positions; suppose we were subject to some superior power which in an endeavour to effect economies, had the right to say that to-morrow our occupations should end. I am not referring now to our positions as members of parliament but to our positions as members of a community earning a livelihood by our respective vocations. Just imagine the frame of mind a man would find himself in if at all times he had hanging over his head a sword that might come down at any moment and sever from him his employment.


Robert James Manion: The same condition exists at the moment on all railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it does not; the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act has been framed to prevent anything of that kind until due notice has been given. Then, after notice, if the grounds do not appear to be sufficient for the action proposed to be taken, an investigation may be held into the merits of the case. Surely it is only reasonable to say that if men are to help meet a great national situation which requires extensive economies at this time; if they are to be sacrificed for the good of the community as a whole, at least they should receive from the community in return some guarantee that will secure to them by way of notice an opportunity to prepare for the inevitable and, if at all possible, to find some other means of support before such action is taken.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the right hon.
gentleman allow me to make just one suggestion? There are two distinct matters under consideration: the first is the relationship between the employee and his employer. That relationship is in no way affected by the present bill. A man is employed by the day, the week or the month, he can be dismissed only according to the iaws of his province and according to his contract; the second subject under 'consideration is the bill which provides for a pooling, a consolidation, a cooperative measure or agreement, and that, whether or not it comes about, does not relieve the employer of the necessity of giving notice to the employee in the terms of the law of the province or of his contract.. I submit to the committee that the relationship which has been referred to by the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy

C.NJl.-C.PJt. Bill
River, the relationship between the servant of the railway and the company, is unchanged by this bill. I think one might go a step further and say that probably it is not competent for this parliament to enact legislation that would bear upon the lease or hire of personal services. In the view of people who dare express opinions about these matters such legislation is within the ambit of provincial jurisdiction and does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the latter point I would submit that this parliament has plenary powers in dealing with all railway matters and that we can enact whatever legislation we please with regard to railway labour, which is interprovincial.


John Thomas Hackett: I doubt that very much.


Robert James Manion: I might add just a word
in reply to my right hon. friend. At the very moment we are sitting here discussing this act the railways are carrying out the very thing we are talking about, and they are not giving any notice. They are dealing with the matter in the ordinary way, so this act will not change the procedure at all. As a matter of fact, with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Algoma I think the men will be protected a little more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to read the section of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which I have in mind. It is section 58 of chapter 112 of the revised statutes of Canada:
Employers and employees shall give at least thirty days' notice of an intended or desired change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours; and in the event of such intended or desired change resulting in a dispute, it shall he unlawful for the employer to make effective a proposed change in wrages or hours or for the employees to go on strike, until the dispute has been finally dealt with by a board, and a copy of its report has been delivered through the registrar to both the parties affected.


Robert James Manion: That is absolutely unchanged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wanted to get at was this: If this bill comes into force as an act will this provision of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act continues to apply to proposed changes in conditions of employment of railway labour?


Robert James Manion: Just as it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And if individuals are being summarily dismissed under the law that is now going through they will be entitled to regard that as a cause for an 53719-261
application for a board, and when applying in that way the change will not take place until there has been a full investigation?


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman has carried his argument some distance further, and I do not wish to go that far. I simply say that this act will apply just as much after the legislation we are now discussing is put into effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any doubt in the matter I think it only right that such doubt should be cleared up. I believe the clause I have just read was put there for the purpose of removing the fear of arbitrary and summary action; it was put there in order to secure the employees in their positions, at least for a certain time after notification of a change. I do mot see why a similar clause might not be put in this act, if it is going to give that sense of security and a greater measure of confidence to the employees generally. I believe the effect will be not only to give confidence to the employees but to help the public as well. The employees will have a sense of security which will free them from at least some of the terror which they are experiencing at the moment. May I tell the minister that as leader of the opposition, since this measure was introduced, I have received communications from men in ail parts of the dominion who fear they will be affected by it. These communications have not been solicited in any way, but these men have written begging me, as leader of the opposition, to do all in my power to prevent summary dismissals and dismissals without any provision being made for consequent unemployment as a result of the economies that are to be effected. I do think this is one matter that ought to be very definitely secured. These men are to be sacrificed for the public good, and surely the public should seek to make their sacrifice as little grievous as may be possible.


Charles Gavan Power: Just in reply to my hon. friend from Stanstead, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are not likely to agree on his interpretation of the civil law, at any rate of the province from which we both come. He gives it as his opinion, if I understood him rightly, that this matter of the dismissal of employees falls within the jursidiction of the civil code of the province of Quebec. I have not the civil code before me but I have sent for it. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the contract of lease and hire of services ceases when there are no longer any services to be performed, and in this instance if through

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

any legislation of this parliament we give an excuse to either of the railways to decree that there is no longer any work, the men will be by that fact dismissed and will not have any claim against the railways.


John Thomas Hackett: That is a voluntary act.


Charles Gavan Power: It goes a little beyond a voluntary act when it is a consequence of an injunction placed upon the railways by this parliament. If my hon. friend will not accept that theory he will at any rate accept the theory that when there is no more work to be done the contract ceases. If the tracks were torn up or the shops closed down I doubt very much that there would be a claim. There would be a reason for the contract of hire of services to terminate. In the courts of the province of Quebec I should much prefer not to have a claim of that kind against the railways. During the past two or three years I have had some experience in pleading cases of this kind against one of the instruments of this government, the Quebec harbour commission. The commissioners dismissed a large number of employees shortly after the change of government, and much to my satisfaction I was able to go before the courts of the province and collect a considerable amount of money by way of fees from this government-far more than I made from the former government. We were obliged to allege that the dismissal was without cause, and the courts held that simply the will of the commission or the desire of the commission to be rid of people who have been recommended by the hon. member for Quebec East or by myself was not a sufficient cause for dismissal. I should think though that when the work stopped, if they had been carrying on the construction of a wharf or a building, there would be no claim for compensation or damages, and that would be the situation in the instance now before us.


George Brecken Nicholson: Under the conditions set out in this bill there is no provision for the dismissal of railway employees; there is no condition providing for a situation such as my hon. friend from Quebec South has referred to. Under their contracts arranged through their representatives, under the system of collective bargaining recognized in this country, the men would still remain employees even though they might be dropped from the pay-roll temporarily. They would remain employees of the railway with all the rights of employees, including the right to be called back as soon as operating conditions made it possible. They might be out of the service for two, three, four, five or six years but they
fMr. Power.]
would still retain seniority rights and would be called back in regular order. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke with regard to pensions. It was suggested that because a train was taken off or two trains were consolidated, the employees would be dismissed, though they might be within two years of the receipt of pension. That is not so; the pension remains exactly the same. The employee may, by reason of the fact that he is out of employment for a short time, have his pension reduced, but as' soon as he reaches the pensionable age he will get his pension, even if he has not been in service those two years. The men are not dismissed but are recognized as railway employees all the while. They are on the regular list to be called on as soon as operating conditions make it possible to bring them into service again.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to see the employees affected given protection to the greatest possible extent, but I cannot see very well how we can extend such protection without making some provision by way of financial outlay to take Care of a situation of this kind. I do not think that the section in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act which was read by the leader of the opposition covers the point at all. That refers to a general revision of the schedules that have been in force over a period of time affecting all employees in any organization, corporation, firm or company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was the principle underlying it that I was referring to.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so, but every company that has an agreement with its employees is to-day carrying out the things implied here. Companies are dismissing employees with very little notice. I admit that this practice should be curtailed as far as possible, but the point that has to be taken into consideration is that there may be more reductions of services on one company's lines than on the other and the suggestion here is that in such an event the trustees-I presume it is the trustees who are to carry it out-should try to apportion the employees, not on the basis of a greater curtailment of services on one line than on the other but on the basis of a fairly just proportion as between the various employees concerned. As I say, I should like to see the employees protected as far as possible, but I cannot see that we can do very much more than to put in a phrase such as is suggested by the hon. member for East Algoma. I had a similar one drawn up which I compared with his, and I think it

C.NJI.-C.P.R. Bill
would meet the situation as far as this committee can meet it.


Peter Heenan: The longer we talk on this matter the more evident it is that we do not know what we are talking about. It is obvious that there are so many of us discussing it from different angles that we have not got at the point at issue. The hon. member for Stand-stead talks about the relation between employers and employees; he says 'that they are not disturbed by this bill. I think he really believes that, but it is not so according to railway practice. I know that he is sincere and I want to point this out to him. The relations between the railways and the railway men are entirely different from the relations between the railways and men who are engaged on the job, to be given thirty days' notice and so on. There are thousands of men on the railways to-day who are paid only when they are called upon to work.


John Thomas Hackett: According to their contract-.


Peter Heenan: According to their contract; they are doing piece work. They have seniority, starting in the shops and then becoming spare firemen, and so on. They do not get anything when not working. A man is promoted to the position of firemen and is paid only for the time he works. He obtains certain seniority rights on his way to the position of engineer, but when the traffic decreases the younger men are not called out. This bill provides for the abandonment of their work and they are left, as the hon. member for East Algoma would say, holding the bag and sitting there waiting to be called. How long does the committee think they can wait?
Let me give an example of just how this might work out. At one time Sir George Bury thought that the Canadian Pacific'should have a larger yard than the one they had in Winnipeg. A large piece of territory was secured about seven miles out from the city and perhaps one of the finest yards on the North American continent was constructed. The men were given notice that they must move out from Winnipeg and build homes adjacent to the yard. A meeting was held and it was decided that they would not be compelled to .move right away and facilities were provided for their being conveyed back and forth. But what has happened since? That yard is not now required and if these men had gone out there and built homes, they would now be forced to move back to the city. I think that example indicates the many ramifications there are in railroading.
53719-261J
The hon. member for East Algoma suggests, and technically he is correct, that these men will not be dismissed. I cannot see any difference between being dismissed and not being called to go to work. Undoubtedly this bill is to provide for the abandonment of lines and other activities and the merging of services and surely anyone at all familiar with railroad work will realize that many men, while they will not lose their seniority will never be called out to go to work. It is no use for a man to have his name on a seniority list and not be called out to go to work. The longer we talk about this matter, the closer we are able to get together. If the minister would listen to what I am saying-


Robert James Manion: I hear every word the hon. gentleman is saying.


Peter Heenan: -I would point out in my most humble manner that I would be willing to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East Algoma and withdraw my own provided that amendment contains a provision that the employees' representatives receive sixty days' notice.


Robert James Manion: In other words, all the hon. gentleman wants is to have his own way.


Peter Heenan: 1 do not want my own way,
I want only what the men want. This means nothing to me. As the minister knows, I have enough seniority with the Canadian Pacific to be almost president if they went out of business. I get no capital, political or otherwise, out of this situation. If I had been contending only for myself I would have submitted this thing long ago and then let it go.
I am contending for the men who are being bludgeoned out of their jobs. Surely the minister can give them sixty days' notice when a change is going to be made in the operation of the railroads. They should be made acquainted with what is going to happen so that they can go and seek a living in some other place. I do not see how such a provision could hurt this measure. The amendment moved by the hon. member is quite all right and I would be perfectly satisfied to [DOT] accept it with the addition that the men be given sixty days' notice. If the minister thinks that length of notice is going to embarrass the railroads, he can cut it down to fifty or forty days; I would even accept thirty days' notice, but they ought to be given some notice of what is going to happen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think they would be obliged under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to give thirty days' notice. The first three lines of section 58 of the act reads as follows:
C.NJl.-CF.R. Bill

Employers and employees shall give at least thirty days' notice of an intended or desired change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours.
Certainly a dismissal or sudden cessation of employment would be a change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours, and thirty days' notice would be required if the pernon came within the definition of employee as referred to in this act. The definition of "employee" is as follows :
"employee" means any person employed by an employer to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward in any industry to which this act applies.
The definition of "employer" is as follows:
"employer" means any person, company or corporation employing ten or more persons and owning or operating any mining property, agency of transportation or communication or public service utility, including, except as hereinafter provided, railways, whether operated by steam, electricity or other motive power.
I do not think there can be any doubt that so far as the thirty days' notice is concerned any railway employee would be entitled to that. If his employment is going to be affected as regards wages or hours, it is obligatory upon the company to give him that notice.


Robert James Manion: The act to which the right hon. gentleman has referred is not affected by this bill.


Peter Heenan: I think there must be some misunderstanding. I contend that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is affected by this measure. After this bill is passed it will become law and no one would think of invoking the provisions of the disputes act in connection with the provisions of any other laws of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That particular provision is quite apart from the question of disputes which may arise therefrom; it is a positive statement that thirty days' notice has to be given.


Peter Heenan: Will the minister turn to section 2, which reads:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts.


Robert James Manion: I took this matter up with the legal officers of the department and it is pointed out, as I indicated some days ago, that this act prevails, not over any statute that is inconsistent, but over any provisions that are inconsistent. It says:	'

The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts.
The provision which the right hon. leader of the opposition read is part of the. Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. This act does not interfere with that act at all. That act is just as much the law after this bill goes through as it is at this minute. No provision of this act will interfere with that act.


Peter Heenan: I know the minister thinks he is right, and I wish he were, but the section reads:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts.
So, if there is any provision of any other act that is inconsistent, then this act shall prevail?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Peter Heenan: But section 16 says that the railroad companies shall provide for a fair and reasonable apportionment. It directs the railroad companies to apportion the work as between the employees of the National railway and the Pacific railway. Consequently no dispute can arise there between the railroad men and the companies because the company apportions the work without any consultation or discussion with the railroad men.


Robert James Manion: No, because the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Algoma is that they do that very thing.


Peter Heenan: Let me offer a suggestion which will probably fill the bill. In section 2, which we have still to discuss further, the minister has accepted the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and mentioned that act in the section. Will he also include in that section the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?


Robert James Manion: It is not usual to cite every act with which a particular act may not be inconsistent. My own advice, and I believe in the advice I have received-it is the opinion of all lawyers on this side and of the leader of the opposition and of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I know, because I saw him nodding his assent when this opinion was expressed

is that the provisions of this act are not inconsistent with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Surely that should be sufficient for my hon. friend. I should like to see the question put. With all due respect to my hon. friend, neither of us is a lawyer and surely we ought to be convinced by the

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
opinions of legal men. My hon. friend should be satisfied with the opinion of his own leader and of the hon. gentleman who sits beside him (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver), who is one of the ablest men on that side of the house. Surely that should have some weight with my hon. friend. I am willing to accept that opinion, and I think my hon. friend should be.


William Richard Motherwell: Do you want the
average man to have to hunt up all the statutes in creation to find out what should be puit in this law? I have had some experience of that, and it is a big task. If you go to an experienced lawyer and ask him what the law is in a certain matter, in nine oases out of ten he has to hunt up a whole load of authorities before he can tell you. If that is so with a lawyer it is ten times more so with a layman. We want this bill fixed so that "a wayfaring man, though he be a fool, need not err therein." That is not unreasonable. Does the house really think that the ex jMmister of Labour and others of us have gone mad? Is it not more likely that the ministry has gone mad?


An hon. MEMBER:: Undoubtedly.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no doubt
about it. Some one of us has gone mad, and I n.m willing to take my chance which of us it is. We are not asking anything unreasonable. These safeguards that we are asking for as to proper notice of dismissal, and so forth, mean something to the railroad men. But it will not mean anything to say to them that- certain provisions are in some other aot. After all the wobbling around and the provisos that have been inserted in section 2, the average man can hardly tell what it means. Why not say in plain terms just what is intended? Why not accept the suggestion to even include' the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act? We are not going to josh the government for having come down the tree and accepted an amendment from us. They should not be ashamed to accept an amendment from us. Whether we did it acceptably or not it is a fact that for eight and a half years my colleagues and I drafted legislation and passed many laws, and I question if we were defeated on the issue that that work was not properly done. We are the same members pretty much to-day, and we should be able to give acceptable advice. If anybody suggests that we are talking and moving amendments simply to kill time or for political effect, then I say that he is a thousand miles from the truth, because this government has already supplied us with sufficient political dope to hang a dozen governments, and why
should we want more? We want to get home; that is what we want, but we must first finish our task here. The first time the electors get a chance at hon. gentlemen opposite they will be hanged, drawn and quartered in no time. So there is no sense in casting reflections upon us and suggesting that we are proposing amendments for political effect. That would be a work of supererogation, or whatever it is-quite superfluous. I am pleading with hon. gentlemen opposite as I have pleaded, to save them from themselves. I want to got out of here, but still I want to do my duty. I want to supply the overoheck for hon. gentlemen, to prevent them from running away with themselves and committing further political suicide. We are putting through an act that will mean what? There is not a man I believe in this house but knows in his heart that this act means the annihilation of the Canadian National Railways within five or six years, and meaning that, we who believe in the national railway and want to maintain it as an entity would be derelict in our duty if we did not use our last breath in an effort to get this act in as acceptable a form as possible before it passes through this house. That is what I am pleading for. I may be sprung on the matter, but if I am, I am sprung in the right direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether the minister quite caught the last suggestion that was made, namely that when we return to section 2 he consider inserting therein as an additional subsection the words, "the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Aot." I know bow embarrassing it is to accept an amendment at the moment it is offered in the discussion in committee, but if the minister would promise to consider doing that when we come back to section 2 I think he would find the suggestion quite satisfactory.


Robert James Manion: I would promise almost
anything. With all my heart I promise to consider it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is a bad man who
makes no promises.


Peter Heenan: There are two propositions now-


Robert James Manion: I suppose this does away
with my promise, does it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The promise
was made to me.


Peter Heenan: The suggestion that the
leader of the opposition makes now is satisfactory to me provided it is accepted by the

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
government, but what is the difference? Why have we wasted all this day-


Robert James Manion: Why should we waste the rest of the evening?


Peter Heenan: If the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act provides for thirty days' notice when there is a conflict of opinion between the employees and the employer, that is all I have been asking for. It is true that my amendment asked for sixty days. Here after a waste of time and a display of temper, after saying many things which ought not to have been said, but which I was forced to say, the minister has agreed to accept the very thing we have been fighting for all day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter Heenan: With that understanding I withdraw my amendment so that the hon. member for East Algoma may introduce his.


Finlay MacDonald: I understand the amendment and the amendment to the amendment are withdrawn. That is the pleasure of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall the section carry?


George Brecken Nicholson: I move the section be amended by inserting in the last clause of subsection 1 of section 16, after the word "provide" in line 12 thereof, the words "through negotiations with the representatives of the employees affected." The clause would then read:
They are further directed that whenever they shall so agree they shall endeavour to provide, through negotiations with the representatives of the employees affected, 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.
The amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, it is quite possible that this clause may be capable of many different interpretations. It says that the company shall confer with the representatives of the men affected. I am not a lawyer, but I have been listening this afternoon and this evening to definitions by lawyers, and the more I listen to definitions of words the more confused I become, and the less I know about the measure involved. I am in favour of the principle behind the amendment, but I am afraid that the interpretation may create a good deal of friction. How would the term 
"the employees affected" be interpreted, when the legislation is put into operation? Men may be laid off, and when they are laid off they cease to be employees of the company. I have had a little experience in these matters, and in the past few months men who have been laid off by railroads have formed their own organizations, claiming to represent the men out of work. It is quite possible that the men who have been laid off will claim that those organizations known as the recognized unions will no longer act as the representatives of the men. I should like to have some words inserted, or have some understanding to the effect that if negotiations take place, they should take place before the men are actually laid off. To my mind the wording as it now appears in the section is capable of different interpretations, and before it is in operation very long we may strike many snags.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection 1 of section 16 as amended agreed to.
Subsections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 16, subsection 4-Duty of C.N.R. and C.P.R. to meet by their proper officers and endeavour to arrange for cooperation.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Before we deal with this section, may I say that a few days ago I asked the Minister of Railways for certain information in regard to the effect of the consolidation of services between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Perhaps at this stage he may give me that information.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I should like to give it. I have had it before me this afternoon, and I shall be very happy to give it. However there was another matter which I should have mentioned, but owing to the fact that we were making some progress I did not like to speak. I proposed before that there be a new subsection 4, and that the one now standing as subsection 4 be made subsection 5. I had intended to mention the fact later, but now that I am on my feet I shall read the proposed new subsection. The numbering would be changed and the following would be the proposed new subsection 4:
Where the execution or carrying out of such a measure, plan or arrangement involves the doing of any act which by any statute requires the leave, sanction, assent or approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, then, except where otherwise provided in this act, the approval of the said board shall be obtained.
I shall ask my colleague to move this new subsection.

CJf.R.-CT.R. Bill


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The subsection the minister has read is different from the one he showed me. That contained the words "no such measure, plan or arrangement shall be effective without the approval of the said board."


Robert James Manion: I believe the right hon. gentleman is referring to another amendment which applies to part II.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister sent it to me two days ago stating that it applied to clause 16 at page 9 of the bill, the purpose being to add a new subsection immediately after subsection 3.


Robert James Manion: Very well; we shall come back to it at another sitting. I will simply give notice now. I thought I had given the same amendment to the right hon. gentleman, but I may have made an error.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same section, but the wording is slightly different.


Robert James Manion: The legal adviser tells me that the draft I have read is slightly different, but a little better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well; go ahead and move it.


John Thomas Hackett: I shall move it.


Robert James Manion: If that amendment is satisfactory I should like to have it carried, and then I would go on and give my right hon. friend-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment; I am not sure that the difference in the wording does not make a material change. The words appearing in the new clause suggested by the minister are "except where otherwise provided in this act." I believe the purpose of this amendment when originally drafted was-


Robert James Manion: I shall let it stand; it
may be that I have given the right hon. gentleman the wrong copy.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg asked me some questions concerning changes made in train services, and the effect those changes would have upon the men. I put a series of questions along the line of itihose asked by the hon. member, the answers to which I have received. This is information requested by the hon. member for North Winnipeg as to the pooling of services between Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa and Toronto. My first question was, "What effect on finances of the railway?" To which I received the answer, "A betterment of approximately $250,000 per year to Canadian National Railways." I suppose the Canadian Pacific would be affected similarly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did you get information
from the Canadian Pacific?


Robert James Manion: I did not take the matter up with the Canadian Pacific. The second question was: "What saving in services?" And the answer: "279,938 passenger train miles to Canadian National Railways." That may not be the exact figure for the Canadian Pacific, but it would be something like that. Then the third question was: "What labour displacement?" And the answer, "Twenty-five train service employees of Canadian National -plus certain men who will be affected by the curtailed maintenance program and the lessened servicing and cleaning of equipment, turning of engines, etc. The management state they cannot as yet determine definitely what lay-offs these changes will involve." I will send a copy of the replies to my hon. friend, and I think that it will answer the questions he asks. In the meantime let subsection 4 stand.


Peter Heenan: The men on the railroads are somewhat concerned with respect to subsection 2 (a)-"new companies controlled by stock ownership, equitably apportioned between the companies"-and I have an amendment to offer. I understand the minister is allowing it to stand?


Robert James Manion: Yes, because there is some mistake in the interchange of amendments between the right hon. leader of the opposition and myself.


Peter Heenan: I want to offer these amendments to-night so that the minister can look them over. The men fear-they do not suggest that the presidents of the two railroad companies now in office would do it, but they have to look ahead, and I take the responsibility of saying that I agree with them-that there is a possibility of a new company being formed, the Canadian National owning half the stock and the Canadian Pacific owning half, and this new company could then say to the men: "You did have rights on the Canadian Pacific; you did have rights on the Canadian National; you did have a schedule of wages; you did have agreements for many years, but this is a new company in which you have no rights whatever. We may take you in such proportions as we like, but not under the schedule of wages or working agreements you have at the present time" So I would like to offer to the minister this provision :
Employees laid off as a result of economies effected under the provisions of this section shall be given preference for employment in any terminal or other company organized for joint operations.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
That is one provision. The other would be:
Kmployees so transferred to or employed by any terminal or other company shall not be subject to any change in working conditions except through negotiations, and shall be entitled to be represented through their labour organizations in all matters affecting their conditions of employment.
That, I understand, is what the government has in mind, and we believe that the men should be protected to that extent. Therefore I offer these two as amendments to be added to section 16.


Robert James Manion: I could not quite follow the amendments as read but I will look them up in Hansard to-morrow. The hon. member proposes that they come at the end of section 16?


Peter Heenan: Well, I would like the minister to put them in in the best place.


Robert James Manion: We will let these stand for the moment. Can we deal with what is now subsection 4 but will be subsection 5 if our amendment is adopted? The right hon. leader of the opposition has looked over these amendments and I believe has agreed to this one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is
different from the one the minister had previously shown me.


Robert James Manion: Well, they both mean the same, only the wording is a little different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This last one, the one originally shown to me, would be all right.


John Thomas Hackett: With the permission of
the seconder I will withdraw the amendment to add a new subsection following subsection 3 of section 16 and will offer the following amendment, to be a new subsection 4:
Where the execution or carrying out of such a measure, plan or arrangement involves the doing of any act which by any statute requires the leave, sanction, assent or approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, no such measure, plan or arrangement shall be effective without the approval of the said board.


Robert James Manion: That will be subsection
4.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 16, subsection 4-Duty of C.N.R. and C.P.R. to meet by their proper officers and endeavour to arrange for cooperation.
Finlay MacDonald: This subsection will now be numbered 5.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Peter Heenan: As I understand it, the
whole of section 16 is now carried?


Robert James Manion: Everything except the
hon. gentleman's amendments.


Peter Heenan: Well, they are very harmless. They would take only a minute; if you would accept them we could pass the whole section.


Robert James Manion: We are holding up practically all the amendments. The only one we have dealt with is the one we have been discussing all day. I would rather like them to stand.


Peter Heenan: As long as we understand that section 16 is not completed.


Robert James Manion: No, it stands.
Section stands.
On section 17-Tribunals to be erected as required.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest that one
subclause, (e), was to be removed.


James Langstaff Bowman: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: On division.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under
protest.


Peter Heenan: The committee is going
too fast for me. Someone moved that something be struck out there, and I don't know what it was.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald-Cape Breton):: Subclause (e), abandonment of
lines, services or facilities.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18, subsection 1-Chairman and members of tribunal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: On division, under protest.


Robert James Manion: Just a moment-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Too fast for the minister 1


Robert James Manion: In regard to section 18,
I am sorry to delay my own bill but we wish to have it in as good shape as possible. There is a slight change in the first clause of section 18 which I will ask an hon. gentleman to move. It is that after the word "Canada" in line 13-Exchequer Court of Canada-the following be inserted:

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
Or in the event of such president acting as chief commissioner, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In other words, to avoid his occupying two positions.


John Thomas Hackett: I move that.


Charles Gavan Power: The Canadian Pacific is
cooperating beautifully.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection 1 as amended agreed to.
On section 18, subsection 4-Procedure if representative fails to act.
Robert James Manion: The word "in" in the second line should be changed to "is"; it is a typographical eiTor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-Hearings to be held in matters of substantial public concern.
Peter Heenan: This section states:
If, in the opinion of the presiding officer of any tribunal, any application made to him raises matters of substantial concern to the public or a section of the public, he may direct-
Remembering the powers that are given the arbitral tribunal, does the minister not think this section should state that the presiding officer shall give notice in some way, perhaps through the press, of matters of public concern? I do not want to reiterate again and again the powers of this tribunal, but surely it should not be left to the opinion of the chairman as to whether or not a particular matter concerns the public. I have in mind the possibility that some service may be abandoned which would affect those living along that line. This could be done bv the tribunal without notice to the public and without the people situated along that line having the right to submit their argument to the tribunal. I think already the presiding officer has more power than he should have, and surely he ought not to have in addition the power to determine whether or not a certain matter is of public interest. I think we should make it mandatory on the presiding officer to make public the applications coming before the tribunal.


Robert James Manion: A portion of this clause is mandatory; if the hon. gentleman reads subsection 2 he will see that where the matter affects the province the presiding officer must notify the attorney general of that province. It is true that in other cases it is left to the opinion of the presiding officer, but after all
we must give the chairman of such an important tribunal credit for being reasonable, and we must believe that he would give a just and fair decision in a matter affecting any section of the public. I do not think we need argue because the matter is left in his hands to a certain extent. Probably many cases will come up in which it will not be necessary to hold public hearings because there will be no other interest involved than the two companies. I think we can safely leave it in the hands of the man who is appointed to that important position, especially since no abandonment can take place without the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. As my hon. friend knows, that is an amendment we will move a little later.


Alfred Speakman: I must confess that I rather agree with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I think the minister was quite right when he said that many cases, perhaps the majority, may be left to the discretion of the presiding officer, but even in section 2 I see the words:
-which in the opinion of the presiding officer specially affects any province of Canada-
So it is not mandatory; it is left to his discretion, both as to whether the matter is of public interest and as to whether representations shall be received. Certainly I think that in important matters it should be possible for those interested to make representations on behalf of interested parties. It seems to me that we are giving very wide discretionary powers to the chairman of the tribunal. I am quite prepared to give him wide powers, but it seems to me that here we are going almost too far when we leave it to him to decide whether or not the hearing shall be public and whether or not any representations shall be made. I can quite conceive that in this work of cooperation many matters may come up of very great interest not only to the railways but to other parties as well, and I think some provision should be included by which interested parties should be able to make representations where that seems advisable.


Robert James Manion: I think that is the intention of the act. My hon. friend must remember that the chairman of the tribunal is not interested in either of the companies; he is in a position of independence. He has no interest in concealing any of these applications from the public. He is placed there in a judicial capacity, if you like, representing the public, so that he will have every interest in protecting the public. I am informed that
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

these really are the same rules under which the Board of Railway Commissioners operate.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 20, 21 and 22 agreed to on division.
On section 23-Certain orders of tribunal require formal written consent of presiding officer.


Robert James Manion: There are some changes to be made in connection with this section, so I think we had better let it stand and go on with the others.
Section stands.
On section 24-Tribunal orders prevail over orders of railway board.


Alfred Speakman: In view of one or two amendments which are to be introduced giving the Board of Railway Commissioners jurisdiction in certain specified cases, should we not add, "except as otherwise specified in the act"? That would bring it into conformity with the amendment the minister mentioned a short time ago. It is provided in this section that in the event of any conflict the decision of the tribunal shall prevail over that of the board. There are one or two instances where the board is to have jurisdiction over the tribunal, so I should think this section should be made to conform with the rest of the bill.


Robert James Manion: I went into that question some time ago, and it was not thought that section 24 would overrule the other clauses. However, we might let section 24 stand and we will frame an amendment to cover the point.
Section stands.
Section 25 agreed to on division.
On section 26-Quashal of a dispute.


Edward James Young: Before this section carries, may I ask the. minister whether he can give me answers to the questions I asked.


Robert James Manion: I will pass them over to my hon. friend and not bother putting them on Hansard. They are rather complicated and he can study them at his leisure. If he wishes to deal with them later he can do so.


Edward James Young: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of iMr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Friday, April 21, 1933