1933-03-15

Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), I desire to lay on the table of the house orders in council Nos. 434, 450 and 451, dated March the 14th, 1933.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 47, respecting The Canadian Anthracite Coal Company, Limited.-Mr. Stanley.
Bill No. 48, respecting an agreement made between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McDade.
Bill No. 49, respecting a certain patent application of Fred Charles Fantz.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50 to amend the Railway Act (rate structure).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. REID:: In the various appeals which have been made to the board of railway commissioners for a reduction in freight rates the argument has been advanced on behalf of the railway companies that because of physical and other conditions it was necessary for the railway companies to have rates greater in some sections than in others. The board of railway commissioners have made it clear, I believe, that under the act they have no authority to make decisions on broad lines in order to develop trade or help certain basic industries. This bill, Mr. Speaker, seeks to give such power to the board of railway commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MUNN:: How many families or individuals were placed on land in British Columbia up to the first of February, 1933, in accordance with arrangements made with the province of British Columbia, agreement dated September 9, 1932, covered by order in council, P.C. 2067, dated September 17, 1932?


Mr. GORDON:: The agreement dated September 9, 1932, respecting relief settlement entered into between the Government of British Columbia and the Dominion government provides that the province shall furnish the Dominion with a schedule or schedules setting forth a list of the families to be assisted, with particulars as to the location in which they are to be settled. While it is understood that the province of British Columbia is proceeding with settlement this year, none of the schedules above referred to have as yet been received.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-QUEBEC
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the names of the officers and other members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police having their headquarters at Quebec?
2.	What salary does each receive?
3.	When were they appointed?
4.	What has the federal government spent in respect of each such officer or member, including all items of expenditure during the last twelve months?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.
Date
Name	appointed
Inspector H. A.	R. Gagnon.. ..Feb.	1,	1920
Reg. No. 11443	, Sergt. Marti-		
neau, P. A.. .		1,	1932
Reg. No. 7976, Corpl. Delvallet,			
I			13,	1919
Reg. No. 10273,	Corpl. Lamothe,		
A			27,	1927
Reg. No. 10467,	Const. Bordeaux,		
J			26,	1928
Reg. No. 11240.	, Const. Boivin,		
C. B			3,	1931
Reg. No. 10138,	Const. Charron,		
O. W			Nov.	6,	1925
Reg. No. 11056, Const. Cassel-			
man, W.. ..		Oct.	10,	1931
Reg. No. 11375, Const. Gobeil,			
A. G			1,	1932
Questions

2.
Inspector Gagnon	S 1,975 67
Sergeant Martineau, P. A		1,620 65
Corpl. Delvallet, 1	
1,398	40Corpl. Lamothe, A	
951	50Const. Bordeaux, J	
390	00Const. Boivin, C. B	
653	40Const. Charron, O. W	
1,202	80Const. Casselman, W	
592	30Const. Gobeil, A. G	
1,366	05

3.	For dates of appointment see answer to No. 1.
4.	The following has been the expenditure during the last twelve months. It is not possible to accurately assign this expenditure to individual members of the force and therefore it is shown under the respective classifications of expenditure:
Service	Amount
Advertising	$	500Telephones, telegrams	and	postage. 797	22Land and water transport, maintenance of vehicles, office furniture, etc	
3,037	32Miscellaneous	
115	87
Professional and personal services including medical and dental
expenses	 274	30
Rentals, including detachment quarters and officers' quarters, garage,
repairs, rental of	boats,	etc....	1,805	10Provisions, rations, meals, drugs, fuel, coal and gas,	gasoline, etc.. 1,124	77Railway freight, express and cartage	
193	06Transportation and travelling expenses, including railway, water, bus, taxi, subsistence and lodging, etc	
2,450	44Pay of force	
6.963	97Allowances	
3,206	80


$ 19,973 85 SUPERANNUATION ACT-ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. HANBURY:: 1. Bid the government appoint an advisory committee on the Superannuation Act, consisting of five representatives of the administrative side and five representatives of the staff side?

2.	If so, has the government received any reports from the said committee proposing amendments to the said act?
3.	Will the government take legislative action in connection with such proposals during the present session of parliament?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	.Recommendations have been received.
3.	It is not the intention to propose amendments to the act until the actuarial calculations on the superannuation fund have been completed.


SALES TAX ARREARS
Mr. EULER:: What amount of sales tax fell into arrears in the years 1931 and 1932 respectively?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Total arrears of sales and manufacturers taxes outstanding as at April 1, 1930, $3,726,316.63. Total arrears of sales and manufacturers taxes outstanding as at April 1, 1931, $3,458,90523. Total arrears of sales and manufacturers taxes outstanding as at April 1, 1932, $2,673,662.15.
Reduction in	1930-31	$267,411	40"	"	1931-32	
785,243	08"	"	two years..	..	$1,052,654	48


DUFF COMMISSION COST
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	What was the cost of the Buff commission on transportation?
2.	Have the amounts in question been paid? Sir GEORGE PERLEY:
1.	Expenditure to date, $62,338.96.
2.	Yes.


LIGNITE COAL TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), and if he is not able to answer at the moment perhaps he will take this as a notice. I should like to know whether or not the tariff on lignite coal entering the United States has been reduced recently.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: With the indulgence of my hon. friend I will answer this question tomorrow.

C.N.R ,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Hon. R. J. Manion for the second reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes.
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, no member of this
house can afford to minimize the seriousness of the railway situation in Canada, aggravated as it has been by the depression prevailing in Canada and throughout the world, and any solution offered to meet the difficult problems facing the two great systems to-day ought to receive the sympathetic and thoughtful consideration of every member of this house. But, sir, that does not mean that we must swallow holus bolus a panicky piece of legislation which perhaps contains a few good clauses but which on the whole and reading between the lines means, I am afraid, the destruction of the principle of public ownership of our railway system.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in opening this debate. The hon. gentleman made a splendid speech; he gave a keen analysis of the transportation problem and made a dignified bid for the cooperation of hon. members on this side of the house. But, sir, unfortunately he was followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), whose remarks entirely destroyed the effect of the speech of the Minister of Railways.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is just your opinion.


Samuel Factor: I am expressing that as my opinion, but I am sure it will be the opinion held throughout Canada after the people read the Prime Minister's speech. The attempt made by the Prime Minister to cast all responsibility for our railway problems upon the Liberal party brought a political flavour into this debate, which was entirely unwarranted and which should not have been injected because of the magnitude and seriousness of the problem confronting us. If this debate has become more or less of an acrimonious political argument during the last few days the Prime Minister has only himself to blame. The responsibility for the present situation cannot be lodged at the door of the Liberal party; it must be accepted by the parliament of Canada and shared by members on both sides of the house. There was one responsibility, however,
which was assumed by the Liberal party, and which was discharged creditably and magnificently by the administration headed by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). That was the responsibility of joining disjointed, disconnected, dilapidated, insolvent and bankrupt lines of railways into one great national system-a system which, despite the difficulties that are being experienced at the present time, the people of Canada ought to be and are justly proud of; a system which, for railroads, motive power and service, is second to no railroad system either on this continent or anywhere throughout the world.
The Prime Minister in his speech made the statement that the system is owned by the bondholders and not by the people of Canada, and in the light of that statement he asks for the cooperation of the Liberal party, the Liberal party which has for years stood and stands now and will always stand for the integrity of the national railways as a publicly-owned and publicly-controlled system. He asked the Liberal party for cooperation in relation to the empire trade agreement when he knew very well that that agreement was permeated with principles and policies diametrically opposite to the principles enunciated by the Liberal party. How can you hope, Mr. Speaker, for the cooperation of the Liberal party in connection with this measure in the light of the speech the right hon. gentleman made the other day?
I suggest to hon. members opposite in all kindness and sincerity that it is about time they stopped throwing around this two billion dollar baby, the Canadian National system. It was all very well for my hon. friends opposite to hug and fondle and love it when the baby was healthy and growing normally; but I suggest that it is unkind and unsportsmanlike of them now, when the baby is sick and anaemic and needs care and attention, to leave it on the doorstep of the Liberal party. Let us once for all recognize the fact that it is the child of the Canadian people, and as such we as the elected representatives of the people, irrespective of party, must care for it and maintain and support it until it grows to manhood and is able to support and maintain itself.
The transportation problem is not a new one in this country; it is as old as the history of Canada. From the very beginning of our history we have had a transportation problem; from the very beginning of our history public moneys have been expended, public credits have been pledged, and public lands given, as well as aid in other respects, both
3EVISED EDITION

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor
to water and to rail transportation. Why therefore should we regret the expenditure of all this money? Did it not enable the pioneers in the dawn of our history to hew out a civilization for themselves out of a wilderness? Did it not enable those who followed these pioneers to settle on the western plains? Did it not enable our people to open up the natural resources of the country for the development of this dominion and the welfare of mankind? We have spent a good deal of money on our railways, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we have also spent millions and millions of dollars, in aids to navigation, in the construction and maintenance of canals which are now a charge on the public treasury. It is all very well to say that millions have been spent on the railways, but I say that these millions are a national investment which was responsible for the development of Canada as it is to-day.
Another point to be considered is this. The promise of railway construction was an important part not only of the terms of confederation but of the terms of the agreement under which three or four provinces entered confederation-British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and the other maritime provinces. The obligations to the maritime provinces were embodied in an agreement to construct the Intercolonial railway from Halifax to the St. Lawrence, as well as to construct the Prince Edward Island railway. The agreement with British Columbia was to connect the Pacific coast with eastern Canada, and that was accomplished by the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway which, although originally started as a government railway, was ultimately taken over and completed as a privately-owned system. We talk about the Canadian Pacific railway being a privately-owned concern. Have we forgotten, however, the millions of dollars we gave to that railway at the time of its origin? Have we forgotten the millions of acres of land we gave that railway? Have we forgotten the miles of ready constructed roads handed over to that railway? At any rate the Canadian Pacific railway was completed in 1885 and a few years after the Canadian Northern came into existence. That was a line of railway from Winnipeg northwesterly to Edmonton and easterly to Port Arthur, which so far as the Edmonton branch was concerned was completed in 1905 and the Port Arthur branch in 1901. In 1903, parliament authorized the building of a national transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton as part of the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition, and in 1911 the Hudson Bay railway was undertaken 
as a government road. So that the Intercolonial, the National Transcontinental and the Hudson Bay railway were constructed with public money and operated by or on behalf of the government of Canada.
In 1903 the Grand Trunk Railway made application to parliament for the construction of a line from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, and although this application was refused, ultimately the decision of parliament led to the construction of two transcontinental roads in addition to the Canadian Pacific railway, namely, (a) the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg west to the Pacific, together with the construction of a national transcontinental road, and (b) the Canadian National Railways, constructing their line westerly from Edmonton to the Pacific coast, and extending the line easterly from Port Arthur through the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So that we have now these three transcontinental railroads trying to do business in a country of ten million people.
Time will not permit me to trace the history and the extent of the acquisition of various lines by the government of Canada. Suffice it to say that the government of this country is responsible for the ownership and operation of more than 22,000 miles of railway now included in the national system, a system which, as I have said, the people of Canada are justly proud of, a system which, despite tremendous burdens which the Canadian people are now shouldering, they are willing to continue operating; for they will never consent to the dismemberment of the national system of railways nor to amalgamation of that system with a private concern. The people will never consent, I say, to the dismembering of the national system nor to its amalgamation or operation as a privately-owned road.
That was the transportation problem. The government, as my hon. friends are aware, constituted the Duff commission to study this problem, to look into railway affairs in Canada; but quite improperly it failed to appoint on that commission a representative of that element of the community which is just as vitally interested in the problems of the road as are the bondholders and shareholders in England and the United States. I criticize the government for failure to appoint a representative of labour on that commission because I sincerely feel that had such a representative been on the commission, the report of the Duff commission would not have contained innuendos and direct statements about the high wages paid railway -workers and

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor
about easing the burden of the railways by a reduction in wages. It should have contained some provision to take care of the human element in this problem. To a certain extent this bill does take care of the railway worker by section 2, which reads:
The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts, but so that

(a) that part of section one hundred and seventy-nine of the Railway Act which relates to compensation of employees for financial loss caused to them by removal, closing or abandonment of any railway station or divisional point;
This legislation contemplates the laying off of many men because it provides that section 179 of the Railway Act shall continue in force. That section reads as follows:
The company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof, until the provisions of the last preceding section are fully complied with, nor remove, close, or abandon any station, or divisional point nor create a new divisional point which would involve the removal of employees, without leave of the board; and where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby.
I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion): Is it fair to the railroadman who has invested his energy, his health and his very life in the service of the railway to be displaced from his job and be made a forgotten man? And the only compensation provided for him is that under section 179 wherein he will obtain a few hundred dollars for the loss of his residence. Is the government going to ask the people of Canada to approve of a piece of legislation which will put these railroad men out of employment, make forgotten men of them and provide only this type of compensation?
The causes of our railroad problem are set out on page 53 of the report of the Duff commission. There are seven contributory causes given, and I should like to refer briefly to these. The first cause given is:
. The over-development of railways beyond the immediate needs of the country.
The parliament of Canada must assume responsibility for creating that cause. There is no use in one party blaming the other, and even the people themselves have a share in this responsibility. What remedy is provided for this cause by this legislation? Sections 16 and 17 of the bill give authority to one man to abandon railway lines, to amalgamate services and to prohibit the construction of new lines. Parliament having 53719-192J
created this condition, having authorized the construction of these railways, should not have taken away from it the right to say what railway lines should be abandoned, what services should be amalgamated and what lines should be prohibited from being constructed.- Under the provisions of the Canadian National Act, the abandonment of lines or services could be carried out only with the consent of the governor in council, and all other agreements with respect to any change in lines had to receive the approval of the governor in council. I think this section in the bill should be strengthened so that the parliament of Canada, the elected representatives of the people, should have the say in these matters. But this legislation, Bill A, removes the control, even from the executive body, and parliament has no voice in the matter.
The second contributory cause is:
Aggressive and uncontrolled competition between two nation-wide railway enterprises, a competition the more disastrous in that one of the competitors was publicly-owned _ and supported by the full resources of the dominion.
This cause seems to show the fine hand of some of the members of this commission who were not in favour of publicly owned railways. What remedy is provided by this legislation for the removal of cut-throat competition? The bill merely expresses the pious hope that the railroads will cooperate. I must confess that in the short experience I have had in this house, I have never seen a piece of legislation which asks that two companies shall cooperate. We might as well embody in the marriage contract the hope that the husband and wife will agree upon all occasions. No contract could provide for a condition of that kind.
The third contributory cause, and in my opinion the most important, reads:
The reactions of the world trade repression which began in 1929 and has progressively increased in its severity with each succeeding year.
I humbly suggest that the commission might have added the following:
The insane policy of Tory'reactionary government in adopting a selfish, and narrow economic nationalism and the idea of a self-contained nation.
What remedy is provided in this legislation for this contributory cause? None at all. Our present problem has been created because no business is offering and no tonnage is moving. The bill provides no remedy. Perhaps the only remedy available is a change of government which I hope will come soon.

C.N .R ,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor
The bill does not deal with this cause nor does it deal with the remaining four contributory clauses, which time does not permit my reading to the house. This legislation merely touches the fringe of this gigantic railway problem. In so far as it attempts to eliminate cut-throat competition and extravagant expenditures I am in agreement, and so is every hon. member of this house, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it was not only our railroads that went through this mad dance of uncontrolled and jungle competition. What about our industries? Some of them ruined themselves by unrestrained competition and over-expansion. What about our own individual selves? Have we not been competing one with the other for more and more material wealth and a more luxurious existence? It was only the trend of the hectic prosperity which prevailed from 1928 to 1930. Those who were in charge of the management of the operation of our railroads were only human beings; they followed the trend of the times and were guilty of making some intoxicating expenditures. But the blame cannot be attached to our national system alone; the privately owned company was just as guilty of reckless expenditures in connection with hotels, steamers, resorts, and so forth. Let us not be too critical and condemn the whole national system because of these expenditures.
I have carefully examined the provisions of Bill A, and in all sincerity I want to register fourteen main objections to it. Some of these may involve merely matters of detail, but others are fundamental, going to the very root of this legislation, and these, in my humble opinion, after an analysis of the bill, are objections which absolutely destroy any benefits which this measure might afford in [DOT] the solution of these problems.
First, the appointment of the first three trustees ought to be made from a panel to be provided by a nominating board instead of the appointment being made by the governor in council.
Second, all three trustees and not the chairman alone should devote their whole time to the performance of the duties of their office, and not be interested in any other companies.
Third, I believe there should be five trustees instead of three, but in any event one of them should be a representative of labour.
Fourth, the chairman of the board of trustees is given too much power under section 11. The provision that a majority vote be ineffective unless consented to by the chairman should be eliminated. The decision of a majority of the board should prevail.

Fifth, there should be some provision prohibiting the trustees from issuing their own bonds. The government should look after this.
Sixth, the chief operating officer should be designated as manager rather than as president of the road.
Seventh, the seven year term as provided in section 6 perpetuates the trustees appointed by the government.
Eighth, removal from office or reduction in salary except by address of both houses should be eliminated.
Ninth, subsection 2 of section 14 as to routing of export freight'through Canadian seaports is unnecessary and an unwarranted interference with the performance of the duties of the trustees and the internal management of the road.
Tenth, a section in the bill as originally submitted to the upper house provided that there should be no amalgamation. This section ought to be restored, but it alone is not sufficient. It should be strengthened. If this measure is going to pass, it should contain a definite and precise provision for the integrity of our national system of railroads under public ownership and control. There should be no ambiguity in the provisions of the measure in this respect.
Eleventh, section 16 is the most dangerous part of the legislation. It enables a one-man board to do everything, to amalgamate, to abandon lines, to lease lines, and this without the consent of parliament. Not only should the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Act be embodied in this measure, but it should be extended so as to provide that in addition to the governor in council the elected representatives of the people should approve before any amalgamation or any abandonment of lines takes place. After all, we must realize that settlements were made and new communities built up because of the construction of these branch lines, and surely before any of them are abandoned, the elected representatives of the people should have some say.
Twelfth, the creation of a tribunal as required in case of a disagreement should be enlarged so as to permit the public, the workmen or a municipality or any responsible body of citizens to initiate proceedings before the tribunal. As the measure stands now, only the railroads can initiate proceedings or cause the creation of the tribunal. It may happen that the railroads may have no need for a tribunal of this kind; they may agree to abandon a certain branch line or to the amalgamation of a certain service, the result

C.N.R,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McIntosh
being to the detriment and disadvantage of a community or a particular section of the country, and that community or that particular section is helpless to create a tribunal before which it can bring its grievances. This legislation, if it is to pass, should contain a provision enabling communities aggrieved or any responsible body of citizens such as a board of trade, to place their complaints before an arbitral tribunal.
Thirteenth, I am not so sure that it is in the interests of the public to have the chairman of the board of railway commissioners as chairman of all these tribunals as provided by the measure. He may be and undoubtedly is a man of ability, a man who has a great deal of experience, but if he is the chairman of all these tribunals he is going to be bound by precedent, by tradition, and I believe he will be unable to administer justice at all times. If any dispute arises which requires the creation of a tribunal there should be a different chairman in each case. Hearings of the tribunal should always be public except when some confidential information is required to be divulged.
Fourteenth, I certainly object to the entire dissociation from parliamentary control of the biggest business owned by the people of Canada, namely, our national railway system, and the vesting of it in the hands of a one-man board.
Time will not permit me to go into some of the other details of the bill. I want to conclude with these remarks: This legislation does not adequately meet the difficult problems facing our railways to-day. It may be a step in the right direction, but, as I pointed out before, it is taken at the sacrifice of the very principle, the foundation of public ownership, and time alone will prove the efficacy of the measure. The Canadian people are looking to this parliament to give them some relief in the way of lessening the burden of taxation under which they are being crushed. The people are carrying an unbearable load of federal, provincial and municipal taxation and they are looking to parliament to give them relief through drastic measures of economy in the government of our country and the administration of our railroads; but I say, full well realizing the tremendous burdens imposed by taxation and by the deficit of our national railway system, the people of Canada are willing, yes, ready to continue to carry this burden and will not consent to the dismemberment of this great national undertaking.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate for a short time in this debate, I do so because of a sense of duty to the riding that I represent in this chamber and also because of the sense of duty that I have to the great west, to Saskatchewan, the province from which I come, and, in the last analysis, to Canada which must always be an important factor in weighing pro and con one's vote in this house. I am taking part in this debate also because I am far from being enamoured of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific railway bill that has been introduced by the present government. In other words, the bill is not satisfactory to me.
Another reason why I am taking part in this debate is that I do not want this opportunity to pass without registering my protest against this measure originating in the Senate when it should have come in the first place before the people's representatives in this House of Commons. Lastly, I am speaking in this debate because I am satisfied that the more members who do so the wider will be the area of opposition to this legislation, which is covered pretty largely by a report from which I shall quote before I am through, but which report is prejudiced in more ways than one.
One of the conspicuous features of this debate up to the present time has been that so few members on the government side of the house have participated in it. I wonder why. I wonder if it is because they have no cause upon which to base a debate. I wonder if it is because they feel that this measure is satisfactory. I cannot conceive of any such notion on the part of any hon. member sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker.
The railways of this country have played a very important part in the opening up of western Canada. I "would ask hon. members just where Canada would be to-day if it were not for the two great railway systems, both of which have been a great asset and have helped greatly to open up the four western provinces. But for them we would have no Canada as we know it to-day. We would have only a part of this dominion. When we are discussing this question we must not forget the phenomenal development oa Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, most of which has taken place from the first days of the present century.
Up to 1880, of railway development in the west, there was very little. But from 1880 to 1885 the Canadian Pacific railway system was in the building and in 1901 and 1903 were laid the foundations of the other great trans-

C.N.R.-C.P.R* Bill-Mr. McIntosh
Canada systems-the Canadian Northern, the 'Grand Trunk and the National Transcontinental. They aided in the development of the great lone land known as "the west.
It would indeed be a great lone land to-day if it were not for these two great railway systems. We speak of that country as a land of magnificent distances, which in itself indicates that the distances are so great that without railways settlement would be almost impossible, and development would not come as it should. But the railways daringly penetrated into the areas north and south and east and west, and then this great lone land took on new life. This land of magnificent distances became easier to settle and build up, and in its building up, first the railways, and then the automobile, together with human effort, played a- conspicuous part and brought the west to what it is to-day.
Before proceeding may I say that I have not a word to say against the Canadian Pacific railway system, because from President Beatty and his staff right across Canada I have found, as a member of parliament, that those who are running that great railway have always been on the alert to do the best that was possible by the country. The treatment that was accorded me by that system has been in every way satisfactory. the Canadian Pacific Railway is wisely extending its branch line services throughout the prairie provinces. So far as the Canadian National railway system and its late lamented president, Sir Henry Thornton, is concerned, I received also from that system the very best of treatment. I found the late president the soul ot honour and efficiency and every member of his staff and every representative of the system always eager to do their part in a constructive and businesslike manner in the opening up ot backward yet productive sections in northern Saskatchewan. No politics so far as I could see ever actuated the late president or the officials of the National system in the parts of northwest Canada with which I am m-timately acquainted.
Dealing with North Battleford more particularly at the moment, may I say that it is served by a main line and also by many branch lines. The main line that passes through North Battleford was built during the early part of the present century, running from Winnipeg and Saskatoon to North Battleford, and on to Edmonton. That is the old Canadian Northern main line. Then branch lines were built to Prince Albert and northwestward to Edmonton. But until after 1925 that part of Saskatchewan was not served as it ought to have been served by the railways. If you took a poll to-day of
[Hr. McIntosh.]
the electors in that part of Saskatchewan I am sure that you would find very few of them opposed to the sound development policy that was carried on by the late president of the Canadian National railway system. So far as conditions at the present day are concerned, in the North Battleford federal riding we have some construction not completed, and it has remained uncompleted because of the "penny-wise and pound foolish " economies which are being effected by the present government. May I point out that every mile which remains uncompleted would pay if built and bring in revenue to the National system, and help to meet the interest on its capital structure. Why this government is not pursuing a policy of sound constructive effort in northern Saskatchewan in regard to branch lines I do not know. Surely when you build a grade of sixty-nine miles, and then leave the ties by the side of the grade rotting, and allow the grade itself to fall to pieces, surely that is not economy. It is not sound business; it is not fair treatment; and I am here to-day to echo my protest against the retrograde policy pursued by the Minister of Railways and his department and the government in tying the hands of the Canadian National railway system and depriving of railway facilities that great area of country where there is business to be had for the railways, and where branch lines ought to be constructed, and where every mile constructed would mean enhanced revenue for the national system.
Coming to the question of the Duff commission which inquired into the railway situation in this country, I notice that the number of commissioners was seven; one from the maritime provinces, one from Quebec, two from Ontario, one from the western provinces, one for the United States bondholders, and one for the United Kingdom bondholders. I do not know why we had to imperialize the commission by appointing a representative from Great Britain. That may be all right, and it may be all wrong. Nor do I know why we should Americanize the commission by appointing an American to tell us in Canada what to do about our own railways.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Canada first.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Yes, I would say that here was a place to carry out the Canada first principle, and have a full-fledged Canadian commission inquire into the Canadian railway situation and make a report. Instead of having two representatives from Ontario on the commission I would have had one. I would have had one from the three prairie provinces

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McIntosh
and one from British Columbia. Do not mistake me. I am not arguing simply for geographic structure; I am not arguing to have geographic areas represented, but I am arguing that Canada as a whole, the whole nation, should be represented. In this respect there was only one man from Winnipeg to the ocean-a distance of 2,000 miles. Who was that man? He was a university president-a very splendid man-but one who could not be expected to know much about railway matters or to pronounce wisely or constructively upon the problems to be dealt with in any far-reaching investigation into the transportation question.
More than that, there was no representative of labour on the commission, and no farmer representative. Why should not the commission have had a representative of the great agricultural industry of this country, the industry which in 1930 the Prime Minister was going to protect to a point of prosperity. Then, when he appointed the commission he had not enough thought for agriculture even to give it a representative, when an inquiry was being had into transportation matters of special significance to farming. He gives no representative to labour. What is he doing? By his words, by his actions, by his appointments he is simply crucifying farming, crucifying labour; that is all he is doing. He is keeping them from having a voice in the report of a commission which will have far reaching effects upon the transportation, agriculture and labour problems of Canada.
We are told that every great event has its roots sunk deep in the annals of the past. The report of this commission is an event; I would not say it is a great one. Every near great event has its roots sunk not so deep in the annals of the past, and every minor event has very few roots to sink into the past or anywhere else. May I say the report of this commission is therefore not a great event or a near great event, but rather a minor one. This document is only an average event-a poor average event at that. I shall endeavour to show why it is a very, very minor affair, and why all the statements contained in it should not be heralded far and wide as the last word in the investigation of Canadian railway problems. I shall deal now with some of the prejudiced presentations made by this commission. If I can show that the commission has made mistakes, has made presentations that are neither sound nor unprejudiced, then I for one, as a member of this House of Commons, will have very little faith in the report of such a commission.
Let us turn, for instance, to the nine-year statement of comparative earnings
shown at page 15 of this report. What do we find? When dealing with the Canadian National system we find included in that system all the lines in the United States and in Canada. In other words so far as the commission is concerned, we are looking at the Canadian National system from an international viewpoint. But what about the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are not looking at it from an international viewpoint, but from a strictly national viewpoint. In my estimation we have there the first prejudiced presentation of the commission. Comparisons made by it are not sound. It is comparing the Canadian Pacific Railway, a Canadian system, with the Canadian National Railways, a Canadian-American system. It compares a national system with an international system. When we think of comparisons our minds turn to the comparison of similar, not different things. In that respect I believe the prejudice of the commission is clear and plain.
Let me go further. On the same page we find figures showing the interest paid on securities in the hands of the public. The figure shown for the Canadian Pacific Railway is approximately $122,000,000 and for the Canadian National Railways $402,000,000 odd.


Mr. MANION:: I believe the hon. member is incorrect.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If we take the mileages
as about 23.000 for the Canadian National Railways and 16,000 for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and apply the average security per mile of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Canadian National Railway, what do we find? We do not find the figures I quoted, at all. We find a different set of figures. For the Canadian Pacific Railway we have the same figure, about $122,000,000, and for the Canadian National Railways $177,000,000. In other words, the first figures as given by the commission were three and a half to one; in the second place the figures turn out to be about one and a half to one. Therefore, when we compare the two figures we find that the first is about two and a third times out.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member
tell me. as a matter of information, what the $122,000,000 is?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Interest paid on securities in the hands of the public.


Robert James Manion: Of the Canadian Pacific
Railway?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It is about one-sixth of
that.

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


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Turn to page 15 of the report and you will find it is exactly what I said. That is another prejudiced presentation I find in the report of the commission.
Let me turn now to another. On the same page in the report we find an item dealing with rentals for rolling stock. In that connection the Canadian National Railways is debited with over $23,000,000, and the' Canadian Pacific Railway is credited with $15,000,000. In other words, the commission has drawn the attention of every reader of the report to the fact that there is a difference between one rolling stock rental and another rolling stock rental of approximately $38,000,000. What is the fact? The commission makes the statement that:
Whereas in 1922 the Canadian National had 12'7 per cent more passenger train cars than the Canadian Pacific, in 1931 it had 18'1 per cent more. In 1922 the Canadian National Railways had 34-4 per cent more freight cars than the Canadian Pacific and, in 1931, 40-9 per cent more. The average mileage operated (first main track) of the Canadian National system was 39-6 per cent greater than that of the Canadian Pacific. The ratio of freight car ownership of the Canadian National system is thus found to approximate closely the difference in the actual mileage operated by the two systems. Generally speaking, the Canadian National has been abundantly equipped.
Well, the Canadian National system is abundantly equipped now, but what about it in 1923, 1924 and 1925? In what condition was it up until the last year or two? The commission did what? Whether purposely or not, it failed to note that while in 1922 the Canadian Pacific cars were modern and up to date, those of the Canadian National system were old wooden boxes which had to be replaced, because other roads refused to accept them on their lines. That is another prejudiced presentation, and when I read it I naturally come to the conclusion I can have no confidence at all in the report.
But let me proceed; let us turn to capital expenditures as they are shown at page 19 of the report. We are told again that the Canadian Pacific system is confined to Canada while, as a matter of fact, it is not. The Canadian National system is again presented in an international light. What difference does it make? It makes a difference in the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways of at least $58,000,000 not mentioned by the commission at all. Then, if we take the figures at page 19, and divide the Canadian National Railways capital expenditures by the number of miles in the system, what do we get? We get about $19,000 per mile. If we take the capital expenditures of the Canadian Pacific Railway and divide them by the
EMr. Manion.]
number of miles in the system we get what? We get approximately $20,000 per mile. What does that mean? It means that from the standpoint of capital expenditures the Canadian National system did not spend as much as the Canadian Pacific system, although it appears to have excited the commission a great deal, and prompted it in the report to take a fling at the Canadian National system wherever possible.
Now let me take up another point. At page 52 of the report the commission said:
When considering the scale upon which branch line extensions and acquisitions, as well as hotel expenditures were made, and railway and steamship services duplicated, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the board of directors and the management of national railways were amenable to political influence and pressure, which it would have been in the public interest to have withstood.
This is a sweeping statement, and no doubt the commission thought it very eloquent, but what do we find? The investments of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific
are as follows:
Canadian
Branch line	National
construction.. .. $ 73,256,570 Branch line
acquisition	 18.780,309
Hotels	 31.828,234
Steamships	 7,201,117
Ocean steamships..		
Canadian Pacific $ 65,067,288
5,347.378
71,148.772
6.339.302
50.271,336
$131,066,230	$198,174,076
So after all the Canadian National did not spend money like water, as the government and its propagandists say : they did not throw money to the winds. They took cognizance of wise railway development and safeguarded every dollar of public money spent on branch lines and railway development. I would change that paragraph with regard1 to political influence and pressure to read thus:	"When
considering the scale upon which branch line extensions and acquisitions as well as hotel expenditures were made, and railway and steamship services duplicated, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the board of directors and the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway were amenable to influence and pressure it would have been in the public interest to have withstood."
I would balance the picture; my figures go to prove that if such a statement should have been made at all it ought to have been made with regard to the Canadian Pacific in the first place rather than the Canadian National.
That is the fifth prejudiced presentation I find in this report, and therefore you cannot wonder if I do not put much credence in it. I do not believe it was necessary to have a

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McIntosh
royal commission to investigate transportation in Canada; I think that investigation should have been carried on by the Minister of Railways and his department. I believe he could have saved a great deal of public money had he done so. The minister quoted Sir Henry Thornton and President Beatty as having put themselves on record in favour of a transportation commission, but I do not think their statements had very much effect on the policy of the government. I believe the government determined to appoint this commission, and I do not think they should try to protect themselves in any rearguard action by saying that the sentiments of the presidents of the two roads had anything to do with the creation of the commission at all. .
In his speech the minister said this was a cooperative bill. When I heard that I thought of that quotation from Shakespeare, which I might paraphrase as follows, "Methinks the Minister of Railways doth protest too much." This is not a cooperative bill at all; it is a coercive bill. Anyone who reads the bill must realize at once that it is compulsory from first to last, and that is why I am opposed to it. I thought the minister made a splendid speech; he discussed the transportation problem dispassionately, as I think it should be done. At the same time I think it is well that we should put ourselves on record for or against this measure, and so far as I am concerned I am against it. The minister went on to say:
There is, however, every expectation, particularly after the events of the last week, that we shall in the near future experience that revival in business which we confidently anticipate.
AVe are to have a revival in business because of the upheaval which occurred in the United States, according to the minister. I do not think we shall have any such revival as a result of some international event; I believe international action will have something to do with it, but I believe a business revival, like charity, should begin at home. So I think it would have been better if the minister had put himself on record as being opposed to the fiscal policy of his own party. Only if his party is driven out of power will we experience a national revival which, in common with an international revival, really will get us somewhere.
Then the minister went on to say that as a matter of fact it was not so much the wheat and grain traffic that was the paying traffic of the railways, as the fact that the people of the west were selling their products at a reasonable price and had the money with which to purchase goods from some other section of the country, thus providing return
traffic, and the total traffic brought about the prosperity of the railways. That is sound logic, but I do not think we are going to have any return traffic while the policies of this government are in operation. I believe we must have a different policy. We sell our wheat, our cattle, our pigs and so on for almost nothing, and we have no buying power which would mean full cars coming back from eastern Canada. Therefore I find it hard to believe that there will be any real revival of business until this government is driven out of office.


Mr. GOTT:: That will be a long time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: 
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Perhaps there has been no bill before the House of Commons at this or any other session which was of so much importance to the railways of Canada and to the people of the country as the bill which is now before us. This legislation will have far-reaching effects and I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches that have been made both in its defence, by members of the government, and in (opposition by members on this side. Needless to say, everyone in Canada who has a stake in the country is tremendously interested in the idea of making a success of public ownership. I doubt if there are many hon. members or many people in Canada who do not feel that the least that can be done is to give the best opportunity possible to the public ownership and administration of this great utility. That was the object which the recent government had in mind. I for one am going to confess that when I joined the government in 1922 I had some doubt whether a great commercial enterprise of this kind could be successfully managed and operated under government auspices, but after ten years' experience and despite the criticism made of the administration and operation of the line, it can be said that it has been quite as efficient as its privately owned competitor. I do not think anyone who has given careful consideration to the history of the Canadian National Railways for the last ten or twelve years will dispute that statement. I know there are hon. gentlemen in this house who hold the opinion that a privately owned system is much superior to a publicly owned system, but those who criticize the publicly owned system, and indeed some of those who criticize the privately owned system, should bear in mind that throughout all these years
3038	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
the people of Canada have enjoyed lower rates, both in passenger and freight traffic, than have our neighbours to the south upon their privately owned railways. That is something which we must not forget.


Mr. CANTLEY:: That is not universally true.


Charles A. Stewart: Almost universally true. My hon. friend should not complain.


Thomas Cantley: I do complain.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend's locality is enjoying a preference of twenty per cent over the rest of us.


Thomas Cantley: The rates are still fifty per cent higher than they were in 1912.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not speaking of the rates in effect in 1912; I am speaking of those which have been in effect for the past ten years and comparing them with the rates which have been in effect in the United States. We should not forget this fact when we are critical of expenditures made for whatever- purpose upon these lines.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). I agree with him in his plea that we should view this question dispassionately and, as far as humanly possible, not from a political standpoint. Personally, I propose to view it in that way. At times I resented some of the criticisms made of the administration of this railroad while it was under the control of the government of which I was a member, but I think it can be said that most hon. members of the house have tried to be fair in their criticism of this great national institution.
No one will deny, and the minister does not deny, that the situation with respect to our railways, both national and privately owned, is extremely critical. But we must not forget that the same thing can be said, with scarcely a single exception, of every other business in this country. We all know of industries which were thought to be stable and beyond question as to their financial standing but which now find themselves in difficulties. We must admit also that mistakes have been made in the management of our railroads, but we must remember that this management was human the same as the management of other institutions, not only in our country but in every other country of the world. These are days when our faith in our country and its commercial institutions is rather severely shaken.

Perhaps I may be pardoned for interjecting a little politics at this point. While the present government perhaps cannot be held responsible for the major difficulties of to-day, it can be held responsible for a considerable portion of the difficulties facing this institution which we are now discussing as well as other institutions in the country. The fact that barriers have been placed in the way of trade has contributed in no small degree to the difficulties of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. I cannot conceive of any individual engaged in the transportation business who would be in favour of trade restrictions to such an extent that they practically force the cessation of operations. I made a computation some time ago and found that we have spent something in the neighbourhood of over five billions of dollars upon our transportation system. By this I mean the steamships, [DOT] the necessary port facilities and everything needed for the transporting of goods in and out of the country. Nearly one-half of that huge amount has been expended with a view to the carrying on of international trade. When we erect barriers against that trade, is it any wonder we find ourselves in our present position? Is it any wonder we are seriously alarmed about our financial situation and particularly about the situation facing our transportation system?
I have no complaint to make as to some of the suggestions made by the minister, but I have a great many complaints in respect to the provisions of this bill. I agree with what many of my colleagues have said, that there is evidence in this bill from start to finish of the unloading upon or the delegating of responsibility to a board over which this government, this house or this parliament will have little or no control. I am entirely in favour of a reduction in the board of directors, b.ut I am sorry that the minister has interjected trustees in their place. I would be entirely in favour of a board of three directors, and I must disagree with many of my hon. friends on this side when they say that there should be sectional representation upon the board. If complaint could be made of any one thing it would be that in the past we attempted to give sectional representation and representation to labour and other crafts. All of this was unnecessary and in my belief led to some of the difficulties which were experienced in the administration. I am entirely in favour of a board of three directors. I refuse to call them trustees, and I shall have some opinions to offer later on with respect to this matter.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
I should like to state what I consider to be a few of the salien't facts with respect to this situation, and in doing so I shall not go back beyond 1920. Let me refer to the evidence given by Mr. Hungerford before the commission, because it meets entirely with my approval and because he says, but in a much better way, what I would wish to say. I shall not cite the statement which he made as to conditions prior to 1921, but this is what he says about the situation in that year as it affects the Canadian National Railways.
The situation which confronted the new management of the consolidated properties was an extremely difficult one and it had a great multitude of problems to solve. The Grand Trunk Pacific and The Canadian Northern were not entirely completed nor equipped for operation and the earlier constructed lines of the latter company were in a very poor physical condition; while the Grand Trunk and intercolonial were badly run down as a result of war pressure and financial limitations. All of these groups were very short of rolling stock and what was owned was generally in a poor condition of repair.	_
On practically all of the lines the condition with respect to ties, rails, ballast, bridges, buildings, and other features of like character was most unsatisfactory; terminal facilities required enlargement and rearrangement to permit of satisfactory and economical operation; the coordination of the various groups so as to operate as a single system involved the construction of numerous connecting lines and rearrangement of facilities. Altogether, the physical condition was such as to preclude giving even reasonably satisfactory service.
Beyond all this, the management was faced with the following combination of conditions: -
(a)	Property bankrupt by a very wide margin, i.e., capitalized far beyond its earning power.
(b)	Lowest average traffic density of any large system in North America.
(c)	Very low freight rates as compared with other countries.
And I am confident Mr. Hungerford was comparing it on that occasion with United States lines.
(d)	Necessity of spending large amounts of money to keep certain lines in condition to
operate at all.
(e)	The necessity of spending large amounts to place the property in reasonable and economical working condition.
(f)	The insistent demand of the public for the construction of branch lines, grade separations. stations and hotels, and for a higher standard of service generally.
That was the condition of these lines in 1921. It was well said by both the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) who, speaking of this question, went more into detail with respect to these matters, that fair value-and I shall perhaps except one or two items-was obtained for the expenditure of the money that went into
the lines. In 1930, when our government went out of office, we felt that the lines were in such a position that in at least one or two years they would be taking care of the interest charges due to the public. I well remember, and I beard with a good deal of satisfaction, the statement of Sir Henry Thornton on that occasion and indeed the observation of the present Minister of Railways after he took office, that so successful was this institution that within a period of three years it would be in a position to pay its way. I know that difficulties arose and I repeat that while the government of the day were not responsible for all of them, they must be prepared to assume a fair share of responsibility for some of the difficulties in which the railroads now find themselves. Hon. gentlemen opposite, rightly or wrongly, felt they were going to improve not only the railways but commerce generally by the policies which they said they would put into effect if returned to office. In that regard they kept their word; they did put their policies into effect, with disastrous results. I sincerely trust that when the budget is brought down next week they will remove some of these obstacles to trade and give some assistance in rehabilitating the railways.
Speaking of 1930, one must not forget the added burden that was thrown upon the management of our railways by the employees who were kept on and who were really not required in the service. All credit is due to the government for keeping them on, but this caused an addition to the burden of railway administration. It is true that these men had to be employed somewhere and the government did their part in providing employment or retaining them in employment when their services were really not required, but to that extent they made the position of the railways just that much more difficult.
I want to deal now for a moment or two with what Mr. Hungerford suggested and which in my opinion should be the main features of the bill. I am leaving out his evidence and simply stating what I believe was sane and reasonable advice to the commission in assisting them to bring in a report that would be satisfactory and would lead to some solution of the difficulty. Let me at this point say that I do not wish to confuse any evidence that might be given by Mr. Hungerford with my own deductions with respect to some of the difficulties under which the railways are operating. This is his suggestion :
Having regard to all the circumstances I believe the best ultimate results will follow the adoption of the following policies:-
3040	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
(1)	Maintain present status and organization of the two railways.
(2)	Cooperation between the two companies as far as feasible subject to the condition that in any case, neither company shall suffer loss, and that one or the other, or both, shall secure substantial advantage.
(3)	Continue the present policy of effecting every practicable economy in operation.
(4)	Take all reasonable measures to combat highway competition.
(5)	Restrict capital expenditures to:
(a)	Items necessary for safety of operation.
(b)	Items ordered by competent authority or obligation assumed by agreement.
(c)	Items which will undoubtedly earn a full return on investment.
In view of past experience and future prospects as I see them, I believe that these measures will best meet the circumstances, particularly as there are certain encouraging features in the Canadian National Railways situation as follows:-
And I think this is absolutely true.
(1)	During the period under review, operating expenses have been increased much above normal by rehabilitation work and this may now be regarded as fairly complete.
The minister took considerable credit for the reduction in operating expenses effected during the last year or so.


Robert James Manion: I did not take any credit personally.


Charles A. Stewart: I am merely citing what my hon. friend said. If he would prefer to give the credit to the officials of the company I am quite content. The above mentioned statement confirms the reason it was possible to put into effect many of these savings. I am not going to enter into that because, as I said before, former speakers have covered the ground fairly thoroughly. But I want to reiterate that the money expended upon these lines, resulting in the position in which they found themselves in 1930, renders it much easier to-day to effect economies than otherwise would have been the case. He continues:
(2)	Capital expenditures in the future will be on a much reduced scale as the general improvement of the lines has been largely completed and no considerable new mileage is likely to be constructed.


Robert James Manion: What is the date of that, please?


Charles A. Stewart: That was the evidence given before the royal commission. Quoting further from Mr. Hungerford's evidence :
The railway is now operating in every way on a more economical basis and with a return to a more nearly normal trend of earnings it will undoubtedly earn the interest upon securities in the hands of the public and something besides.

I read that into Hansard because I for one implicitly believe that that statement is true. I believe that with reasonable economy and efficient management there is no doubt at all that the line will do as was suggested by Mr. Hungerford in giving his evidence. Despite the fact that the horizon looks very dark at the moment, I do not think it does very much good to be talking about it, I believe that we should if at all possible cooperate in measures which will bring about a return of prosperity. Cooperation may not be possible because we seem to be so widely divided upon perhaps the most important question that we have to discuss in this house. I have cited the evidence given by Mr. Hungerford because he is a man of very wide experience, with thirty-five years spent in railway operation, and he states that in his opinion the future is not so dark as it is depicted by some of our friends who are critical of the railway itself.
Coming to the bill itself, I have stated that I am entirely in favour of a board of three directors. With such a board I believe that a lot of sectional influence can be eliminated and perhaps we can get away from certain expenditures which have been incurred in the past because of sectional influence, not political but sectional, which was brought to bear upon the administration.
I am also in favour of giving the board wide powers, and in favour also of the board having control over every vestige of administration. But I might state here the reason why I differ from the statement of the Prime Minister. I do not for a moment pose as one with the wide knowledge he may have with respect to law, but when he stated in the House of Commons the other day that it was not the people of Canada but the bondholders who owned the road and were in control of the system, I think that his statement was very wide of the mark. If you, Mr. Speaker, or I were a bondholder and we were not receiving our interest, I wonder against whom we would take recourse in respect to the interest on a government-guaranteed bond, whether it would be against the property itself, or against the government which was behind that guarantee. I merely suggest that in passing because I am not going to take time now to enter into an argument as to the correctness of the statement of the Prime Minister. I assume, Mr. Speaker, that the peiople of Canada do own this enterprise, and that they are responsible as regards the bonds of nearly every private bondholder who has invested his money in this enterprise, and the people of Canada will have to see this enterprise through.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I object to the name "board of trustees," because it has all the semblance of a board placed in charge of an institution in bankruptcy, and I do not believe that this line is in bankruptcy. Despite the fact that our friends opposite are placing this country in a very hazardous position by pursuing their policies, I do not believe that Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy either. I believe that the people of Canada, as in the past, will come through their present difficulties.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Under a Liberal government.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) says, under a Liberal government. I will qualify my statement to this extent, that if this government remains in office it will have to change its policies to bring the country through its present difficulties.
Again I reiterate that I am entirely in favour of a board of three directors for the reasons that I have given, and to that extent I will support the bill. But when we are conferring such exceedingly wide powers upon the board of trustees it does seem to me, despite the promise of the Prime Minister to reinsert in the bill the provision against amalgamation, that we are not sufficiently safeguarded against the disposal of the assets of the property, and when the proper time comes, in committee of the whole on the bill, I propose to move an amendment providing that the board shall not in any way dispose of the properties comprising the system without the consent of the governor in council. Despite a provision against amalgamation, which the Prime Minister promises will be reinserted in the bill, it does seem to me that under the provisions of the bill as it stands, the board can proceed to divest itself of the property. Then, in another part of the act, further powers which are very wide indeed are conferred upon the board with respect to the arbitral tribunals. In a sentence, Mr. Speaker, what I object to in this legislation is that it places in the hands of this board powers that they should not have. I repeat that I am prepared to give them every power to deal with the administration of the line and the operation of the road without let or hindrance, and they can spend the revenues that are derived from the operation of the road, as was the privilege of the old board; but to say that the board can lease or otherwise dispose of the properties of the company without the consent of the governor in council seems to me to be going much too far in the way of handing over authority to the board.
Then as regards their appointment, what in the world is the necessity for all the provisions embodied in the bill in that respect? It seems to me that the system now in vogue under which the responsibility is placed upon the government itself and the governor in council, for the appointment of members of the board, should remain. I do not know what on earth is the necessity for the enactment that reduces the responsibility of the governor in council for these appointments. I am not going to quibble over the term of office, whether it should be five or seven years, but I do say that with respect to the appointment of this board of trustees, and with respect also to the disposal of the property in any way, both these matters should be in the hands of and under the control of the governor in council.
Mr. MANIOiN:	Some of the strongest
protests against it being in the hands of the government came from my hon. friend's friends in their speeches in this house. Quite a number of them took the attitude that the appointments should not be in the hands of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
already said that I did not subscribe to all that has been said on this side of the house. I am voicing my own objections, as I am free to do.


Robert James Manion: You could not subscribe to all that has been said on that side because it was too contradictory.
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton):	Possibly,
but I am not going to enter into that. As I said, I am opposed to this board being designated a board of trustees, which is an indication that the property is in bankruptcy, and I maintain, rightly or wrongly, that that state of affairs cannot possibly exist. Secondly, while I would give the board the freest hand with respect to the operation of the road, I do think that they should be restrained from making any disposal of the property, or closing any lines, or doing anything else except with the consent of the governor in council.
There are one or two other objections which I have to register against the bill. I have said that I do not object to the term proposed, which is seven years, although personally I think five years would be better, but the process that is provided in the bill by which a director or trustee, as he is designated, can be removed only upon address by the House of Commons and the Senate seems to me a most cumbersome process. I do not think it is right. If parliament has control over the expenditures of money, and if the Senate
3042	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
has no right to interfere, why interject the Senate into the measure now before us? I am for direct responsibility, and I put that responsibility upon the Minister of Railways and upon the government. They are responsible to the people of Canada, and any evasion of their responsibility will but serve to lead us into future trouble. Under section 12 we have control over capital expenditures, and whether we like it or not we are forced willy-nilly annually to vote deficits. The minister has no control whatever.
Right here let me interject that I believe the elimination of the Minister of Railways from control under this bill is a great mistake. I believe the national railways are big enough and important enough to the people and government of Canada to merit the supervision of the Minister of Railways, a man who will have at least some control and be responsible to parliament for matters in connection with administration. If there is to be a semblance at all of public ownership in operation, the minister must have some say. And the provision for the removal of the trustees in the manner indicated in the bill I entirely disapprove and it is my intention to oppose it. Moreover, I believe we would have a much greater control over the trustees or directors if they were appointed and paid by order in council.


Robert James Manion: They have always been
paid by the railways.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite so.
I admit at once that that is true. Then, I take exception to the fact that the measure before us makes a bit of a czar out of the chairman. I believe on all occasions a majority vote should prevail; but in the present measure the chairman is given powers almost equivalent to those of a czar; he has practically unlimited control. Under the provisions of the bill about all the trustees are asked to do is to report annually to parliament, and present a budget. If there are deficits we wall be forced to vote them, the only alternative being the privilege of refusing to vote them. That is the position in which we will find ourselves if the provisions in the bill are accepted.
I now turn to the arbitral board. At once I agree that if there is to be cooperation, if savings are to be effected in the two great railway systems, some method will have to be provided of assisting them. Undoubtedly, at times, they will disagree. As I understand the provisions of the bill, either one railway or the other will make application for a hearing. But, as the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners is to exercise most control in
[Mr. C. A. Stewart. 1
the arbitral board to be set up, and as in Canada we have had dealing with railway matters a trained body of men who, I believe, know their work fairly well and are thoroughly familiar with most aspects of railway operation, I can see no reason why those men should be forgotten upon this occasion and another board set up and given power, if necessity arises, to supersede an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The chairman of the arbitral board will have that privilege, under the provisions of the bill. I can see no reason for such a provision. If armed with sufficient power, I do not see why the Board of Railway Commissioners could not perform all the duties delegated to the arbitral board to be set up under this measure. For these reasons I am opposed to the measure.
Personally I believe there are many commendable features in the bill; many of its provisions represent steps in the right direction. I do, however, and shall in committee, oppose most vigorously and to the utmost of my power the provisions of the bill to which I have referred, and which do not, in my view, appear to be in the interests either of the Canadian people or of the railways themselves. Despite all that has been said in and out of this House of Commons, the national railways have given as good an account of themselves as has the system operated under private control. I do not believe it is even contemplated by any hon. member, but I say it would be the height of folly at this time, to turn over the national railways to private control or to an amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Any government which would attempt to take such a course would meet a speedy end when it appealed to the public. The public believe that the national railways have been of immense value to Canada and, if properly managed, I believe will continue to be a valuable asset.
I do not share the gloomy views expressed by some hon. members to the effect that this and other institutions are not going to continue to function. I believe the national railways will in the future continue to serve as faithfully as they have in the past. I say, further, that I question very much whether the rates prevailing for passenger and freight traffic would have remained in effect had it not been for the nationally owned system. There would have been a tremendous urge for an increase in rates. Further, had the national railways and the Canadian Pacific enjoyed increased rates during the last ten or twelve years they would not find themselves in their present unfortunate position. I repeat that low rates, coupled with the trade policies put into

C.N R ,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Denis
operation in 1930, have had very far-reaching effects upon the financial position of our railways. Unless these policies are changed, unless they are revised, unless there is a revival of trade, we will face a difficult situation in the future.
Many things of a domestic nature may be done to relieve the situation. Hon. members have mentioned the competition of trucks and other vehicles which has had a detrimental effect upon the railways. However, this type of evolution will continue; Canada cannot get along without her railways. At the present time I do not know of one branch line in western Canada which could be scrapped. It is all very well for a commission to sit down and say, "We will tear up the ties and rails upon this particular line." They must remember, however, that towns have been established along those tracks, communities have been growing up which the railways will have to serve. May I predict that if hon. gentlemen opposite will change their policy, if they will adopt a more moderate policy with respect to trade, if they will get off the backs of industry and the railways of Canada, there will be a change which will be immediately perceptible and we will not be worried as we are to-day about our railways.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: I shall only add a few words to this debate on a bill which aims at improving the management of our railways. The discussion seems to clearly prove that this measure submitted to the house by the government, far from improving the situation, conceals a set purpose whidh the government fears to reveal and prepares the way to the merger of the Canadian National with the Canadian Pacific. The government intends to carry on its work by destroying our national economy. Not satisfied of having ruined our trade through its high tariff policy, it has decided by this disastrous and deceitful measure to confide the management of our national railway system to a committee of three trustees invested with exclusive powers, bearing no responsibility and whose chairman would rule as a master. He would become the dictator of our railways-a dictator fashioned in the school of the leader of the government.
The rights of parliament, the responsibility of the people's representatives and the interests of the country would thus be sacrificed.
A superman is sought to manage our railways. Where shall we find him? No doubt, in the ranks of the Conservative party, he will, however, be clothed with the mantle of political independence, although he may have been a defeated candidate at the last election.
He will probably be a lawyer in order to interpret the act as he pleases. As you may imagine he will be a superman like Bennett, who, when speaking in the house, gave a false meaning to the words and acts of our great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, in his grave, still makes the present leader of the government dhiver with fear, who is small when compared with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but appears taller when beheld from bended knees, as his followers opposite do. I wondered, after perusing this report, whether the Duff commission threw new light on the management of our railways. Its members were certainly men of high standing, the chairman, a legal light in his day, now a judge, however, with no knowledge of railway matters, the other members were as highly qualified. No wonder that the report limited itself to writing the history of our railways and copying balance sheets, financial statements, etc., of our two Canadian railways. This commission has taught us nothing, excess mileage, too much competition between the two roads, not enough cooperation and economy. It appears that since the government has assumed power-I take the word of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion)-thrift has been, to a certain extent, practised by the management of the national railways; why then make a change? The only aim the government has in view, by making this change, is to appoint a superman to carry out the high orders of the administration and sacrifice our national railways and interests in _ order to benefit the Canadian Pacific which should bear its share of responsibility in the present plight of our railways.
There is not a word in the Duff commission of what should have really been recommended: reduction in salaries, suppression of useless positions and private cars for those who occupy these positions; reasonable railway rates, so as to improve business and not divert it to road transport, such as motortrucks and autobus. At first, our railways imposed on the people and neglected to give an efficient service; to-day, conditions have changed. The government wishes, at the country's expense, to give us a better service, but our trade is threatened, owing to the policy adopted by the Conservative party and we have no freight to transport. However, we must not entirely bla/me our railways. Closely linked with our national economy, they are not only necessary but indispensable. We must foster their activities so that they may play their part in the economic life of this country.
We have two railway systems, one controlled by the state, the other managed by a

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

private concern. In this present crisis, sir, notwithstanding the critical situation in which are our two railways, it is the duty of the government to keep our National Railways separate. The government decided, so as to implement the Duff commission's recommendations, to bring down in the house a measure by which it hopes to improve the management of our railways. By this bill the government substitutes to the board of directors, composed of seventeen members, a board composed of three trustees, and decree that the chairman is to have, no doubt, with the co-operation of the other two trustees, absolute control of the railway management. What can be the result of such a reduction in the number of the board of directors and whence does the necessity arise? I, for one, sir, agree with the government when it restricts the number of directors. The past and present directors have been charged with unfairness-political interference, private interests and negligence-in the discharge of the duties assigned to them in connection with the management of our railways. These charges are, to some extent, substantiated. We must have in the management of our railways men who are above suspicion, possessing, to a high degree, public spirit-


Mr. LAELECHE (Translation):: 103 degrees?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: And having no other aim than the general welfare of the country.
The discussion on this bill should, to my mind, bear on the general welfare rather than on local interests. We must help our railways to give the best results. One class of people or a section of the country must not be favoured to the detriment of the other. It is service we require and not favouritism. The management of our railways must be made to understand that their part is to serve the public in the interest of the country, as a whole.
Unfortunately, I fear that in the appointment of these trustees, the government will show partiality towards their friends, and I am convinced that they will blunder as they did in the appointment of the radio commissioners. These appointments should go to men outside of party politics; however, we are quite aware that when the government appointed Mr. Maher as commissioner, it was appointing the defeated candidate in the constituency of our good friend the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain).


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear! Thanks!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: We trust, that in the present case, the government will not make the same mistake. I could mention other cases, such, for instance as the appointment of the tariff commissioners: I refer to the appointment of an ex-member Mr. Campbell, who always sided, with the government. Perhaps he also helped in the campaign funds, which are supposed to be furnished by the leader of the government. This appointment was certainly not an impartial one, but was intended to safeguard the government's interests.
As I pointed out a moment ago, the only improvement which can be derived from this bill will come from the decrease in the number of the directors of our railways. On the other hand, the powers granted to these trustees are too broad, and exclusive; these powers entirely supersede the responsibility of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. I think the hon. minister must retain this responsibility and keep under his immediate authority this commission in order to be able to give a full account of it to the house and thereby be approved or censored.
It is time, sir, that governments, and more so this government should not divest themselves of the responsibilities inherent to selfgovernment. The time has come to vindicate the rights of governments and parliament, the people demand it and wish to judge, finally, of the acts of their legislators, with full knowledge of the facts. That is why, sir, I disapprove of granting such wide powers to this board of trustees, because, in so doing, the hon. Minister of Railways divests himself of his responsibility and duties in favour of a so-called superman who, with his associates, will assume all responsibilities.
Part II of the bill refers to the cooperation which should exist between our two railways. It should have existed long ago. If there are people responsible for such conditions, they are here in the house. All governments, past and present, must shoulder their share of this responsibility. Railways applied to us for branch lines and built them with the approval of the majority of this house. To-day, by this bill, the cooperation of our two railways is sought. But why not also include the co-operation of the government. I think that such co-operation would be necessary for the success of the present management. On the other hand, can the government in all fairness force the Canadian Pacific Railway, a private concern, to co-operate with the management of the Canadian National, fully knowing that this cooperation is not in the interest of its share-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Jean
holders? Such co-operation should be left to the discretion of the Canadian Pacific Railway itself, and not forced upon it. I am quite certain that the latter, both in the interest and development of this country, would deem it a duty to co-operate as experience has taught us that unrestricted competition brings disastrous results.
I think, sir, with reference to Part III, which deals with the arbitral tribunal, that the government could dispense with this board by granting broader powers to the railway commission, of which the Minister of Railways might form part.
I shall now close my remarks by stating that I, for one, do not agree with the spirit of this measure, and I shall strenuously oppose it, because it does not, in any way, improve the present act with reference to the management of our national railways.
This seems to be the first important bill submitted to the house this session, however, when examined from all angles, one finds that the situation remains unchanged. This reminds me of the various measures which have been enacted to relieve unemployment. At the special session of 1930, when the present crisis started, we had in this country about MO,000 unemployed. In haste, parliament was summoned and $20,000,000 were voted to relieve these unfortunate people. In 1983, when there are in this country over 1,300,000 unemployed, the government still requests $20,000,000. That is called solving the unemployment problem. $20,000,000 when we had only MO,000 unemployed, and again $20,000,000 to relieve 1,300,000 unemployed! That is the government's rational way of dealing with the problem; it is the interest taken by this government to solve our national questions! I wonder why this administration, finding itself helpless to fulfil its duty and pledges of 1930, still clings to power, although they know that they cannot face the situation.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: All the measures enacted by this house, since 1930, are tainted with this spirit, and as I think it will react unfavourably on the welfare of this country, I shall vote against the second reading of the bill.


Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, until the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) spoke on this debate, I held entirely different views on the nature and purport of this bill. I was under the impression, as the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) had sought to convey 53719-193i
when he introduced this measure, that it was merely a question of making the management of our railways more efficient and economic, or rather, the management of what we thought were our railways. As a policy, we could but laud such endeavours on the part of our government and we would have co-operated, because I think it would have been our duty to facilitate the enactment of all government measures which would improve the situation, help the administration to solve the deficits of our railways, while, on the other hand, maintaining the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway as suggested by the royal commission's report.
No doubt, we would have reserved the right to discuss certain details, as, for instance, the appointment of the management and trustees, their term of office, qualifications, number, etc. However, as a policy, I repeat it, if the bill had been such as represented to us at the outset, we would probably have approved of it.
However, the right hon. Prime Minister thought proper to give certain details which entirely gave a new aspect to the whole question relating to our railways, and which have, therefore, greatly altered my views.
The speech delivered, on Thursday last by the right hon. Prime Minister, has given rise to a great uneasiness among the public and has considerably added to the anxiety of the hour. We gather from his remarks that the railway problem that we are, at present, facing is most serious, that Canada's whole credit is involved in the solution of this problem and, according to his own words, confided to Hansard, page 2861:
Our effort must be to save not the road alone but, as I said, because of the guarantees that have been given, the credit of the guarantors themselves.
And, in this instance, the guarantors are the Canadian government.
On the other hand, the government in introducing this bill and by the explanations given of its provisions, recognizes implicitly, as stated just now by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), its absolute powerlessness to solve the problem and its total incompetency.
The problem of our railways is a serious one, that is certain. It matters very little, for the moment, who is responsible for this situation. All our railways were built just as much by our federal and provincial governments and their guarantors as by private enterprise, at a time when optimism reigned and the people of Canada had an unshakable faith in the future of the country.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Jean
The railways, in most cases, preceded the development of the country and gave it its first impulse. Without our railways Canada would never have attained the position which it occupies among the leading trade nations of the world. Unfortunately, uncontrollable events happened; war and the present economic depression have spoiled our plans and created new difficulties.
It is certain that, at -the start, our railways could not possibly be paying enterprises, however, with the expansion of the country following in the wake of its development which was destined to instil new economic life into the country as a whole, our railways were to meet by degree the cost of operations and reimburse, at least partly, the capital invested in its construction.
This continuous progress of our railways with the development of the country greatly benefited the Canadian Pacific, and its effects had already begun to be felt by our national railways. It is only necessary to compare the balance sheets of the two systems to be convinced of this fact. From 1923 to 1931, when the country was well administered by the Prime Minister of that period, now the leader of the opposition, and when it had reached a high degree of prosperity, the Canadian Pacific Railway distributed to its shareholders the 'handsome amount of $312,879,978 in dividends, while the Canadian National, during that period, was turning the operating deficits of its earlier days, into a surplus of $281,211,847.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Never, it has never had any surplus in its whole career.


Joseph Jean: The hon. member has but to consult the report of the Duff commission, at page 15, and in reading it carefully, he will discover that the figures I have just given are correct.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Are they
absolutely correct?


Joseph-Arthur Denis: If you contend that they are not, it is because you cannot read.


Joseph Jean: Now that this
trend towards progress has stopped, for the moment, the government instead of being inspired by the perseverance and hopes of its predecessors, preaches defeatism, spreads dis-pondency and endeavours to elude its responsibilities.
The question of the hour is one of faith in the future of our country.
Are we to take for granted that Canada has ceased to develop and forsaken all hopes which it had for its future, or are we to
.
believe, once the economic crisis has passed, our country will take its flight towards the progress and realization of its legitimate ambition?
In the first instance, we can do no better than be guided by the leader of the government and declare our railways bankrupt as they are no longer of any use1-
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Shame! shame!


Joseph Jean: -and will no further be needed for the future development of our country; curtail their services; decrease their output; abandon those lines which do not pay their way and retain only those strictly requisite for the needs of the public. I contend, sir, that this is where the present measure will lead us. That is what we clearly gather from the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister, the other day, when he stated in the house, that our railways are no more the property of those who built them or of those who purchased them, but have passed into the hands of the bondholders and must be put in the hands of receivers pending the winding up of their business or reorganization, as the creditors may decide.
By the way, I wonder, sir, whether this statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister, that our railways are now the property of bondholders, has any connection with the law-suit brought against the government of Canada, the Canadian National and the Grand Trunk, last year, by a group of English bondholders who wished either to be reimbursed or take possession of the company's railway system. If such be the case, the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister and the appointment of receivers or rather, to use his own words, of trustees with the powers of a receiver as provided by the act, would indicate his determination to liquidate our national railways and, thereby, threaten the future of Canada.
If, on the contrary, we still have faith in the future expansion of Canada, and I think that every Canadian citizen has a right to hope that our country, with its natural resources, undeveloped regions and its high-minded population, may yet forge ahead. Therefore, if we still have faith in the development of the country, the bill submitted to us does not meet our present requirements. It is not any receivership, even temporary, which will help our railways to weather the crisis, but, rather, a controlled and efficient management, a well planned and economic operation of our present railway systems.
Aou cannot suppress part of our railways without threatening the life of this country.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Howden
What we require in Canada, to-day, is not so much a policy of economy and retrenchment which will lead us to bankruptcy, but a policy of putting to good use the assets we possess. The Canadian railways are an asset to the country, but this asset can only produce inasmuch as the country develops in conjunction with the railways, and with equal strides.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph Jean: By the bill submitted to our consideration, if we are to put faith in the explanations given to us, there is no mention of facing and providing for the future of our railways or country, but simply of delaying the disaster, that is why, sir, I cannot support this measure.
If it is a fact that the credit of the whole country is threatened by reason of the guarantees given to the railways, and that its fate is closely linked with the future of our railways, we can foresee, at present, where the present administration will lead us. The way this problem is handled shows on the part of the government a delusive incompetency. For a government which was to bring complete relief and settle all questions on its assuming power, it is rather sad to note the means to which it resorts. To refer vital questions such as this one to a commission of so called experts, of whom two only had some experience in railway matters, however, strangers to this country, and to accept blindly the conclusions of this commission; I state, sir, any one could have done as much. This, again, clearly shows that the government in office is powerless to cope with the situation and their implicit acknowledgment of this fact is bound to depress our people. I shall not enter into the details of this measure. All those who preceded me in this debate, at least, on this side of the house, have clearly pointed out its defects. However, may I, in closing my remarks, state that this measure does not fulfil public expectations.
The public is, to say the least, as interested in the future of our railways as are the British, United States, or other bondholders, whose bonds are guaranteed by the government. This measure is introduced simply to safeguard the interests of the bondholders according to the statement made by the Prime Minister himself.
The railway employees, who also contribute largely to the good management of our railways, should at least, in my opinion, have a representative in the new proposed management.
The Canadian Pacific Railway, which has managed its own lines heretofore, should not,
in my opinion, be forced to cooperate to its own detriment. If unrestricted competition, has sometimes created abuses, enforced cooperation may lead to the ruin of both railways.
These are some of the things which bring out the defects of the bill and force us to vote against it. Let the government bring down a truly constructive measure based upon the maintenance of the integral identity of our railway systems as well as their services, although keeping in mind the relations which exists between the development of the country and that of the railways, we shall be but too pleased to support such a measure. However, the bill before the house does not fulfil these conditions, therefore, for my part, I deem it a duty to oppose its second reading.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I do not really rise to make a speech. At this late stage of the debate the ground has been well covered and there is not much satisfaction or interest in reiterating the remarks of others, but I have had an insistent prompting during the last day or two that the part of the country which I represent will expect me to go on record in connection with this vitally important matter. I have risen therefore to state my position with reference to this bill.
We are told that we have a railway problem in Canada to-day. As a matter of fact we have had a railway problem in this country, with the exception of the short period from 1922 to about 1930, ever since I can remember, and that is quite a long time. It is certain, however, that the railway problem that has presented itself to the Canadian people in the last three or four years has. assumed rather serious proportions. The late? management of the Canadian National Railways is very largely blamed for the condition of that road to-day. There can be no gainsaying the fact that in tihe fulness of prosperity and success which this country enjoyed between 1922 and 1930 the management of the Canadian National Railways probably provided for that system with a lavish hand. They found these railways in poor condition, seriously handicapped. The late Sir Henry Thornton was asked to combine the railways into a national road to compete with perhaps the best railway on the American continent, namely, the Canadian Pacific Railway; and if in doing so he found some success and sought to outdo his opponent, who in turn sought not to be outdone, and if in this way the Canadian railways indulged in unnecessary expenditures and extravagance, it is not to be wondered at, and

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Howden
there should not be a great deal of blame attached thereto.
I am quite prepared to admit that the railway problem in Canada to-day was caused to some extent by the vying of these two railways, in a period of prosperity and advancement, to outdo each other and that the late management of the Canadian National Railways is not entirely blameless. But I would suggest also that to a great extent the railway problem in this country has been caused latterly by a lack of haulage, a lack of business; and so far as that lack of business is concerned the government we have in this country at the present time is not blameless, for to a considerable extent the policies initiated by that government were responsible therefor.


Mr. HACKETT:: What about Great Britain and the United States?


John Power Howden: We are talking about Canada just now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Canada first policy was good in 1930 only.


John Power Howden: It has been the policy of this government during the last number of years to declare for government ownership and control of the national railways. The Liberal government, not only by what was said in the house but by what was said on the hustings made clear its position in connection with the government railways. In appealing to the country during the last federal campaign, the Conservative party went in strong for government ownership and government control. During that campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was quoted as having sa.id at Winnipeg: Amalgamation never, competition ever. In the bill now before us many of us on this side of the house are inclined to believe that the Prime Minister is hedging just a little on that former position which he took. During the course of the debate the other day the Prime Minister said "hear, hear" to a remark of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) which suggested that probably the government would not view with alarm the private ownership of this railway.
step in that direction. The bill seeks to place the management of the Canadian National Railways in the hands of three trustees who are to take the place of the old board of seventeen directors. I cannot understand why the bill does not name only one trustee because it states quite plainly that the majority of the three trustees shall prevail only if the chairman is voting with the majority. The entire management of the railways is to be placed in the hands of one man and, as has been stated in the house on a number of occasions, this man is to be given the absolute say in the control. No action taken by this board of trustees can be questioned by order in council, by the government or, indeed, by the crown. The chairman of this board will be an all-powerful czar in connection with the Canadian National Railways. Not only is this so, but the board is to be elected and have the power of perpetuating itself in office for all time. It looks to me as though the government was relaxing entirely from the control of the Canadian National Railways; they are putting the control into the hands of this board of trustees which can take any action it likes in connection with the national railway. This board can abandon lines, it can lease lines and, as far as one can see, it can enter into amalgamation with the other road. It is to this portion of the bill that we on this side of the house are diametrically opposed.
I have no desire to make a lengthy speech on this matter but as I represent a riding in which are many railroads, I believe the people expect a statement of some kind from me. I have accordingly risen at this late time to state that I am entirely against this bill at the second reading, the third reading or at any time. I believe it opens the way for amalgamation, a thing which should be avoided and the suggestion of which should be deplored. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am entirely against this bill.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Thomas Hackett: That is not a fair state- Mr. MACKENZIE KING: I assume we ment; it was said by somebody at his back, will continue to-morrow with this debate?
by myself. ^	^	Mr. MAN ION: Yes, and should we get


John Power Howden: If that is so, I regret . through we will go on with some of the other having made the remark and I withdraw it. bills.
The bill before us certainly opens the way


[Stage Direction]
for amalgamation, in the view of many of us At six o'clock the house adjourned, with-on this side of the house it looks like a out question put, pursuant to standing order. (Mr. Howden.]

Questions
Thursday, March 16, 1933