1933-04-19

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1934, was presented by Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Do these estimates refer exclusively to the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. RHODES:: To the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Steamships.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	How many persons, companies, corporations or others paid income tax in 1932 on an income of (a) $10,000 to $20,000; (b) $20,000 to $50,000; (c) $50,000 to $75,000; (d) $75,000 to $125,000:	(e)	$125,000 to $175,000;	(f)
$175,000 to $225,000; (g) $225,000 to $250,000?
2.	What was the total amount of revenue collected by the government in 1932 under the heading of income tax?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Individuals	Corporations(a)	8,306	849(b)	2,867	879(c)	1	(d)	1	(e)	[	614	971(f)	1	(g)	J	It is	not	deemed in	the public interestanswer	(d),	(e), (f), (g) separately.	2. 861	,254,:	399.80.


ST. OMER, QTJE., PROTECTION WORK
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Was any protection work constructed by the Department of Public Works on the property of Omer Arseneau, at Saint-Omer, county of Bonaventure, and at what cost?
2.	Was this work inspected by the engineer of the department?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CLOSING OP POST OFFICES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in each province since November 1, 1932?
2.	How many new post offices have been opened in each province since the same date?
3.	How many of these new post offices have a net revenue, after deducting the postmaster's salary and mail carriage charges from the gross
revenue?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Nova Scotia	 13
Prince Edward Island	 0
New Brunswick	 6
Quebec	 15
Ontario	 9
Manitoba	 3
Saskatchewan	 8
Alberta	 5
British Columbia	 2
Yukon	 0
North West Territories	 0
2.	Nova Scotia	 0
Prince Edward Island		0
New Brunswick	 1
Quebec	 15
Ontario	 3
Manitoba	 0
Saskatchewan	 9
Alberta	 12
British Columbia	 2
Yukon	 0
North West Territories	 1
3.	Offices not in operation long enough to enable the department to say whether there will foe a net revenue or not.


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since November 1, 1932, how many postmasters lost their position in each province by reason of the removal of post office ordered by the Postmaster General?
2.	How many of these postmasters were instructed to change the location of the post office before such change was made?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. Ontario	Nil
Quebec	 5
Nova Scotia	 2
New Brunswick	 2
Prince Edward Island	Nil
Manitoba	Nil
Saskatchewan	Nil
Alberta	Nil
British Columbia	Nil
2. None.

Advances to Provinces


BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS-LEGAL SERVICES
Mr. BROWN:: What was the amount of the fees paid for legal services by the Board of Grain Commissioners during each of the five crop years immediately preceding July 31, 1932?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1927-28	.... $135	00192S-29	.... 2,093	121929-30	.... 5,983	051930-31	.... 937	251931-32	.... 5,935	20


FRANK P. JONES-INCOME TAX
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Has Frank P. Jones paid income tax on profits made by him through the Beauharnois enterprise to the amount of between $750,000 and $800,000 as shown at page 382 of the evidence taken before the committee of 1931?
2.	If not, has the Dominion government made a demand on Jones for payment?
3.	Is it true that said Jones refused to pay, and the government intimated that legal action would 'be commenced?
4.	If such legal action has not been taken,
why not?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The subject matter of this question is not proper when considered in the light of the practice of parliament. It has never been the practice to give out information of the character asked for in this question and I would refer the hon. member to section SI of the Income War Tax Act.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Were any moneys paid by the Dominion government to the Saskatchewan relief Commission or to the government of the province of Saskatchewan during the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, for the purposes of paying freight charges on goods destined to the relief area?
2.	If so, what was the amount of such payments in each year?
3.	Are these payments to be considered as advances or as direct contributions by the Dominion government?


COATICOOK, QHE.J POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many applicants passed their examinations for the postmasteTship at Coaticook, province of Quebec, on or about January 25 last?
2.	What are their names, addresses, and the number of marks secured by each applicant?
3.	Which of these applicants performed military service?
4.	Who was appointed postmaster?


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed since the month of August, 1930?
2. How many	postmasters	have been
appointed (a) temporarily; (b) permanently since the month of August, 1930?


INVESTIGATIONS FOR POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many investigations for political partisanship were ordered by each department in each province since November 1, 1932?
2.	What was the cost of these investigations in each province?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. LUCAS:: For a return showing a list of the names of all persons receiving a pension payable out of the consolidated funds voted annually by the parliament of Canada; also showing (a) the date when the pension was granted; (b) the date from which the pension became effective; (e) the nature of the services for which the pension was granted; (d) the annual amount payable in each case; (e) if a disability pension, the percentage of disability. Also a statement showing the total amount payable annually on the different classes of pensions paid by the government of Canada, and the number of persons in each category receiving a pension.


Mr. CAHAN:: There is an order which
has been some weeks in the course of preparation which will give practically all the information asked for in this motion. I have no objection to this motion passing, but I think the one return will cover both orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to inquire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if he is in a position to give the house the correspondence which he has [DOT]had recently with the western provinces concerning financial arrangements. The correspondence with the province of Manitoba has been tabled in the legislature and made public, but this house has not as yet received any correspondence. If it is not possible to give this correspondence as a whole, perhaps it could be presented in so far as it is available.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence published with respect to the province of Mani-
Unemployment Relief

toba covers the correspondence with the three western provinces except that as far as I am aware no reply has been received from one of the provinces. There is no reason why this correspondence should not be brought down in part.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: It is
identical for all the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, except as to the
replies.



BRITISH EMBARGO AGAINST RUSSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it might be of interest to the house to know that a proclamation has been issued by the government of the United Kingdom prohibiting the importation into the United Kingdom on and after April 26 of the following soviet goods:
Butter.
Wheat in grain.
Barley.
Oats.
Maize.
Poultry and game.
Raw cotton.
Petroleum.
Timber.
Plywood and builders' woodwork.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a
question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I have received a telegram from the reeve of the township of Macaulay in Muskoka who states that they 'have spent all the money that was possible to be raised by taxes or by borrowings, either privately or from the banks, and that they have had to discontinue the granting of relief. They have appealed to the authorities at Toronto for assistance but this has been denied. I should like to ask the minister just what we can do with conditions such as these.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the provincial authorities have not brought this matter to the attention of the department. I assume that they are in full possession of the intimate facts in connection [DOT] with the township's finances. I might draw the matter to the attention of the province, but I do not think 
I should follow that course. The province is in a position to judge whether or not this township should receive assistance, and my view at the moment is that I should be obliged to rely upon their judgment in the matter.


Peter McGibbon: I wish to supplement
my question. I know for a faot that the township is bankrupt; I know that the banks have refused ito loan them, money; I know that they have tried to borrow money privately and cannot do so. What I would ask is this: Is this government prepared to give assistance? May I have an answer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot add anything
fp the answer I have already given.



GOAL INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the Minister of Labour received 'tlie report of the investigation recently conducted under the Combines Investigation Act into coal prices? If so does he intend to present the report to parliament during the current session?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The coal report has not yet been
concluded by the registrar. I have inquired on a number of -occasions when iit will be ready and asked that the work be speeded up if it is at all passible to do so. I believe that the registrar is putting forth every effort to have the report completed, and I believe it will be ready in a very short time. When it is ready and is submitted to me the procedure contemplated by 'the Statute itself with respect to the report will be followed.



RADIO BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
On the -orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Marine and he said 'he would give an answer to-day.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister o-f Marine):: The answer is no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the question?



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R- B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):	May I revert to motions for the
purpose of moving:
That the name of Mr. Munn be substituted for that of Mr. Hanbury on the select committee on railways and shipping.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
I understand -that Mr. Hanbury lias gone home and Mr. Munn was on the committee last year. The motion is seconded by Mr. Stevens.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes-Mr. Manion-Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: The committee is now considering section 5, subsection 1, salaries and pensions, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Power.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Before the question is put I should like to show the disadvantage of the proposal put forward in the amendment. The proposal is, as I understand it, that the salaries of the trustees be paid directly by parliament rather than by the railway. In the first place this would make a very radical change in the whole system of management and operation of the Canadian National Railways, and I do not think my hon. friend has given it the serious consideration which he devotes to other subjects; had he done so, he would probably not have moved the amendment. First of all, while this would not be a reflection in any way upon the trustees, it would nevertheless convert them from trustees of the Canadian National railways into virtual civil servants. It would bring them distinctly under the control of the parliament of Canada. They would be placed in this position, that if the government of the day, whatever government might be in power, so chose, it could use the fact that it was going to have to vote the salaries of these trustees for the purpose of getting rid of them forthwith. Moreover, it would place in the hands of any individual member of the house a club which he could use over the trustees if he were so inclined. In other words, if some hon. member wanted to have a station built at-


An hon. MEMBER:: Riviere du Loup.


Robert James Manion: Someone suggests, a station at Riviere du Loup. Well, if an hon. member wanted a station there or anywhere else he might, if he were persistent enough, go to one of the trustees and give him to understand that if he did not agree to the building of this station, or it might be the building of a branch line, or the performance of some other act on the part of the national railways, it was his intention to oppose most strenuously, and to get his friends to oppose in the house, the payment of salary. I think it would be a most retrograde step so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned-the most retrograde step ever 'taken by any government in Canada. It would be throwing the national railways into the political arena to an extent such as they never have been under any government at any time in the history of our railways.


Mr. POWER:: The minister seems to find some objection to placing the trustees under the control of parliament, but that is where they should be, and that is where we differ from the hon. gentleman. There is a very radical difference of opinion between us. As to the argument that this might constitute a club which might be held over the heads of the trustees, all I have to say is this, that if they are the men we expect they will be they will not be afraid of any such club. The same argument might apply to any deputy minister. What is to prevent any member of parliament from saying to a deputy minister that he will oppose a vote for his salary unless the deputy builds him a wharf or arranges to provide a post office? The situation is exactly the same, but so far as I know, no such attempt has ever been made by any member of parliament. I only wish to repeat the argument advanced last night, namely, that these men constitute a new body, a new species of control. They are not directors, we have been told; they cannot like ordinary directors be removed by the shareholders at the end of the year. They are not trustees in the sense of an ordinary trustee in bankruptcy, because they are not under the control of any court. They are not obliged to consult anyone. We simply hand over to three men to whom we pay a salary the whole management and control of the greatest asset which the Canadian people have.


Robert James Manion: I do not agree that they
are receivers in bankruptcy or anything of the kind. At any rate, it seems to me that if you attempted to place them on that basis you would find it very difficult 'to obtain good men to undertake the duties. I do not think the position of trustee is akin to that of a deputy minister, because it has never been the custom of this or of any other government, or of the parliament of Canada, to pay
*1066
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

these salaries and put the personnel directly under the control of parliament. I submit, as I did last night, that by the submission of the railway budget to the Minister of Finance and the necessity of voting the financial needs of the railway in this house, the railway will quite adequately be under the control of parliament. I do not wish to delay the motion at all, but certainly I do not think it would be wise for parliament to take any such step as that contemplated by the amendment.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I had no intention of intervening in this debate, and I shall not do so now at any length. I should like first of all to call the attention of the committee to the point raised by the Minister of Finance, that this would constitute in a measure direct political interference with the management and operation of the road. I would also call the committee's attention to a paragraph in the report of the select standing committee on- railways and canals last year, which was unanimously passed by the committee and unanimously supported in this house, to the effect that there should be no political interference in any way with the management of this road. If I mistake not, my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) and my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) strongly supported that principle, and I do not think that to-day we should take this retrograde step. But my more immediate purpose in rising at this time is to raise a point of order as to the validity of the amendment. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is out of order because it interferes with the destination of supply and could not be raised at this time in this manner.	;


Onésime Gagnon: I submit that the point of order raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury is sound, and I therefore rule the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec South out of order as contrary to standing order 60. His amendment proposes that the salaries of the trustees shall be paid out of moneys voted by parliament. A private member 'has no right to make a motion or move an amendment indicating the destination of moneys voted by parliament.


Mr. POULIOT:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing section 5.


Charles Gavan Power: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, whilst I do not agree with your ruling and hope that it will not constitute a precedent, I shall not press my amendment.
I Mr. Manion.]


Jean-François Pouliot: On section 6 may I suggest to the government some means of expediting the discussion of this bill in committee?


Onésime Gagnon: Is the
hon. member speaking to the amendment?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking to the
whole section.


Onésime Gagnon: May I
first ask if the hon. member for Quebec South is going to withdraw his amendment?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not going to withdraw
my amendment. I regret that I cannot agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I shall not press the matter further.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to make a suggestion not only to the minister but to the government as a whole, and especially to the Prime Minister, in order that the discussion of this bill in committee may take up the least possible time. What is the history of this legislation? Section 5 of the bill is based on the report of the Duff commission, a resume of which I have here, and in article 203 on page 63 I read:
Three trustees should he appointed by the governor in council, in whom should be vested all the powers of the present board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, both in respect of the parent and all subsidiary corporations of the system; and any and every power and authority necessary to enable them to administer the property and operate the system and every part thereof.
Senators and members of the House of Commons and persons bolding or having within five years held office or place of profit under the crown in the right of the dominion or one of the provinces of Canada, should be disqualified for appointment.
There have been three drafts of the bill which we are now studying. The first draft was introduced and read a first time in the Senate on October 27, 1932, and section 4 of that draft reads as follows:
(1)	No person who is a senator or member of the House of Commons, and no person holding or having within five years held any office or position to which any salary is attached payable directly or indirectly by His Majesty, in the right of the Dominion of Canada, or of any of the provinces thereof, shall be eligible for appointment as trustee.
(2)	Vacancies among the trustees arising from any reason shall be filled from time to time by the governor in council from a list of eight persons then named by the remaining trustees or trustee. All trustees shall be eligible for reappointment if so listed.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
This section in the first draft bill which was read a first time in the Senate on October 27 is in accordance with section 203 of the report of the commissioners.
The bill was redrafted by order of the Senate committee on railways, telegraphs and harbours, and dn that redraft, section 5 corresponds to section 203 of the report of the commissioners, including that eminent man, as he was described by the Prime Minister yesterday, Sir Joseph Flavelle. Section 5 in this redrafted bill reads as follows:
No person shall be eligible for appointment who at the time of any proposed appointment of a trustee or trustees under this act is, or within five years immediately then preceding has been,-
(a) a member of the Senate of Canada;
(b) a member of the House of Commons of Canada;	_
(c)	a member of the council of any province of Canada;
(d)	a candidate nominated under any act of the dominion or of any province of Canada for election as a member of the House of Commons of Canada or of the legislative assembly of any province of Canada; or
(e)	the holder of any office, place or appointment to which is, or while it was held by him was, attached any salary payable directly by His Majesty in his right of the Dominion of Canada.
That section in the second draft of the bill is in conformity with the previous quotations which I have given.
Now I come to section 5 in the bill before us, which reads:
The trustees shall be paid by the National company such salaries as may from time to time be fixed by the governor in council, and if any trustee is in receipt of a pension from any railway company he shall not be entitled to receive or to be paid such pension during his term of office.
(2) Each trustee shall be paid but one salary, and saving and excepting that and his right to prepayment or repayment of his proper expenditures made while engaged in and upon the affairs of National Railways, he shall not be entitled upon any ground to any recompense or emolument.
The third draft bill which was passed by the Senate on February 23 last is entirely different from the other draft. I remember that my hon. friend from York-Sunbury protested in the house against the alteration of the first two drafts, and he protested also against the report of the commissioners because the first and second drafts were in accordance with their report. My first observation with regard to this is that the Senate has been putting aside the suggestions made by the commissioners, and suggestions which were approved by the Senate in the first and second instance. The Senate has modified the views expressed by the commissioners, and 53719-257
has not accepted them. If the Senate had not accepted these proposals in regard to the qualifications of the trustees, why does the government stand so stubbornly behind the appointment of only three trustees? In the Bible there is a book entitled Numbers. It would seem that the government attaches very great importance to the number three. In my view there should be more than three trustees.
Since the government puts aside the views expressed by the commissioners with regard to the appointment of the trustees, why is it that we should consider their view so sacred when it applies to other matters? No one is bound to accept those views; we have to weigh the pros and cons, and decide accordingly. May I make another practical suggestion to the government? Until now the Minister of Railways has been doing very well; I congratulate him. He has no legal training, but he has sound judgment. That is the difference between him and his leader. In his dealings with the committee he has shown good judgment. I pay him no small compliment, because I place him above a superman. It is a great compliment, and he deserves it.
It is essential that the house should know each step which has been taken since the report was made by the commissioners. That report is the basis for the legislation we are now studying. As undoubtedly the minister, although not a lawyer, has much better legal sense than has the Prime Minister, why does he not explain the legislation from the time the commissioners made their report? Why does he not explain every amendment made by the Senate both in committee and in the Senate chamber? It seems to me by doing so he would prevent much useless talk, and the discussion would be centred on the vital parts of the legislation. I have no officers at my disposal, and any information I have obtained I had to get myself, because I like to study conscientiously every piece of legislation brought before the house. What I say now I say not for the benefit of the Minister of Railways but mostly for the benefit of the right hon. leader of the government. If he were the junior clerk in my country law office I would say to him, "Mark you, my boy, you should listen to this wise advice; it is never too late for you to listen to something. You are like the Bourbons, you have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. It is time for you to forget what you do not know, and to learn what you should know." That is what I would most humbly and respectfully say to the gentleman who honours us by his absence. I hope some good friend will report to him what I have said about him. But I

C.NJR.-CI'.R. Bill

do not wish to be discourteous to the Minister of Railways, because he is a gentleman. He has polite manners, and deserves to be treated fairly and squarely. I offer these suggestions to the house, and when they are accepted the minister will find that the legislation will pass much more quickly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 2- One salary only to each trustee.
Richard Burpee Hanson: That has been carried.
On section 6, subsection 1-Vacancies; appointment from panel.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to move an amendment to this subsection. At present it reads as follows:
6. The governor in council may from time to time appoint or reappoint a trustee to fill any vacancy among the trustees from any cause occurring. The appointee shall be selected from a panel of eight names to be provided by a nominating board composed of the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and the existing or remaining trustees. Such board shall be convened by the chairman of the trustees. In the case of an imminent vacancy the board may convene and act in anticipation thereof. If no such panel is so provided within ten days after the occurrence of a vacancy the governor in council may appoint as he may be advised.
I propose to move:
That all the words after the word "occurring" in the third line be stricken out.
The point I wish to make is-


Mr. GEARY:: What is all this about? What is the amendment? Read it.


Charles Gavan Power: I have just read it. It would seem to me that the amendment has something to do with Bill A of the Senate. I do not know just how far the hon. member has proceeded in his Study of the bill, but I may tell him that is the bill we are now discussing. Further, we have been doing it for some few days.


George Reginald Geary: Would you mind telling us what you are discussing? Nobody knows what you are talking about.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, that is too bad.


George Reginald Geary: I mean that the hon. member is not speaking distinctly. He is speaking down into his book, and hon. members on this side of the house cannot hear him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Could you hear if he were looking at the ceiling?


Charles Gavan Power: That is probably the first time since I came into this house I have been told I did not make enough row. In order to please the hon. member from Toronto I will raise my voice a little. The amendment I am proposing is that all the words after the word "occurring" in the third line of subsection 1 of section 6 be stricken out. I propose that amendment because I believe the selection of persons to fill vacancies should be made in the same manner as the selection of the original trustees. There is no reason why in the selection of trustees two systems should operate. The present provision in that regard will serve only to perpetuate the members of the board originally selected, if they desire to be perpetuated. It will have the effect of forming a sort of small family compact controlling the Canadian National Railways. The discussion on this amendment would be along the 'line of that which has taken place since the beginning of the debate. If it is found impossible to place the trustees under the control of parliament, at least I believe they should be under the control of a government responsible to parliament and to the people. Therefore, as soon as I have drafted the resolution I shall move that that part of the section dealing with the composition or creation of a panel shall be stricken from this subsection. The amendment about which I have been speaking I have now prepared, and shall hand to the clerk.


Robert James Manion: I have been taking the
course generally in regard to any amendments moved that we would let them stand and consider them later. So I would ask the committee, without further discussion of subsection 1 of section 6, to let it stand and we will go on with subsection 2.
Subsection stands.
On section 6, subsection 2-Chairman's tenure of office: tenure of other trustees.


Mr. HEENAN:: I wonder if the minister
would consider making the clause read "not more than seven years"?


Robert James Manion: I am not absolutely fixed in regard to the length of tenure. I think a period other than seven years, either in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, or possibly making it five years instead of seven, is worthy of consideration, but I am not saying at the moment that I would adopt the suggestion. There is this to be remembered, that if it were changed it would disarrange the stagger system that has

C.N.R.-CJ'Jt. Bill
been proposed in regard to the appointment of the other trustees. The intention was to appoint one for seven years, one for six and one for five, so that they would not all go out at the same time. And in that connection there may be other clauses of the bill that it would be well to have stand. I suggest that subsections 2 and 4 stand with subsection 1, for further consideration.
Subsection stands.
On section 6, subsection 3-Casual vacancies.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would not subsection 3 be
in the same position?


Robert James Manion: No, I think not. I think subsection 3 is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 6, subsection 4-Vacancies by efflux of time.
Subsection stands.
Subsections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Removal from office or reduction of salary.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
an amendment to move. To my mind section 7 is the most vital section in the whole legislation, and there are two possible amendments that could be moved; either delete the section entirely, which would leave the removal from office of the trustees under the jurisdiction of the governor in council; or strike out the words "Senate and" which would leave the control with the House of Commons as distinct from both houses.
This section comprises in itself the features to which I mainly object in this legislation. That is it means complete abrogation and abdication of government control over these trustees. There is no control whatever over their removal or dismissal. The entire national railways of Canada are to be put in the control of three trustees and this House of Commons has not the slightest power over their removal. As pointed out last night by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in regard to salary, they shall not suffer any reduction in salary unless for assigned cause and on address of the Senate and the House of Commons. I interpret that to mean that if any one of the trustees objects to any reduction of salary that would bind all the trustees, and it could not be done except on address of both houses. I am aware that there is a similar provision in regard to judges and in regard to the auditor general, also I think in regard to the chief electoral officer, 53719-257$
but I submit that the argument submitted by the Prime Minister in regard to judges cannot apply to these trustees. H we pass this section we are certainly forfeiting in perpetuity the control by this house of these trustees. Under other sections of the act they are a self-perpetuating body and under this section this House of Commons forfeits all control and ownership of our national railway. I do not think I can serve any useful purpose by elaborating the stand we have taken on this side of the house; it was emphasized on the second reading. But to my -mind this section is the most objectionable of the whole legislation.


Onésime Gagnon: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) to amend section 7 by deleting the section entirely. I submit that this amendment is out of order.


Mr. EULER:: Why?


Charles Gavan Power: I move to substitute number 8 for number 7 and to leave out all the words after the figure 7.


Robert James Manion: To avoid unnecessary complication and delay may I suggest that I shall be glad to have section 7 also stand. But before we do so may I just say a word? 1 have been informed, in fact my hon. friends on the other side 'have said on a number of occasions, that section 7 was not fair, in that if another government came into power and the other house should remain of the same complexion as it now is, it might refuse to acquiesce in a suggestion of the House of Commons in regard to the removal of trustees. I submit that the real answer to that is that if the trustees were good men and from some political motive it was proposed to remove them, then the other chamber would be correct in refusing to assent. If on the other hand the trustees were not worthy men, not giving good service, I believe the other chamber would gladly concur in the motion of any House of Commons to remove them. That seems to me to be the complete answer. However I am glad to let section 7 stand with the others and we will deal with it later, with the understanding that we will discuss the whole section with a view to either removing it or proving to the committee that it is advisable to leave it as it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any reason for assuming that a government composed of other hon. members of parliament would not be just as honourable in their attitude towards efficient and effective trustees as any group of hon. gentlemen in another
C.N.R.-C.P.n, Bill

house?.'It is wholly unnecessary to have a section which , as it stands is a reflection upon the honourable actions of those who may be entrusted with the government of the country. Afte'j fall a government is elected by the people to carry out the will of the people. I do not think any member of the House of Commons should venture to suggest that those who have been returned by the people to form an administration should be restricted in making their will effective by a group of [DOT]members who are no longer directly responsible to the people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us abolish the Senate immediately then.
[DOT]. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	I would not
object, to joining with my hon. friend in an effort-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
advocating that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that any government entrusted with office should, until something to the contrary is proven, be regarded, by all members of the house, irrespective of which side they are on, as being a body of hon. gentlemen who will be governed by a full sense of their responsibility.
With regard to the possible removal of trustees who may prove (themselves to be efficient may I point out that I do not think it follows that because appointments have been made .by one political party, thait when the other party comes into power they will necessarily remove those appointees. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, in our country it is difficult enough to find a sufficiently large number of men ready to take positions of great responsibility under the government. From their own financial point of view, many individuals can do much better in private industry than by an [DOT] appointment under the crown, and it is difficult enough to obtain such persons under any circumstances. If men can be obtained as the result of conference between the parties in this house, or otherwise, who will fulfil (their duties efficiently, I think any administration would be only too glad to retain their services so long as they acted impartially and fairly.
I should like to cite one case. The International Joint Commission., which deals with questions arising between this country and the United States, is a body to which representatives are appointed by Canada as well as by the United States. When the Liberal government came into office in 1921 we found three Conservative members on that cornmisfMr. Mackenzie King.]
sion, Mr. Magrath who used to sit in this house as a Conservative member of parliament, Sir William Hearst, who had been Conservative premier in Ontario, and Mr. Powell from New Brunswick. For several years no change was made. Towards the end of our administration, (Mr. Powell tendered his resignation, largely because of his age, but up to that time no change had been made. We appointed as Mr. Powell's successor a former Liberal whip in (this house, Mr. Kyte. When the present administration came into office they retained Mr. Kyte on the commission. I maintain that (this is a good example of 'the way successive administrations may be expected to retain in these positions men who fulfil their obligations efficiently, faithfully .and impartially.
(So far as any possible future Liberal administration may be concerned, in connection with these trustees I should say that if gentlemen were found-and particularly if they were appointed as the result of conferences between both sides of the house-who were impartial and efficient there would not be the slightest desire to make any change. On the other hand if persons were appointed who were not persons whom we would expect to receive such appointments; if it was clear (that they were appointed primarily for political reasons or if they turned out to be inefficient and partial and did not satisfactorily carry on business for which after all the government must accept responsibility, certainly we would wish to be free to make a change.


Robert James Manion: And under (those circumstances I would gladly join with my right hon. friend. Let me make myself clear. I was not suggesting that my right hon. friend or his party, if they came back into power would remove these trustees because of politics; I simply said that such action might be taken by any government. However, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that (this section stand, as the others have stood.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this section stands
I should like to make one brief observation. The report of the commissioners contains nothing with regard to the removal from office of the trustees. The first draft bill, dated October 27 of last year, contained this section:
Any trustee may be removed from office at any time by the governor in council on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
In the second draft bill we find this section:
No trustee shall be removed from office nor suffer any reduction in salary during the time for which he is appointed unless for assigned cause and on address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.

*C.NJt.-CJPJt. Bill
We have the same provision in section 7 of the present bill, the third draft, which was passed by the Senate on February 23. The government say the bill is based on the report of the commission, but that report did not mention the removal of the trustees. This was an invention of the government after that report was received, and I am glad the Minister of Railways, with his well known amiability, has agreed to let the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 8-Provincial companies reincorporated.


Robert James Manion: I have an amendment to this section which I shall ask one of my colleagues to move in a moment. The amendment really is designed to legalize this section, if I may use that term. Section 8 as contained in the bill is not considered to be in the correct legal phraseology, and the amendment is as follows:
That section 8 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(1)	The works of every incorporated company in Canada which is comprised in National Railways but is not incorporated by or under the law of the Dominion of Canada and which have not heretofore been declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
(2)	By force of this act, and without more, the now shareholders of every company in Canada comprised in National Railways, the works of which have been or are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, are hereby incorporated and such incorporated company shall have the same name, directors and undertaking as the first mentioned company and may and shall act in succession thereto and continuity thereof as respects all its affairs by, under and subject to the provisions of this act.
The purpose of the amendment is this: It was suggested, for example, that we could not re-incorporate provincial companies, and that therefore the section as contained in the bill was not in proper form. There is no change whatever in the intention of the section.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the minister permit
this amendment to stand in order that we may study it also?


Robert James Manion: I will let it stand, of
course, if my hon. friend really wishes it, but I submit that there is no change at all except in the wording. The intention is the same, and we might save time if we permit it to pass. Nothing in the amendment makes any change in the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9

when proclaimed direction and control to be vested in trustees.
Subsections 1 to 5 inclusive, agreed to.
On section 9, subsection 6-Approval of His Majesty or of shareholders not required.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If this subsection is read apart from the other provisions of the section perhaps it would be the worst of all the sections in the act, notwithstanding the fact that the last one we discussed was considered very bad. I must say that the words of the Prime Minister the other day when he interpreted the act, conveyed a different meaning from that which we on this side of the house had gathered as to the original intention of the government in the matter. As the section stands it would mean that any order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees would not require the approval of the governor in council.


Robert James Manion: As a shareholder.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless it were interpreted very clearly it might be taken to mean that this section by itself had reference to any act of the trustees, but apparently it refers only to the acts referred to in the previous subsections. My difficulty is now with the phrasing of this subsection. If it were preceded by some words such as "As respects the provisions of this section," and then went on to say "no order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies," I think that would meet the difficulty I have in mind. Without those words or the transposition of the words "to which the section applies" which appear at the end of the section, and their insertion after the word "trustees," the section is ambiguous.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The right hon. gentleman has suggested that the rule of ejusctem generis prevails, but I may quote the definition of that rule as given by Byrne's law dictionary, as follows:
It is a rule of legal construction that general words following an enumeration of particulars are to have their generality limited by reference to the preceding particular enumeration, and to be construed os including only all other articles of the like nature and quality.
In this case the name of His Majesty is not limited by any preceding particular but by a subsequent particular, so I do not believe the rule , of ejusdem generis applies. This point was raised during the discussion of subsection 6. I think we must reverse the terminology of line 3 of the subsection in order to make this rule apply.
C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: How would it be if we
simply had the words "approval of His Majesty as a shareholder or that of any other shareholder"? Would that rectify the objection?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would as far as I am concerned.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will
move that amendment I would have no objection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think the rule of ejusdem generis applies to this section as it stands at the present time.


George Reginald Geary: I agree with the Prime
Minister; I think the rule certainly does apply in this case.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that it
matters very much as long as we make the *sentence clear. If someone will move that [DOT]the wording be changed to "His Majesty as a shareholder or that of any other shareholder" or words of a similar meaning, I would have no objection.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: If that change is made,
and I think it should be made, the marginal note would have to be changed. The marginal note is supposed to represent what is contained in the subsection.


Robert James Manion: It could be changed to
read "approval of shareholders."


Charles Gavan Power: The words "approval of His Majesty" should be struck out altogether.


Robert James Manion: That would not be quite
correct because with regard to some railways His Majesty is a shareholder. I think we all agree upon the necessity for some change, so perhaps we had better let the section stand and have it dealt with properly.
Section stands.
On section 10, subsection 1-Chief operating officer to be president.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 2-Chief operating officer.
Charles Gavan Power: It seems to me that there should be some section in the bill to define the powers and authority of the president of the road. The bill only provides that a president is to be appointed and that he shall be responsible to the trustees and to them alone. Surely his powers should be further defined. As I understand it, the duty of the trustees will be to define the policy to be carried out in the operation of the road. I would not

like to decrease the prestige of the operating officer iby calling him the general manager, but we seem to be more or less upon the horns of a dilemma in this case. If we call him the general manager he might not have the necessary prestige to deal with the president of another road but, on the other hand, under the bill as it now stands he is not given any particular authority. It seems to me that the railroad expert should be given at least a free hand in the actual railway operations, leaving the deciding of general and financial policies to the trustees.


Robert James Manion: If the hon. member will look at the subsection which we have just passed he will see that the duties of the president are outlined to a certain extent. That subsection states that his authorities and duties shall be from time to time defined by by-law or resolution of the trustees. My deputy who has been a practical railway man for many years tells me that that is the usual custom followed by the railroads, that the duties of the officers are defined by bylaw rather than by the act itself.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
* On section 11, subsection 1-Meetings.
John Campbell Elliott: Upon a previous occasion when this bill was before the house I pointed out the objections to this section which appealed very strongly to me. The section states that the trustees may decide or act at meetings only by unanimous vote or by a majority which includes the chairman. It seems to me that that is putting in the hands of the chairman practically the full power of the whole board of trustees. Where you have three trustees and nothing can be done except with the approval of one of them, you are practically rendering useless the other two. They may devote their whole energies to the business under consideration but if their decision does not meet with the approval of the chairman they are absolutely helpless. I should like to refer to this section in the light of an amendment which I moved to subsection 2 of section 4 to the effect that the three trustees should be full time men. These three trustees are to replace seventeen directors and I submit that they should be full time men. I do not think it is necessary to take up any more time of the committee in pointing out the objections to having the trustees gagged and made dummies more or less on account of not being able to originate any ideas. This section seriously curtails their efficiency, and

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
I do not think such curtailment is in the interests of the railway or of the people who own the railway. Therefore, I beg to move:
That subsection 2 of section 11 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"The trustees may decide or act at meetings only by majority vote. They or a majority may without meeting decide or act by way of minute or concurrence written and signed by them or by a majority of them. When by reason of any vacancy among them there are only two trustees, their decision, vote, minute or concurrence shall not be effective unless such decision shall be unanimous.
Since drafting this amendment I have noticed another objection which might be made to this section. Subsection 1 reads:
Meetings of the trustees may be held at such times and places as their chairman may from time to time determine.
Supposing the chairman and the other two trustees took opposite views with regard to a certain question. The other two trustees might desire to hold a meeting to consider this matter but under this subsection as it now stands the chairman would be the only one who could call a meeting or decide the time and the place at which such a meeting should take place. I think that is objectionable. On the request of any of the trustees a meeting should be called. If the amendment I have moved meets with the approval of the minister, I do not think there will be any difficulty about making that part of the section conform.


Robert James Manion: I shall probably propose
that subsection 2 of section 11 stand, but before doing so I wish to pass an opinion or two on it, and I should be glad to have the opinions-as briefly as possible of course-of my hon. friends on both sides. It is a very debatable point. The hon. member was good enough yesterday to send me a copy of the proposed amendment and my officers and I gave it considerable thought this morning. I think it is well worthy of consideration, especially if it should be decided ultimately that the three trustees, for some time to come, shall be full-time men. As regards the latter part of the amendment, proposing that when, by reason of any vacancy, there are only two trustees, their decision shall not be effective [DOT]unless it be unanimous, that would appear to me to be acceptable. As regards the majority vote however may I point out that, without a doubt, the idea behind this bill, the idea of those who originally framed it and of the government in concurring in it, was that if possible we should get a particularly good outstanding man to take the chairmanship; and a great many people are of the opinion that if you get the right autocrat he constitutes the
best type of government. The danger of course is in getting a man of the wrong type. Generally speaking, although there is much truth in the adage about two heads being better than one, three being better than two, and so on, though not ad infinitum, I think that if you obtain one particularly able man as chairman he should be given as much freedom as possible. If a good man were obtainable as chairman, and if it were decided that the other two should be merely part-time men, it might be wiser to leave the chairman in control as indicated in the bill. If on the other hand we had three strong men devoting their whole time to their duties it might be better to have a majority vote on all occasions. However, I invite discussion of this point, although I do not want to have the bill delayed. We have been doing such splendid work that I should naturally hate to hold up progress.


Charles Gavan Power: In answer to the invitation of the minister I can state my position in one word: Yes, so far as I am concerned.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I think the minister's decision to let subsection 2 stand is rather a good one. It must be considered in the light of what was said in connection with section 7. If the government did not take power to remove any of the trustees and left them in office for seven years, then I think this section would be very dangerous. If on the other hand the government took power to remove the trustees then subsection 2 of section 11 would be all right. I am hardly in agreement with my hon. friend (Mr. Elliott) because I believe that on the board someone after all must be boss; someone must be president of the road. If he is chosen, as he will be, I have no doubt, for his ability to supervise the system efficiently, and if his two assistants are not to be full-time men, it would seem to me an absurd situation to have parttime men dictating to a man who is devoting all his time to the system. If on the other hand they are all to be full-time men and the government is to have the right to remove them when it sees fit, then of course I believe the vote should be a straight majority vote and the government could remove any trustee who in its opinion was not performing his duty. I am not sure what the appointment of the three grain commissioners calls for in connection with the administration of the Canada Grain Act, but I am under the impression that some extra power is given to the chairman of that board. I believe that the appointments to the grain board have met with entire satisfaction. I know that
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

the old board, which was appointed by a preceding government, functioned satisfactorily for a great many years and was finally changed with the approval of most members of the agriculture committee. The change was made because we believed we secured a very able president in Mr. Ramsay, who had been selling agent for the pool. The present government has retained his services, which have been highly satisfactory. If you remove the personality around whom the board revolves, a man in whom you have confidence, I do not think the trustees will function as well as if he were left in charge of the whole body.


William Daum Euler: The minister has invited opinions on this matter and it is only for that reason that I rise now. I am in accord with the amendment because I am also in favour of three trustees giving full time to the work. If I remember rightly the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping recommended to parliament that there should be a smaller board and that they should give full-time services. It does not require much argument or demonstration to convince anyone that in the conduct of a business as colossal as the Canadian National Railways there is ample work for the full time of three good men, and it should go without saying that the government ought to look not only for a first class man to be chairman but for three first class men, and that they should be properly paid. If you obtain three first class men it almost follows as a matter of self respect on the part of these men that they should expect, whenever they have something to say, a majority vote to govern.


James Malcolm: In the appointment of the Board of Grain Commissioners it is provided :
There shall be a commission to be known as the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, which shall consist of three commissioners appointed by the governor in council.
Section 5 reads:
One of such commissioners shall be appointed by the governor in council as chief commissioner of the board, and he shall be entitled to hold the office of chief commissioner so long as he continues a member of the board.
The chief commissioner, when present, shall preside at the meetings of the board.
Two commissioners shall be a quorum; and no vacancy in the board shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to act.
I would submit to the minister that in the Board of Grain Commissioners the majority vote of any two commissioners governs. They are all full time men, and the government has the right to dismiss them at any time.


Mr. McGIBRON:: It is only because of the minister's soliciting my advice that I rise, Mr. Chairman. I think I could make a much better speech against this bill than I could for it, but I realize that we must do something and that this is apparently the best solution at hand. I quite agree with the hon. member for North Bruce, the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce, that in the last analysis you have to have one-man control. I am very much inclined to believe that in all emergencies you come down at last to autocratic government. You have to have decisions, and you must have a man who can make decisions. All history testifies, I think, to that fact. One need only go back to the last war and recall how we tried to run separate armies in every country with no unified command until we were almost defeated, and it was only when we finally got a single command that we got anywhere. I do not think you will get a first class man to take the chairmanship of this board of trustees if his decisions could be perpetually overruled by his two assistants. It would be simply giving him a position without any authority.


William Daum Euler: Have no assistants, then.


Peter McGibbon: I would put in only one man if I could get the right man.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a big " if".


Peter McGibbon: I grant you that that is the big problem that we have to face. It always was the problem. But I can see this difficulty, that if you have a chairman and his two assistants do not work harmoniously with him they might buck his decisions year in and year out, and the board would be unable to get anywhere. Under such circumstances one can readily see that the tenure of office of the chairman would be a fiasco.


William Daum Euler: And you could not remove his assistants.


Peter McGibbon: I grant that I do not like that side of it either, but I am not speaking of that now. I have already said in the house that I did not agree with that. But as I also said at that time, we have this problem on our hands; the most brilliant men in railway, legal and financial circles in the world have been studying it and have given us their advice, and I think it would be rather an insult to them if we did not give their advice a trial. I would not for a moment set up my opinion as worthy of consideration against theirs, although there are some general principles, such as the negation of responsible government and the delegating of parliamentary and governmental authority to officials over whom we

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
have no control, that I do not like. There are many other things in the bill that I do not like, but certainly this section is not one of them. I think the president or chairman, or whatever you wish to call him, should be held responsible by the government, and how are you going to hold him responsible if you do not give him power? If you appoint two others and take away the power of the chairman, how can you hold him responsible? I think it is the essence of the whole bill that parliament should hold the chief trustee responsible for the operation of the road, and I would certainly advise the minister not to make the other two trustees full time men.
I would rather do away with them altogether.
I would not have three men at all.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I want to support the
hon, member for Muskoka-Ontario in the view he takes with regard to the chairman of the board of trustees. In my opinion, whatever virtue the bill may have, it will be taken entirely away if you appoint some man to be the chief executive of the Canadian National Railways to work ithe road out of the difficulties it is now in, and then appoint two other men who might not cooperate with him but override his decisions.
In regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend from West Middlesex in introducing his amendment that you 'are making stool pigeons or something of that sort of the other two trustees, that they would not be consulted and all that, there is nothing in the bill that suggests anything of the kind. The three trustees will consult with one another and discuss every problem that comes before them, and two of them, one of whom shall be the chairman, shall decide; but the chairman, the chief executive, must be one of those two. Just let me suggest to the house what took place during the term of office of Sir Hetny Thornton as president of the Canadian National Railways. There was a board of directors, but will anyone suggest that after Sir Henry Thornton had brought his fist down and said, "This goes," the board of directors vetoed what he said?


William Daum Euler: How do you know?


George Brecken Nicholson: I was not there, but
I suggest that Sir Henry Thornton's word was final.


William Daum Euler: You have absolutely no
authority for saying that.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is true that I 'have
no authority, and I have no authority for something else that I am going to say. Does anyone suggest that during the presidency of
the late Sir William Van Horne or the late Lord Shaughnessy, their word was not final in directing the policy followed by the executive? The same is true with regard to any other railway or any large business organization; the president has the final word. As the hon. member for North Brace says, there must be some final executive with authority. My suggestion would be, if it is possible to find the man-I have lost a lot of faith in supermen; we were presumed to have 'had a superman in charge of the Canadian National Railways from 1923 to 1930, and he may have been a superman, 'but he was overruled, not by his board of directors, but by politicians in many cases, as the records clearly show.


William Daum Euler: He was fired by them.


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not know whether he was fired or not. He resigned, and I do not know if he was responsible for all that he was charged with. Some of the things one finds out from time to time indicate something else.
If the present railway situation is to be saved it can be done only by appointing a man with sufficient force, vision and executive ability to be able to dominate and control. Get the best possible advice you can for him by appointing good co-trustees, but if you impose upon him the responsibility of working the road out of its tremendous difficulties, and then appoint two other men who can veto his decisions, you are going to wreck the whole thing.


Robert James Manion: May I express to members on both sides my appreciation of their ^pinions as expressed? May I add that the proposal that the chairman should be of the majority in giving a decision is contained, as most members know, in section 204 of the transportation commission's report. Section 204 reads:
A majority of the trustees should govern its decisions, subject to this qualification that the chairman must be a member of any majority.


William Daum Euler: That means nothing at all
except he has complete authority.


Robert James Manion: The bill is based on the
recommendations of the commission. May I again express my appreciation to all hon. gentlemen who have expressed their opinions? I would suggest that this subclause stand, and we shall deal with it as we deal with the other amendments proposed.
Subsection stands.
Section stands.
C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill

On section 12-Annual budget.


James Malcolm: Here we are up against the question whether parliament is to have any control over the moneys spent by this board of trustees, and whether parliament is even to have the right to discuss the expenditures of the national railways. I submit that the late board of directors of the national railways probably failed in one respect, and in one respect alone, and that is that out of the revenues that came in during years of prosperity they spent too large a sum in operating costs, and did not apply sufficient of the moneys earned towards a reduction of their obligations. True, under this bill the minister has provided for parliamentary or governmental control over all capital expenditures. As I understand it, the capital expenditures have to be submitted to the governor in council. But there is nothing in this measure from first to last which will prevent the trustees from spending every single dollar of revenue on operating expenses. Parliament would not have any right or authority to question extravagance in operation, if such extravagance should exist. The very action which is being taken at the present time towards eliminating the duplication of services might have to be taken again. I suggest that the only way we can keep track of the expenditure of revenues is by inserting after the word "trustees" in the second line of section 12 the words "and subject to the approval of parliament." The clause would then read:
The annual budget of National Railways shall be under the control of the trustees and subject to the approval of parliament.
Such an amendment would give us the opportunity to save the trustees from themselves.
If in the time of Sir Henry Thornton we had had more power in parliament to discuss the expenditures of the national railways, we might have saved Sir Henry Thornton from making the heavy expenditures which I doubt very much whether he was always anxious to make. I repectfully submit to the minister that in regard to these trustees governmental control should not be lost, and certainly governmental control should not be lost in respect to the revenues of the railways. Everyone realizes that in the emergency of to-day revenues are not sufficiently large to necessitate the amendment I suggest. We realize also that present conditions cannot continue. I look forward to a day five or ten years hence, probably much sooner, when tonnage will increase and our national railways will be back to the position they held in 1925, 1926

and 1927. Then no matter who the trustees may be, they will be asked for additional services, they will be requested to make all sorts of expenditures. Under the legislation as it now stands they may spend every dollar of increasing revenues on services, and the House of Commons will not have an opportunity to control expenditure of operating revenue. Therefore I suggest that clause 12 be amended by adding after the word "trustees" in the second line of the section the words "and subject to the approval of parliament."


Robert James Manion: It is possible, and even probable, that I am dense so far as the section under discussion is concerned. However I have read section 12 carefully not once but many times, and I do not draw from it the same conclusions as are drawn by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, or by some hon. members who spoke yesterday in regard to the same clause. I draw the conclusion from the clause that any expenditure of the national railways may be discussed by parliament-


James Malcolm: No, not operating expenses.


Robert James Manion: It distinctly states that amounts required for income deficits, for interest on obligations outstanding in the hands of the public,-I doubt very much if that comma should be in the section-for capital expenditures and for refunding or retirement of maturing securities, shall be submitted by the trustees to the Minister of Einanee for the consideration of the governor in council prior to presentation to parliament. But what happens after that takes place? The budget is submitted to the Minister of Finance.


William Daum Euler: Only the budget for those three purposes.


Robert James Manion: And those three purposes cover practically everything.


Mr. YOUNG:: No-except operating expenses.


Robert James Manion: It covers amounts required for income deficits.


James Malcolm: I must have expressed myself very badly, and if so, I apologize to the minister. I am not worrying about income deficits; my suggestion does not apply to those days, but to the time when there will be substantial income surpluses.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member
expect such a day?


James Malcolm: Yes, we had them before.

C.NR.-CJPR. Bill


Peter McGibbon: We never had them
under the present basis.


James Malcolm: We certainly did. My hon. friend knows that out of operating surpluses we paid interest to the public on a large percentage of the bonds.


Peter McGibbon: But the debt to the public was not anything then to what it is now.


James Malcolm: That is true.


Robert James Manion: Income deficit includes
deficit on interest to the public.


James Malcolm: We paid it all one year.


Robert James Manion: I admit that. I shall say gladly, Mr. Chairman, that so far as I am concerned if in my time or my 'hon. friend's time the railways have surpluses-


James Malcolm: They will.


Robert James Manion: I hope they will. If they attain to the position where they are paying all the interest on the obligations owing to the public, in addition to operating expenses, it might well be the decision of this parliament to let the railways be run as a private corporation would be run, namely without submitting anything to parliament. I would be very happy to think that in my lifetime the railways would ever reach that position, and at such time I should gladly take that attitude. I understand now what the hon. member is speaking about, but it is so far in advance I am wondering why an amendment could not be made ten or fifteen years from now.


James Malcolm: The minister will remember when the favourable situation existed before, at which time the Minister of Justice who was then on this side of the house, and hon. members now sitting opposite, were all claiming credit for surpluses on the national railways.


Robert James Manion: The interest on the funded debt at that time was 820,000,000 less.


James Malcolm: I know that.


Robert James Manion: It was 820,000,000 less than it is to-day.


James Malcolm: By economies it is proposed to reduce expenses by from 830,000,000 to $40,000,000.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and Mr. Hungerford has stated that if the same economies had been made in 1928, the year about which my hon. friend speaks, they would have saved
about $19,000,000. I still adhere to the position that if in the time of this or some other government the railways reach a position where they will be paying all the interest on their funded debt, they will be doing well.


James Malcolm: They will reach that
position.


Robert James Manion: At such a time it might
well be managed as a private corporation. However, I point out to my hon. friend that at the moment that is not the point at issue. In time that condition may arise, and on such occasion there would be plenty of time to amend the legislation.


James Malcolm: Amend it now.


Robert James Manion: I have no special objection-


William Daum Euler: If I may presume to say
so, it seems to me that the minister and the hon. member for North Bruce are at least to some extent still at cross purposes. The minister seems to assume that the budget of the national railways, that is the operating expenses of the railways themselves without any reference to deficits, refunding of loans or capital expenditures, are within the control of the government.


Robert James Manion: No, I did not say that.


William Daum Euler: I should not like to put words in the mouth of the hon. member for North Bruce, but I believe his thought was by his amendment to provide that for the actual running expenses of the road, operating expenses, the trustees shall make up a budget in advance to be submitted to the house. I fancy that is what he intended. From the minister's remarks I do not believe he correctly understood the meaning of the amendment.
While on my feet, I regret to say I am not altogether in agreement with the hon. member for North Bruce. If we are to have good men-supermen, as the hon. member for Muskoka might say-I should like to see the national railways operated by the trustees without any interference from anybody. For a good many years I have been a member of the parliamentary committee on national railways. If we compel the trustees to come to parliament with an annual budget for the operating expenses of the road, and if you bring that budget before the members of the committee-capable and all as they may be-I would be doubtful of the results. I should like to know how many of the members of that committee know anything about railway business and could make any helpful suggestion as to whether this branch shall
C.N.R.-CJP-.R. Bill

spend so much, or whether that should be spent for something else. I would rather put that responsibility on the board of trustees. The reason I objected yesterday was that if they did not make a success of the road then parliament or the government should have the right to discharge them. I am not at all convinced, although my mind is not quite closed to the idea, that the board of trustees should be compelled to come to this house each year in advance with a budget of what they may need for the operating expenses of the road, because I do not think the parliamentary committee is qualified to pass upon that at all. I would say, give the trustees the responsibility. If we find that they are not doing their work properly, then I think clause 7 should be amended so that the House of Commons or the government itself can dispense with the services of the trustees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bon.
member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is placing, I think, undue emphasis on the words "in advance." I do not regard the amendment proposed by the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce as meaning that the trustees shall have to come to parliament and get approval of the budget in advance.


William Daum Euler: It is no good otherwise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. AH that is asked is that parliament approve the budget. That is, the ministry takes the responsibility of standing iby the trustees that parliament has appointed. What is proposed by the amendment is simply a means of bringing before ithe representatives of the people a survey of the entire railway situation. The minister is proposing to put the control of this railway in the hands of three men, and give them absolute power. They may be the best businessmen in the world, they may run the railway in the most satisfactory manner, but they may be running it without regard to the needs of the different parts of the country, not through any desire not to meet the needs, but through having no comprehensive way of ascertaining them. What is parliament for?
I submit that if the budget is brought here if only for the approval of parliament, it will enable members from all parts of Canada to give their views with respect to what should foe done in regard to the railway situation. You do not take away from 'the trustees the right to have the first or the final word, but they will be afforded from the discussion a knowledge of those things which the representatives of the people wish them to consider in the management and operation 
of the road, and they cannot get that knowledge in any other. way. If .this bill goes through in its present form, and there is no opportunity for parliament to .consider the budget of the railway as a whole, there will be no discussion in parliament at all with respect to anything but the deficit, or some capital expenditure; there will be no genera! discussion as to the needs of the country or superfluous expenditures or anything of the kind. The ex-minister is agreeable to the government leaving the control of the budget with the trustees. He does not say we want to take away (the control from the trustees. He says he will leave the control of the budget to the trustees, but that when the budget, controlled by the trustees, comes to the minister he shall present it to council and later to parliament for approval and thereby 'accept ministerial responsibility for what the trustees are doing. In other words, what is suggested is simply maintaining responsible government. If you do mot do that, you are simply setting parliament at naught for a term mot merely of seven years, but forever, for these gentlemen are self-perpetuating. You are simply turning over the railway to .three men to run it without any opportunity for the representatives of the people to say a word. If the choice lies between doing away with government ownership or parliament, I submit it should not be parliament that should be done away with.
As I understand the amendment proposed, it is that the trustees would make up their budget. They would say: We have been appointed for this purpose, here is our budget. Having made it, we find there is going to be a deficit, also we need for capital expenditure so much; they present their requests to the minister. The minister's interpretation is that all he brings to parliament is just the deficit or the needed capital expenditure or the securities or other features mentioned in this bill. Our contention is .that these things are all related to the .budget, you cannot adequately consider them apart from it. The deficit that parliament will have to meet is the result of the expenditures made on the road. To get an adequate view of what the minister is asking you have to have the budget before you. Under the amendment ithe railway would go ahead, carry on its operations, it might be five months after the period for which provision had been made by the budget, before they come here and get approval. What is asked is simply that at some time within the year parliament be required to give its approval of the budget. If a condition arose where it should appear that the

CM.R.-C.P.R. Bill
three men appointed have gone wild in carrying on operations, if endowed with absolute powers, they turned out to be entirely different from what the government expected, then there would be an opportunity for parliament, at least, to say that it could not approve. Surely if a situation developed to the point that parliament would find it necessary to express disapproval, the time would surely have come when a- change would be necessary. That is all that is contemplated.


Robert James Manion: I agree with much that the right hon. gentleman has said, but I do not agree that parliament is without control. I submit that under sections 12, 13 and 14 parliament is in exactly the same position as it has been in the past.


James Malcolm: Which is not good enough.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I think it was good enough, if parliament had taken its position a little more seriously and independently than it did. Parliament could through its committee and through discussion in the house have criticized as they did not, many matters that Should have been criticized. Rut the hon. member for North Bruce interrupted me when I was giving my interpretation of section 12. My interpretation of section 12 is that after the budget is submitted to the Minister of Finance-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the budget is not submitted, that is the point. The budget is not submitted to the Minister of Finance.


Robert James Manion: Well, the amounts required. The needs of the railway are submitted to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance cannot by any method give one cent to the Canadian National Railways without bringing it before the parliament of Canada; it has to come as an estimate, and it is the right of this house to deal with that estimate as it sees fit.


William Daum Euler: May I ask a question?


Robert James Manion: Well, I should like to finish my statement. My interpretation may be wrong, but it is this; estimates have to be submitted to this house, and when they are submitted the House of Commons may deal with them as they see fit. They may refuse to pass them. They may and should appoint a committee, as they have in the past; and the trustees will be brought before that comr mittee. The Duff commission recommended that the officers of the railway should not be brought before the committee. With that I at least partially agree, but at any rate the trustees may be brought before the committee, and from those trustees any information desired by the committee or the house-may be required. If those trustees, should: refuse to give the information required, then that committee could pass a resolution against-the passing of the estimates, this house could refuse the estimates, and the trustees could not carry on until they got to the stage suggested by the hon. member for North Bruce, which is at least some way in the future.
Now in addition to the measure of control provided by section 12 there is section 13 which provides for the appointment of independent auditors by parliament. Let me read it:
A continuous audit of the accounts of National Railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by parliament and annually reporting to parliament in respect of their audit. Their annual report shall call attention to any matters which in their opinion require consideration or remedial action. They shall be paid by the National company suc-h amounts as the governor in council shall from time to time approve.
Then section 14:
The trustees shall make a report annually to parliament setting forth in a summary manner the results of their operations, any cooperative measures, plans or arrangements effected pursuant to this act, any economies or more remunerative operation thereby produced, the amounts expended on capital account in respect of the railways, works, property, facilities and services comprised in the undertakings of National Railways and such other information as appears to them to be of public interest or necessary for the information of parliament-


James Malcolm: "Appears to them to be of public interest."


Robert James Manion: -with relation to any situation existing at the time of such report, or as may be required from time to time by the governor in council.
The gist of my argument is that before the House of Commons passes an estimate of the Minister of Finance necessary for the supply of moneys to the Canadian National Railways, the parliament of Canada, through its committee or directly, can refuse to pass those estimates until it secures any inf ormation it may desire.


William Daum Euler: May I ask my question now on that very point? Does the minister say that it is necessary for the board of trustees to come to the Minister of Finance, and through him to the parliament of Canada, for the voting of estimates to carry on the business of the railway itself for the year? Is that his contention?


Robert James Manion: No. So far as that is concerned I will admit that it never has been done. In the past the money earned by the
C.N.R.-CF.R. Bill

railway has been handled by the directors and the management of the company, but when the matter came before the select standing committee of the house that committee could demand any information it required or desired.


William Daum Euler: That was afterwards, in dealing with the report for the previous year.


Robert James Manion: That is quite so, but I might make the same argument my hon. friend made a few moments ago. I do not think the members of this parliament are in such a position that in advance of the carrying on of a year's operation of the railway we can go into the details of operation. I do not think we should go into those details; it never has been done and I do not think it ever can be done with regard to any great utility. My contention is that so far as the parliament of Canada is concerned to-day it has the full right to check up, and the parliament of Canada will continue to have that right.


William Daum Euler: Yes, afterwards.


Robert James Manion: Yes, just exactly as it is done now. I admit that.


William Daum Euler: A moment ago I had the temerity to suggest that the minister and the hon. member for North Bruce were at cross purposes. Now perhaps I am in the same position; perhaps the minister and I are at cross purposes. Certainly, however, I understood the amendment to mean and to say that the annual budget for the operation of the road should be brought to the house in advance and endorsed by the house. If that was not the intention perhaps I am wrong; we may be in agreement after all. I should like to know if that is the meaning of the amendment.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to bring up a small matter to show the position in which members of parliament are placed. Certain contracts are to be awarded for railway ties in a certain constituency. They are advertised ; people send in tenders and finally contracts are awarded. The member of parliament asks for information from the government as to the quantity, the price, the names of the parties and so on, but he is told plainly that it is not considered in the public interest to make these facts public, and that he can be given no information. How can a member of parliament pass judgment upon a budget as to which he can get no information from the government?


Robert James Manion: I submit, Mr. Chairman,
that this sort of information, and information having to do with other details of operation,

is the type of information which the officers of the railway maintain should not in the public interest be given out. I do not think the members of the House of Commons should be in a position, in regard to the details of operation, to receive that information. I have expressed that opinion previously; I said so a few moments ago. I know my hon. friend did ask a question of that kind; he sent me a letter in regard to it, but I did not have the information. I may say quite frankly that so far as railway ties are concerned I have not a list, nor have I had a list this year, of the railway tie contracts which have been let. That is the attitude which has been taken by the officials of the company, and I believe in many cases, in regard to the details of operation; it is a just attitude.
Let me come back to the point from which I departed. I hope I have made myself clear, and that perhaps I have convinced my hon. friends that we are going far enough under this act in making it possible to secure all the information in regard to the operation of the national railways that parliament is properly entitled to get.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has stressed the duty of the board of trustees to present a report to parliament. That does not mean anything at all. Every department of government and every commission appointed by the government has that obligation imposed by statute among its duties, and as a matter of course every year the different ministers table these reports and that is all there is to it. The presentation of a report to parliament does not mean anything in the way of parliamentary control. If you were to add a clause stating that the report must be approved by parliament then you would give some significance to the presentation of the report.
There is another point with regard to the wording of the section we are discussing; there is nothing in it that in any way seems to imply any kind of control. It states that the annual budget of the national railways shall come under the control of the trustees, and that is the only place the word "control" is mentioned. It is quite clear that the trustees have the control of the budget. You give them that full authority, but in doing so you are at the same time taking away the authority of the shareholders and the directors.


Robert James Manion: May I interrupt just for
the sake of clarity? We are all endeavouring to clear up the matter, and I have just checked up with both the legal adviser and the deputy minister. I thought I was right, and they tell me that this is exactly the position at the

C.NJt.-C.P.R. Bill
present time with regard to the annual report. It is in the hands of the directors, so there is no change whatever in this act from the procedure which is followed at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At present there is an obligation to present a report to parliament; that report lies there and no notice is taken of it 'by parliament at all unless in some way it is brought especially before one or the other houses of parliament. But it need not be brought especially before parliament unless the ministry so desires. The point I want to make clear is this: The making up of the budget of the company is to be under the control of the trustees, not under the control of parliament.


Robert James Manion: It is not under the control of parliament now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but you are doing away with the directors altogether; you are doing away with any authority on the part of the "shareholders namely the people's representatives in parliament, and you are leaving three men in complete control of the expenditures and revenues of the railway. That position is very different from the position in Which any other railway in the world finds itself to-day. These three men may have the best intentions and may be the ablest men in the world, but how are they going to obtain knowledge of the needs of the country with regard to this great national system unless some persons corresponding to the directors or the shareholders have a chance to express their views? You will never get that expression of views unless in some way you bring before parliament the matters which are under the control of the board, in order to obtain the approval of parliament.
Mr. MAiNION: May I ask just one question, in the most sincere desire to understand my right 'hon. friend. I do not understand the objections he has raised. Would the right hon. gentleman tell me the difference-other than that the board will consist of three instead of seventeen-between the position in which parliament will be placed under this act and the position in which parliament finds itself to-day? That is what I cannot understand.


James Malcolm: When I rose to speak in the first place, Mr. Chairman, I said that the minister would have to consider this section along with section 7. The great difference is this: Previously we had a board of directors who were subject to the control of the governor in council. They submitted the annual
report, of course; it was the budget of the railway. It did not have to be approved by parliament but each of these men was under the control of the governor in council, and if the governor in council was not satisfied with his services he could be removed. By section 7 we are removing every vestige of control possessed by the Prime Minister and his cabinet over these men; we are putting our whole system under the control of the trustees. All we ask now is that there should be inserted after the word "trustee" some provision whereby this budget would require the approval of parliament. Whether it be a review of the business of the past year in the form of a report or whether it be an advance budget I do not care-I do not know what meaning the minister put on the word "budget" when he drafted this legislation. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have given up control of the national railways by statute, and we are simply asking that at least parliament should have the approval of their annual expenditures. That is our only objection.
Probably the minister and other hon. members may think I am too optimistic, but I have every reason to hope that before very long the national railways will be back in the position they occupied in 1927. May I say to the minister, and I know other members of parliament in this house will agree with me, that the national railways are not down half as badly as most of the businesses in which many of us are engaged. We are all going to be wrecked if business does not come back. There is another point. Everyone realizes that at this moment we are on the verge of a substantial rise in commodity prices through some governmental action or else there is going to be a very serious catastrophe. As soon as commodity prices come back and as soon as the volume of business returns the interest payments of the national railways will become a much less serious problem than they are to-day, as will the interest payments of every business man Who has to pay interest on bonds. During the next two or three years, some process of inflation, whether by the addition of other metal as a basis of currency, the revaluation of gold, or some other action, international in scope, may change this picture overnight and alter the wjhole financial position of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. Let us hope it does. When the day comes when the income revenue in relation to expenditure is back to where it was in 1927, when the system is able to pay part or all of its interest to the public, let us hope that this parliament will have some control to see that
[DOT]1082
C.X.R.-C.P.R. Bill

extravagances do not exist as they did in 1927. If we made a mistake before, surely we can be wise enough not to make the same mistake a second time. Probably it would be worse the next time. If the governor ip. council has no control over these trustees, parliament at least should have the right to review their budget. I think this section should be allowed to stand so that the two sections could be considered together.
Section stands.
On section 13, subsection 1-Continuous audit by independent auditors.


Robert James Manion: This subsection states that a continuous audit of the accounts of national railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by parliament. This would mean the passing of a special act each year, and I suggest that the subsection should be changed so that the appointment would be made by resolution of parliament.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) :: Why not make it the governor in council and retain the continuity? The governor in council is the responsible party under responsible government and should take the responsibility for the trustees in the operations of the road. I suggest to the minister that he should make it governor in council and get away from the necessity of having to come to parliament every year with a resolution.


Robert James Manion: No one knows better than my hon. friend that the governor in council will propose the resolution. It has been the desire to get as far away as possible from government control. My hon. friends have made that statement, and I accede to their opinion. I do not think the matter is important enough to argue over, and if my hon. friend is satisfied, I should like to have it by resolution of parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: The Duff report is a splendid report, but the minister will agree that outside of one or two members, that commission was made up of men who had very little experience in railway operation and practically none so far as an institution operated under the auspices of parliament is concerned. I object very strongly to taking away from the governor in council the responsibility of operating the affairs of government and the right to have supervision over men who they appoint. To be forced to hand out money without having that control seems to me to be an impossible situation.
TMr. Malcolm.]


Robert James Manion: May I say that I appreciate the compliment to this government implied in the words of the hon. gentleman.


Charles A. Stewart: I was referring to all governments, not to the government of my hon. friend alone.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend's sense of humour is not quite as keen this afternoon as it usually is. I might say that we are not following out the suggestion of the royal commission. According to my recollection, the suggestion of the commission was that a panel containing a list of auditing firms should be submitted by the trustees. After all, the trustees are the people who are being audited and those who drew up this bill decided that that suggestion could not be followed. It was suggested, therefore, that the auditors should be appointed by parliament. I do not think it is worth while wasting time over this matter and if hon. gentlemen do not object, I should like to retain this subsection with my suggested amendment.


John Campbell Elliott: A moment ago the minister suggested that there would be some benefit in the annual reports made by the auditors through their calling attention to matters which in their opinion required consideration or remedial action. Does the minister suggest that the auditors will have the power under this clause to call attention to matters other than those connected with the audit?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I should think they would have the right to call attention to anything which they thought was not in proper order.


John Campbell Elliott: I suggest that this section refers only to the audit and not to matters of railway management or of any other kind. I do not think the minister should count upon that as a protection against anything.


Robert James Manion: In the past the auditors
did nothing except audit the accounts in the ordinary way and this section is included in the bill in the hope that the auditors will report anything which they think to be unwise in the operations of the road. The present auditing firm is Touche and Company, and I remember discussing this matter with their representative, Mr. Matthews. I asked him if it would not be possible to include in the annual report reference to such matters as it is expected this subsection will cover. He said that that was impossible because they were not empowered to do so. The intention of this section is to empower

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
the auditors to report upon irregularities of any kind. I do not think the subsection will do any harm and it may bring about the curing of irregularities which have developed on other occasions.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I agree absolutely
with everything the minister has said. This section is carrying out the recommendation made in the past by the railway committee. I was one of those who recommended strongly that an independent audit should be made, and I agree entirely with the provisions of section 13.


Peter McGibbon: I think provision should be made for changing the auditors.


Robert James Manion: That is to be done every
year.


Peter McGibbon: To change the firm of
auditors. It is very important that the firm of auditors should be changed quite frequently.


Robert James Manion: That is why this action
is to be taken from year to year. If the government of the day thinks it desirable to make a change, a change can be made.


Peter McGibbon: I think parliament
should say that they shall be changed. A year ago I had the privilege of reviewing some of these accounts, and while I do not wish to go into the matter at all, I say quite fearlessly that the audit was absolutely useless. Parliament should lay down a rule that the firm of auditors should be changed every two or three years. I think that would be found to work out in the interests of the railways and of parliament.


Robert James Manion: While I agree that if
there is any reason for changing auditors, it should be done, at the same time my hon. friend should remember that the auditing of the Canadian National Railways accounts is a huge job which requires special training and the following of a complicated set of rules. The auditing requires very elaborate work on the part of the particular firm that is doing the auditing, and unless there is good reason for a change, I do not think it would be wise for any government to change the auditors every year. The new auditors would have to learn the very complicated and elaborate system of accounting which is used, and I do not think a yearly change would be practicable.


Mr. ARTHURS:: You might trade with the Canadian Pacific every other year.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend mentions the Canadian Pacific. I do not think the Canadian Pacific or any other big company changes its auditors yearly. I agree that if there were any reason for the change it could be made, and that is why it is proposed that the auditors shall be appointed annually, to give an opportunity for making the change if necessary. I think however it would be better to retain the same auditors so long as they were satisfactory.


William Daum Euler: I should like to support what the minister has said. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that the auditors should be changed every year.


Peter McGibbon: I did not say every year, but every few years.


William Daum Euler: In a modest way I have had something to do with auditing in my own day, and I know that in a business so extensive as the Canadian National Railways it will take a new firm of auditors, no matter how competent they may be, a considerable time to accustom themselves to the way the books are kept. If therefore the same auditors were kept on it would save a good deal of time in subsequent audits. If it be true that the firm of auditors now employed by the Canadian National Railways is not fit for the job, then I agree-


Peter McGibbon: I did not say that; please quote me correctly.


William Daum Euler: I understood the hon. member to say that the audit was no good.


Peter McGibbon: That is different from criticizing the firm.


William Daum Euler: Then I will take the exact words the hon. member used. If it is thought desirable to obtain better auditors than those now engaged a change should be made; but once you have obtained a good firm I do submit that they should be retained so long as they are satisfactory. If a firm of auditors are appointed and they know that in the succeeding year their services will be dispensed with, I should be inclined to think, since they are human, that their work would be apt to be not quite so satisfactory for that one year as if they knew that their services would be continued from year to year. It is perfectly evident that if a man knows that he is going to be out of the job next year he is not likely to do as good work as if he were assured of being continued in office.


Peter McGibbon: He would feel that he would have to be a great deal more efficient.

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


Alfred Duranleau: I move that section 13, subsection 1, be amended by adding the words " resolution of " after the word " by " in line five.


Charles Gavan Power: What is meant by " resolution of parliament "? Does it mean the House of Commons? I have heard the Prime Minister express himself in regard to king, lords and commons; I wonder whether this has reference to king, lords or commons.


Charles A. Stewart: Does it mean both houses?


Robert James Manion: I do not know whether such a resolution would come before both houses.


Charles Gavan Power: The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Temiscouata are both out; we have no constitutional lawyers.


James Arthurs: The hon. member for
Muskoka^Ontario in referring to the audit of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways -had in mind the auditors appointed by parliament. It is well known to any man who has had any connection with either the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National that they have 'their own auditors to go into small accounts, and that is what the hon. member for North Waterloo has reference to. Obviously it would be impossible for a firm of auditors to go into the minute details with regard to every station and agency of toe railway; they simply go into the larger items. There is a good deal of merit in the proposition put forward by toe hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. If the reports are, shall we say, more or less carelessly prepared and if nothing is brought to toe attention of the .minister or of parliament during toe course of a year or two, any business man would naturally think that toe firm were not doing their duty as it should be done, because undoubtedly in any large business of this kind there arise matters of great importance that should be called to the attention of the minister or of this house.


Charles A. Stewart: Rut the
Minister of Railways entirely disappears here. This is all under toe supervision of toe Minister of Finance, and it seems to me a very serious mistake to call upon parliament to provide funds to run this huge system without having a responsible minister in charge. That is why I am so insistent that toe governor in council shall retain control. I think it is a very serious mistake to dispense with the services of toe Minister of Railways, who gives his whole time to looking after railway activities. Surely toe national system is of sufficient importance to demand toe services 
of one minister, whatever government may be in power. Here we are handing over to toe autocratic control of a board of three men, however efficient they may be, entire charge of toe money we are forced to vote. I am opposed to this whole business of removing control from a minister of railways and from the governor in council and handing over such control as is provided for in this act to a group of three trustees who can be removed, not by the governor in council but by a joint address of toe two houses of parliament. The amendment which the minister is proposing is putting toe auditors in exactly toe same position. I want to see toe auditors under the control of the governor in council. If there is to be no minister then let them be under the control of toe governor in council. I will vote against toe section.


James Arthurs: If toe hon. member will
read section 13 he will see that in this instance his argument does not hold. The report of the auditors shall be to parliament:
A continuous audit of toe accounts of National Railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by parliament and annually reporting to parliament in respect of their audit. Their annual report shall call attention to any matters which in their opinion require consideration or remedial action. . . .
In this particular case toe control lies with parliament so far as the auditors are concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
speaking of that. I am referring to toe hiring and the control of the auditors, and not to what they shall report to parliament. What I am talking about is the authority to hire and control them, and that I say should rest in the governor in council. That is my contention. So far as the reports are concerned, certainly they should be made to parliament; parliament is entitled to have them. As regards employing and controlling them, however, that should rest in the governor in council.


James Arthurs: The amendment proposed by the minister is to the effect that they shall be appointed by resolution of parliament. Whenever a resolution is introduced involving the expenditure of public money it must come from the governor in council or from the government, which amounts to the same thing. That answers the hon. gentleman's argument.


Charles A. Stewart: It does not answer my argument, which I want to get over clearly. My objection is that running through this whole bill is the withdrawal of

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
control from the governor in council and placing it in the hands of three trustees who are going to spend at their own free will the money which this parliament is going to be forced to vote. That is what this legislation is doing, and that is what I want to prevent if I can, not because the present government is in office but with regard to any government. We look to the Minister of Railways and to the governor in council, and we make our criticism of them. We are going to appoint the trustees, but under this bill the governor in council cannot even fire them. It needs a resolution passed by both houses of parliament to fire them. Further, after the first trustees are appointed, future selections are to be made from a panel not chosen by the government at all, but from a list of eight names presented to them. If we are going to have responsible government at all in connection with the national railways or anything else, responsibility must rest in the governor in council. I think the governor in council should be able to appoint whom they will, and if they are not satisfied with their appointments fire them in the same way. Under this bill the governor in council is not going to hire and fire these men at will. They can only be fired after a resolution has been passed by both houses of parliament. I am opposed to the whole procedure in so far as it removes responsibility from the governor in council.


James Malcolm: Does the minister realize the anomaly in section 13? This bill is prepared to give the management of the national railways to a board of trustees. That is the whole purpose of the bill. Every clause of it indicates that the actual management shall rest with the judgment of the trustees appointed. But section 13 reads:
A continuous audit of the accounts of National Railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by parliament and annually reporting to parliament in respect of their audit. Their annual report shall call attention to any matters which in their opinion require consideration or remedial action.
If that is not the finest contradiction in terms, I should like to know what is. The auditors are supposed to suggest to parliament what should be done to correct the situation on the national railways, and you are appointing a board of trustees for that very purpose.


Robert James Manion: It is a check on the board of trustees. There is at the present time that check on the board of directors. We have a firm of auditors, Touche and Company, who do exactly that same type of auditing. They
do not report to parliament but to the minister, and through him to the government. The group to be appointed under this section would do exactly the same type of auditing. It is true that we are giving the trustees very great powers under this bill, possibly too great a power in the opinion of some hon. gentlemen, but the auditors will have to report to parliament, because parliament has to vote these huge sums of money, and in that way parliament will get a report on the carrying on of the business of the national railways in much the same way as is done now, except that this report will be made to parliament instead of through the minister to the government.


James Malcolm: That is not the situation. The job of a set of auditors is to audit the financial business that has been transacted by a firm during the year. The policy of the business rests entirely with the management or the directorate, or in this case with the trustees for the government. It is not the place or the business of auditors to tell a company whose business they are auditing how the business should be run, but this bill says that the auditors can call attention to any matter which in their opinion requires consideration or remedial action. In my opinion it is an absurdity. That is not the duty of auditors. That provision is a straight contradiction of the powers you are. vesting in your trustees.


Robert James Manion: I thought that this had
carried, Mr. Chairman. The auditors will be in exactly the same position as the auditors are in to-day. The railway has a firm of auditors of its own which does the ordinary auditing of the railway, and in addition Touche and Company audit for the Minister of Railways, and through him for the government. This proposed group simply takes the place of Touche and Company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Annual report to parliament.
Robert James Manion: There is a slight amendment to be made to this clause. It does not change the meaning at all, but makes the section a little clearer. It is proposed to strike out the words between "respect" in line 21 and "of" in line 23. That eliminates the words "of the railways, works, property, facilities and services comprised in the undertakings."


George Reginald Geary: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.
C.N.R.-CRR. Bill


William Daum Euler: I presume it is the intention of the government that the board of trustees Shall submit to parliament a financial statement somewhat similar to the statement which we receive annually. If that is the intention, it is not made clear in the section as it stands, and that is why I rise to speak of it. It should .be made very clear that the statement shall be a financial statement of receipts and expenditures, and so on.


Robert James Manion: There is no thought of
making any change in the statement.


William Daum Euler: But the clause does not say it shall be a financial statement of receipts and expenditures.
Mr. MANIlON: That will be understood.


Edward James Young: The trustees and management of this road are supposed to be free from political influence. Is it the intention of parliament that the trustees or president or whoever does the purchasing for the road shall be free to make purchases wherever they can to the best advantage, or is it intended still to exercise political pressure to force the road to buy Canadian made goods?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman was
good enough to write me a letter, which unfortunately I received only this morning, advising me that he was going to bring up this subject and that he required a good deal of information. On receiving his letter I immediately had my officers at work gathering the information he required, but it cannot possibly be presented until .to-morrow, and as we are now within half an hour of six o'clock and .there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter on any other clause, perhaps my hon. friend would postpone his questioning until to-morrow. So far as I am concerned he can bring the matter up on any other clause to-morrow.


Edward James Young: I am quite agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 14, subsection 2-Routing of export freight through Canadian seaports.
Edward James Young: This clause directs the
trustees to route freight destined for export by sea through Canadian seaports. May I ask at whose request this provision was inserted?


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I
could say at whose request it was done, but it was inserted for the purpose of ensuring

that so fax as possible Canadian traffic would go out through Canadian ports, both east and west, wherever the opportunity exists to route it that way.


James Malcolm: I think it would be very much wiser if the minister deleted the clause and accomplished his object without making it statutory. It may be only provocative as it stands.


Edward James Young: Will this clause apply to
freight enjoying the benefit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act?


Robert James Manion: Speaking from memory,
that act does not apply to freight going into the maritimes but to freight coming out of the maritimes; so 'this provision would not apply to freight going into the maritimes.


Eugène Fiset: I think the minister is wrong. I think the Maritime Freight Rates Act applies to freight going both ways.


Robert James Manion: I may be wrong, because I am speaking from memory, but in my view the chief purpose of the Maritime Freight Rates Act is to permit the products of the maritimes to be brought more cheaply to the centre of Canada. Another implied purpose is to prevent the products of central Canada being carried so cheaply as to compete with the products of the maritimes. I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe I am correct.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The minister is right.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Hants-Kings supports me, and I am content.


James Malcolm: The clause means nothing. The shipper has a right to direct his freight, and in my view this is a provocative clause which should not be in the bill and should be deleted.


Robert James Manion: I think probably there is ground for the argument of the bon. member. At the same time it was the desire of some of the maritime representatives that the clause be put in. If as the hon. member suggests it is simply redundancy, it can do no particular barm.


William Daum Euler: I do not agree that the clause means nothing, because while under the clause the shipper is still permitted to route his freight as he wishes, he has no particular concern as to whether it goes through a Canadian or foreign port, provided the rate is the same. With regard to wheat at least, I understand the rate from Montreal to Halifax, a distance of 800 miles, is exactly the same as from Montreal to Portland, a distance of only

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
about 300 miles. The shipper will no doubt be perfectly indifferent as to which way the wheat moves out, because whichever course is taken the cost to him is exactly the same. I would say however that it costs the national railways a good deal more to haul a bushel of wheat 800 miles than it does to haul it 300 miles, and I do not believe they should be placed under that handicap. That is my reason for opposing the clause.


Robert James Manion: They will be placed under that handicap, if at all, only in the case of grain or any other commodity that has not been routed by the shipper. As the hon. member for North Bruce has pointed out, where the shipper states it must be routed via Portland or New York, it will not be affected by this clause. The clause would apply only in cases where the commodity has not been routed by the shipper. In the great majority of cases no doubt the shipper will choose the route, as the hon. member for North Bruce suggests. It might be pointed out that to-day, without any legislation of the kind suggested, both railway companies make the rate not from Montreal, as the hon. member suggested, but from the Georgian bay ports to Halifax and St. John the same as the rate on the American side from Buffalo to New York in order to get some of the traffic. Since that is being done, no injustice would be done by leaving the clause in.


William Daum Euler: I would say probably the
shipper is quite indifferent as to which way the grain goes, because the rate is just the same, and naturally the outcome will be that it will go through a Canadian port and act as a considerable handicap to the railway. The railways are put to a greater expense than should be necessary. I am speaking in the interests of the railways.


George Reginald Geary: I suppose the hon. member would like the clause to be put in in the other form, so that the traffic will not be run through Canadian ports.


William Daum Euler: Keep the clause out
altogether.


James Malcolm: The remark of the hon. *member from Toronto was quite uncalled for, and only goes to show that he does not understand the situation at all. He knows as well as I do, and so does the minister-probably the less said about it in the House of Commons, the better-that we are operating a system known as the Grand Trunk Western, which was the old Chicago-Portland. It was the best system on the continent for moving fast freight from Chicago to the Atlantic seaboard. He knows that the Canadian National
Railways get a tremendous tonnage from the United States which is shipped through Canadian ports. My one reason in saying to the minister that the clause should be deleted is to help the maritime provinces. The minute you put the proposed section into legislation you have the Chicago packer saying, "All my beef has to go through Halifax and Saint John, and cannot go through Portland; we will send it via the New York Central, and let it go through the port of New York." The less said about this the better, and I believe the minister agrees with me.


Charles Gavan Power: Although I shall come in
for some severe criticism in my own home bailiwick, which I think generally speaking has been strongly and perhaps sometimes injudiciously in favour of special treatment as a Canadian seaport, I must add my voice to that of other hon. members on this side and object to the insertion of any such section. It appears to me that in this instance we are inserting a clause in the bill which bears all the evidence of what might be called political or sectional pressure. Ever since we began to speak about this legislation we have said that the esential object of it was to get away from political and sectional pressure. We are considering a section which would mean that the railways would have to go to considerable expense in carrying freight long distances so that such freight could go through Canadian seaports. We are in a time of emergency and crisis. As I have already said, the observations I am now making may create unfavourable reaction in the city of Quebec. I submit that since we are trying to do something to save the railroads and to operate them more cheaply, although the minister may have all the good will in the world toward Canadian seaports and the maritime provinces, he would be most unwise if in the legislation he were to insert any clause or section which could be taken as an indication that he has submitted to sectional pressure.


Edward James Young: The clause must have been put in for a purpose, and no doubt the purpose was to divert traffic over a more expensive routing, when in ordinary circumstances it might go over a cheaper one. Whether or not the railway company carries the traffic at the same freight rate, someone has to pay for that extra work. If the railway company comes before this parliament every year asking for moneys to meet deficits, part of those deficits will be created because they are hauling freight 500 miles further than they should haul it, and are receiving no additional revenue for that extra work. The loss will
40SS
C.N.R.-CJ'.R. Bill

have to be made up by the taxpayers of Canada. Everybody knows that in the future whatever is left of international trade will go to the country which can put its products on the world market at the cheapest price. Every cent we add to the cost of putting our goods on the world market will tend to keep them out of that market. The additional cost of hauling our products 500 miles farther to get them to a seaport will be added some way or another, directly or indirectly, to the price of the goods we export. The result will be that because of this particular clause we will be in an inferior and less favourable position when it comes to getting our goods on the world market. If we believe we can add to the revenues of the ports, or add to the prosperity of Canada by compelling our railways to haul freight an extra 500 miles for the same price, could we not go still farther and make them haul it an extra 5,000 miles? Would it not be advisable to put in a clause insisting that all freight originating in eastern Canada and destined for ports beyond the seas be hauled across the continent and shipped from Vancouver, and that all trade originating in western Canada destined for overseas be hauled across the continent and shipped out from the martime ports? Then we would be hauling our freight over the country before we shipped it. No doubt we would be giving employment to railway men, but it would not be good business. The clause before us is forcing the railways to do an uneconomic act at a time when uneconomic acts cannot be done with impunity. I object to the clause, and suggest that it be stricken out.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Give the freight a joy ride.


Onésime Gagnon: Shall
the section carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward James Young: No, it is not carried. I
move it be stricken out.


Onésime Gagnon: The amendment is out of order. The hon. member may vote against the section, if he wishes. Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Reports to parliament through the Minister of Railways.
Mr. BURY:: May 'I suggest that the title "the Minister of Railways" should be "the Minister of Railways and Canals?" If that is correct I would move that the amendment be made.
I Mr Young.]


Eugène Fiset: May I ask the 'minister if this is really the only power he retains as Minister of Railways and Canals?


Robert James Manion: Quite possible, Mr. Chairman. The possible loss of power by the Minister of Railways has been worrying my hon. friends opposite a good deal. I know they are not worrying about me, but they are considering that in the future they may have a Minister of Railways of their own. However, may I say in all seriousness that if this bill is going to do what we hope it will, bring about a better condition and more economical operation of the Canadian National Railways, saving the people of this country immense sums of money, I do not mind particularly whether it wipes out my duties or not. I have no apology to make for the work I have done as Minister of Railways and Canals. I am not particularly modest ordinarily, yet I have not claimed that I have done anything out of the ordinary as minister; nor am I ashamed of what I have done. But if this bill means economies in public expenditure, though it affects incidentally any functions of mine, I am quite agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 16-Cooperative measures, plans and arrangements by C.N.R. and C.P.R.
Peter Heenan: If the .minister will turn to page 9 he will find where the railroad companies are directed to agree to certain operations. At line 11:
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.
I believe this is intended as a sincere attempt to apportion the employment between the men of the two companies. But how can that be done? Is it to be done by the trustees or the management themselves? Have the employees representatives anything to do with it? Will it be by seniority, or age, or fitness? If a train is cut off or works closed around Montreal or Halifax, if for instance, the Canadian National close works or cut off a train around Halifax or Montreal, and the Canadian Pacific do something similar around Winnipeg, how is the employment going to be apportioned? We have on our railroads, as the .minister knows, seniority in districts. For instance there might be three groups of men, the

C.NJt.-CP.R. Bill
Canadian National, the old Grand Trunk- they have their own seniority-the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. How would it foe possible to dovetail these men in in proportion to the amount of work left to be done? It is almost impossible. But there is nothing in this act providing for any consultation with the representatives of the employees. I think the minister might well consider that.
I have here an amendment to offer for the purpose of assisting in the carrying out of the purpose of this section:
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 do not object to the minister or his legal advisers changing these words in any way so long as what I have in mind is carried out.
I believe that when a company come to the point of making these mergers or giving running rights or closing shops or yards, they will very likely say to the representatives of the employees: Now we will want so many men. We had 200 men before, we will now require only 100, you give us these men according to your own rules and regulations. But there is no provision whatever for that in the bill. It simply directs that the railroad company shall do this, without any provision for consultation with the men's representatives. Without that it is simply impossible to cooperate.
I would also point out why I would like to see that sixty days' notice provided for. Take for example the trains that were taken off between Ottawa and Toronto and Toronto and Montreal; the men interested or their representatives were given practically a moment's notice. So this amendment I propose is not costing the companies anything, it is simply a method of carrying on as they have been doing for the last fifty years.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I submit
with all Te^pect that the proposed amendment is not at all necessaiy, because both railway companies have agreements with the unions, and as far as rearrangement of the employees is concerned they could not do it without consultation with the heads of the unions. This provision, I am informed, was suggested by some of the labour representatives in the other chamber, and the purpose was this: suppose it were decided that the Canadian Pacific would give up service on a certain branch line, and running rights were taken over a Canadian National branch line to serve the same territory, or something
akin to that, it would not be fair that all the men on one railway should be retained in their positions and those on the other railway should lose theirs. The endeavour was that employment should be so rearranged that in any case where abandonment of service took place or a joint service was arranged or anything of the sort, the men on the two railways should be treated fairly. I do not believe there is any possibility of these rearrangements being made without the very thing being done that the hon. gentleman suggests, consultation with the heads of the unions, because as he knows better than I, both railways have agreements with the different running trades and groups of employees. These agreements will not become null and void because of any cooperative measures; the companies will have to live up to them under any rearrangement. So I submit with all respect, and with no particular desire to oppose the amendment, that it is not required, and that the clause in the act is quite sufficient to carry out the proposal brought forward by the hon. gentleman and suggested in the other chamber when the bill was under consideration there.


Peter Heenan: I just want to point out -to the minister that I have not offered this amendment without grave thought and consultation with others. It is true that the different organizations on the railways hold agreements with the railway companies, but they 'have no agreements covering a case such as this. So far as I know no organization has an agreement covering the event of running rights being granted over another railroad or the merging of the shops of two or perhaps three lines, such as the old Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific. I entirely agree that it would be impossible to work this out except by consultation with the men, but the minister will observe that there is nothing in the act saying that consultation must take place. The act simply provides that the companies shall endeavour to do so and so. The very fact that these trains were taken off between Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa and Toronto without consulting the men shows that the railways are not giving as much consideration to the men as has been the case in the past.


Robert James Manion: May I point out to my
hon. friend what he may remember, though it does not concern the railway on which he is employed, that when the Canadian National coordinated the different lines, the old Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk and so on, they were confronted with the same difficulty. By an arrangement called
C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill

the Montreal agreement, with which I am sure my ho-n. friend is familiar, it was arranged that the men would be taken care of so far as possible in a fair and equitable manner. I have no doubt that in whatever rearrangement may take place the railways will endeavour to follow along the lines of the Montreal agreement. I know quite well that this agreement 'has met with a great deal of opposition from certain men who felt 'that they were unfairly dealt with, but on the whole it was agreed to as the best arrangement that could be made. It is suggested that if a sixty day notice were inserted it might interfere with the working out of the plan. I 'hope my hon. friend will think it over; it is almost six o'clock, and I am going to suggest that this clause also stand. Before we rise, however, I should like to ask anyone else who may have an amendment to suggest with regard to section 16 to bring forward that amendment before six o'clock. To carry out that suggestion I will read an amendment which will be moved as subsection (4). It is as follows:
Where the execution or carrying out of such a measure, plan or arrangement involves the doing of any act which by any statute requires the leave, sanction, assent or approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, then, except where otherwise provided in this act, the approval of the said board shall be obtained.
That amendment is entirely in line with what we have suggested, and with some of the suggestions of hon. gentlemen opposite as well. I may add, however, that it was decided upon before those suggestions were made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is in line with what we have been pressing for.


Robert James Manion: That is quite true; I will divide the honours with my right hon. friend, but at all events it was decided upon before those suggestions were made. If any other members have amendments I should like them to be presented now, so that we may have time to think them over.
Mr. HEENAN; I appreciate the kindness of the minister in letting this section Stand, but I want to point out to him again so that he may read it in Hansard that the problem to which he referred in connection with the Montreal agreement, of which I have quite full knowledge, was in connection with one set of employees holding seniority on one road. The problem is complicated now by the fact that there are two different railways, and I think the minister will find that my amendment should be accepted.
CMr. Manion.]


George Brecken Nicholson: I have no amendment to propose but in connection with the one suggested by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River I believe a study of the section itself, with all that is involved, will lead my hon. friend to the conclusion that his amendment will need to go much further than it goes at present. I have not time to discuss the matter fully before six o'clock, but with the general agreements that were prevailing between the railway companies and their employees, with the difference in the agreements between one road and its employees and another road and its employees, which in some cases is very substantial, with the agreement extending over a very wide territory in some lines and a small territory in others, I think this will have to be given very careful consideration if the rights of the employees are to be protected. I cannot pursue this question further this evening, but I think the amendment will have to go further.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 20, 1933