1933-04-12

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, April 12, 1933.
Sir,-
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day at 5.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Olga Shid-lowskaya Lowrey.-Mr. Simpson (Algoma).

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).

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

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Canadian representation at Madrid, Spain, in connection with the International Radio-Telegraph conference?
2.	What was the amount of the minister's expenses?
3.	What was the amount of the expenses of each of the other members of the delegation?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	$21,621.62.
2.	$4,690.
3.	Col. W. A. Steel, S4.407.49; W. L. Laurie, S2,109.15; J. W. Bain, $1,979.70; D. Manson, $2,920.19; J. Desy, $2,008.30; J. L. K. La-fiamme, $2,375.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE- HAZELTON, B.C.
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the total cost of maintaining the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Hazelton, British Columbia, for the year 1932?
2.	What is the name of each of the four men who were stationed there, what salary and other remuneration did they receive in each instance, and what were their duties?
3.	What did it cost the Dominion government, in 1928, for maintaining the dominion police office in the town of Hazelton, what salary and other remuneration did they receive, and what were their duties?
4.	If any increases, what was the reason for same?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	$6,918.58.
2.	Corporal L. S. Kingston, $1,532.25; Constable A. F. Unia, $977.40; Constable D. A. Dunlop, $966.60; Constable J. P. Hartnett, $398.50. Their duties are principally connected with the supervision of Indians and the enforcement of the Indian Act.
3.	The detachment at Telkwa, British Columbia, was closed and Hazelton detachment opened on December 26, 1928, at the request of the Department of Indian Affairs.
Salaries, etc., for 1928:-
Corporal M. T. Berger	 $15 00
Constable Pritchard	 12 60

Their duties were chiefly connected with the enforcement of the Indian Act.
4.	The increases in strength and consequent increase in expenditure is due to the long patrols necessary and a considerable number of night patrols to enforce the Indian Act.


RADIO STATION CHRC-QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
]. Is station CHRC at Quebec state-owned or privately owned?
2.	If the station is privately owned, who are the owners?
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Privately owned.
2.	CHRC Limited, incorporated under dominion charter December 29, 1930, with head office at 42 Palace Hill, Quebec city.


FEDERAL LOANS TO SASKATCHEWAN-RELIEF
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were loaned or advanced by the Dominion government to (a) the government of the province of Saskatchewan to provide for relief in the drought area or areas; (b) the Saskatchewan relief commission to provide for relief in the drought area or areas; (c) any other province or commission to provide for relief in the drought area or areas?

Questions

2.	ATe all or any of these amounts to be considered as (a) advances to the province repayable by the province; (b) advances to individuals, farmers and others repayable by individuals; (c) advances to the Saskatchewan relief commission; (d) direct contributions5'
3.	What are the amounts, if any, wnich fall into each of the above mentioned categories?
4.	Have repayments been made to the Dominion government of any such loans or advances, and to what extent?
5.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing such loans, advances or contributions?
6.	What is the total amount disbursed, either by way of loan, advance or contribution by the Dominion government, in connection with relief in the so-called drought area or areas?


Mr. RHODES:: 1	(a) and (b) $10,250,000, for direct relief administered through Saskatchewan relief commission; $6,000,000 for seed grain loans; (c) $740,000.
2	and 3. (a) $6,000,000 seed grain loans, Saskatchewan; $600,000 seed grain loans, Manitoba; $140,000 seed grain loans, Alberta; $250,000 approximate balance advanced to Saskatchewan in excess of dominion's contribution for relief in drought areas (1931-32);
(b)	so far as dominion is concerned, none;
(c)	none; (d) $10,000,000 (figure subject to minor adjustments).
4.	Repayments on account of seed grain
loans:	Saskatchewan, $410,000; Manitoba,
$230,000. Advances to Saskatchewan for direct relief administered by Saskatchewan relief commission, have been reduced by cash refunds of $10,016 and credits in respect to dominion's contribution of $9,989,984.
5.	Loans and advances to Saskatchewan are detailed in the answer printed on page 3860 of Hansard of April 10, 1933.
Manitoba (seed grain), P.C. 973-April 28, 1932; Alberta (seed grain), P.C. 975-April 28, 1932.
6.	Direct relief in drought areas is segregated only in the case of the area in Saskatchewan covered by special agreement for the year 1931-32. Subject to the foregoing, $16,990,000 has been the total of all disbursements.


PURCHASE OF LETTER BOXES-AMEDEE LESIEUR
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many combination letter boxes were purchased by the Post Office Department from Mr. Amedee Lesieur, of Montreal, since August, 1930, and what was the price of each one?
[Mr. Power.)
2.	Was such transaction approved by order in council?
3.	If_ so, what is the number and date of
same ?	-
4.	If not, who approved it?
5.	How many of those boxes are used now, and since when?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	50 at $46.25 each.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Postmaster General.
5.	50-December, 1931.


MAIL SORTER-GILBERT VIAU
Mr. POULIOT:: What is the age of Gilbert Yiau, final sorter into lock boxes, city delivery branch, Montreal post office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 50 years of age on 21st December, 1932.


NORMANDIN, QUE., RURAL MAIL CARRIER
Jean-François Pouliot: What are the names and addresses of the persons acting as sureties for Mr. Onesime Boudreault, who holds the contract for rural mail delivery at Normandin, lake St. John?


Arthur Sauvé: Origene Hamel, Normandin, P.Q.; Wilfrid Hamel, Normandin, P.Q.


FEDERAL LOANS TO SASKATCHEWAN-SEED GRAIN
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned
by the Dominion government by way of loans to the government of the province of Saskatchewan for farmers for seeding operations, including purchase of seed grain (a) during the year 1931;	(b) during the year
1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3. Included in answer made April 10, 1933; see page 3860, Hansard.


FEDERAL LOANS TO SASKATCHEWAN-RELIEF
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Saskatchewan to provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?

Questions
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3. Included in answer made April 10, 1933; page 3860, Hansard.


FEDERAL LOANS TO ALBERTA-RELIEF
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Alberta to provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3
Included in answer made April 10, 1933; page 3858, Hansard.


FEDERAL LOANS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA-RELIEF
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned by the Dominion government to the government of the province of British Columbia to provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3.
Included in answer made April 10, 1933; page 3859, Hansard.


FEDERAL LOANS TO MANITOBA-RELIEF
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Manitoba to provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2. What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3. How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?
53719-250J


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3.
Included in answer made April 10, 1933; page 3859, Hansard.


FEDERAL LOANS TO ALBERTA-SEED GRAIN
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned by the Dominion government by way of loans to the government of the province of Alberta for farmers for seeding operations, including purchase of seed grain (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3.
Included in answer to question No. 8, orders of the day, April 12, 1933.


FEDERAL LOANS TO MANITOBA-SEED GRAIN
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced or loaned by the Dominion government by way of loans to the government of the province of Manitoba for farmers for seeding operations, including, purchase of seed grain (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2. What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances or loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3. How much has been repaid on said advances or loans?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2 and 3.
Included in answer to question No. 8, orders of the day, April 12, 1933.


BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS-SOLICITOR
Mr. BROWN:: 1.	Has a solicitor been appointed for the Board of Grain Commissioners?
2.	If so. who is the appointee?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
4.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Yes, temporarily.
2.	E. L. Taylor.
3.	Upon the recommendation of the Board of Grain Commissioners and appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
4.	$5,000 per annum less 10 per cent.
Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Jean-François Pouliot: Who sold the lumber, paint and the other materials used in connection with repairs to the wharf at Caeouna in 1932, and what amount was paid to each person selling such supplies?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Return tabled forthwith.



Jean-François Pouliot: What are the names of the men who were employed in connection with repair work done to the wharf at Caeouna in 1932, what was the total sum paid to each man and the number of hours worked by each man so employed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled forthwith.


VACANCIES IN TRANSLATION SERVICES
Mr. CHEVRIER:: X. How many vacancies have been created in each of the following departments or branches of government in respect of translation services (a) Interior; (b) Finance; (c) Marine; (d) Board of Railway Commissioners; (e) Civil Service Commission, since September 1, 1930?
2.	How many translators have been released or let out of the service at Ottawa by reason of (a) death; (b) dismissal; (c) resignation; (d) superannuation; (e) abolition of position: *(f) any other reason, since September 1, 1930?
3.	What was the classification and salary of such translators in the above departments or branches of government at the time of being let out or released from the service?
4.	Upon whose recommendation, when recommendation was necessary, were the said translators released or let out of the service?
5.	How many vacancies created by such releases, etc., of translators (separately) in said departments or branches of government, have been filled since September 1, 1930?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. POWER:: For a copy of order in council P.C. 1543 of July 6, 1932, providing for financial assistance to the extent of $500,000 of which $250,000 was to the city of Edmonton and $250,000 to the city of Calgary.


Charles Gavan Power: Dropped.


PAYMENT OF PENSIONS
Mr. LUCAS:: For a return showing a list of the names of all persons receiving a pension payable out of

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


Mr. BENNETT:: That might stand.


WARDEN OF COLLINS BAY PENITENTIARY
Mr. SANDERSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, recommendations, reports, memoranda and other documents on the files of the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and of the Civil Service Commission in respect to the appointment of R. M. Allen to the position of warden of Collins Bay penitentiary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think a motion in that form should hardly be passed, because there are memoranda placed on file that are not subject to production by order of the house. There is no difficulty about the motion if it is understood that it does not cover documents that are not produceable under such an order. Sometimes memoranda are made on documents for confidential purposes, and should not be brought down in the house; but subject to that there is no objection.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Carried with that reservation.


DIGBY, N.S.-POSTMASTER
Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, applications, recommendations, results of examinations and other papers and documents, relating to the pending appointment of a postmaster at Digby, Nova Scotia.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With that reservation
shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any officers of his department, or any other minister or departmental officials and the Civil Service Commission with reference to the appointment of a solicitor for the board of grain commissioners.

Soldiers' Pensions


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. member fix a date? As the motion stands now it would mean since the establishment of the board.


John Livingstone Brown: Since 1930.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the resolution carry, with the addition of the words "since 1930"?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: On March 24 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) a question with regard to the attitude of the government respecting soldiers' pensions. The answer given by the minister, as it appears at page 3354 of Hansard, was as follows:
That conference is to be renewed, and at its conclusion an announcement of a specific character will be made to the house which will embrace also an answer to my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier).
May I ask the hon. gentleman now whether that further conference has been held and, if so, whether he is prepared to answer the question I asked at that time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The conferences have not been concluded, and therefore I will not be in a position to give an answer to the question until after the Easter recess.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose that answer applies also to the announcement of a specific character to which reference was made in the minister's statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): On February 8 the following order was passed by the house:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, reports, plans and other documents, in the possession of the government, respecting the post office at Missanabie, Ontario, since the month of August, 1930.
Since then I have been in correspondence with the private secretary to the Postmaster General (Air. Sauve), to whom I wrote on March 8, March 11, and other occasions. On March 15 his answer, translated, was: "Referring to your letters of March 8 and March 11 I should like to tell you that the answer you
ask is not within my jurisdiction. Accordingly I would ask you to communicate directly with the minister." I telephoned on March 16 and was told to see the minister. May I ask the minister now if the file which has been tabled is complete and, if not, why it is not complete.
Arthur Sauvé: I have nothing to say to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. I have asked for a file and the minister refuses to produce it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no question of privilege involved. The minister says he cannot reply to-day, and the hon. member must be content with that.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has raised a question which affects the privileges of every member of this house. An order of the house has issued for the production of certain papers. Apparently part of the correspondence has not been tabled, and the hon. member for Temiscouata has proof of that. I have seen the file myself, and certainly the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is not acting according to parliamentary usage when he says he is not ready to answer to-day. If the file is not complete surely the hon. member has a right to ask the minister to table those papers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am rather surprised at the hon.
gentleman. Without giving notice a member of the house directs attention to the condition of a file. Obviously the minister should have an opportunity to ascertain just what has been said in order to find out whether or not the statements are founded upon fact, and the minister said he could not answer to-day. What other answer could he make? He might have said, "I shall treat this as a notice and deal with the matter to-morrow" 'but he said, "I am not able to deal with it to-day." I trust the hon. gentleman has not taken umbrage at the way the observation was made; the minister merely said, when confronted with a statement by an hon. member without having any opportunity to verify it, that he was not in a position to give an answer to-day. The minister said to me over my shoulder that he wanted time to>
look into the matter and ascertain the facts.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. gentleman says he is surprised at me. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at him. The Post-
Assistance to Provinces

master General was requested by the hon. member for Temiscouata to table those papers, and he had his secretary answer the hon. member. I do not think that is acting in accordance with the usages of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: And it is not courteous.


Arthur Sauvé: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot say more to-day. I know the rule.


ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: On March 20, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if letters had been received from the western provinces with regard to their financial position. The answer was that some letters had been received and that further answers were expected shortly, and the right hon. gentleman said he would be prepared to lay those answers on the table when they were received. I should like to ask now if those replies have been received and, if so, whether they will be tabled before the Easter recess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Replies have not been received from
all, but the premier of the province from which my hon. friend comes asked if the papers might be laid on the table of the legislature, and I sent him a telegram saying that might be done. The other provinces have not yet been heard from, and the papers will not be brought down until those replies have been received.


DREDGING-DETROIT RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): On Thursday, March 16,-and I am surprised that this has not been settled also-I directed a question to the government regarding a matter of urgent concern to the community in which I live. I sought to explain that huge blasts were being discharged in connection with the construction of a channel in the Detroit river causing very extensive damage to property in that community. I should like the government to see that the company is instructed to discharge smaller blasts in their work. I refer the government to page 3050 of Hansard for this session. Since this is a government of action I think we ought to have some action in this regard.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, after having listened
\o the blast of my hon. friend I shall look 
into the matter further, but let me say that this is a matter for the Department of External Affairs rather than the Department of Public Works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rarely receive such
manifestations of approval from hon. gentlemen opposite, and I must say it is highly gratifying. The circumstances in connection with the matter are these:	The deepening
of the channel is proceeding, and in order to blast out the rocks from the bottom of the river charges of explosives are being used. If any injury happens, those who cause it are amply responsible for such damage as may be done. In the agreement made with the two countries under which the stream is being deepened, there is provision that the work will be properly carried on, and if damage results from operations the companies carrying them on are well able to discharge any obligations that may arise out of the conduct of their business. I have no reason to believe that they have endeavoured to escape their responsibility, but in view of what the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) has now said, further inquiries will be made at once.


Mr. GOTT:: I sought to make an explanation before. I want to explain-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CAN ADI AN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes.-Mr. Manion.-Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 2.-His Majesty bound.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: When the bill was last under consideration there was before the committee an amendment moved by the hon. member for West Lamb ton (Mr. Gray) that there should be added to section 2 another subsection, (d). Certain questions were raised in the discussion and some observations were made both by the Minister of Railways and by the Prime Minister. The minister contended on that occasion

CM.R.-C.P.R. Bill
that under this bill the trustees to be appointed were to be subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners. He held that there were in this bill the same powers as contained in the Canadian National Railways Act of 1920, while we on this side maintained that this was not so. In the legislation of 1920, with respect to the abandonment of branch lines, the Canadian National Railways were subject in the first instance to the Board of Railway Commissioners and they were also subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council, and we pointed out that under this bill these two safeguards were being removed. We contended that the trustees were no longer subject to the Governor General in Council or to this parliament, if this bill went through in its present form, and the minister endeavoured to prove the opposite. Has he anything to add this afternoon with regard to the construction of the legislation?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Naturally I have made further inquiries and they have merely strengthened the position I took when the bill was under consideration before. After a thorough study of the question and consultation with the legal branch of the department as well as with an outstanding legal gentleman not connected with the department, I am strengthened in the opinion I expressed on that occasion, namely, that so far at least as part I is concerned the trustees are in exactly the same position as the directors, and the insertion of this amendment would therefore make no difference with respect to part I. Under section 9, subsection 2, the trustees are given the same powers and are restricted in the same manner as the directors. I will read the provision again, although I put it on Hansard on the former occasion:
The trustees shall and may thereafter, subject to the provisions of this act. have and exercise all the powers, rights, privileges and immunities, and perform and be subject to all the duties, responsibilities and restrictions, which now appertain to the board of directors of the national company.
In reply to that, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre and some other hon. members opposite pointed out that subsection 6 of section 9 conflicted with subsection 2 which I have just read. Subsection 6 reads:
No order, regulation, by-law, act, decision or proceeding of the trustees shall require the approval of His Majesty or that of any other shareholder of any company to which this section applies.
This applies only in so far as the governor in council acts as shareholder of the company. As pointed out by the Prime Minister, the governor in council has a dual capacity. On
some occasions it acts as shareholder and on others as representative of the parliament of Canada; it is the executive of parliament and acts in that capacity, as will be seen by reference to section 151 of the Railway Act.
I adhere therefore to the opinion that the incorporation of section 23 of the Canadian National Railway Act into this part of the bill now under consideration would have no effect on the trustees so far as part I is concerned, whereas it might interfere with the actions of the trustees in cooperating with the Canadian Pacific Railway. So that it would be unnecessary for part I to include that section, while it would perhaps be harmful so far as parts II and III are concerned.
The Canadian Pacific Railway can to-day abandon lines without appearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners at all, but the Canadian National Railways are not in the same position; they cannot abandon branch lines without appearing before the board, even under this section. I maintain therefore that this amendment is unnecessary and indeed might be harmful.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the minister contend now that the board of trustees must have the authority of the governor in council before there can be abandonment of branch lines?


Robert James Manion: Of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Yes, so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, even under this bill. That is my contention.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Under this bill, then, the Canadian Pacific Railway will no longer be able to abandon lines.


Robert James Manion: Under this bill the Canadian Pacific Railway will be in exactly the same position as it was before. To-day it can abandon lines without reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners at all, but the Canadian National cannot. In other words, the Canadian National has been throughout, from that point of view, at an advantage or a disadvantage, just as you wish to take it.	At any rate, the Canadian
National could not abandon a line without submission to the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada whereas the Canadian Pacific could and will still be able to.


John Vallance: In making an application for a branch line, has the Canadian Pacific to meet the same conditions in getting a charter as the Canadian National? That is, must the charter be subject to the approval of the railway commission?
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: The charter is not obtained from the board, it is granted by this house. The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National both have to come before a committee of this house in order to obtain a charter, and both companies will be in the same position in the future as they have been in the past. It will be perhaps a little more difficult for them to obtain charters as I think the committee will agree that charters have been granted a little too freely in the past.


John Vallance: Do I understand the
minister aright? I understand him to say that all charters are granted by this house and that the railway commission would have the right to nullify such charters. The commission may grant to the Canadian National the right to discontinue a branch line but the Canadian Pacific may take this action without appearing before the commission.


Robert James Manion: That has been the law
throughout.


Mr. McINTOSH:: May I ask the minister just what action has been necessary by the Canadian National in the past in regard to the abandoning of branch lines?


Robert James Manion: There is no doubt that
branch lines have been abandoned but I could not name .any particular instance at the moment.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: There was a line at Jasper.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not to any great degree? Mr. MANION:	That is quite right.


Mr. REID:: Supposing a proposal was made by one company to the other in regard to the abandonment of a line. If they could not agree a tribunal would be set up. Would it be possible for that tribunal to give a decision as to the abandonment of a line without the company appearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners and the governor in council?


Robert James Manion: One of the clauses of the bill provides that if a tribunal is set up in connection with a matter which, but for the provisions of this act, would require the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners, no order of a tribunal shall be operative without the assent and concurrence of the chairman, who is also the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: But not the board?


Robert James Manion: No, not the board. He
is the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and in a sense the two bodies are in a similar position. I should like to

elaborate upon a point to which I referred a moment ago. Under this legislation it is provided that if one company should decide to build a branch line and the other company took the attitude that such a line was not necessary, that its construction would be extravagant or wasteful due to the fact that the same service could be given by common running rights, this would be considered a proper matter for determination by a tribunal. The tribunal might come to the decision that the construction of the particular branch line would be extravagant and unnecessary as the same service could be given through common running rights.
Mr. VALLAN'CE:	Will it still be necessary for either company to come to this house when applying for charters?


Robert James Manion: Yes, just the same as in
the past.


John Vallance: Then the tribunal could go contrary to this house which has granted the charter?


Robert James Manion: Yes, it could.


John Vallance: The tribunal is to be
supreme over parliament?


Robert James Manion: It is all a matter of
economy. Might I suggest that it would have been better in the past if some such tribunal had been set up to restrain the useless duplication and extravagance which has taken place. I do not think anyone will deny that if such a tribunal had been set up there would have been no duplication of hotel facilities at Halifax or at Vancouver. The same thing would apply to the building of many branch lines as I have no doubt that in a number of instances the same territories could have been served by common running rights or joint operation.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was rather alarmed at
the statement made a few moments ago by the minister to the effect that the Canadian Pacific could abandon lines without the permission of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The railway employees have always been dependent upon section 179 of the Railway Act.


Robert James Manion: That section covers
terminals and divisional points.


Peter Heenan: If you abandon any section of a line, surely you abandon a terminal. Section 179 reads:
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,-

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
That is to say, the municipalities and others are to have the right to appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners. The section continues:
*-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;
I think the minister should develop this point a little further as I am rather alarmed at his statement.


Robert James Manion: If there is any cause for alarm, it has existed for all the years the Canadian Pacific railway has been in operation. I checked up this matter because I must confess that I was a little surprised to learn of it. The Canadian Pacific Railway has never had to apply to the railway commission in connection with the abandonment of branch lines. The section which my hon. friend just read refers to divisional points, and so far as employees can be protected in connection with divisional points, they are protected by the clause with which we are dealing. I think it was upon the suggestion of a labour representative in the Senate that this subsection (a) was included. It reads:
(a) that part o.f 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;
The employees are still protected just as they have been in the past. Throughout the years the Canadian Pacific Railway have had the right to abandon lines if they so chose without submission to anyone, whereas the Canadian National has not.


Peter Heenan: As the minister knows, I am not a lawyer but I have a book here which I am able to read, as I learned to do that at one time. Section 179 reads:
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.
The preceding section provides that the railway cannot make any deviation, change or alteration without submission to the board. It is alarming to me to find out that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not subject to this law the same as the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. GEARY:: What is it my hon. friend is worrying about? Is it the abandonment of lines that is bothering him?


Peter Heenan: I am alarmed about the
whole bill.


George Reginald Geary: I have no doubt the hon.
gentleman is.


Peter Heenan: The minister has just
made a statement that is new and alarming to me because he said that the Canadian Pacific could abandon branch lines-I think he used the words "branch lines"-


Robert James Manion: Any line.


Peter Heenan: -without first appearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners and getting leave, but that the Canadian National Railway could not do so; consequently our railway employees who secured the insertion of section 179 have been labouring under a misapprehension all these years.


George Reginald Geary: And it is to remain in force.


Peter Heenan: What is the use of its
remaining in force if the company does not live up to it?


Thomas Reid: To come back to my former
point, do I understand the minister correctly that in all matters in which the railway companies will have powers under this legislation, when any dispute arises, the arbitral tribunal which is to be set up, will have power under the Railway Act and over that of the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Robert James Manion: The question of arbitral
tribunals does not arise until we reach part III of the measure, and in a discussion of one clause I do not like to deal with the whole bill because it is a little difficult to deal with it in that way. Let me point out to my hon. friend that when a tribunal is set up, the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners is automatically chairman of that tribunal and as regards any matter which would ordinarily be referred to the railway board, he must assent in writing or no order of a tribunal will be operative. So that at any rate the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, being also chairman of the arbitral tribunal, is in a position similar to that of chairman of the railway board if there is possibility of some public interest being interfered with. I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but I have tried to do so.


Thomas Reid: With this difference: a matter may go before the Board of Railway Commissioners and it is possible for that board to give one decision and the chairman to give another when a matter comes before the tribunal.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: If the arbitral tribunal
makes one decision and the Board of Railway Commissioners makes another, the decision of the arbitral tribunal prevails.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Has the minister not got this the wrong way round? He makes the chairman of the arbitral tribunal decide first, and then the Board of Railway Commissioners, which is there to watch the larger public interest, gives a second decision. Should the Board of Railway Commissioners as a whole not be regarded as more important than its chairman?


Robert James Manion: I do not think my right
hon. friend has seen the point I made. In a case where the arbitral tribunal have decided on a matter which ordinarily would go before the Board of Railway Commissioners, the chairman of the tribunal has to put in writing his agreement with the decision of the arbitral tribunal if the decision is to prevail and then the matter does not go before the railway board at all. But he, being by virtue of his position, also chairman of the railway board, is in a position to judge as to the public interest involved. There is no reason why he should give two decisions; he gives one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should
the matter not go before the Board of Railway Commissioners ait the outsat without troubling about the arbitral tribunal? If the Board of Railway Commissioners are going to decide the public interest part of the matter, should they not have the first say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are matters that
do not in the very nature of things come within the ordinary statutory jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, otherwise it would not be necessary to set up the arbitral tribunal which, of course, has no reference to the matter under consideration. An arbitral tribunal might not be set up during the whole ten years or more, let us say, of the operations of this measure. An arbitral tribunal comes into being only when there is a direct and specific matter to be considered which remains unsettled after negotiation between the heads of the railways. If they fail to agree, this tribunal comes into being, but not otherwise. There can be no setting up of an arbitral tribunal unless they have failed to agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But that
raises the larger question why the Board of Railway Commissioners might not act as an arbitral tribunal instead of making all these special provisions for such a tribunal where in the end 'there will have to be an appeal to the railway board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With deference to the
rtgiht hon. gentleman, not appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The principle of the finding of the transportation commission is-and i't seems to me iit is sound-having regard to the extraordinary powers vested in the trustees and to the possibility of arranging matters so as to effect economy, and having regard to the possibility of difference of opinion between the heads of the two systems with respect not to matters over which the Board of Railway Commissioners has jurisdiction but to a matter within the purview of 'the present statute, there is to be set up this tribunal; because iit was regarded as fairer to both the interested corporations, the Canadian National system and the Canadian Pacific system, that this specific dispute shall be settled, but that advantage should be taken of the knowledge and experience of the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners by his being made a member of the arbitral tribunal. That is, I understand, the theory on which the legislation was based.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But does this not all come down pretty much to a matter of designation? The chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners is the important factor. In one case he is called president or chairman of the arbitral tribunal and in the other he is chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Why have the arbitral tribunal at all if this one person is really to be the deciding factor? Why not say in this bill at once as in others: We will enlarge the scope of the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners and it will deal with these matters, thus cutting out the part concerned with the arbitral tribunals.


Robert James Manion: The answer to that is
that the Duff commission in its wisdom made a recommendation to the contrary. It believed this course to be wiser, and the Senate committee, which was composed of representatives of both parties, was practically unanimously in favour of it. Even in the final decision there were only two or three who expressed any dissent from the almost complete unanimity in regard to this method of dealing with disputes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not the Duff commission; we are the House of Commons, a part of parliament. The fact that the Duff commission makes a recommendation of which the minister cannot show the virtue, does not help the situation in any way. The minister has not made out any case for these arbitral tribunals.

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


Robert James Manion: 
John Vallance: Mention some of them.


Robert James Manion: I think I could mention at least $100,000,000 worth.


Charles Gavan Power: What are they?


Robert James Manion: Take as examples the Halifax hotel, the Vancouver hotel. They make rtp about $15,000,000 between them. Then there are the Montreal terminals, $50,000,000 and the acquisition of obsolete and well nigh useless lines, that had never paid their way and may never do so.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister think this bill will prevent such occurrences in the future?


Robert James Manion: Yes, an arbitral tribunal could prevent proposed extravagances and duplications, perhaps not the buying of lines. They certainly could have prevented the building of hotels, the Montreal terminals and the spending of $8,000,000 on those triangle tour steamships on the Pacific. Those four items alone amount to about $73,000,000. They certainly could have prevented tens of millions of dollars being spent on branch lines, many of which were a duplication of other branch lines already in existence. Speaking just from memory there are about eighty or ninety millions of dollars which they could have prevented from being spent. I am not saying that with a view to criticizing anybody, but rather to indicate that the arbitral tribunal provision is justified because the leader of the opposition suggests that a case has not been made out to justify such an arrangement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My objection was not to having some body to which reference could be made for these purposes, but was to having an arbitral tribunal of which the chairman of the railway commission was to be the chairman, as distinct from the railway commission itself doing this work at the outset. While I do not admit for a moment that what the minister has said is correct, nevertheless if that were so, the argument would be equally strong if the railways had to go in the first instance before a commission already established rather than before some body constituted following this legislation.


Robert James Manion: May I say something to justify the establishment of an arbitral tribunal as a principle. Taking my hon. friend's own argument, the chairman of the arbitral tribunal has had, as chairman of the railway commission, a couple of years of actual experience which in my judgment should make him eminently satisfactory as a judge of general railway matters. He has that advantage. Secondly, the arbitral tribunal has this superiority over the railway commission, that it is presided over by the chairman of the railway commission and there are also on the tribunal a representative of each of the railway companies concerned. You have those three men on the tribunal and they will not sit as does the Board of Railway Commissioners merely as a judicial body,. because of course the members of the railway commission are judges just as those presiding over the appeal court and the exchequer court, and they cannot be expected to go into the details of things as an arbitral tribunal could do. The chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, sitting as chairman of a tribunal, with the representatives of the two railway companies may sit down and have a round table conference over any railway matter at issue. I might say quite frankly that I have had the opinion expressed to me by the highest officials of both railway companies that that would be the greatest advantage of a tribunal, that they could meet at a round table conference rather than with the formality, or the fuss and feathers as one hon. member suggests, of a court. I believe myself in all sincerity that the arbitral tribunal as proposed is a type of tribunal superior to the Board of Railway Commissioners for that purpose. That is my own personal view, but after all it is a matter of opinion.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the tariff board? Why should not they do the same, have a round table conference?
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: I do not want to get off on to the tariff board at the present time because we have troubles enough with .this bill.


John Vallance: The chairman of the tribunal, who is also the chairman of the railway commission, is assisted by a representative of each of the railway companies on the tribunal, and the tribunal can come to no decision unless the chairman assents to it. He must be satisfied. Is not that right? So why not just enlarge the powers of the railway commission, because in the final analysis the chairman of the railway commission must be satisfied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that the committee is desirous of expediting this bill which we are] aow discussing. With respect to Part III, I would have a few observations that I think might be of some value to the committee when that stage is reached. I had thought that this was merely an incidental discussion, but I do think that if we are going to make any progress with the bill we should confine ourselves to the section before us. When Part III comes up to be considered it is not impossible that the house might .make out a case that Part III should not be there at all. That is a matter that will have to be considered by the committee as a whole when the moment arises, but I do suggest that if we desire to make any progress we should deal with the sections as they come before us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
Prime Minister be agreeable to the committee reverting to different sections and reopening the discussion on them if, in the light of further discussion of other parts of the bill, that is found advisable, because what we are discussing now is very vital in view of our interpretation of the bill? But of course the government may put another interpretation upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have always thought
that it was a very proper course to pursue if, in the light of discussions taking place in committee, it is thought desirable to reconsider a particular section, that the house should at the conclusion of its discussion revert to it. As far as I am concerned, I have always followed that course, and I think it is a sound one. It would merely mean that in the light of further knowledge and greater wisdom we desired to reconsider a certain section. Certainly I think that should be so, and especially with a bill of this character.

But I do feel that the ordinary rules of procedure should be adhered to, and that we should not discuss Part III when we are dealing with a section such as this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason
possibly that more time is being taken in committee at the moment than might otherwise have been the case is that this bill did not go to the committee on railways and canals or to a special committee as it should have done. Might I say to the Prime Minister that some suggestion has been made that other bills which have been before committees of another house might not go to committees of this house? I think that we in this house ought to maintain strictly the privileges of our own house and that when-we wish to be enlightened with respect to a particular measure it should go before a committee of the House of Commons. This bill should certainly have gone before a select standing or special committee of this house, and then we would have come here in a position to run through the sections understanding their whole significance. But inasmuch as the Prime Minister himself stated that this bill would have to be considered m committee of the whole in this house, I think additional latitude must be expected in the matter of discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to waste the time of the committee beyond saying this, that not in my time has any bill been as adequately considered as this particular bill was by a committee of the Senate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We are not the
Senate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of you would like to be. Might I observe that the Right Hon. George Graham, who was at one time Minister of Railways, presided over that Senate committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is not responsible to any constituency to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just permit me to conclude what I have to say, and that is this, that the evidence taken before that committee was made available to the members of this house. Very few of the members of this house who are now discussing this bill would give anything like the attention and attendance upon a committee that they could give to reading the evidence that was given before the Senate committee. When my right hon. friend says that if the bill had been considered by a committee of this house we could then run through the sections here, that does

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
not mean that the right hon. gentleman himself is going to attend the House of Commons committee. As a matter of fact, he cannot do it and discharge the duties of his office, and therefore he will be dependent for his information upon what he reads and what is said to him. Nor would the ex-Minister of Justice nor other members of the house be in any different position. There was no desire in any way to curtail or lessen inquiry with respect to this legislation. It was introduced into the Senate because it was believed that a more adequate opportunity would be offered there for dispassionate and free discussion and criticism of its provisions than could possibly happen if the bill was dealt with originally in this house and sent to a committee of the House of Commons, to be wrangled over and then sent back to the house, where the whole *discussion would be gone over again. I venture to say this, and I know the committee will not misunderstand me, that Lord Ashfield told me in December in England that he could not recall any committee that he had known in his time that had given finer thought and consideration to a measure affecting transportation than had the Senate committee to this bill as he read their reports.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has
not seen us in action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has seen striking evidence of the house being in inaction, and I am not sure that if he were here this afternoon he might not think that was the case today. If I were asked to say what progress we are making with respect to section 2, after an elaborate legal argument the other evening based on an entire misapprehension of section 6, subsection 4


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a difference of opinion about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is open to argument
always, and that is the reason we have courts. But I do suggest that if we desire to expedite the passage of the bill or to see that intelligent discussion takes place with respect to it it is not good to jump to part III when we are considering section 2.


John Vallance: I have no desire as a member of this committee to stop the pro-greiss of the bill. As to the wrangling that is going on in the house now, I will remind the Prime Minister that we amended the Canada Grain Act some two or three years ago, and wrangled for two weeks in a committee of the house specially set up, and when the bill came
into the house it took only a few hours to go through. I feel that if this bill had had the same treatment probably it would have been through by now.


An hon. MEMBER:: If it had been introduced in the Commons it would.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, the immediate point is whether or not we are preserving the supervisory power of the governor in council and the Board of Railway Commissioners with regard to the abandonment of lines. I understand that it is urged upon the Minister of Railways-if he will permit me to put it that way-by these eminent legal gentlemen, that subsection 6 of section 9 is not inconsistent with section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, because subsection 6 of section 9 has to do with His Majesty in his capacity as shareholder, and still leaves the powers of the governor in council as set out in section 23. But what about the power of the Board of Railway Commissioners under section 23; is that still extant? Is my hon. friend satisfied on that point?


Robert James Manion: Yes, as far as part I of this bill is concerned my best legal information is that the Board of Railway Commissioners and the board of trustees stand in exactly the same position under this bill as the directors stood to that board in the past. The arbitral tribunals may make a difference, but as far as concerns part I which deals distinctly with the Canadian National, my best information is that the position will continue exactly the same under this bill as it has been in the past.


James Layton Ralston: Will my right hon. friend amplify that, so that we may have the facts? Subsection 6 of section 9 provides that no order, regulation, by-law, etc., of the trustees shall require the consent of His Majesty qua shareholder?


Robert James Manion: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: Are there in fact any shareholders? I know there is provision in the Canadian National Railways Act for shareholders, but have shares ever been issued?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I understand there are shares of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern-


James Layton Ralston: But shares of the Canadian National Railway Company?


Robert James Manion: Yes, the Minister of Finance holds shares.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


James Layton Ralston: How many shares, and how long have they been held?


Robert James Manion: I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the start, I believe, after the order in council was passed following itihe decision of the privy council in the Grand Trunk arbitration. I do not think the hon. member was a member of the government at that time. An order in council was passed by which the shareholders as existing on the register of the Grand Trunk were eliminated, and the Minister of Finance was substituted as a shareholder. With respect to the Canadian National the Shares are held by His Majesty, and there is in one section of the act provision that His Majesty shall he the shareholder. I took tihe trouble to look it up not long since.


James Layton Ralston: I have that section here, but I was just asking whether, as a matter of fact, shares were actually issued. The provision is that if shares are issued they shall be issued to the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty. What I am asking now is whether shares were actually issued, and if so, how many.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Shares were issued to
the extent necessary to qualify direotors. I am not quite certain as to the number each director must have, but in the short time I was in the Department of Finance I signed transfers to qualify directors of the Canadian National system. The shares are held-if my memory serves me correctly-,by His Majesty, except the shares necessary to be held by direotors; and the executed transfers in blank so that the matter could be dealt with as occasion necessitated.


James Layton Ralston: I am distinguishing between the different companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend is
speaking, I think, of shares in the various companies taken over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the directors are
directors of the Canadian National. If my hon. friend will look at the last annual report of the system he will find how it is made up. They are divided into three blocks; first a block of shares that belonged to the government of this country, the railways belonging to the government; that is the old Intercolonial, the National Transcontinental, the Prince Edward Island railway and so on. Then you have a summary of those mileages, and I think it says "Canadian government railways." Then you have the old Canadian 
Northern and its subsidiaries; and then the Grand Trunk and its subsidiaries, which included the Grand Trunk proper, the Grand Trunk Western and various subsidiaries that comprised what was known as the Grand Trunk system. I dare say it is within the mind of the committee that the Grand Trunk system was made up of a very large number, some fifty-six odd companies. That is the reason, I think, that it used to read "the Grand Trunk system" as distinguished from the Grand Trunk Railway. Then you have the Grand Trunk Western, which was ait one time included in what was called the Grand Trunk system, but for the sake of facility in handling the American as distinguished from the Canadian part of the system it was spoken of separately. It was of course and still is a separate entity, incorporated, if I remember aright, under the laws of the state of Michigan. And there was the Grand Trunk Pacific. Those three together constitute what is 'called the Canadian National system of railways, and under the aot of incorporation the shares representing the corporate entity are held by His Majesty. But the act provided for directors of the Canadian National Railway company as well as of these subsidiaries, the lives of which have still to be maintained-and it is an enormously expensive thing unfortunately. You will find in the annual report the story of all these companies.
Certainly directors of the Canadian National system are qualified from time to time. I cannot at the moment tell the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth what shareholding is necessary-perhaps I can find out from the deputy minister. I am informed that only one share is necessary to qualify a director. Those shares are in the Canadian National system. Of course there have to be qualification shares with respect to the various subsidiary companies. For instance the Grand Trunk Western still has corporate entity; has a president, vice-president and all the machinery to maintain its corporate existence. The Canada Atlantic is still an entity, because there are certain securities outstanding, but the Canadian Grand Trunk owns the Canada Atlantic. The same is true with respect to the Central Vermont, that is another striking illustration. It will be remembered that it was reorganized; is carried in the balance sheet as the Central Vermont Railway, Inc., and the shares of that enterprise are held by the Canadian National system. The securities of course are deposited in the treasury. We guaranteed Canadian Northern bonds to discharge the liabilities created by

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
the rehabilitation and reorganization of the Central Vermont system as it now stands. I do not think there is the slightest doubt- though it can be ascertained, because they are in the vaults-that shares have been issued in the Canadian National system and they are held in the name of His Majesty through the Minister of Finance.


James Layton Ralston: That is the only point I wanted to have cleared up-whether shares had been issued by the Canadian National system as distinct from the subsidiary companies which are still extant and shares of which are held by His Majesty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they are held by the company.


James Layton Ralston: The shares of the Canadian National Railway Company incorporated by chapter 172 of the revised statutes of Canada are not the same shares as those to which my right hon. friend has been referring, which are the shares of .the individual constituent companies. I was asking whether there really were shares issued of the Canadian National Railway Company as such to which subsection 6 of section 9 would apply. I do not think my right hon. friend is correct; perhaps I misapprehended what he said, but I do not think any share qualification is required for the directors of the Canadian National.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Each man, as appointed, has been qualified.


James Layton Ralston: I did not know that, but it may be so. The statute expressly provides that there shall be directors, so I do not think there can be a share qualification required. I was going to suggest to my hon. friend the minister that this amendment now under discussion is inseparably intertwined with subsection 6 of section 9, which appears to take away some control by His Majesty, exercised by the governor in council or otherwise, and it is really that section which gives rise to the great apprehension on this side. I should like to ask if there would be any real objection to doing away with this subsection. I know we are jumping ahead, but I think this is the time to consider that point. If you did away with that subsection, which does not seem to be in the Canadian National Railways Act, that apprehension would be removed, and then we would be back to section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act.


Robert James Manion: I suggest, with all due
respect, that we should leave subsection 6 of section 9, because it is quite a long distance
ahead. When we come to that we will consider the various aspects of that subsection and if necessary, as the Prime Minister has said, we can come back to this section. Let us deal with this section now, and then when we come to subsection 6 of section 9 we can deal with those questions.


James Layton Ralston: The sponsor of the
amendment is not here, but could we not have the amendment stand until we come to subsection.6? That was suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition and I think assented to by the Prime Minister.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would withdraw his amendment with the consent of the committee; then if he wishes to submit it at some other point he can do so.


James Layton Ralston: Why can we not let the
section stand and go on?


Robert James Manion: The only objection I have is that we started on section 1, the short title, and after spending all afternoon on it we let it stand. Now we have spent one whole evening and a part of an afternoon on this section, and we are asked to let it stand. I should like to make a little progress. The Prime Minister has agreed to come back to this section if, in future discussions, anything comes up making that course of action advisable. Surely that should be satisfactory to my hon. friend. There is no trick to it; we are not trying to get this section passed by anything like that, but I do not wish to have all the sections stand as we go along. We would have to start all over again.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think that is
so; I believe a general discussion is necessary in the beginning and expedites the matter in the end.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
looks at Hansard he will find the general discussion which took place on the motion for second reading. I would refer my hon. friend to pages 24 and 25 of the annual report, where he will find a list of the constituent companies making up the whole.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the
minister will read subsection 2 of section 2 he will find the words "parts II and III," so we can discuss those parts under the very section we are discussing now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that
gives us the power to discuss those parts.
C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Might I ask the minister if he would consider substituting for paragraph (a) of section 2 a provision similar to that which was inserted in the Maritime Freight Rates Act, merely stating that the provisions of section 179 of the Railway Act shall apply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have a distinct amendment before the committee, and I understand that the hon. member is referring now to an entirely different amendment. I respectfully submit that we cannot discuss a further amendment until we dispose of the amendment now before the committee.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lawson):: I think the hon. gentleman is anticipating what the hon. member for East Algoma may say. I should like to hear what the hon. gentleman wishes to say.


George Brecken Nicholson: I merely suggest that the minister might take under consideration the insertion of a paragraph which would bring section 179 of the Railway Act into operation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Again I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing a distinct amendment which deals with the abandonment of branch lines.


James Earl Lawson: If I understand the matter correctly there is before the committee at the moment an amendment to subsection 1 of section 2 which must be disposed of before another amendment may be considered. If the hon. member for East Algoma wishes to submit another amendment after this has been disposed of he will be quite in order in doing so. Might I ask, for my own information, whether this is a correct citation in the amendment? I cannot find any Canadian National Railway Act of 1920.


Mr. BURY:: What is the amendment? I thought one had been moved and disposed of.


James Earl Lawson: My information was that there was before the committee an amendment to subsection 1 of section 2, by adding thereto a clause which will read as follows:
(d) the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, 1920-


Charles Gavan Power: That is the title of the Canadian National Railways Act.


James Earl Lawson: I cannot find that statute.


Charles Gavan Power: It is in the revised statutes of 1927.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish particularly to help my hon. friends with their amendment, but I am informed that 1920 should not be there, that it should be called merely the Canadian National Railways Act.


Charles Gavan Power: In the revised statutes of Canada it is cited as the Canadian National Railways Act, 1920. As a matter of fact the hon. member for West Lambton mentioned the fact to me and wondered why it should be so described.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that 1920 was the date when it was passed, and that those figures do not form part of the title of the act.


Charles Gavan Power: The title is so given in the revised statutes of Canada.


James Earl Lawson: I do not
desire to raise any litigious question, but the right hon. leader of the opposition sent me a copy of the bill, in pamphlet form, in which it is indicated that the correct title should be Canadian National Railways Act. A period follows those words, and then we have the figures 1920, which is a reference to the year in which it was passed. According to the statute itself the correct title is the Canadian National Railways Act, with no reference to the year.


Charles Gavan Power: We will not find out for sure until we get the revised statutes.


James Earl Lawson: Is there any objection to my striking out the figures 1920 in the amendment?


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest that the
chairman wait until we get the revised statute, so that we may see how it is described there.


James Earl Lawson: Subject to correct designation shall the amendment carry ?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I want to point out that
it is rather difficult to dispose of section 2 until we dispose of the proposed amendment in some way or other, or make some arrangement to have it stand until we have considered the other sections. After the long discussion the other evening I thought perhaps we were nearly of one mind with regard to the inadvisability of having any of these lines abandoned or scrapped without an order of the railway board, particularly those lines belonging to the Canadian National Railways,

C.N.R.-CJ>.R. Bill
with which I think the people of this country are more intimately concerned. Do I understand the minister to say that in his opinion, and according to the best advice he can get on the subject, that cannot be done now without an order of the board?


Robert James Manion: Yes, so far as the Canadian National is concerned.


John Campbell Elliott: Then do I understand the minister to mean that in future it should not be done without an order of the board, so there will be no change?


Robert James Manion: There is no change so far as Part I is concerned, which part deals entirely with the Canadian National Railways. That is my best information, and I think it is correct.


John Campbell Elliott: The point about which I
am concerned is that branch lines shall not be abandoned or discontinued without an order of the board. If we are assured of that it meets many of my difficulties. I take it from what the minister says that that is his view- that it cannot be done now under this act.


Robert James Manion: I said that under part I
of this bill no change wias being made. When part I becomes law, together with the rest of the bill, the conditions will be in my opinion the same as they are now. So far as parts II and III are concerned, the conditions may be different, but we are dealing with the preliminary portion of part I. Part I deals distinctly with the Canadian National Railways.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not greatly concerned whether it is done by part I, or II or III, or preserved by anything contained in any of these parts, so long as I know that lines cannot be abandoned without an order of the railway board. That is very important to the people of the country, particularly in the rural sections.


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to give
to the committee any information that is not correct. I say that so far as parts II and III are concerned, the cooperative measures, it probably does make a difference, and the arbitral board as supreme in that case. As the Prime Minister says, there may never be an arbitral board, because the two railways are now showing a greater disposition towards cooperation than they 'have ever done in the past. If. however, an arbitral board is set up, it will be supreme in this matter, and if it were decided to abandon part of a line either of the Canadian Pacific or of the 53719-251
Canadian National, and to utilize a section of the other railway, by joint agreement, there is no doubt in my mind that the arbitral tribunal would be supreme in that respect.


William Richard Motherwell: If that is so I
object most decidedly to such power being given to any board. We know that Mr. Beatty has suggested that 5,000 miles of railway could be disposed of, and then to give any board that ever existed such authority as is indicated, without the endorsation and consent of the government, is simply scandalous. I object to it with all the vehemence and earnestness at my command, and in the strongest language I am capable of. I know what will be done under this authority; the authority will be exercised and exercised to the limit, and the national railway will be the sufferer.


Robert James Manion: What does my hon. friend insinuate-that the purpose of the bill is, in some insidious way, to wreck the Canadian National Railways?


William Richard Motherwell: I think that the
government should be the protector of the people they are governing; the government should protect the country and its railway property from .any possible depredations and dismantling.


Robert James Manion: It is precisely for the
purpose of protecting the country that this legislation is being put .through. It is being enacted with a view to having the two railways in the future operate more economically than up to recently they have been doing; for the Canadian National was in danger of wrecking not only itself but the whole financial structure of the country.


Charles Gavan Power: Does that apply to the Canadian Pacific Railway too?


Robert James Manion: The Canadian Pacific Railway could not wreck the financial structure of this country except of course by reflex action. It is a private corporation for which we are not responsible, and if it went into bankruptcy such injurious effects as might follow would be reflected in the country only indirectly. But the Canadian National Railways could not be allowed to go into bankruptcy.


Charles Gavan Power: We have the Canadian
National Railways because private lines went into bankruptcy.

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


Robert James Manion: I am not going to discuss the history of the railways. No one knows better than my hon. friend what unnecessary expenditures have been made in connection with the Canadian National.


James Layton Ralston: Voted for by everyone.


Robert James Manion: I am not questioning that; I am not discussing the history of these matters, nor am I making any references to the late government. I am simply pointing out the situation as it exists. The hon. member for Melville stood up and implied that there was something in this legislation that had for its purpose not the protection of the people but the wrecking of the Canadian National Railways. I do not remember the exact words he used, but that was their effect. Now I resent that. I do not believe that any government, either this one or the late government, would be so derelict in its duty at this time as to attempt to wreck the Canadian National Railways, and I think it is about time that all hon. members took that attitude. Indeed, I go a step further; I think it is about time that writers on behalf of the Liberal party, such as Mr. Deachman, stopped sending out lies about this government attempting to wreck the national railways, and telling about our driving business from those railways into the hands of the Canadian Pacific-falsehoods sent out under the frank of the Liberal whip. I think it is about time my hon. friends opposite regarded such an attitude as disgraceful to anyone. I have criticized my hon. friends; I criticized them when they were in power and since they have been in opposition I have also been critical of them. But I have never accused them of intentionally trying to wreck the Canadian National Railways. I think they made mistakes, and I do not wish to say more in that regard at the moment; but, I repeat, I have never thought of accusing them of attempting to wreck the system, and I think that any suggestion of that kind on their part now is unworthy of them. No decent Canadian would attempt such a thing, and I resent the implication of my hon. friend from Melville.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman-


William Richard Motherwell: I am not going to imply anything now; I am going to say something definite.


James Earl Lawson: The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.
[Mr. Power.!


William Richard Motherwell: I am wound up now; let me run down.


James Earl Lawson: Do I
understand that the hon. member for West Middlesex gives the hon. gentleman the floor?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Richard Motherwell: I was going to say that when we were sitting on the other side of the house, being then in power, and hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side, led by another gentleman now in the Senate, we witnessed on more than one occasion the other chamber throwing out proposed branch line after branch line, holding back the prospective national road for a sufficient length of time to enable the Canadian Pacific to bob in ahead of the Canadian National and cover the very same territory. Was that a friendly act towards the Canadian National Railways? I have in mind particularly the Kelvington line and the Bengough, both in Saskatchewan. The Canadian Pacific got in ahead of the Canadian National, the proposed Canadian National line was slaughtered in another place, although the Canadian Pacific line served largely, and in the case of the former, entirely, the same territory. I could cite a number of branch lines which the other chamber held back long enough to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to get into some of the best territory in Saskatchewan. Were such acts friendly to the Canadian National. Is it any wonder we suspect the designs and intentions of the government under this bill? It is not the same government, admittedly, nor is it the same leader, but it is the same party-the Conservative party-and their attitude has been the same from the time Sir Henry Thornton took the saddle up to the present. It has never been any different at any time that I know of.


Robert James Manion: If the Senate threw out bills of the Canadian National Railways and permitted bills to go through for the Canadian Pacific, enabling the Canadian Pacific to go into Canadian National territory, why did not the hon. gentleman as a member of the government of that day hold up the Canadian Pacific bills?


William Richard Motherwell: How could you get it past the Senate? The Senate blocked it once and would block it again.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman could have stopped the Canadian Pacific bills; it was during his regime that the Canadian Pacific was permitted to go into the territory as he has indicated.

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


William Richard Motherwell: It was done in the other chamber. We did all we could to get it as far as that chamber but it could get no further, and this occurred not once but half a dozen times. .


Robert James Manion: You could have stopped the Canadian Pacific bills.


John Campbell Elliott: Now that the air is clear once more and everybody is in good humour, may I ask the minister this question. Is it the intention of the government that no branch lines of the Canadian National shall be abandoned except by order of the railway board, as in the past? If that is the case, I think we can make some headway; if it is not the case, I must say that I am very much opposed to making it easier to get rid of branch lines.


Robert James Manion: May I point out to my
hon. friend that the Canadian National Railway Company is made up of the Grand Trunk and certain branch lines. As my leader has said, the Canadian National Railways is made up of the Grand Trunk and some of its subsidiaries; it is made up of the Canadian Northern and some of its subsidiaries, and it is made up of the government railways. Up to the present the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific could abandon lines without submission to the Board of Railway Commissioners, whereas the Canadian National Railway Company could not. The Grand Trunk could not abandon lines without submission to the railway commission, but the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific could and can at the present time just the same as the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific can abandon lines but the Canadian National Railway Company cannot and it is only to that that section 23 applies.


James Earl Lawson: If hon.
members will pardon me, I should like to know just to what section this amendment applies.


Charles Gavan Power: I regret that I led the chairman astray. I said that the act should be the Canadian National Railways Act, 1920, whereas it should be the Canadian National Railways Act.


James Earl Lawson: With
the approval of the committee, the amendment will be changed by striking out the figures "1920."


Robert James Manion: Incidentally, the hon. member contradicted the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: I include the minister in my regrets.


John Campbell Elliott: It does seem to me that
my question could be answered. Is the minister satisfied that the legislation which he is sponsoring makes it clear that branch lines or portions of the Canadian National Railways cannot be abandoned without an order being first obtained from the tribunal?


Robert James Manion: I must point out that we are getting into parts II and III which deal with the question of arbitral tribunals. I should like the committee to stick to the section with which we are now dealing so that some progress may be made and these other matters can be taken up when we come to that portion of the bill which deals with cooperation and the arbitral tribunals.


John Campbell Elliott: I am just as anxious as
the minister that we make some headway but without wanting to be at all disrespectful, I must submit that the minister is now in possession of all these facts and he can answer my question now just as easily as he can when we reach other portions of the bill.


Robert James Manion: I have answered my hon. friend two or three times. Under the arbitral tribunals which may be set up under part III of the bill, lines may be abandoned without submission to the Board of Railway Commissioners. However, I am suggesting that this matter be dealt with when we reach that portion of the bill.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There would be no
investigation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This amendment would
apply to part III of the bill. In view of the observations which have been made, I suggest that this section be allowed to stand. We could take up section 3 which deals with definitions. I admit that section 2 is a difficult one but the observations of the hon. member for West Middlesex apply more appropriately to part III. If amendments have to be made to ensure what the hon. gentleman thinks to be desirable, they can be made at that time.


Peter Heenan: I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways to give some consideration in the meantime to the redrafting of paragraph (a) of section 2. The minister has stated that these roads can be closed without recourse to the commission and I am quite sure that paragraph (a) does not carry out the intention of the government with respect to compensation for loss of property and so on. After what the
3974
C.N.R ,-CJPJt. Bill

minister has said with regard to the power of an arbitral tribunal to close a station without submission to the Board of Railway Commissioners, I am satisfied that the railway employees are not protected as the government intends them to be protected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Inasmuch as section 2 is to stand there will be ample opportunity for the hon. gentleman to consider what he desires to say in that regard when it is again before the committee.


Peter Heenan: I am just saying it now;
I ask the minister to give this matter consideration.


Robert James Manion: I consider that they are
amply protected by subsection (a).


Peter Heenan: There is no protection
whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the protection that
was in the law when the hon. gentleman was Minister of Labour, and it is the protection that still exists; it has not been altered or changed since this government came into power. If it was worth anything two, three or five years ago, it is worth something to-day.


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister does not need to show any heat in connection with this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the slightest.


Peter Heenan: The government of which I was a member never attempted to amalgamate portions of the railroads and throw thousands of railroad men and their families into the streets. If we had done that, we would have seen that these men and their families were protected. Had that not been done I would not have remained a member of that government, I would have walked out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Walking in and walking out is the hon. gentleman's strong point.


Peter Heenan: That may be, but if I
were a member of the Prime Minister's government I would walk out rather than introduce such a bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have heard rumours
and perhaps he is not unwilling.


Peter Heenan: I had the chance if I
wanted to take it, but I had no interest whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's
efforts Tvere apparent.


Peter Heenan: Whatever faults or weaknesses I had, the fact remains that every measure which I or the government of which
[Mr. Heenan.l
I was a member introduced gave more work than any measure introduced by the present government and at higher wages than had ever been paid in the history of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be the reason we have to pay out $160,000,000.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, will you
ask the Prime Minister to keep quiet. We have here a measure which gives the arbitral tribunals and the trustees the power to close stations and abandon lines, and yet the minister says that section 179 of the Railway Act will still prevail. The minister has told us that the Canadian Pacific Railway can abandon lines without first coming before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and he has given an interpretation of this section of the act which I have never heard before. If that is so, of what use is section 179?


Robert James Manion: They could always do
that; they could do it just the same when, my hon. friend was Minister of Labour.


Peter Heenan: When we were in power
we were not putting this bill through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but my hon. friends
ware preparing the foundation for it. In 1929 they laid the foundation.


Peter Heenan: 
Robert James Manion: There was never a year
when the Canadian National did not have to get $20,000,000 from the government.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Railways can twist figures just as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce can.


Robert James Manion: I am not twisting figures.


Peter Heenan: The minister was talking
about interest on bonded indebtedness and so on. I was talking about surplus of earnings over operating expenses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I were my hon. friend I would keep away from figures.


Peter Heenan: 
Robert James Manion: I do not wish false interpretations to be put on it. I was not interpreting paragraph (a); I was dealing with the abandonment of lines. Now my non. friend is discussing the abandonment of divisional points which is an altogether different matter. So far as the railway men in divisional points had protection in the past as regards compensation, they have it under this bill, and they will continue to have it. This was inserted by the labour representatives themselves. This was their suggestion in the matter.


Peter Heenan: No, it was not.


Robert James Manion: I say that it was.


Peter Heenan: It was not. I understood
it was Senator Murdock's suggestion.


Robert James Manion: Is he not a labour man?


Peter Heenan: I did not say he was not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is out of
order to discuss the Senate proceedings.


Robert James Manion: We cannot discuss this bill without saying where the suggestions originated. This was inserted at the suggestion of the labour people themselves and under this bill it protects and will continue to protect them. I do not know whait the hon. gentleman is worrying about. I was discussing abandonment of lines, a question which has nothing to do with divisional points. We have let section 2 stand. Let us go on with section 3, unless it is the desire of the committee not to make any progress on the bill.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Just before we leave section 2, I would suggest that the amendment at present before the committee regarding section 2 might better be added in a different form to section 9, subsection 6, where it would be far more effective. I would suggest that the government take into consideration making this addition to section 9, subsection 6:
Provided that no lease shall he made for a term of more than five years, no sale of any
portion of the national lines, no branch line or any part of a main line exceeding five miles in length shall be dismantled unless and until the consent of parliament has been obtained.
I think that would cover the whole ground and it would certainly be in a section of the bill where it would be more effective than it would be in section 2.


Robert James Manion: Regarding subsection 6 of section 9, we have been considering, when we reach it, strengthening it from the standpoint suggested by various hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Parry Sound who has just spoken, and others. But as I have been trying to suggest, I should like to deal with subsection 6 of section 9 when we come to it.


Charles Gavan Power: As I told my hon. friend the other day, it would be far better if we had some knowledge in advance of what amendments the minister intends to propose to these sections.


Robert James Manion: I shall give my suggestions in plenty of time for my hon. friends to think them over. I do not know that I have definitely settled upon this one. I have a-possible amendment, but we are considering: the matter in view of the discussion which has taken place. I could not at the moment give every possible amendment we may make. Discussion in committee may alter our viewpoints, or may convince us we should make some other amendments. With all due respect may I say that my hon. friends moved two amendments, one of which would have killed the bill altogether, made it null and void and, if I may say so, that was not done accidentally. The amendment that was moved and that would have put this bill out of commission was not submitted in advance to me. I did not see the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton until it was read in committee by him. By the way, may I suggest to him and others that when they have amendments, I should be glad if they would have a couple of copies typed off so that I might have one to study. It is very difficult for anyone to consider an amendment without having it before him so that he may judge of its effect on the bill.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound and the other one will be dealt with when we reach subsection 6 of section 9. As it has been decided by the committee that section 2 stands, let us now go on with section 3.
C.N.R.-CF.R. Bill


William Richard Motherwell: Before we pass on to the next section, might I point out to the minister that, as evidenced by the hon. member for Parry Sound, it seems that hon. members sitting around the minister are largely of the same opinion as we are regarding the desirability of the government keeping some control over these branch lines and, in fact, all lines, especially those which are in the ownership of the government. I cannot contemplate the government abdicating power over a national railway and handing it over to a railway board under the guise of a pretended movement, owing to the alleged too little control that the former government exercised over capital expenditure, to have proper control. I gathered from the minister that he thought the previous government did not exercise sufficient control. They exercised some. Now the present government is going to cure any ill along that line by exercising none, abdicating, handing it over to a self perpetuating board. I am partly in accord with the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Parry Sound, and I think possibly half of the members on the other side feel on this question just as we do. We should be deserting the rights of the people if we permitted this government without protest to hand over these great properties, not .only the Canadian National but the Canadian jPaeific, to a board that we cannot even get at, :and could not dismiss if we wanted to; and if I understand the terms of the bill correctly [DOT]we loould not do much about their salaries. Surely this is madness personified. It is too much modesty for this government, which is sometimes charged with assuming dictatorial powers, to be exhibiting now. They want to have no powers at all in this matter but to hand over complete power to the board. I do not know what has possessed hon. gentlemen opposite. I know that there must be a lot of members on the other side of the house who feel just as strongly as we do about this great property, especially after we have been told by the Premier that we do not own it at all but that it belongs to the bondholders. Who the Sam Hill it will belong to next I do not know.
Section stands.
On section 3.-Definitions.


James Earl Lawson: Is it the desire of the committee to consider this section clause by clause?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes .
Section 3 (a) agreed to.
i
On section 3 (b).-"Dispute."


Robert James Manion: It has been suggested by the legal officers that the word "Tribunal" in lines 19 and 24 should not be spelt with a capital "T." It is not a very important change.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a capital offence.


Mr. DUPRE:: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: It occurs all the way through with a capital "T."


Robert James Manion: There are certain places
where the capital is correct, but in others it is not.


Thomas Reid: What is the reason?


Robert James Manion: Because in this particular case it is a general tribunal as distinct from the specific Tribunal. "Tribunal" is defined, but not arbitral tribunal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Should it not be a small "a" for Arbitral as well?


Robert James Manion: "Tribunal" should be left
with a capital "T" because that word is defined in the definition clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3 (b) as amended agreed to.
On section 3 (c)-"National Act."
Charles Gavan Power: We have just had a splendid example of cooperating with the minister in accepting the amendment he suggested. I think we should go the whole way now and spell Tribunal with a small "t." I am sure we should; that is what it means. It is an arbitral tribunal.


Robert James Manion: But "Tribunal" is defined
in (h) with a capital "T."


Charles Gavan Power: But it refers to an arbitral
tribunal and not to the Tribunal you are setting up.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: As I understand it, there will be more than one tribunal appointed from time to time. It is not the same persistent court.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Read (h).


James Earl Lawson: Shall
section 3 (c) carry?


Charles Gavan Power: Carried on division, on the
(('jp >J
Section 3 (c) agreed to.
Section 3 (e) to (g) inclusive agreed to.

The Royal Assent
On section 3 (h)-"Tribunal."


Mr. BOTHWELL:: In view of the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, I think that this should stand until Part III has been considered. In the meantime I wish to move an amendment to strike out all the words after the word "means" in line 10, and to substitute therefor the words "Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada."


Robert James Manion: May I suggest that this
would hardly be the proper place to move the amendment because we shall be dealing with tribunals when we come to Part III. It would be there that the amendment would be in order. May I say that we are expecting to go to the other chamber in a few moments, .and I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Just in answer to the
minister, I think that the present definition will be wrong if the Board of Railway Commissioners is substituted because the wording of the clause is that "Tribunal" means the .arbitral tribunal constituted pursuant to Part III of this bill, and I therefore submit that "arbitral tribunal" would not be in order if we are substituting the Board of Railway *Commissioners.


Robert James Manion: If in Part III the tribunal is made the Board of Railway Commissioners, then (h) would be absolutely correct.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I would suggest to the minister-


James Earl Lawson: There is .a motion before the chair that the committee rise, and it is not debatable.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to make provision with respect to .forces of His Majesty from other parts of the
British commonwealth or from a colony when visiting the Dominion of Canada; and with respect to the exercise of command and discipline when forces of His Majesty from different parts of the commonwealth are serving together; and with respect to the attachment of members of one such force to another such force, and with respect to deserters from such forces.
An act for the relief of Auguste Burdavron.
An act for the relief of Nora Tulloch Carr.
An act for the relief of Alberta Grace Wood.
An act for the relief of Hilda Nice Allen.
An act for the relief of Mary Louise Robinson Reid.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Bernstein Schmerling.
An act to amend and consolidate the several acts relating to the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto.
An act respecting a certain patent application of Fred Charles Fantz.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1934.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes-Mr. Manion- Mr. Bury in the chair.
On section 3 (h)-Tribunal.
Robert James Manion: May I point out that I suggested to the hon. member who moved the amendment to this paragraph that it would be much more appropriate if it were moved to part III, which deals with tribunals. I pointed out also just before we rose that it would not change the definition at all if his amendment were adopted in the end. I do not say that it will be adopted, but if it were "tribunal" would simply mean an arbitral tribunal constituted under part III of this act, so this definition would be still appropriate.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I submit that this
definition would not be appropriate. In the first place, if the Board of Railway Commissioners became the tribunal it would not bo a body constituted under part III of this act, because that body is already constituted. Under part III as it now stands provision is made for the constitution of the tribunal provided for in this act. I am not going into my reasons for suggesting the Board of Railway Commissioners, because I am following the suggestion of the Prime Minister that we leave that until we consider part III. If it is desirable at this stage that I should go into my reasons I can do so.
C.N.R.-CjP.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend refuses
to change his amendment, then I am sorry we cannot accept it. I have already stated t.o the leader of the opposition the reasons why the tribunal proposed under the present bill is in my opinion superior to such a tribunal as the hon. gentleman suggests. First of all, under the tribunal to be constituted in accordance with this legislation, both railways will be represented, whereas they would not be represented if the Board of Railway Commissioners were the tribunal. They would be represented by witnesses, it is true, but they would not be represented on the court. Secondly, and this is very important,-I have discussed it with those who, in a judicial capacity, should know more about the matter than most of us-a tribunal constituted in such a manner as this will be, whereby the members, after hearing the case and arguing it among themselves, can sit down at a round table conference and go into it thoroughly, as an ordinary court or the Board of Railway Commissioners could not do, would be in a far better position to come to a reasonable decision than would be the railway board in the same circumstances. These are the chief arguments and I think they should commend themselves to the committee. On these grounds I must decline to accept the hon. gentleman's amendment.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I submit that the
reason given by the minister for preferring a tribunal such as is proposed in part III of the bill is not a good reason at all. If that is a sound argument, then it seems to me that in courts of law counsel for the respective litigants should sit with the judge instead of with their -clients. I took the trouble to read the evidence given before the committee in the other house and I find that even the leader of that house was more or less in sympathy with the idea of having the Board of Railway Commissioners; but he advanced the same reasons against that course as the minister has stated to-day. The Board of Railway Commissioners is a body that has been functioning in 'Canada for some twenty-nine years and it has the confidence of the people. The head of that board is the man whom the government regards as the outstanding arbitrator in connection with disputes between the two railways. That being so, surely a body that has been trained in settling disputes in railway matters is more competent to dispose of such disputes as will arise now than any other body that might be set up. What shall we have under the arbitral -tribunal referred to in part III? A dis-

pute will arise between the two railway companies and -the tribunal will come into operation. The best men of both companies will be appointed and their representatives will sit with the chairman of the railway board in order to decide the dispute. But these men appointed by the two railways will not foe in a position to be arbitrators at all; they will be simply counsel for the respective railway companies and 'they will be sitting at the table to advance the arguments of their own particular companies. The result is that in all oases the chairman of the railway board will foe left to decide the dispute. There would not be a dispute if the two representatives sitting with the chairman could possibly agree, because they would agree before the chairman sat in with them, if there was any possibility of an understanding. We want to have a board that will be able to give a decision after listening to the arguments advanced. When we come to part III, if this section is amended as proposed, other changes will have to be made. Under the Railway Act at present one commissioner may form a quorum in certain cases and in other cases two. It will be necessary to change part III of the bill, or to make a change somewhere else, to indicate how the tribunal 'Shall be comprised. In my opinion the tribunal should consist of ait least three members of the railway board. I am afraid I cannot withdraw the amendment, because I think that the tribunal set up under this legislation should be the best trained body we have in this country, and that is the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Brecken Nicholson: I wonder wha-t position my hon. friend would take with regard to the board of arbitration set up under the disputes investigation act, such as is now set up where disputes arise between any of the railway companies and the employees. Would he suggest that the dispute be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that that board would be the proper tribunal to consider the matter?


Mr. YOUNG:: That is something that
would not come before this tribunal anyway.


George Brecken Nicholson: No, it would not, but
the position is precisely the same. Under the disputes act, if there is a difference of opinion between the railway company and its employees, the employees appoint their representative to act as arbitrator. The company appoints another and the chairman is nominated either by the two or by the Minister of Labour, and thus the board of arbitration is constituted. In the present instance there

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill
may be a dispute between the two railway companies as to wihat is to be done in a particular case-whether they will take off a through train of the Canadian Pacific and allow the Canadian National to do all the business, or vice versa. If an agreement cannot be reached, the matter will go to arbitration. My hon. friend's suggestion is that it be referred to a board made up entirely of nominees of the owners of one of the railways, and that the other railway shall not have any representation on the board at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is exactly what it means. The Board of Railway Commissioners is appointed by the government of Canada, parliament acting through the government, and it is suggested that the board shall be the sole arbitrator. Neither of the companies may be represented on it at all. On the other hand, the arbitral tribunal is just what it means, a board of arbitration to decide a dispute between the two railway companies, and one company has the same right to be represented as the other. Counsel for each railway may appear before that tribunal. My hon. friend says that it is counsel for both railways sitting in with the judge, but it is the arbitrator from each company sitting in with the chairman of the arbitral tribunal.


Peter Heenan: There is this important difference so far as industrial disputes are concerned, that neither of the parties is bound to accept the decision of the board. Under this legislation it is not merely a matter of taking off a train or two, or anything of that sort, because if the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that power is given with regard to the joint use of terminals, the running rights of one line over the other, the joint use of tracks, control and prohibition in respect of construction of new lines, joint use of facilities, the abandonment of lines, services and facilities, the pooling of any part or parts of freight or passenger traffic, and all things necessary and incidental thereto. These three gentlemen are to sit in private. I agree with the minister when he says that perhaps they could arrive at a better arrangement to their own way of thinking than they could sitting in open court, but are we going to provide that three men may sit down in private without the public knowing what they are doing or why they are doing it and decide upon the slaughtering of branch and main lines, the giving of running rights to one road
over the other, and the throwing of thousands of railroad men out of work? This is one thing above all others which should be decided out in the open so that the people interested might appear before the board.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does my hon. friend suggest that because of the comprehensive powers granted to the tribunal, one of the parties to the arbitration should not be represented on the board?


Peter Heenan: No.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is his argument. There is no doubt that comprehensive powers are being given to these tribunals and my hon. friend is arguing that because of these comprehensive powers, one of the parties to the dispute should be represented on the board while the other is not.


Peter Heenan: I do not think the hon. member for East Algoma fully understands what I said. I have no objection to the two railroad companies being represented but I do contend that what is done by this board should be done in public and not in private. I would be quite satisfied to go right down stream with my hon. friend if he would get the government which he is supporting to follow the same procedure as that followed under the Industrial Disputes Act.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not talking about whether the board will sit in private or public, I am referring to the amendment which provides that the Board of Railway Commissioners shall be the arbitral tribunal. This board is appointed by the owners of the Canadian National Railways and the amendment provides that they shall be the arbitral tribunal which may decide that the Canadian Pacific shall surrender a terminal to the Canadian National, that it shall abandon a line or other such matters. The Canadian Pacific would have no representative upon this tribunal. As the tribunal is now set up it is a board of arbitration purely and simply. Whether the dispute is great or small, each party will be represented. It is an entirely different matter to discuss how these arbitral tribunals shall carry out their work; I am referring now to the amendment which provides that the owners of the Canadian National Railways will appoint the arbitrators while the Canadian Pacific cannot make any appointment.


John Vallance: The bill provides that a representative of both companies shall be a member of the tribunal, but it also provides
C.N.R.-CP.R. Bill

that the chairman of that tribunal, who is to be the chairman of the railway commission, must be satisfied with all decisions. In reality, he is the sole arbitrator.


George Reginald Geary: If the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is objecting to these tribunals simply because they may sit in private, his objection cannot stand. It is expressly provided in the Railway Act that the Board of Railway Commissioners may sit in private if they choose to do so. If the procedure followed by the Board of Railway Commissioners is to be adopted in the consideration of these matters, the sittings could be held in private.


Peter Heenan: But the Board of Railway Commissioners or any other board has never had to deal with a bill like this. My point is that when the Board of Railway Commissioners or a tribunal is given powers such as those contained in this bill, their sittings should be held in the open.


George Reginald Geary: Then my hon. friend does not agree with the hon. member who has moved the amendment. The mover of the amendment asks that these matters be carried to the Board of Railway Commissioners. If that is done, the sittings could be held in private.


Peter Heenan: We will have other amendments to offer.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for South Toronto and the hon. member for East Algoma have suggested important reasons why this amendment should not carry, but there are other reasons also why these matters could not be left to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I would refer the committee to clause 19 of the bill, which reads:
If, in the opinion of the presiding officer of any tribunal, any application made to him raises matters of substantial concern to the public or a section of the public, he may direct that notice of the sittings of the tribunal shall be given either by advertisement in one or more newspapers, or otherwise as he may consider expedient.
He may permit the public to be represented at the meetings. Therefore, it is provided by the bill that the public can get into these meetings.


Peter Heenan: What provision is made to let the public know that the arbitral tribunal is going to deal with a certain matter?


Robert James Manion: If, in the opinion of the presiding officer of any tribunal, the matter to be considered affects a certain section of 
the public or the public as a whole, it would be his duty to notify the public either by advertisements in the public press, by personal letters or otherwise. He would also inform the attorney general of the province to which the matter under consideration referred. There are one or two other points which I think make the present arrangement more acceptable than having the Board of Railway Commissioners constitute the tribunal. The purpose of parts II and III of this bill is to bring about greater cooperation between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. As the bill distinctly states, it is to effect economies and provide more remunerative operation. That being the case, it seems to me to be much more reasonable to have a representative of each company upon the tribunal than to have the Board of Railway Commissioners constitute such tribunal. To a large extent this board has been dealing with questions such as freight rates and other similar matters.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Would not the other
members of the railway commission become just as competent as the chairman to deal with these matters?


Robert James Manion: Possibly they would over
a period of time. It must be understood that the two railroads would not appoint the same representative to sit on all tribunals. They would appoint a representative who was familiar with the particular branch of the service with which the particular tribunal was to deal. A tribunal might be appointed to deal with the pooling or cooperation of telegraph lines or express services, and the railroads would appoint representatives who were familiar with telegraphic operation or express services, as the case may be. That is a very important and useful provision which could be worked out under this method of having a tribunal.
Another point is that the arbitral tribunal as set up by this bill may not have to give a decision at all. Being set up as it is in a more or less informal manner, I mean so far as its members are concerned, the chairman being the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the other two members being representatives of the two railways, and being able to sit down, as I suggested a little while ago, at a round table conference to discuss a matter, it is very likely, as the object of the two railways is to bring about greater cooperation and more economy, there will be a greater possibility of their coming to an agreement without any

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill
formal judgment being given. That is really the whole object of part II and, indeed, of the bill so far as parts II and III are concerned, namely, to bring about greater cooperation and in that way save both companies from the pressure of competition, duplication and the consequent unnecessary expense. Having listened to the observations of hon. gentlemen opposite and two hon. gentlemen on this side who, besides myself, have taken part in the discussion, I should think the arguments are all for leaving in the bill the arbitral tribunal just as it is at present.


Edward James Young: Has the minister considered
the position in which this will put the chairman of the railway commission supposing a dispute should arise in which five commissioners decide it one way and the chairman decides it the other? The chairman would be overruled by the five others. He could then induce one of the railway companies to ask for a tribunal. He would be the sole arbiter on that and in that way he could defeat the purpose of the entire railway commission.


Robert James Manion: I do not quite get my
hon. friend's point.	Is he referring to a
tribunal that has five men on it?


Edward James Young: I understand the railway
commission has six members. Suppose a matter is referred to it; five of the members decide one way, and the chairman decides the other. Thp decision of the five would prevail. Then the chairman, not satisfied with that decision, could request one of the railway companies to ask for a tribunal. The matter would be referred to a tribunal of which he would be the sole arbiter and in that way he could defeat the entire purpose of the railway commission; he could overrule the five.


Robert James Manion: Of course my hon. friend
is putting up a theoretical case which I do not think is likely to occur. As a matter of fact, generally speaking and without reflecting in any way upon the members of the railway .commission as it exists at present or as it was in the past, the chairman has been the outstanding member. I say that without any disrespect towards any other member of the commission. I do not think the case suggested by my hon. friend is likely to occur.


Edward James Young: It could occur.


Robert James Manion: I do not suppose any
legislation can prevent some remote possibility from occurring. No legislation that is set up provides for every remote possibility. But I do not think the surmised case of the
hon. gentleman is likely to arise in practical railway questions.


Edward James Young: On other boards it frequently happens that one member will appose all the others, and I do not see why this might not occur on the railway commission.


Robert James Manion: Another point that might
be put forward is that this would amount almost to a conspiracy. Supposing the board had given a decision and the chairman did not like the judgment the majority had given *against him. He would be conspiring with the two railway companies to defeat that.


Edward James Young: Not necessarily. The railway company that was not satisfied with the decision could ask for an arbitral tribunal.


Robert James Manion: Then be would be conspiring with the one railway company to defeat the other.


Edward James Young: Not at all.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We have been considering what would take place if a tribunal were established, how one railway might get into difficulty with another, thereby bringing about the establishment of a tribunal and subsequently a solution of the matter that might not be satisfactory to some parts of Canada. What about the situation that might arise supposing the two railways deliberately never disagreed? There would then be no tribunal and a policy of inaction adopted from year to year. The roads would take the line of least resistance. In such a case, what would be the situation of parts of the country that would be seriously affected *by not having the necessary transportation facilities? I am afraid they would be in a bad way.


Robert James Manion: In the past the railways
took the line of least resistance and they did not cooperate. I say quite frankly that when this government came into power, one of the first matters pointed out to the heads of both railway companies by the Prime Minister and myself was the need of greater cooperation. It is obvious to every hon. member and, indeed, to every citizen who cares to look about him, that there were great opportunities for cooperation in regard to a number of trains, for instance, those running between here and Montreal, Montreal and Toronto, and in other parts of the country. There were great opportunities for cooperation in ticket offices, for instance, those on Sparks street. We pointed out to the railway companies that there were these opportunities of cooperating and thereby saving money.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

To-day, in view of the fact that this legislation is pending and that it carried practically unanimously in the other house, the railways are making an effort to cooperate to a greater extent than they ever did in the past. I do not think either railway would take the position suggested by the hon. gentleman, that is, merely to stand pat, or the management of the road would not be doing their duty towards it, because it is certainly the duty of both railways under present circumstances to endeavour to cooperate and to bring about more economical operation than has been the case for some years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe the two roads should cooperate as far as possible, but supposing they are opposed, as I believe they are, to this tribunal, the purpose of setting up the tribunal might be nullified by the failure of the railways to avail themselves of its services and the result that the public interest in the matter of transportation and other facilities would suffer. Where would the country be in a situation of this kind? I am afraid the transportation facilities of different areas of Canada would seriously suffer.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member is out of order in discussing that. It comes under part III; it does not come under this clause.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, I am putting it under.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I have one other word to say. The minister suggests that this tribunal is going to be simply a round table conference. Under part II of the bill, the two railway companies are surely going to get together and have their round table conference before a matter comes to a dispute. When it comes to a dispute, it is time then to have some independent body to decide the question at issue. Such a dispute will be one in which the Canadian people are vitally interested and we should have a board in which the people have learned to have confidence and on which are men who are trained in the duties that this tribunal will have to undertake.


James Layton Ralston: Following that up and emphasizing what has been said with respect to the possibility of conflict between the Board of Railway Commissioners and the tribunal, let me put this case to the minister for the purpose of finding out just what this bill means and seeing if we are not in effect wiping out entirely the jurisdiction of the railway commission, at least with regard to the abandonment of lines. Assume, for instance, that the Canadian National Railway 
wants to abandon a line without reference to the Canadian Pacific. After this legislation is passed this matter will be under the jurisdiction of the board of trustees. It is said that those trustees cannot exercise the power to abandon the line without the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the approval of the governor in council. That is to say, if they want to operate on their own, they must, as I understand the-minister, operate under section 23.


Robert James Manion: May I make that clear? Only so far as the Canadian National is concerned. That does not affect the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk Pacific.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about the
Canadian National. It has to have the recommendation of the railway board and the approval of the governor in council. Supposing the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National are in conflict in some particular area; they have possibly a duplicate service. The Canadian Pacific takes the initiative and asks the Canadian National to agree to abandon its line in order that the Canadian Pacific may operate. The Canadian National fails to agree. A dispute arises and the tribunal is formed. The tribunal orders the Canadian National to agree and therefore to abandon its line. What I want to be clear on is whether under such circumstances the Board of Railway Commissioners have power to keep the Canadian National from abandoning that line, or whether the tribunal, representing simply the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the two representatives- or one representative it may be-of the railway companies, has power not only to authorize but to require the Canadian National to do what section 23 says it cannot do without the approval of the governor in council and the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners. May I refer to section 23 of this bill, which provides that:
Where the execution of an order, or the carrying out of a decision of a tribunal, involves the doing of any act which by any statute requires, but for the provisions of this act, Lie leave, sanction, assent or approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners, or where in the opinion of the presiding officer the public interests involved are of sufficient importance to warrant it, no order made by a tribunal shall be operative without the concurrence of the presiding officer and his formal written assent.
Section 24 reads:
In the event of any conflict between an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners and that of any tribunal, the order or decision of the tribunal shall prevail.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
That it seems to me, makes it perfectly clear that the Canadian Pacific Railway, on a definite and-shall I say?-hostile application involving a dispute and the convening of the tribunal, can succeed in having the Canadian National forced to override the provisions of section 23 and abandon a line which otherwise it could not do without the approval of the governor in council and the board.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend
has interpreted it correctly, but that is just as true of the Canadian National forcing the Canadian Pacific to do the same thing.


James Layton Ralston: No, the Canadian Pacific
*does not require the approval of the governor in council nor of the board.


Robert James Manion: That is true, but so far
as the abandonment of a line is concerned the tribunal has the same power to force the Canadian Pacific as to force the Canadian National to abandon. My hon. friend will agree to that.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act really refers only to the Grand Trunk Railway. It is true that that may be wiped out by the arbitral tribunal under this act, but as I said, that section applies only to the Grand Trunk. At the present time the Canadian Northern or the drand Trunk Pacific and their subsidiaries could abandon their lines without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners just as the Canadian Pacific could; but the Grand Trunk could not, because the Grand Trunk is the railway constituting the Canadian National Railway Company.


Eugène Fiset: I think the minister is absolutely right when he states that the [DOT]Canadian Pacific has the right under existing law to abandon part of its permanent line; but on the other hand, is it not true that the community that would be affected by the abandonment of that line have a perfect Tight to appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and if a judgment is given by the *board, that judgment rules?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is partly
right, to this extent, that if the Canadian Pacific had received a subsidy, for instance, from this government, and in consequence had agreed to carry on a particular service, it could not abandon that service, or if it had made an agreement with or received assistance from a local community and had agreed to carry on a certain service, it could not abandon that service because that would be an agreement as binding as any other
agreement. But apart from an agreement of that kind, binding the company because of some subsidy given by this government or some other government, the Canadian Pacific I am informed, and I think it is absolutely correct, could discontinue a service.


Eugène Fiset: I think the minister is correct. But the community affected by the abandonment of that service or line has the right to appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and if judgment is given by the board it applies to the Canadian Pacific just the same as to everybody else.


Robert James Manion: That is true. The public might appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners, but the Canadian Pacific can abandon a line unless it is tied by an agreement, contract, or subsidy to carry on that service, and it can abandon it without appealing to the board at all.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend says that section 23 applies only to the Canadian Northern.


Robert James Manion: The Grand Trunk, I said.


James Layton Ralston: Just on what does the
minister base that statement? As I understand section 19 of the Canadian National Railways Act, it permits the putting of any railway under the operation and management of the Canadian National Railways.


Robert James Manion: I do not like to attempt to express the legal reasons, but the actual fact is that the only railway in the Canadian National Railways is the Grand Trunk railway and the branch lines which have been built in recent years have also been put under the Canadian National Railways Act.


James Layton Ralston: The Canadian Northern was under the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: For operation. The Canadian government railways are under the control of the government. That is the difference. But the Grand Trunk is the only one under the Canadian National Railways Act.


James Layton Ralston: Surely the abandonment of lines is operation.


George Reginald Geary: It is the very opposite to operation.


James Layton Ralston: Does not abandonment
come within the term "operation"?


Robert James Manion: I do not quite follow the question.	.


James Layton Ralston: The governor in council has power to vest in the Canadian National Railway Company the management and operation of any road, and the governor in council
39S4
C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill

has done that in the case of the Canadian government railways, the Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk Pacific; and in the case of the Grand Trunk the Canadian National actually owns the stock. Under section 23 of the Canadian National Railways Act, with the approval of the governor in council, the company may abandon the operation of any lines or parts of lines. I submit that that applies directly to the lines which the company is empowered to operate, and it applies not only to the Grand Trunk but to the Canadian government railways and other roads as well. The very words of the section are "may abandon the operation of any lines or parts of lines." In a previous section the governor in council has vested in the Canadian National Railway Company the operation of all these different railways. This means only that it may cease to operate them.


Robert James Manion: That is not my information. Section 23 applies to the Grand Trunk, and it would apply also to the branch lines that were built under the Canadian National Railways Act.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot believe that the abandonment of operation of a Canadian government railway line is to be permitted without the approval of the governor in council.


Robert James Manion: That is a different matter.


James Layton Ralston: This is the section which requires the approval of the governor in council before the operation of any line can be abandoned. My hon. friend says that the Canadian government railways are not within that section. There must be something wrong with that.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 13, 1933