1933-03-08

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	Was Mr. P. Horace Boivin of Granby, Quebec, ever in the employ of the Department of National Defence as cadet instructor?
2.	If so, during what period?	_
3.	Where did he secure the rank establishing his fitness and qualifications?
4.	Who recommended him?
5.	Did he receive any remuneration whatever, as salary, travelling expenses, or otherwise, from the department?
6.	If so, how much?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	No.
2.	Cadet instructors are employed by the school authorities concerned. Departmental

records indicate that Mr. Boivin was employed during the school years 1924-25, 1925-26 and 1930-31.
3.	Camp School of Infantry, Longueuil, Quebec, 22nd July, 1923.
4.	No information. Presumably school authorities concerned.
5.	Yes.
6.	April 1, 1924, to date-cadet instructors' allowances, $2,758.90; pay for annual training, $60.


PERIBONKA, QTJE., WHARF
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What amounts were spent for repairs to the wharf at Peribonka, Quebec, in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932?
2.	IIow many tons of merchandise were received at and shipped from this wharf in the same years?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	1930-31, $4,023.99; 1931-32, nil; 1932-33, $599.78.
2.	No information.


THREE FATHOM HARBOUR, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Who was the postmaster at Three Fathom harbour, Halifax county, Nova Scotia, in September, 1930?
2.	Who is the postmaster to-day and when was he appointed?
3.	What was the reason for the change and on whose recommendation was the change made ?
4.	How many families are served by the said post office?
5.	Was a petition received by the Postmaster General or any of the officials of that department requesting the change, and who signed such petition?
6.	Was a petition received by the Postmaster General or any of the officials of that department protesting against such change and by whom was petition signed?
7.	From the centre of the district what is the relative location of the present office as compared with the location of the previous office?


Mr. SAUYE:: 1.	Nathan H. Leslie.
2.	(a) Miss Annie Graham; (b) November 7, 1932.
3.	Commissioner's report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
4.	In October, 1931, the former postmaster reported 12 householders. On January 24, 1933, the present postmistress reported 17 householders.
5.	No.
6.	Petition received signed by:	Wallace
Graham, Gordon Leslie, Hubert Leslie, Montague Hetherington, Albert Julien, Mrs. Albert Julien, George E. Graham, Mrs. Cyril Graham, Mr. Cyril Graham, William Graham,

Questions
Mrs. William Graham, Mrs. Stewart D. Ruggles, Mrs. F. W. Hetherington, Stewart Ruggles, Mary T. Hetherington, Annie L. Graham, John R. Graham, Mary Graham, Mrs. Annie Ernst, Andrew Graham, Frank Graham, Lemuel Graham, Mrs. Lemuel Graham, Isaac A. Graham, Frank S. Corkum, Lena B. Conrod, Edith A. Conrod, Mrs. Frank
S.	Corkum, Herbert Gaetz, Mrs. Maryann Gaetz, L. D. Morrissey, Miss Moulton, Bessie L. Smith, Harry Hanley, Glen Leslie, Asst. P.M. Nathan Leslie, P.M. Nathan Leslie.
7.	The office was moved about half a mile north to the main post road. The mail service between the former post office and the main post road, the cost of which was S60 per annum, was discontinued.


R. W. GRIMMER
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Wliat position, if any, does Mr. R. W. Grimmer hold in the service of the Department of Fisheries in Charlotte county, New Brunswick?
2.	What are the duties attached to the position and what is the salary?
3.	When was the position first established?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	He is a special officer in the fisheries protection service generally.
2.	Supervision of the boats with a view to effecting economies in the operation thereof. Salary $200 per month.
3.	February 10, 1931.



ST. EULALIE, QTJE., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Who held the contract for mail delivery on rural route number 1 of St. Eulalie, in the month of June, 1932?
2.	When did this contract expire?
3.	Who holds the contract now?
4.	Were tenders called for in connection with the renewal of same; if so, when?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	A. Perusse.
2.	September 30, 1932.
3.	A. Perusse.
4.	No. Contract was renewed with present contractor.



FLETJRANT POINT, QUE., WHARF

Mr. MARCIL:: 
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) J. J. Leclerc; (b) S2S,533.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) $590; (b) J. T. Little.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-EXPENDITURE FOR RENTALS OR SHELTER CLAIMS

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Does the government, in connection with its administration of relief funds, make allowances for rentals or shelter claims of those furnishing housing to unemployed citizens?
2.	If so, on what basis does the federal authorities contribute for these purposes?
3.	How much has been disbursed by the federal authorities in respect to rental or shelter claims in the different provinces?


Mr. MANION (for Mr. Gordon):: 1.	Under The Relief Act, 1932, the Dominion government is contributing to the expenditures of the provinces and municipalities for direct .relief which is defined as food, fuel, clothing and shelter, or the equivalent thereof.
2.	Under The Relief Act, 1932, the Dominion government has agreed to contribute 33J per cent of the expenditures of municipalities in respect to direct relief with the proviso that in cases where a municipality is financially unable to contribute one-third of its necessary expenditure, the contribution of the municipality may be decreased, the Dominion government and the province increasing their contributions accordingly. In the case of direct relief administered by the provinces in unorganized territory, the Dominion government contribution is 50 per cent.
3.	Expenditures for Shelter under the Relief
Act, 1932, to which the Dominion Government contributed as at February 28,
1933:
Prince Edward Island	$	1 00
Nova Scotia	 Nil
Neiw Brunswick	
5,945	00Quebec	
344,267	46Ontario	
715,217	39Manitoba	
769,204	19Saskatchewan	
54,839	17Alberta	
342,046	10British Columbia	
142,680	67



QUEBEC RELIEF CAMP

Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	How many unemployed receive assistance at the camp established in the city of Quebec?
2.	Does the provincial government contribute to the upkeep of this camp?


Mr. MANION (for Mr. Gordon):: 1.	The camp operated by the Department of National Defence as a relief measure contained 417 men as at February 28, 1933.
2.	No.
Motions for Papers



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-QUEBEC ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Mr. DUGUAY:: Has the Quebec government made a proposal to the federal government that they jointly undertake road construction to help the unemployed ?


Mr. MANION (for Mr. Gordon):: Under
the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, and the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, the Dominion government contributed to various road works which were carried out by the province and municipalities as set forth in reports respecting those acts which have been tabled. Under The Relief Act, 1932, the Dominion government is contributing to the direct relief expenditures of the province and the municipalities, and it has been provided by provincial regulation that those in receipt of relief should do work in return for same. This work, it is understood, i$ in many cases road construction.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-UNMARRIED MEN

Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Has the federal government made an
agreement with the provinces whereby the former will provide for unmarried unemployed men?	.
2.	What provinces have made representations to the government in this regard?


Robert James Manion: 1 and 2. This was dealt with very fully by the Minister of Labour on February 24, see Hansard of that date.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. GOBEIL:: 1.	How many translators are there in each department of the government?
2.	What are their names and salaries?
3.	When were they appointed?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all reports, paysheets, vouchers covering expenditures, and other documents, in respect of repairs to the wharf at Cap des Hosiers, in the years 1931 and 1932.



CONTRACTS UNDER PREVIOUS GOVERNMENTS

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of all contracts granted by the preceding administration that were revoked or modified by the present administration since taking office to date.


Mr. BENNETT:: As I mentioned when
this motion was called last time, it involves 
a tremendous amount of what I would conceive to be useless work, inasmuch as to prepare a copy of all the contracts in which, for instance, small extras were paid or any matters of that kind arose, means a great deal of time and labour, and the employment of many people to very little purpose. To say "revoked or modified by the present administration" involves every contract regarding which even an extra five or ten dollars were paid, because this means a modification of the original contract. If he would be willing to amend his motion by providing to have it read:
Revoked and a statement of any modifications that were made in existing contracts
It would be more in keeping with what is required, save time and expense, and secure the return a little more quickly than otherwise.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: In regard to this
motion, I may say that the information I was seeking has already been given by the Prime Minister,-on Monday and just now-by his statement that almost every contract has received some slight modification, by all governments. That is a principle I wanted to have recognized, and I hope the Prime Minister will find a way to modify also the contract for printing currency bills.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Yes.



CURRENCY NOTES AND BONDS-PROPOSAL FOB STAMPING OR PRINTING IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For copies of the debentures and bonds of the treasury of the Dominion of Canada printed under chapter 71 of the revised statutes of Canada. 1927, printed and published in pursuance of section 133 of the British North America Act and section 10. chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It seems to me that this
resolution is not sufficiently explicit. As it is worded, it would require a copy of every bond or debenture printed under the authority of chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, and this would be an impossible task. I would suggest that the hon. member redraft his motion.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I want just one specimen.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
revise his motion? In the meantime it will be withdrawn from the order paper.

Privilege-Mr. Bennett



CANADIAN COINAGE

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For specimens of Canadian gold, silver, nickel and bronze coins minted under the authority of chapter 40 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, printed and published in pursuance of section 133 of the British North America Act, and section 10, chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This resolution entails
a charge upon the people, involves the expenditure of public money and so could only be proposed by a minister of the crown on the recommendation of the Governor General, under standing order 60; and would have to be referred to a committee of the whole house after notice before the house could vote on it. ' The resolution is not in order when introduced by a private member and will have to be dropped from the order paper.
Motion dropped.



DOMINION NOTES

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For copies of Dominion notes issued and printed under chapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, printed and published in pursuance of section 133 of the British North America Act and section 10, chapter 2 of the Revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The same objection applies to this motion as to the one in regard to treasury debentures and bonds; it is not sufficiently explicit. As it is worded now, it would require a copy of each dominion note so issued. I would ask the hon. member to amend this motion.
Motion dropped.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of the contract granted by the government of the Dominion of Canada for the printing of Dominion notes issued under chapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, printed and published pursuant to section 133 of the British North America Act and section 10. chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
Mr. BEJilNETTl It must be obvious that this is not a motion the hon. member expects to have met in any way. The return asked for is one that involves statements that may or may not be of fact; it involves questions' of conclusions of law that may or may not be good. If he asks for a copy of the last contract granted by the Dominion of Canada for the printing of dominion notes, that should be sufficient.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: That is sufficient. I may add that all these motions have been 53719-179	1
inspired by an interview which was granted to the press some time ago by the Postmaster General-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: -in which he stated
that he would move to have laid on the table copies of bills and bonds made in accordance with the requirements of the constitution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will
amend this motion.
Motion dropped.



BILINGUAL COINAGE AND CURRENCY

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of all correspondence or petitions forwarded to the government or any member of the ministry, by any person or association, requesting the coinage of dominion metallic currency and the printing of dominion notes in the two official languages of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be obvious that at least some limitation should be placed on this motion. It began in 1867, and it would be rather a difficult task. I would ask the hon. gentleman to put at least some time limit upon his motion.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: From August 7, 1913.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think as a matter of
privilege it is due to the reputation of this house that I should read two telegrams which have been received by me with respect to observations made by an hon. member of this house regarding persons outside who obviously have no means of making reply except in this way. One is in answer to the telegram that I sent immediately after leaving the chamber and obtaining a copy of Hansard to quote the exact language used by the hon. gentleman. The telegram is from Mr. McClay:
Referring your telegram even date, am prepared to give affidavit that I have never spoken to Mr. Reid in the Chateau Laurier and absolutely deny his allegation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I rise to a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, namely that the Prime Minister is not in order in reading any message emanating from persons outside this house, that reflects on what has been said by hon. members of this house.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: See rule 306.

Privilege-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rule 306 does not touch this. I shall deal with the question, of order which has been raised. If it is not competent for this parliament in the exercise of its privileges to protect itself from statements such as were made, then I have no appreciation of what the privileges of this house are. The rule does not deal with them. There are 245 members of this house, and they have a right in debate to influence the judgment of the members of this tribunal. But with respect to a matter that was under debate, in introducing the opinions of someone else outside of this house, the hon. member is adding to the numbers of this house, making the membership 246, which is contrary to all the rules of all parliaments so far as I know, especially in Great Britain and under our rule 306, whether it is introducing newspaper opinions or individual opinions because it is introducing another member into the house who is not here for that purpose.
It has long been the privilege, not of an individual member, but of parliament itself, as the right hon. gentleman has so frequently reminded me since I have had to occupy this post, that whoever for the moment is leading the government is leader of the house and should be jealous of its privileges, and one of the privileges of this house is to see that when attacks are made on those outside of the house who may not answer in the house, at least the opportunity should be afforded to them, either by telegram or letter, since they cannot bring ain action in courts of law, to state that there has been a misunderstanding or that the statements made were unwarranted. If it is the view of this house or of any part of this house that that high privilege of parliament should be disregarded in this instance I am content, but I feel that it is my duty, and I put it on no higher ground than that, to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when a member of this house makes a statement with respect to a person who is not in the house but which does touch and impinge upon the honour of a member of this house and a member of this government as well, the privileges of parliament must accord to the government of the day an opportunity to place before this tribunal the statement of the person whose honour is thus impugned. That is the position I desire to take, but if this house desires to prevent the reading of the telegrams on a question of order, which I do not think applies, I am content.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is free to make any statement which he deems necessary ter protect himself, the government or this house, and nobody can take exception 
to his so doing. The exception that is being taken at the moment is to my right hon. friend reading a telegram from someone who is not a member of this house reflecting on the proceedings of this house, upon words that have been uttered in this house and commenting upon them. It is that feature to which we take exception, and not to the Prime Minister doing all in his power to protect himself or anyone else by making any Statement he himself wishes to make. But he must not bring into this house and read documents from persons outside which reflect upon what has been said by hon. members of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not in disagreement with what the right hon. gentleman has said. I think on more than one occasion I have expressed in different terms the same view that he has expressed, that it is not competent for any person outside of this house by the use of telegrams to engage in debate with members within the house, with members who must carry on their debates with one another, and not with persons outside the house. But what I was endeavouring to say was that where the honour of a member of the house is impugned, if he is a member of the government, it is my duty as I conceive it, and I have looked slightly into the matter and have been reminded of it frequently, to endeavour to make clear to the house what the facts are. But if there is objection to the reading of telegrams on that ground, I shall content myself by merely stating that the government has been advised by Mr. McClay and by the Fraser River Elevator Company Limited that the statements must have been made under a misapprehension of the facts and-I will put it as strongly as this-that there is no foundation for them in the form in -which they appear.
I am now considering the question whether the matter should not be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for the purpose of protecting those without from attacks from those within to which they cannot reply.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I repeat the statement I made the other day, and which I made on the word of a member of parliament, that the words in question were said to me by Mr. McClay. If I was outside the house I would make precisely the same statement as I made in the house.
I repeat that the words were said to me.
I have a vivid recollection of them, and I simply stated in the house what was stated to me by Mr. McClay.

Privilege-Mr. Stevens ,
NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY On the orders of the day:


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: On Monday the sixth instant my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked me a question with regard to conditions in the New Westminster penitentiary. He said that a communication had reached him with regard to some trouble in the New Westminster penitentiary, and I replied on Monday the sixth that no word of it had come to my knowledge. I just wish to inform my hon. friend that a slight disturbance did occur in the penitentiary yesterday, not on Monday. It was not a very large affair, and I am glad to say that it was promptly quelled.
Mir. REID. I hope the minister is not implying that I had advance knowledge of the trouble that occurred yesterday.



PRIVILEGE-MR. STEVENS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled as a question of privilege to refer to the observations twice repeated by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) which I took occasion promptly and immediately to deny the other day. I think I have a right also to claim from this house, after some twenty-three years here, the same courtesy and assurance from the house that is usually granted in such cases, that it will accept my word. The hon. member in his remarks alleges that someone outside the house stated that he was in a certain position looking after my personal interests. I emphatically denied it at the time, and I again deliberately and emphatically deny it now, and hurl it back into the face of anyone who makes it. I ask this house to accept my word on that point.
' Mr. RALSTON: We believe you both, that the hon. member for New Westminster reported what was said to him, and your denial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is something more than a joke in this.


Mr. RALSTON:: I am not joking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend must be
joking.


James Layton Ralston: But I am not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit you cannot accept both. Either the statement was true or it was not. I assert it was not true, and most emphatically deny it.


James Layton Ralston: He said he was told it.
53719-1792s


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Someone told
him; he met a strange man on the street.



SEED RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUB1EN (Provencher):	Mr. Speaker, last fall in parts of Manitoba grasshoppers ravaged the crops, especially oats and barley. As a result farmers find themselves without seed for the spring. May I ask the government if they have received a request from the province of Manitoba to assist in providing seed, and if they have not received such a request will they give favourable consideration to the matter?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the treasurer of the province of Manitoba has been in the city for the last few days and has discussed with the government, fully, the financial position of that province.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23, an order of the house was passed requesting the Minister of Fisheries to bring down a certain return dealing with a little naval engagement in which some of our fishermen were fired on. I should like to know when the minister will be able to let me have that information.



CURRENCY NOTES AND BONDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to give to the
hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) some information which apparently was overlooked when the discussion was taking place in the house with respect to the printing of bonds in the French language. I give the information in consequence of one of the questions he asked to-day. The following memorandum which has been prepared by the comptroller of currency I should like to read: Bonds in French text were issued in the various denominations both fully registered and coupon in the issues of the 1917 victory loan maturing 1922, 1927 and 1937; the 1918 victory loan maturing 1923 and 1933 and the 1919 victory loan maturing 1924 and 1934. The demand for these bonds was so small, however, that when the 1922 renewal loan was issued maturing 1927 and 1932 bonds of French text were issued in the $50 denomination only and in the 1923 refunding loan maturing 1928 and 1943 fully registered bonds were issued in the denomination of $500 and coupon bonds in the denomination of $100.

C .N .R ,-C .P .R. Bill-Mr. Heenan
Of the bonds of French text of the 1943 maturity only 268 coupon bonds of $100 each and 66 fully registered bonds of $500 each have been issued since the loan was floated, almost ten years ago.
CANADIAN NATION ALhOAN ADI AN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Hon. R. J. Manion for the second reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion
when I regret very much the forty minute limit, because the matter before us is so gigantic and important that forty minutes is but sufficient to touch the fringe of it. I shall, however, spend one moment of my time to plead with the government or the minister to refer this bill to the committee on railways and canals. A large body of Canadian citizens are desirous of presenting their views before the House of Commons previous to the passing of this measure. It is not sufficient, as the minister said yesterday, to say that a Senate committee met many citizens and heard statements from them. This bill is now before the House of Commons, not before the Senate; citizens wish to present their views to this house. I know I am speaking for a large body of people in Canada, when I state to the minister they will not be satisfied until they have an opportunity of appearing before a committee of the house.
Before discussing the principle of the bill I direct the minister's attention to section 179 of the Railway Act, which reads as follows:
The company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof, until the provisions of the last preceding section are fully complied with, nor remove, close, or abandon any station, a divisional point nor create a new divisional point which would involve the removal of employees, without leave of the board; and *where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby.
If the minister will compare this section of the Railway Act with section 2 of the bill he will find that the privileges and provisions contained in the Railway Act are covered only in part by the bill now before us. Section 2 of the measure under consideration is as follows:

2. The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts.
Then the section goes on to make the exception concerning that part of section 179 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. In other words the provision for compensation is there, but the provision which permits the town councils or municipal bodies to appear before the railway commission is entirely eliminated from the section.
I ask the minister to also look at section 7 of the bill before us. It reads as follows:
No trustee shall be removed from office nor suffer any reduction in salary, during the term for which he is appointed, unless for assigned cause and on address of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.
I do not find that recommendation in the report of the Duff commission and I am wondering where it came from. When did the Senate of Canada receive the right to control the financial interests of Canada? As I understand it the trustees, after their appointment for seven years, cannot be dismissed, and their salaries cannot be reduced except upon an address by the Senate and House of Commons. They can spend all they like or do anything they wish, yet the Senate has to express disapproval before they can be dismissed.


Robert James Manion: They can spend only what money they can get.


Peter Heenan: Yes, and they can do what they like with the property in those seven years. The proposal to put men in office for seven years and leave them as arbitrators or dictators, with power to deal with the Canadian National Railways as they will, and no matter what they spend the parliament of Canada having no say as to whether or not they should be dismissed, is a principle which I cannot support. I would like the minister to take that into consideration before the final vote is taken upon this motion for second reading, because while I wish to cooperate in every way possible with the government in the exercise of economy, I cannot stultify myself by voting away the principles of democratic government and handing control over to a dictator appointed by the government of Canada.
We have this bill before us for second reading. It is upon the second reading of a measure that we pronounce upon the principle it embodies. To my mind the principle contained in this measure is the amalgamation of

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Heenan
the operation of the railroads of Canada, no more and no less. It is of no use to pretend that we are against amalgamation of the properties, while we have in this bill, by means of the arbitral tribunal, provision for the amalgamation of the operation of these railroads. Some one may say no. I see the minister looking askance at that statement. Let me read again what jurisdiction the arbitral tribunal has:
(a)	joint use of terminals;
(b)	running rights and joint use of tracks where there are actual or functional duplications, or where such may be avoided;
(e) control and prohibition in respect of the construction of new lines and provision of facilities and additional services where no essential need of the public is involved, or where the result would be in the main the division of traffic already adequately provided for;
(d)	joint use of facilities where this would promote economy or permit the elimination of duplication or unremunerative services or facilities;
(e)	abandonment of lines, services or facilities;
(f)	pooling of any part or parts of freight traffic or of passenger traffic; and
fg) things necessarily incidental to the above enumer ated matters.
If that is not a direction for amalgamation of the operation of railroad services in Canada then I do not know in what language you could describe it. Reading part III of the bill, and knowing something about railroad matters-too little it is true, but still a little -I look at the possibilities it contains. First the bill directs voluntary cooperation between the two managements. Secondly it provides for forcible cooperation. In my opinion there is no such animal. The moment you attempt by force to make people agree is the very time you make them disagree. Lawyers say: Oh well, we have courts of law; two litigants go to the courts and state their respective cases; a decision is rendered, and that is all there is to it. But the analogy does not hold. The difference is that in the court case either one litigant is satisfied or both are dissatisfied, and they may never see or do business with each other again. Here, on the other hand, the two railway managements are going to sit down together again the next day, probably both disappointed, or one gloating over his conquest over the other. Cooperation in such circumstances is impossible. This I regard as a coercive measure. I can imagine the management of the Canadian Pacific going to the management of the Canadian National and saying: We want you to abandon this service, to merge some other service, to abandon some branch line or main line. If the management of the Canadian National says: No, that would not be in our interest, then
the Canadian Pacific will say: We will place the matter before the arbitral tribunal and take our chance there. Is that the way we want to run the railroads of Canada? But that is what we are providing for in this measure as it is before us at the present time.
I can imagine, in fact I have reason to believe and I do believe, that the effect of this measure would be much more far-reaching than we can anticipate at the moment. I have reason to believe this for instance; In the city of Montreal we have two back shops; in the city of Winnipeg we have two back shops; in the city of Calgary we have two back shops, and also in the city of Vancouver. Those points I know. And I believe as certainly as I am standing here that it is contemplated to close one of the shops at each of those points and have one shop do the work for both roads. By that one action betweeu
8,000	and 10,000 men would be thrown out on the streets and their dependents left without means of subsistence. Yet the principle enunciated in this bill provides for that very thing, and I am asked to vote on the second reading endorsing that principle. If that occurs, what provision have we made for these men? Surely if we are going to save, as some say, millions of dollars, yes, billions over a given time, surely we can find ways and means of compensating these people either by pensions, or by putting them into other positions as remunerative as those they have at present. Surely we should not always disregard human rights in the interests of dollars.
I have in mind another condition which I firmly believe will be brought about by the passage of this measure. It has been said that it would be proper to abandon many hundreds of miles of railway line between Winnipeg and the east. If that were done, what would be the effect upon the people in that part of the country who in good faith settled along these railway lines? What effect would it have on the business men who' in good faith located in the small towns along that railroad. What effect would it have on the industries that have been located along those lines in good faith? I say in good faith, because the railroads and the branch lines that exist at the present time were built undbr the authority of this parliament, consequently, having been established in that manner, the people along those lines had the right to believe that the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada would deal fairly with them. I have also in mind the fact that several towns along one of those lines are railroad terminals, with populations consisting chiefly of railroad employees. We built and1 developed our railroads, as I say, by authority of the parliament of Canada.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Heenan

Young men left the farms and other occupations and entered the railroad service; they were sent out to these isolated places in order to serve the people of Canada. They got married, built their little homes, their churches, schools and community halls, and now with one stroke of the pen it is intended, as I regard it, to throw these people with their wives and children and dependents into the discard.


Robert James Manion: May I offer a suggestion
to my hon. friend, with all respect? He is making a lot of positive statements about what is going to happen under the bill, regarding which no one knows the outcome in the end at all. I doubt if it is wise to throw the fear of that sort of thing into a lot of people at least until there is more cause than there is at present.


Peter Heenan: If the Minister of Railways will here and now give me the assurance of the government that this will not be done, I will support the second reading of this measure.


Robert James Manion: I could not give any such assurance.


Peter Heenan: Of course you could not.


Robert James Manion: But I say I do not think it is wise for any hon. member to stand in his place and say that this is going to happen when there is no assurance that it will be so.


Peter Heenan: I would remind the minister that the member for Kenora-Rainy River is making this speech.


Robert James Manion: I do not think it is a very good one.


Peter Heenan: Perhaps not, but I want
to tell the Minister of Railways that he and his government dare not go to the country on this measure.


Robert James Manion: We will go to the country on this and other measures when the proper time comes.


Peter Heenan: Why do we propose to
throw these people into the discard? It is in order to pay interest to those who hold the bonds of those railways. It is about time we began to consider the human beings in this country rather than the payment of the full interest on bonded indebtedness and that sort of thing. Why should the labouring men be sacrificed all the time in order that dividends and interest may be paid? If we have to make sacrifices let them be equal; let those who hold the bonds of these railways make a sacrifice as well. Let us for a start cut their interest in half, and if necesary we can cut it

again in order to make their sacrifice equal to that which is required of the labour men of Canada.
I cannot support a measure, Mr. Speaker, that contemplates the sacrifice of human beings in this country in order that money lenders may exact their last pound of flesh. Who suffer first and most in all these matters of economy? Who but the labour men of this country? Who suffer most in connection with the economies made on our railways? In 1931 the railway men were paid $74,000,000 less in wages than they received in 1929. I have not all the figures for this year, but I am satisfied that they will receive in wages $125,000,000 less than they were paid in 1929, and that does not take into consideration the thousands of men who have been thrown on the streets and who are receiving direct relief because of the policies of this government. By means of this measure thousands of others will be discarded and placed among the ranks of the unemployed.
I cannot support such a measure, Mr. Speaker. This bill is based on the findings and recommendations of a body known as the Duff commission, on which there was no labour representative. No consideration was given the human factor in the appointment of this commission. They have said that we have too many miles of railway for our present needs. Of course we have. If this government maintains its present trade policies very much longer we will need only a few airplanes to do the business of this country. Did the Duff commission look at nothing but our present needs? Is that all this government look at? Do they think we are not going to develop and spread out? Are we to tear up the rails and abandon branch lines, terminals and stations just because we are passing through a period of depression at the moment? I gay the people of Canada will not stand for such a thing. Then the Duff commission said there had been too much competition, and that it must cease. The railways have had to act as other businesses have acted; they have believed that competition was the life of trade. They have been encouraged to compete, but during a time such as this we change about and tell them they must compete no longer, that they must cooperate and that they are to be condemned for a competition carried on in the past.
The commission also say there have been extravagant expenditures. When you are dealing with millions and billions of dollars that is the easiest thing in the world to say. I have no doubt some expenditures have been made in connection with our railroads, as in connection with any large corporations, that

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Heenan
were, not	warranted.	I have	no doubt ahotel or	a	steamship could	be pickedout here	or	there	which we	could havedone very well without, buit when the Duff commission just say in a general way that the managements of the railroads have been guilty of extravagant expenditures I think it shows that they were paying more attention	to	theory	than to	facts. They
entirely forgot the services demanded of our railroads by the people. They forgot the speed that was required. They forgot that the Canadian National system was a group of practically bankrupt railroads, and I have sufficient knowledge of railroads to be able to say that when a road is near bankruptcy it is not maintained in very good condition. Sir Henry Thornton had to take those roads out of the mud, and he made them the envy of the railways of the North American continent. Of course great expenditures were required. Money had to be spent for efficiency, so that the people might be conveyed in safety. Larger locomotives had to be built in order to haul greater tonnage and thereby provide greater efficiency. Larger and heavier bridges had to be built in order to carry those larger locomotives, and a more substantial roadbed had to be maintained in order to ensure the safety of the public and the employees of the roads. This all took money.
Yesterday the Minister of Railways spoke on this matter and he referred to the savings that have been effected, especially those made last year. I want to tell the minister-and I do not wish to be unkind-that neither the government nor the present management of the Canadian National could have effected those savings had it not been for the position in which the roads were left by Sir Henry Thornton and his colleagues. I want to ask hon. members to consider one other point when they are considering the question of dollars and cents. Would the people of Canada be satisfied to have in this country the same proportion of people maimed and killed on our railways that goes on in the country to the south? I say they would not, and if the expenditure of money safeguards the lives of the people of this country I think whatever money was spent was well spent. I repeat that had it not been for the previous expenditures made in order to take these bankrupt roads out of the mud and weld them into a first class railway, neither the Minister of Railways, the government nor the present management could have effected the saving that was made last year.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Could the hon. member tell us where the savings were made?


Peter Heenan: I should like to take a
leaf from the book of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), and prescribe only when 1 am called in. My hon. friend and his party can take all the credit they like for the savings that have been effected, but if it had not been for the efficiency of the management and employees of the Canadian National Railways in maintaining the lines and equipment in good condition, those savings could not have been made. The Canadian railroads are efficiently managed. They are referred to throughout the world as being the most efficiently managed railways there are. Our roads were constructed on a basis entirely different from the roads in Europe; they were constructed upon the same basis as the American roads. The European railroads were constructed and equipped to haul small loads short distances while our railroads were constructed and equipped to haul large loads long distances. We have brought our railroads to such a point of efficiency that to-day we are able to move 12,000 tons of freight per man per mile more than the railroads in the United States. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) referred to the wage structure and the working conditions, and for his information I would say that we move this extra tonnage for approximately seven per cent less wages.


Peter McGibbon: Putting more men out
of jobs.


Peter Heenan: I do not know what you
are talking about.


Peter McGibbon: I quite believe that.


Peter Heenan: There is no more need
for this bill than there is for the man in the moon. Our railroads should be permitted to cope with this depression. The head of the Canadian National Railways is an experienced railroad man and if a check is needed upon him it can be had through the Minister of Railways or the government of the day or the House of Commons. Does the house think that the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway is free to build more hotels, more steamships or more branch and main lines? He is under the check of his shareholders and directors and in addition, as I understand it, he could not do these things without the authority of this parliament. We ought to give these men credit for having some business sense.
This bill could be introduced only at a time of depression and then only under the cloak of a financial burden. No party in this country, whether it be the Liberal party, the Conservative party or the Cooperative

C .N .R ,-C JP .R. Bill-Mr. Heenan
Commonwealth Federation would dare to introduce a measure for the amalgamation of the operations of our railroads and expect to get the endorsation of the electors of this country. This bill practically provides for a dictatorship from first to last. There are to 'be three trustees but the chairman shall have a ' veto over the other two. The trustees are to be appointed for seven years and they cannot be dismissed or have their salaries reduced other than by an address of the Senate and the House of Commons. There is to be an arbitral tribunal and there is no appeal from the decisions of the chairman of this tribunal. Unless some statement is made before the vote is taken as to what the government proposes to do in committee, I shall vote against the second reading of this measure.
What is needed to solve the railroad problem of Canada is greater tonnage and this could be provided by an additional flow of trade in and out of Canada. The records of 1926 will show that the railroads paid over and above their operative expenses. This surplus amounted to from $20,000,000 to $50,000,000, in one year being as high as $54,000,000. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) shakes his head, but I want him to realize that I am speaking about the earnings over and above the operating expenses; I am not speaking about the financial structure and the interest upon bonds. We ought not to be in despair over this problem. Compared with 1928 and 1929 we have lost more than half of our trade, so is it any wonder we have a railroad problem? Should we take advantage of this situation to create a dictatorship to run our railroads without any control by parliament? We should not. I contend that this is a breach of faith with the electors of Canada who were promised emphatically that there would be amalgamation never and competition ever. While this bill may not provide for the complete amalgamation of the two systems, it does provide for the amalgamation of operations and in my opinion that is the thin end of the wedge of final amalgamation of the two railroads.
References were made last evening by the hon. member for Stanstead to the wage structure and the conditions of employment of the railwaymen of Canada. It was quite evident that the hon. member was dealing with something about which he knew very little.


Mr. HACKETT:: That is a custom well
established in the house.


Peter Heenan: I think a lot of the hon.
member, but last night he showed that he

could make a speech with his tongue in his cheek.


John Thomas Hackett: Last year I was called
to order for making that utterance.


Peter Heenan: I felt sorry for the hon.
member when he concluded his remarks by saying that in these days a man should support the government at all costs. I do not intend to support this or any government at the cost of a principle. The principle of this bill is the amalgamation of the operations of our railroads as well as the provision for a dictatorship and the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. As one who is interested in his fellowmen I shall be forced to vote against the second reading of this bill unless the government makes some pronouncement in connection with some of the objections raised.
The wage structure of our railroads has been built up from negotiations extending back over a period of fifty years. These negotiations were carried on by men who knew their business better than the hon. member or myself. They were men who were interested in the financial structure of our railroads and in the paying of dividends while on the other side of the table sat men who were interested in the welfare of the worker. It is not enough to make a sweeping statement that this structure needs investigation. If we are going to investigate wage structures, we ought to investigate the salaries and fees paid to professional men. I would be quite prepared to go right down the line and investigate the salaries and fees paid to professional men and to those employed by the financial institutions who have fleeced the public in an effort to pay large dividends upon their stocks. I would be quite prepared to investigate all these matters and I am quite satisfied that the wage structure of the railroad men would stand up one hundred per cent against any of them. The hon. member referred to the fact that when a man ran one hundred miles he received one day's pay. The fact is that a one hundred mile run is considered to be a day's pay because it is the minimum that can be paid for the man's work. The hon. member referred to the case where a man might be called out, then sent home again and yet receive his day's pay. That shows that the matter is complicated. These are men who do not get pay when they are not called out; they are not on salary or wages; they are paid only for the time they are called out. In all these cases where seemingly a man gets something for nothing, it will be found that he has to give something for nothing at the other end. For instance, a man is called out; he goes over a division in eight or ten hours and he gets paid so much

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McGibbon
a mile for his work. He has to remain at the other end of that division, whether it be ten, twelve or twenty hours, without pay, on duty ready to take his turn out again when the railroad company requires his services. Consequently the matter is compensated. The whole question is one that ought not to be discussed lightly, and I am prepared to discuss it at any place or time with any hon. member. But I say that these are matters that have been investigated and considered by boards and boards and boards of conciliation and investigation, and not in a single case has the wage structure that has been built upon our railroads or the condition of employment ever been interfered with.
I see my time is about up. There are two or three matters I have pointed out that in my opinion require that this government should permit the bill to go to a committee, so that those who are vitally interested in the question may present their views to the House of Commons. I have also pointed out two or three matters in regard to which the approval of the House of Commons should not be asked. I would request the minister to take note of them and if, before the debate is concluded, he is prepared to make any pronouncement satisfactory to the house, I shall support the measure on the second reading, reserving to myself the right to offer amendments in committee. If, however, theTe is no answer from the government with respect to those matters, then I regret that I shall have to vote against the principle of this measure.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I remember on one occasion sitting in the gallery of the local legislature in Toronto and after a gentleman had made a very vitriolic attack on the late Hon. G. W. Ross, who was then premier, the latter rose and said: "Now that everything and everybody has been damned, let us get down to business." After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), and reflecting upon the little he contributed to the solution of the problems now before the house and the country, I could not help thinking of the futility of the debates in this chamber. Parliament to-day is confronted with the greatest problem with which, since the war, this country has ever had to deal. If we exclude the casualty lists, the problems with which we are attempting to deal are the greatest that have ever come before the House of Commons and the Senate of this dominion. This bill is a challenge to democracy in a responsible institution. We have to decide here to-day, or before this bill passes, how
much parliament can salvage from the wreckage of the railway systems of this country, in which the people have a sum invested of no less than 82,600,000,000, and where they have had for some time in the past, and in my opinion will have for many years to come, a tax ranging from 875,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year. In addition to that there are in the offing the jobs of possibly
150,000	or 175,000 men in this country. That is the problem which this bill is attempting to solve; it is the problem before this house and before the people of Canada to-day, and to my mind it is one of the greatest problems with which we have ever had to deal.
I do hope this bill may solve it. I recognize the fact that on the authority of this house we appointed a committee of eminent railway, business and legal men who gave freely of their time and talent, and embodied their conclusions in a report which they presented to the house. Based upon that report is the bill which we are now considering. To that committee, which gave so freely of its time and talent to solve problems which are ours, we owe at least the courtesy of putting its conclusions into practice for at any rate a short time. I hope this bill may solve the question, but I have given the matter a great deal of thought for the last ten years and intensive thought for the last two years, and I must say I feel this bill will fail to give this country the redress it needs. I say that reluctantly, but it is my firm conviction that we have to do something more drastic. We are simply scarifying the surface, beneath which lies a fulminating, malignant condition that is weighing heavily m the form of taxation upon the people of Canada. I hope this bill will do the work; I hope in the years to come we may report such increased earnings and savings that the taxation on an already heavily burdened people will be lessened, but I believe we shall have to go deeper to find the remedy.
It is not for me to resurrect the dead, to place flowers upon sepulchres or to say a requiem mass, so to speak, upon the departed; but when I heard the hon. member from West Lambton (Mr. Gray) try yesterday to accuse the party upon your right, sir, as being responsible for the problems with which we have to deal to-day, I thought in justice to myself, to the party I represent and to the vote that I gave in 1919 to take over those roads, I must justify my action then in the light of history and of the measure which we now have before us. This is the second time that the party on this side of the house has had to Step in and straighten out the railway situation of this country.
2828	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McGibbon


Mr. YOUNG:: Oh, oh.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member for Weyburn doubt that?


Edward James Young: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who
passed the order in council for the construction of the hotel in Vancouver?


Robert James Manion: The Conservative party,
for the construction of a hotel costing three and a half millions, not eleven millions.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	My point is that there
was no obligation to build a hotel at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes
there was. You are wrong.


Peter McGibbon: I dispute that. It took me a month to get the facts from the Railway department, and I put them on record. If the hon. member will read Mr. Hanna's evidence before the Senate committee he will see that it confirms my statement.
Again, what did Mr. Ruel say when Sir Joseph Flavelle pressed him for an answer regarding the Saskatoon hotel, as to who had demanded it? He replied that he would rather not answer. You know who it was. The same sort of thing took place in Halifax. I say that it is the reckless extravagance that characterized the management of the Canadian National Railways from 1923 to 1931 that has brought the railways into the position they are in to-day. What are we going to do about it? There has been some criticism about having three trustees. I must say that were I in charge of the appointment there would be only one. Napoleon once said he would rather have one second-class general than two firsts. There has to be finality;
there has to be a man who can make a decision, make it at once and carry it out. If there is not that decision we always find that as a result a country or a business reaches a crisis.
I do not know where they will get such a man; I fear in that connection there may be some difficulty. However if they do get him it will mean the salvation of the roads- if they can be saved. Of that I am very doubtful. However I am in favour of three rather than five trustees, and1 should prefer one to three. I believe a provision for only one would add to the efficiency of the management. Although I do not agree with hon. members opposite on many occasions, I agree that this is a negation of responsible government. The fact that I agree with hon. members opposite makes me think that probably I am wrong. I am glad hon. members applaud my remarks. However before they become too enthusiastic I should like them to turn their minds to what I have been saying in the last five or ten minutes. If they read the report of the commission from one end to the other they will find it is permeated with the fear of political influence. I believe the provision for three trustees was put there deliberately to prevent any future parliament or government from doing what was done from 1923 to 1931.


Mr. HANBURY:: Why not include 1933?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); Bring it up to date.


Peter McGibbon: 
James Layton Ralston: Did the hon. member ever expect the railways to meet the interest due the public?


Peter McGibbon: Yes, they should have
met the interest due to the public, and they would have, had they not piled up so much debt. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the worst side of the picture- not by any means. There has never been a day nor an hour for which depreciation on the Canadian National railways has been allowed. Just think of the rolling stock

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McGibbon
extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific which stands out under the heavens twenty^ four hours each day. Is that rolling stock not depreciating? Do you not think that some day the railways will have to come to parliament and ask for hundreds of millions of dollars for replacements? Had there been proper depreciation allowances, even at the rate of only two per cent, and charged only on the money owed the public, there would have been a fund of S24,(X)0,CKX) for depreciation. We will have to meet that depreciation some day. Why try to fool ourselves?
Let us for a few moments find out what sort of asset we have in the Canadian National Railways. I have supported the railways ever since the government took them over. However I do not like to fool myself or my people, and I do not like to see the country fooled. At a meeting about a year ago the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) asked Sir Henry Thornton what would be the correct valuation of the road. The hon. member stated that, as a going concern, the Canadian Pacific Railway was valued at $70,000 per mile, and asked Sir Henry if $60,000 per mile would be a fair valuation for the Canadian National system? Sir Henry replied that he thought it would. Sixty thousand dollars a mile means what? It makes a total sum of about $1,300,000,000, or just about the amount owed the public. I say that the people of Canada have not only lost $1,300,000,000 but that to-day they have not a dollar of assets in the Canadian National Railways. On the contrary they have a liability that for some years has cost Canada $100,000,000 per year.
Much as I would like to, I cannot see any daylight in the future. I cannot see where the present difficulty is going to be remedied. I wish it could be. I had hopes that some solution could be found; I had hoped that when the Duff commission made its report we would have a solution for the greatest problem with which we are faced to-day. But, sir, the solution is not here. To my mind the suggestions offered will not solve the problem. We can close a ticket office here or a ticket office somewhere else, but I suggest that by that means we cannot pull down a yearly deficit of $100,000,000. We cannot do it that way.
Let us analyze the position a little farther. If we read the Duff report we will find the startling statement made that forty-two per cent of the mileage of Canadian railways carries less than five per cent of the ton miles. Just think of that. I ask the business men throughout the length and breadth of Canada if that is not the cause of our railway difficulties. To my mind it is. When we have
[Mr. McGibbon.1
forty-two per cent of our railway mileage doing less than five per cent of the business, I believe we have reached the root of the trouble.


Mr. NEILL:: Would you quote your
authority for that?


Peter McGibbon: It is right in the Duff
report, if you would read it. The information is prepared by Mr. Loree. On the other hand ten per cent of the mileage did fifty per cent of the business.
When we get down and dissect the trouble, the way doctors have to dissect the human body to ascertain the nature of a disease, I think we will find that our difficulty lies where I have just indicated, and that is the problem which the country must solve. The question is:	How are we to solve it? I had hoped
that we would have a solution. I know that Canada will not stand for an amalgamation of railroads. In my present frame of mind, and so long as I have a vote, I would not vote to take over the Canadian Pacific railway. I believe the president of that line flashed the red light signal of danger on every sideline from Halifax to Vancouver. In all his speeches he has sounded the Macedonian cry for help, and I do not blame him. He is looking after his own property, and I think also that probably he is patriotic enough to help out in connection with other problems of our country. However, as I have stated, I have had enough of public ownership of railways. I would not be a party to selling the Canadian National system to the Canadian Pacific, because we are not building for an hour or a day. It is like an army conquering a country, you are not doing it for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, but for centuries to come. If we can find some way to tide these railways over this depression until we are again on the road to prosperity I think they may both prove very useful and remunerative undertakings.
But what is the solution? I confess honestly that the only one that I can see is joint operation for the present. We had Mr. Ruel on the one hand, a patriotic official, I believe, of the Canadian National, saying that $30,000,000 can be saved, and Mr. Beatty saying that $75,000,000 can be saved, per year. I do not know Mr. Beatty, I never saw him, I do not know any official of the Canadian Pacific and I never owned a share of Canadian Pacific stock in my life. But when I heard some statements in his speeches contradicted I wrote to him and asked him what he meant. I said: The people of this country will not stand for amalgamation in any shape or form. His reply was that what he meant was simply joint management for operating purposes.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Merrier (St. Henri)
You will remember that he said in Winnipeg that he would appoint a joint treasurer and would pay part of the receipts to one company and part to the other. I have gone up and down this country a good deal, I have talked with men in trains and hotels and other places, and what the average man on the street says is: If you can save $75,000,000 by economies it should be saved rather than ask me to pay it out of my pocket. I believe, sir, that for the present, if it is practical, joint operating management offers the best solution, the greatest means of economy that we have before us. I know the house will not agree with that, the press will not agree, probably the public will not agree with me, but I believe they will inside of three years if this depression continues. After all is not that what is going on all over the country? Isn't it going on in business? I have here the report of the Coolidge committee that investigated the railroads in the United States, that is what they advocate. It is what is done in business, it is the commonsense thing to do.


Mr. ILSLEY:: They do not advocate
amalgamation of all roads.


Peter McGibbon: Well, nearly all. I know there is opposition to it, I know the newspapers will criticize me to-morrow, but I want to go on record because I think it is the duty of members of parliament to lead the people of the country not where they want to go but where they ought to go. That is the reason I am making this speech this afternoon. I believe that public opinion is turning rapidly to joint operation as a temporary solution. I think I have made myself clear that I am not for amalgamation. I have said before on the public platforms of Ontario that if you amalgamated these roads you would be moving your capital from Ottawa to Montreal. I am not for that.
One last thought that I want to utter; it is in the interest of labour. Labour I know is fearful of displacement of men. If these two roads could be put upon a better financial operating basis I think the labouring man would be much more certain of steady work than he is to-dajr. And I am not convinced that that cannot be done. Mr. Beatty says it can. At any rate an attempt should be made. I think the solution probably was suggested the other day in the railway committee of the Senate when these men who are out of jobs said; If you will reduce the running miles per month to 2,000 it will take up all the slack and we will all have a job. I think that should be done during this temporary depression.
In conclusion I would like to say that I am not very much impressed with the objections taken to part III by the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If you read the evidence it is plain that six or seven years ago he would have been glad to have a commission of that kind, to have a tribunal to which to appeal to stop the extravagance not only of his road but of the Canadian National. That is in the evidence and it is so plain in the report that you cannot get away from it. If it would have been a good thing in years gone by it may be a good thing in the future. At any rate I think he would stand higher in the estimation of the public if he had said: I will accept this plan even though I do not like it, and we will do the best we can under it for the time being. I think that would have been a better spirit, and probably would have been reflected in a changed attitude on the part of the public, so that in the fulture he would have found it easier perhaps to get what he wanted.


Mr. PAUL MEROIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, this bill respecting the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways is of extremely great importance. Our railway problem is very serious. Having listened to the speech of the Minister of Railways yesterday afternoon, however, it would seem that the Canadian National is even now getting in better shape financially and has ameliorated the situation during the past two years. The Canadian Pacific Railway is evidently in sound health. By part II of the bill cooperation is to be resorted to, so to speak, as a transfusion of blood. Thus it is thought possible to ameliorate the situation of the railways in Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a private corporation, incorporated by a special act of this parliament. It is not and was not obliged to take part in such a project, to respond to such an invitation. The Duff report has recommended cooperation and the 'Canadian Pacific seems to have lent itself to the idea, although nolt very enthusiastically. The evidence taken before the railway committee of the Senate, and the discussion in the Senate when the bill came up for third reading, shows how the Canadian National Railways were created by a law passed by our friends to your right, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian National is their adopted son. I remember a few years ago the Liberal party succeeded one year in dressing it up in a very charming way, and when the report was brought to the house our good friend the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said: It is our child, look how it has improved; it is really by our efforts that the
2832	COMMONS
C.N.R,-C.P.R. Bill-Hr. Mercier (St. Henri)
railroad came into existence. I do not know whether he and hon. gentlemen to your right have the same idea to-day. From 1922 to 1930 the Liberal party took great care of that child and did its best to bring it up properly, but they admit that it w-as a very difficult child to bring up. To-day, due to the depression, that child has gone back to his family, and now the Conservative government which is directing the affairs of the country says that child must be put under a triple interdiction, that it must be provided with three trustees to administer its property. The surprising thing, however, is that these trustees will have no responsibility to the government or to parliament. This is very extraordinary. We admit, with the public in general, that something should be done in the interests of the Canadian National Railways, but do we find a real remedy for the evils of the moment in the bill now before us? If I were to speak frankly I should say that I do not believe we do, but as a member of parliament I will say that I doubt it until further evidence is shown. I am still open to conviction; I am praying for light.
I listened to the Minister of Railways yesterday, and in a way he promised the house that no amalgamation of the two railways is in prospect. I take his word as a responsible minister of the crown. Time will tell, but I hope that if ever the question of amalgamation does come forward again it will be dealt with by means of a bill which will be brought before both houses of parliament for consideration. Reading the present bill very carefully I do not see any words indicating that amalgamation will be brought about, ibut in some of the sections I am afraid I see a nigger in the woodpile. The trustees may say, " Well, we have done our best to help the road but we have had no success." Then if one of the trustees says amalgamation must come, the chairman-the czar-may say, " Let us vote for amalgamation," and that body, having no responsibility to the government or to parliament, may make the deal of their own volition. Then the question will come before this house only if some readjustment is necessary, while any questions of law and jurisdiction will go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
If there is to be no amalgamation-and I take the word of a minister of the crown in this regard-it seems to me that the govern-ihent has listened to public opinion on that point, and I think the bill will pass this house. Amalgamation was the great fear not only of the railway employees but of the public at large; for the moment this anxiety is dissipated, and we hope it will remain so in the best interests of the national railways and of

the public generally, because we must admit that amalgamation is never a good thing. I should prefer to have five railways doing business in Canada rather than the two present roads combined under one management. It was through diversity of industry that industry prospered; through diversified industries the citizens of Canada derived profit.
I will not dwell on the past administration of the Canadian National; I do not see that it has any bearing on the question now before the house, but I think we all admit that decreased tonnage has been the great trouble with our railways. Does anyone think that if tonnage had continued to increase throughout Canada during the period of the depression the railways would have been in their present condition? Sufficient money would have been collected not only to maintain the railway in good shape but to build up a reserve as well, and the railway system would have been our biggest asset. Now we must face the facts and prepare not only for this but for future generations.
I have listened with interest to hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate; I think almost all the important points of this bill have been dealt with.
I have not been convinced that this bill will provide a solution of our railway problem even though it does provide for the forced cooperation of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to section 4, which reads:
The governor in council may vacate all nominations heretofore made to the board of directors of the national company pursuant to section 3 of the national act, and may appoint in the place and stead of and in succession to the incorporators of that company three trustees, whose powers, rights, privileges, immunities, duties, responsibilities and restrictions shall be as in and by this act provided.
Under that section the governor in council may appoint three trustees to act- in the interests of the national railways. I do not think that such an appointment will be acceptable because the trustees will not be responsible to parliament. It will not be for the benefit of the people of Canada as a whole.
It may be said that I am speaking for the people in my own constituency of St. Henri, and I am. There are three thousand railway men in my constituency, employed by both the large railroads. Many of these men are now out of work. In the past they were able to earn good salaries, but because of the depression and decreased savings they have been forced to leave the better wards and come to live in St. Henri, which is a workingman's ward. In their interests I think the

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Merrier (St. Henri)
trustees should number five instead of three. These trustees will have great responsibility, and three men could hardly be expected to have the necessary insight into the various conditions in Canada. I do not want my fellow members to think that I am contending that I can solve this great problem, I am only making a sincere effort to help. I was glad to hear the minister say that this is a non-partisan measure, and if that is true it is quite possible that useful suggestions will be made from all parts of the house.
I think there should be one trustee appointed to represent the maritime provinces. Those provinces have their own privileges and rights; they have their own Intercolonial railway to take care of. I think if that railway was put under separate administration it would be in the best interests of that part of the country. Another trustee should be appointed from the western provinces. This man would have a special knowledge of the problems of wheat transportation. If additional markets had been found for our wheat, our railways would have been in much better condition to-day. There should be two trustees appointed from the central provinces to represent industry, agriculture and the centres of colonization. A fifth trustee should be appointed to represent the employees of the railroads. If the house should agree to this suggestion, not because it is made by the hon. member for St. Henri but because it has been suggested by many of my colleagues, I think it would be of great benefit to Canada. With only three trustees, one representing the Canadian National Railways, the other the Canadian Pacific Railway and the third as chairman, we can see what will happen. The chairman is bound to incline either to the Canadian National or to the Canadian Pacific. One trustee cannot come from the nine provinces, he must have been born in one province and educated in one city and his experience will be confined to one part of Canada. It would be practically impossible to find a man with sufficient mentality to deal with the problems arising all over Canada. If one trustee is appointed to represent the maritimes, one to represent the western provinces, two to represent the central provinces and one to represent labour, I think it would be shown that all parts of the country had been considered. By giving representation to our railway employees, the government will satisfy them. In any industry there are two parties, employers and employees, and when they are working together in cooperation, success follows. The employees of both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have
always worked in the interest of those rail ways, and to-day, on account of circumstances many who have served those companies for twenty-two years are out of work. That is not their fault; it is not the fault of the companies; it is due to circumstances, the hard times through which Canada is passing. Nevertheless those employees are waiting for better times to take back their trains, to return to work. They are respectable, peaceable unemployed men, respecting Canadian law, and they are only waiting to be represented on the board of trustees such as is suggested in this bill. The personnel of the board should be five instead of three, because, if there are only three, I say sincerely that I see no hope for a labour man or a railway employee, a man from the bottom of the ladder, knowing something about railway work, to be appointed to such a board. Such an appointment would put hope into the unemployed railroaders; it would put them later on in a position, should any dispute arise, of being better understood and of having their grievances properly judged by a man who knows them, who understands their work and who is practical enough to show them all the consideration they deserve. Such an appointee would have their respect even should a decision be rendered against them.
We suggest that part III of this bill, headed Arbitration in case of disagreement," section 17, on page 10, is also not acceptable. It does not give satisfaction even to the Canadian National. Moreover it is an imposition of tribunals and procedures to be followed, upon the Canadian Pacific, in regard to the settlement of disputes that may arise between the two railways, when a decision is rendered in favour of one party, the other resisting, and also when a common effort between the two railways is required. I would suggest that the tribunal be the one now actually existing in Canada, the Board of Railway Commissioners. This board has been established for a long time; it has had much experience; it has a good standing in the land, and its work is appreciated even by foreign countries. An amendment to that effect should be substituted in part III, section 17, of this bill.
After having read this bill again and again, let me say frankly that it offers little encouragement not only as regards economies in the Canadian National, but for the future. As to the individual prosperity of our railroads, the principle of compulsory cooperation implied in the bill is very dangerous. I cooperate with a friend to establish a business,
2834	COMMONS
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Merrier (St. Henri)
and if profit and success come, that follows in the course of things. But if I force somebody to cooperate with me, will he work very strongly to make a success of the enterprise? Not at all. The Canadian Pacific apparently is not willing to enter the proposed scheme; it is forced into it by this bill. It is often said that a corporation has no soul; but corporations have interests; they are interested in earning profits not only for salaries, but for dividends for those who invest money in big companies. The Canadian Pacific is a great company which has always fulfilled its pledges and by its transactions has done honour to Canada. I am not a Canadian Pacific man; I have no interest whatever in that company, but I admire that institution and I also admire the Canadian National Railways, the property of the state. I am proud of our national railways; I am also proud of the Canadian Pacific as a private company. The Canadian Pacific has too much of its own interests in view to cooperate to make a success of the proposed measure; it is a private corporation; it is in business for private gain, and in such a case how is that business cared for? What happens in small businesses in the ordinary affairs of life will also occur in big enterprises. The Canadian Pacific is not obliged at its own expense to cooperate with another railway, and if it does so, that will be at the expense of the Canadian National Railways. This is my sincere conviction. I think it would be more profitable for the Canadian people to obtain a complete reorganization of the Canadian National Railways under the control of the Canadian parliament. We have been elected for some purpose. The Canadian National Railways are o.ur inheritance to-day, and if we care for the property of the state, we must preserve it intact. We have no right by camouflaged means to give it away.
Yesterday the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), when addressing the house, offered congratulations to the temporary president, officers and directors of the Canadian National Railways for the success they have achieved in recent months. Then why not continue to follow along the present lines, which according to the Minister of Railways will lead us into paradise? It will be for the good not only of the Canadian National Railways but of the Canadian Pacific Railway as well. The Canadian Pacific is a privately owned company, with its own lines and its own administration, and it has no immediate interest in being dragged into the scheme proposed under this bill. It has its own busi-LMr. P. Mercier.]
ness to conduct, and is not peering into the affairs of its neighbour or looking for amalgamation. It has a big enough load of its own to carry just now.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I am not a railway man, I have read the bill and I have talked with the electors of my constituency and have obtained some slight knowledge in that way of railway matters. Some of them have suffered very much by reason of the condition on the railways. I know that they do not want the amalgamation of these two railways.
I hope that many other members of this house will take part in this debate and will bring light not only to myself but to other members. I am looking to the government as a beacon of light, though it is not giving forth much light at the present time.
There is one feature which I would emphasize and that is that the trustees and the boards to be appointed under this act will be responsible neither to the government nor to parliament. We are really pawning our railways and receiving in exchange a ticket, and when we try to get them back we shall find that the time limit has expired and the railways have gone. I shall listen to hon. members to try to learn more about this bill with the hope that later on I shall be in a position to vote in the best interests not only of the Canadian National Railways, which is our own property, but of the Canadian people as a whole.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house involves a consideration of the principles of the bill which was so ably and so lucidly presented to the house foy the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). The debate thus far, with the exception perhaps of a slight excursion into the realm of politics by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) and some of those incorrigibles who approved his stand, has proceeded upon the high plane which was set by the minister, and I propose briefly to discuss the bill in (that spirit.
The bill proceeds upon three principles: First, the naming of trustees in the place and stead of the incorporators of the Canadian National Railways; second, the laying of a statutory duty to cooperate upon the two railways; and third, the providing of a sanction for the performance of that duty. Generally speaking, I find that these principles commend themselves to the house. lit is true that some members have somewhat doubtfully given their adherence to them, but I have not been able to find myself sharing in the least in the doubt that has been ex-

pressed as to this bill. In the first place the bill comes to us as the result of a prolonged and careful study of the whole railway transportation problem in the Dominion of Canada by a body of men highly qualified in that regard; and secondly, it comes to us after a searching and critical study by the other house, where it received unanimous approval.
The more I hear of and study the provisions of this bill, the more convinced I am that we should adopt it here. It is not to be expected that we can find an immediate and complete cure for the railway ills of this country. It is hardly to be hoped that by some Midas-like touch we can put the railways in the category of paying institutions. But what this bill does provide is a pathway along which these two great railway systems can progress to a position as favourable as can be under conditions as they exist in this country.
The only alternative which has been seriously suggested is that of amalgamation, and fears have been expressed that the deletion of a certain clause from the bill in another place rather favours the possibility of amalgamation. The Duff commission has found in terms against amalgamation, and with that finding of the commission I wholeheartedly agree. Having declared against amalgamation, the commission proceeded to set out certain measures which should be carried into the bill, which measures were designed to effect a cure so far as possible of the problem to which the commission's attention was directed. Then the draftsman, so I take it, having seen in the commission's report the repudiation of amalgamation, and desiring in all probability to embody in his draft bill all the recommendations of the report, saw fit to insert a clause providing against amalgamation.	In my
humble opinion that was entirely unnecessary. The whole bill proceeds upon the assumption that the two railway companies shall continue as separate entities operating in this country.	If that clause was	designed
to prevent parliament at some future time from discussing amalgamation, the clause was inoperative. On the other hand, if it was designed to prevent the trustees named in the bill from carrying into effect amalgamation under the provisions of the bill, then obviously it was unnecessary. It does not seem to me to be a matter about which we need concern ourselves very greatly at the moment. If it is bad draftsmanship, as I think it is, to insert in a bill clauses or even words which are unnecessary, still I am quite content to abide by the opinion of the law officers of the crown; if they believe such a provision is useful or necessary I have no doubt that 53719-180
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Geary
the government will offer no objection to the inclusion of such a provision. Certainly in his presentation it has been made amply clear by the minister that this bill is not in any way designed to afford an opportunity for the amalgamation of the two roads. In my view it would be a very serious situation for this country to find itself with a railway monopoly, public or private. I cannot contemplate such a situation with equanimity, though if there had to be one my preference would not be a private but a public monopoly. But with any monopoly competition would not exist, and competition is the spur and the incentive to efficiency and economy. Without it any railway would soon sink to a low level of service. And besides, a railway monopoly in this country would establish a tremendous force that could not but be dangerous to the good of the country.
There are two criticisms directed against the bill, one that it lends itself to amalgamation and the other that too much power is given to certain officials. May I deal with them categorically. As to the first I think probably I need add nothing to what I have said, because my criticism as to the clause concerning amalgamation carries with it my answer to the first of the objections I have mentioned. But concerning the allegation that the powers placed in the hands of certain officials are too great, I should like to direct the attention of the house to certain clauses in the bill. Section 9, subsection 1, provides:
When the governor in council shall proclaim in the Canada Gazette that he has vacated all nominations to the board of directors of the National company and has appointed trustees as by section 4 of this act provided the said hoard shall cease to exist and, by force of this act and without more, the direction and control of the National company and its undertakings shall be vested, subject to the provisions of this act, in the trustees.
There is nothing extraordinary in that provision. If a government is to carry on the operation of a railway system, a transportation system on the streets or an electric system it certainly should not attempt to do so by the day to day vote of members of parliament, but rather by placing control and operation in the hands of a commission appointed for that purpose. Subsection 2 states:
The trustees shall-subject to the provisions of this act, have and exercise all the powers -and be subject to all the duties-which now appertain to the board of directors of the National company.
Except in one or two particulars to which reference has already been made, nominally these trustees have no greater powers than



C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Geary
have the incorporators, or, as they are called, the directors of the Canadian National Railways. They succeed to the same powers.
Then, in part II the real crux of the situation, which has been debated in this house, appears. I believe we have the meat of that part relating to cooperation when we turn to the part of section 16 appearing at the top of page 9 in the bill which states that the provisions as to the railway companies are-
For the purposes of effecting economies and providing for more remunerative operation. . . .
That is the sum and substance of the purpose behind part II of the bill. For the purpose of effecting economies and providing for more remunerative operation of the railway lines certain action is to be taken. The railways are directed forthwith to cooperate, and to use every possible means to settle their disputes. But if in the course of attempting to cooperate there rises a dispute, then and then only does part III of the bill come into effect and the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction. If we turn to the interpretation clause of the bill we will find that in clause 3 subsection (b) the word "dispute" is defined as the failure to agree concerning any measure in connection with which under part II of the bill they are authorized to agree. Therefore when we hear the complaint that too much power is vested in the tribunal under the bill, one must remember that the whole jurisdiction is confined to disputes as defined in the interpretation clause of the bill, and as further elaborated in part II.
I believe it was the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who a few days ago suggested that part III had not enough teeth in it. I am inclined to agree that it is not by any manner of means a drastic provision. What does it provide? The most ordinary thing in the world. It provides that if two individuals-in this case two railway systems -fail to agree there shall be an arbitration. I venture to say that both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways have time and again settled their disputes by arbitration, and always on the basis described in part III. That is, each party to the arbitration would nominate an arbitrator, and the two parties or a court would nominate the umpire or the third arbitrator. And so the decision almost invariably in these matters resides in the third arbitrator.
In the present instance all we have done is to provide that the third arbitrator shall

be a fixed person, and shall be the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. We have had good chairmen of that commission, and with the added responsibility of the position I do not believe any government would contemplate appointing to the position any person who would not meet with the honest approval of all parts of the community. The job that is being created is a big one, one of the greatest in Canada. I see no difference between the sort of arbitration described in the bill and the arbitration into which on their own accord the railways have entered on many former occasions. There is of course this marked difference in initiative, the reference to arbitration here is compulsory.
It will be observed, further, that in part III there is no original jurisdiction in the chairman of the railway board. That follows from wha.t I said to the effect that his jurisdiction is confined to disputes arising in part II. That is, he cannot take upon himself the duty of settling any matter which he deems should be settled in the interests of the companies or the country. He must wait until the two railways have failed to agree. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Mercier, St. Henri), has indicated that in his view companies which are compelled to cooperate will not do so successfully. I agree that in order to work out the present difficulties to the best advantage there must be good will and good intention. But, more than that, in this particular instance we are not confined to good will or good intentions. The whole necessity of the railway companies, both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, lies in some sort of cooperation. They must make ends meet, and they must discontinue wasteful competition and the maintenance of services which are not paying.
Having that impelling force behind them I venture to say that they will seize on the provisions contained in this bill, and will do their best to cooperate. If one feels that it is advancing a proposition to which the other should but does not agree, it will then, and then only, appeal to the arbitral tribunal. At the moment there come to my mind two or three instances which may indicate more clearly my meaning. Let us consider the Toronto and Montreal terminals. In connection with the Toronto terminal the railway companies managed to agree, with the result that there was a tremendous saving in expense. On the other hand in Montreal the railways could not agree, although all hon. members know that attempts were made to



S, 1933

[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Mitchell
effect an agreement. However, either for good reason or through stubbornness-I am not suggesting which-the fact is that they failed to agree. There was a situation which could have been cured to the advantage of the whole country if we had had some sort of jurisdiction to provide a settlement of the dispute.
My hon. friend the member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) submits the proposition that this large power should not be entrusted to a tribunal, arbitral as it is called, but that we should in some way run it by a department of the government. Can anyone really think that that would be a proper thing to do-that we expose this vast enterprise to all sorts of political interference and "community pressure," I think were the words used in the Duff report? We have had experience of it, in this very debate we have heard the plea of one part of the country against the other.
Certainly in the carrying out of this scheme there will be hurt to someone. Neither company can have its own way entirely. But if there is one thing that the people of the country have seized on and taken into their serious consideration it is what we call the railway problem, the tremendous amount of money that we are losing in the conduct of railways. I am only surprised that with that heavy drain on our resources the credit of this country has stood up as well as it has; it is a tribute to the soundness of the country that we have been able to carry such a load so well. But the people are interested in this thing more than in any other concrete fact of public affairs to-day. We must have some action in the matter, we cannot allow to go on the cut-throat and profitless competition that is in part at least responsible for the state in which we find ourselves to-day. It seems to me we would be failing in our duty as representatives if we did not take hold of this thing with a firm hand; and with the consideration that has been given to this particular plan in the other house, the prolonged and careful study to which I referred, and commending itself as it does also to our good judgment, we should be derelict in our duty if we did not grasp this opportunity to effect a remedy which I feel fully convinced will in time cure our difficulties in regard to railways.
So it seems to me this bill is deserving of support. There will be minor matters to be dealt with in committee, such as the number of trustees and other matters that have been brought up, but these are incidental to the principle. But I do hope there will
53719-180J
be no question about the bill getting second reading. My own hope is that this bill will pass very much in the form in which it is at the moment, and I believe that experience will fulfil its promise.
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Robert James Manion: There is still fifteen
minutes. I do not wish to be discourteous to my hon. friend but I am afraid it is a little early. The Prime Minister expects the discussion to go on a little longer. Something may be said as to the business tomorrow. Therefore I should like the hon. member to go on a few minutes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will speak of some features of the labour viewpoint concerning the passage of this measure. I listened with keen attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) and I hope he does not adopt the same attitude at the bedside of his patients as he adopted towards what might happen in Canada in the near future. At the introduction of the measure yesterday I was pleased by the position taken by the Minister of Railways. I was glad to hear him make the observation that while the government were in agreement on the principles of the bill they would consider minor amendments to it. It is my intention, if it is not done in other sections of the house, to move some minor amendments when the bill reaches the committee stage.
The minister said that conditions existing in this country were world wide and that it would require world wide action to deal with them. I cannot entirely agree. I believe we will have to move on a national basis first to meet some of the serious problems arising out of conditions in this country. I think the President of the United States put it well in his inaugural address when he said:
Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favour as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.
The driving force that brought into being the commission responsible, through the Senate, for this bill was in my judgment produced largely by national conditions. I think the railway problem is just a small part of a much larger problem, and I believe that

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Mitchell
the solution of the railway problem will come when you get men and women to work again in industry, and the prices of agricultural products on a fair and equitable basis in conformity with the debt obligations of the various governments of the country and those that have to be met in a private way by the agriculturists themselves. I believe this problem arises from our failure to weld production and consumption together. I believe that we have got to work out a technique whereby we can put a suit of clothes on a man who is out of work by putting him to work so that he can earn it. In my judgment there is not the faintest chance of any uptumuntil that very practical problem is solved. Of course that in effect means that you have got to stop deflation.
I would direct attention to the implications of this bill as to policies in existence now and the effect they have had on railroad workers in the running and mechanical trades. I was unable to get up-to-date figures, but up to 1931 I find there had been a reduction of approximately 33,000 in the number of men employed by the railroads of this country. I think it is fair to say that this number might be doubled. I believe the desire for cooperation, or rationalization, which is the correct word for it, has increased to such an extent that the number laid off has grown considerably since 1931, when these figures were compiled. In that connection I should like to point out a very simple thing which affects the economy of this country. Every railroad worker represents a fraction of the market of the agriculturist. When he is working he eats more, wears more and spends more, and by these functions he puts at work more men in other industries and creates a market in the community.
That is one of the things we are apt to forget; we often overlook the human aspect of this question. We are apt to forget that these men have made the greatest contribution to the transportation industry of this country that it is possible to make; they have given their lives to that industry. I believe that should be a prior consideration in meeting the transportation problem; I think it should take precedence even over the payment of interest on the bonds of the two railway corporations in Canada. It is hard for us to realize the position in which these men are placed after twenty or thirty years of service with the railroads. When a man reaches the age of forty-five after spending his life in one line of work it becomes increasingly difficult for him to adjust himself

to another walk of life. I have often said, and I believe the observation can be made with some measure of truth, that very few men and women over the age of forty will ever enter industry again. When you take into consideration the enormous waiting list of boys and girls looking for their first opportunity to be gainfully employed, to settle down and take their place in the normal life of this country you will see the truth in that statement.
These men, I say, have given their all to the transportation industry of this country. That is something which cannot be lightly dismissed either by men in professions, in business or-and I say this to be ready for any criticism which may be offered-in agriculture. I am a tradesman. I came straight from the workshop to the House of Commons, and I suppose that is where I will go when I am through here. There is this to be said about it, however, taking the large view: The agriculturist has some stability of tenure. I am not unmindful of the problems with which he is confronted. I am not unmindful of the very real relationship of the problems facing the men and women engaged in industry and those facing the men and women engaged in agriculture. I make these few observations because this house- and I say this in a kindly way-is largely made up of professional and business men and those engaged in agriculture.
We have heard a great deal about the hilarious days of 1928 and 1929. I appreciate the fact that possibly at that time the railroads were being built for millionaires instead of average human beings, but I would also say that I do not think any of that responsibility can be placed on the shoulders of those railroad workers or of the men and women engaged in industry. They were not responsible for the debacle that took place in 1929 and which has lasted to this day; they were not consulted about it. I think if you look up the figures you will find that the average wage earned in industry during that prosperous period was about $1,200. I do not think the average wage paid in the railroad industry was a great deal more. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) said it was $1,400, and I must pay that hon. gentleman the compliment of knowing perhaps more about the railroad industry than any man in this house, from his practical experience. His knowledge may not touch the legal point of view so much, but the men and women in this dominon are not greatly concerned about legal definitions or interpreta-

Questions
tions. These railroad men are most concerned about an opportunity to earn a living, to protect their homes, to educate their children, and take their place in the transportation life of .this country, the only calling in which they have any practical experience.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 9, 1933