1955-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Sixth and seventh reports of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. A press dispatch this morning indicates the probability that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will be buying the gas distribution and manufacturing system in the city of Montreal from the Quebec hydro. Could the minister tell the house whether government policy still remains as announced on March 13, 1953, and confirmed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on March 18 of this year and again on April 5? As the minister knows, that announcement was to the effect that Canadian needs for natural gas must be met first before export is permitted. Would the minister also say whether there has been any change in the policy of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in this regard?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the answer to both questions would be in the negative. There has been no change in government policy in regard to the exportation of fuel, and as I understand it there has been no change in the policy of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.



REPORTED CLOSING OF NOVA SCOTIA MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received any such appeal but I shall look into the matter. If such an appeal has been received I will reply tomorrow to my hon. friend.']
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I wonder if the minister could bring the house up to date on the statement which he made as reported on page 3070 of Hansard of April 22 to the effect that he had plans for keeping 50433-200J
open colliery No. 1-B at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. At that time he indicated that he was getting in touch with the president of the company as to the merits or otherwise of his proposal.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question today. As I stated yesterday, the difficulty at No. 1-B colliery is not primarily a problem of marketing but rather one of exceedingly high costs of production. This is a matter for the unions and the company to work out. My efforts have been directed to encouraging closer cooperation between the company and the unions with a view to lowering production costs to a point where coal can be sold competitively and the mines saved from closure. The people to whom I have talked have received my suggestion favourably and I am hopeful that they will be able to get together and work out their own salvation.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has received from the Polish ex-combatants' association in Canada an appeal that the government intervene to seek the release in Poland of 16 war veterans who were leaders of the underground movement and who have served terms of imprisonment imposed under the present Polish government which have expired. If so, what action does the government propose to take on this meritorious appeal?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received any such appeal but I shall look into the matter. If such an appeal has been received I will reply tomorrow to my hon. friend.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. In view of the

Inquiries of the Ministry uncertainty expressed recently by the head of the prairie farm rehabilitation office in Winnipeg with respect to the responsibility for the maintenance and inspection of dikes constructed by the P.F.R.A. along the Assini-boine river, would the minister make a statement to the house in order to clarify the extent to which the P.F.R.A. authority is responsible for the maintenance and inspection of such dikes?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. The dikes along the Assiniboine river that are referred to were constructed in the first instance by the Department of Public Works as they were dikes on a navigable stream. Three or four years ago the Department of Public Works transferred the activities in connection with these dikes to the Department of Agriculture to be cared for through P.F.R.A.
The position is that dikes are built on privately owned farms along the river. The access to these dams or dikes is at the permission of those who own the lands or on request from the municipalities. We do go in and do the engineering and assist with the work of building dikes there. The word used here is "responsibility". We have no responsibility for doing the inspection after construction. That is done by the municipalities, but if request is made to P.F.R.A. for engineering assistance in connection with any repairs or maintenance that has to be done, then we are quite prepared to give that kind of assistance along the Assiniboine and elsewhere.
ILater: 1


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: With regard to the answer the minister gave in connection with these dikes, when the P.F.R.A. engineers on request of the municipalities make an inspection and recommend certain repairs or alterations, and these are carried out, at whose expense is that work done?


James Garfield Gardiner: The work with which we have been associated has been carried out largely at the expense of P.F.R.A.; but as to what would be done in case repairs are required, I am not too sure, but they can get a report directly from our engineers when they are there.



SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF EMBARGO ON EXPORT OF SELKIRK WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: While I am on my feet, I should like to say, with regard to the question
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Pommer) having to do with Selkirk wheat, that there are only 3 million bushels of Selkirk wheat in western Canada. It takes about 40 million bushels to seed the crop, and about half of the area that has to be seeded will be in a district that was last year infected with rust, so that it would take in the neighbourhood of 20 million bushels to seed the area that was rusted. The government this year has therefore decided-and the action was taken by the wheat board-that they would not permit the export of this wheat, other than some 20,000 bushels which, I think, was supplied to the United States government. Any wheat which would be allowed to go out of Canada in future would result from dealings with the United States government.
The question asked yesterday was as to whether we would permit the boundary to be opened so that Selkirk wheat could move now. I understand that the reason for the question is that most of those in the southern part of Manitoba near the boundary line have disposed of all the Selkirk wheat they find it possible to dispose of, and they have some in surplus. My understanding is that the Saskatchewan government has been paying the freight on Selkirk wheat. They have at least been giving considerable assistance in the movement of Selkirk wheat from where it happened to be to where it was needed. With the price which is being obtained from these quantities, which are not necessarily certified grades, the price is such that farmers can buy the wheat, and it is being bought in Canada. My suggestion to those who live in parts of Manitoba that have already been supplied as far as possible is that they get in touch with the authorities in Saskatchewan or with the provincial government in Manitoba and find where that wheat can be marketed. It is not our desire that it be allowed to go out of Canada, except to the extent that it is being helpful to some activities of the government of the United States. We hope that it will be seeded in western Canada.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to give the house a statement respecting the collision of two naval ships off Bermuda, in particular respecting the extent of damage and casualties, if any?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening, April 22, during night manoeuvres off Bermuda, the destroyer escort Algonquin and the frigate Buckingham were in collision. I am advised that an initial assessment of the damage indicated that it was not serious in either ship. There were no casualties and neither ship was in danger. Temporary repairs are being effected at Bermuda. I am advised today that one or both of these ships expect to leave Bermuda tonight or tomorrow for Halifax.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre:) Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State? Can he say when stationary engineers and firemen employed by the federal government will be put on a five-day 40-hour week along the lines of his announcement of March 30?
Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: cannot give a definite answer to my hon. friend. I shall have to look into that again, because there were certain complications which did not make it possible to put this into effect immediately, but I will give a fuller answer later on.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) asked yesterday what proportion of the rolling stock required in the operation of the Canadian National SuperContinental train will be manufactured in Canada.
As the house knows, the Super-Continental is already in service, and I am informed by the management of the railway that all the motive power was purchased in Canada, also all the head-end equipment comprising 25 baggage and express cars and 22 coaches. Of the rear-end equipment, buffets, parlour cars, sleepers, etc., 45 were manufactured in Canada and 36 in the United States.



COMPARISON OF RUNNING TIME WITH THAT OF C.P.R.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer another question, yesterday the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) referred to
Canadian National Railways the running time of the new transcontinental service on the Canadian National railway compared to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The hon. member apparently was not aware that when the sessional committee on railways and shipping sat just prior to the Easter recess the president of the Canadian National Railways gave to the committee a full explanation of the difference in running time of the two new trains. In his explanation the president emphasized that the Canadian National is not engaging in a speed war. The new service was planned to achieve, at the least possible cost, a faster through passengei train service that at the same time would provide convenient inter-city service.
As hon. members know, the Canadian National line to the Pacific coast is longer than the other transcontinental line. In addition the management, in drawing up the schedule, took particular account of the intermediate towns and cities that they serve.
I think I may say that the main objectives in planning the new train were to offer a faster service and to arrive at reasonable hours at the principal cities and towns served by the railway.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 25, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate the various enactments relating to Canadian National Railways into one statute, also, to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may operate a telecommunication system, to authorize officers and employees of the Canadian National Railways to act as directors of partially-owned companies, to authorize the company to construct short lines without specific parliamentary authority and to operate motor vehicles and further to make provisions for extinguishing charters of constituent corporations.
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, before the house rose at ten o'clock last evening I had a few words to say about the employment situation on the Canadian National Railways. I wish to express once again the earnest hope that at this time, when all the statutes repenting the Canadian National Railways are being reviewed, consolidated! and re-enacted, serious consideration will be given to the position of those who work for this railway.
As hon. members in all parts of the house are aware, there is considerable concern on the part of many members at the lay-offs that have been taking place. Our concern is
316G	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways nothing compared with the concern of the men themselves. Many of us feel that this government-owned railway, and the government behind it, owe to these men who work for the railway something better than the uncertainty and insecurity that they have been facing in recent weeks, and the uncertainty and insecurity that hangs over them so far as the future is concerned. Other matters in connection with the operations of the railway are important. Capital structure is a subject to which we must give attention. The acquiring of the best possible equipment is important. The maintenance of the equipment is important. But it is also important, indeed more important, that consideration be given to the position of the men. Out of the discussions on this legislation I hope may come the formulation of a policy that will put an end to the lay-offs that have been taking place and will provide some protection for these people who carry the main burden of the load so far as the operation of the Canadian National Railways is concerned.
As hon. members know, figures have been placed on the record this session. We have had some difficulty in wording our questions so as to get the information that is available, but we have learned that there has been a considerable drop in total employment during this winter. We also know that notices have been given of still further lay-offs at Winnipeg, Leaside, Toronto and other places. This is an extremely important matter. As strongly as I can I urge that there be the formulation of a policy that will remove this insecurity and uncertainty with regard to the employment of Canadian National workers.
It also seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that at a time when Canadian National Railways policies are being reviewed in their entirety, some attention should be paid to the position of retired C.N.R. employees.


The Chairman:: Order. May I at this moment express a doubt that we are reviewing Canadian National Railways policy in its entirety. It seems to me that this resolution refers to a measure to consolidate into one statute the various enactments relating to the Canadian National Railways. It seems to me that it is merely a consolidation and, in my opinion, it would not give hon. members the privilege of discussing Canadian National Railways policy in general. The resolution goes on to mention certain particular matters which are the subject of amendment. It seems to me that this debate might be more properly directed, first of all, to a discussion of the advisability or inadvisability of consolidating the statutes and, second, to the various particular matters which are mentioned in the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If Your Honour is suggesting that discussion of detailed matters of policy should wait until we have the bill before us, I would not go out of my way to quarrel with you. But, sir, if you are suggesting that because all that is proposed is a consolidation of certain acts that are on the statute books we cannot discuss what is involved in the statutes that are being consolidated, I submit that I would have the right to take issue with you.
As Your Honour is aware, the deputy chairman of committees of the whole raised this point at ten o'clock last evening. Since then I have taken the trouble to do a little bit of homework on the point and, if I may say so, with respect, I think some confusion arises because there are citations in May, particularly in May as revised by Campion, which suggest that consolidating acts are dealt with expeditiously and without discussion of the details of the various acts being consolidated. I would point out, however, that that is because in the United Kingdom-unlike here in Canada-there is what is known as the consolidation of enactments (procedure) act, 1949, under which it is possible for statutes of the parliament of the United Kingdom to be consolidated in what is referred to in May as an expeditious manner. I therefore suggest that the citations in May which limit discussion of bills that consolidate do not apply to this parliament because we have no such measure. We have no provision that puts consolidating acts in any other category than that of any bill that comes before parliament.
All I am saying is this. If you agree with me I will leave the matter until a later date. If you feel that this discussion should wait until we have the bill before us and if it is understood that when the bill is before us we can discuss on the bill any of the matters referred to in the bill, I have no objection to waiting until that occasion. But if there is any suggestion that we cannot discuss what is in that bill, perhaps that will be a point for further discussion when the time comes. I wonder whether Your Honour could indicate whether it is your view merely that this discussion should wait until the bill is before us or whether it is your view that these matters should not be discussed at all.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will know that in our practice, on discussion of the bill, it is the principle of the amending bill, not the principle of the bill which it is proposed to amend, which we are allowed to discuss. One might say that the same consideration might be applicable to discussion of the resolution which precedes the bill.
(Mr. Knowles.]

Hon. members will recall that standing order 58, subparagraph 2, reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
This is an interesting and rather important point. In one light, it might be considered that an amending bill which merely consolidates various enactments which now appear in different acts is nothing more or less than a renumbering of certain sections. I do not think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would argue that if an enactment were being amended by the insertion of a new clause and the later clauses were being renumbered, he would have the privilege of debating the principles of all those later clauses.
I should like to give the matter further consideration before making a definite ruling. As I said, the point is important, interesting and probably rather new. But in one light, I do not believe that a mere consolidation statute opens up the entire original acts for discussion at this stage. As I say, I would not wish to rule too definitely on the point without giving the matter mature consideration, but at the moment my feeling is that a consolidation is little more than a renumbering. It would be difficult to see how a consolidation should properly open up the entire act to discussion, bearing in mind the well-known principle which I first stated, namely, that it is the principle of the amending bill which is discussed. The hon. member will of course realize that there are other and perhaps better opportunities to discuss the subjects which he has indicated he might wish to discuss at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I view your ruling as a very reasonable one and I will not pursue these matters at this stage. I will raise them again later. However, I should like to suggest that, before a ruling is made as to what our rights are on second reading of the bill, further study might be given to the question. I would even be so presumptuous as to suggest a reference to May, fifteenth edition, pages 478, 543, 647 and 739. In the light of these references in May, I would also suggest that reference might be made to chapter 33 of the statutes of the United Kingdom, 1949, which is entitled "Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949". Incidentally, I would point out that later in today's business there is on the order paper second reading of a bill which, while it makes some changes, is a consolidation, a re-enacting of a statute that has been on the statute books since 1940, namely, the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Canadian National Railways
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, assuming, if I may, that your present ruling relates only to the debate at this resolution stage and that any ruling regarding what can be discussed in the debate on second reading will be deferred until that time, I am prepared to save my remarks until a later occasion. The minister knows what the main subjects are, namely unemployment and the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees.


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in what you said a minute ago about the discussion that should take place on a resolution preceding a bill. May I respectfully suggest that the resolution is the cornerstone of the bill itself. Originally such a resolution was introduced before the bill was drafted in order to give all members an opportunity to make suggestions for the better drafting of the bill. This is why I find discussion of the resolution so important. I do not know whether or not the bill has been drafted but valuable and constructive suggestions could be made by members and listened to by the minister and the government, as the result of which the tenor of the bill could be entirely different from what it would be if such a discussion had not taken place.
Whether the bill is a condensation, compilation or totally new legislation makes practically no difference because constructive suggestions in the house shall always be welcomed by the government as well as by the whole membership of the house. In the first place, hon. members know that at Westminster there are not enough seats for all members of the House of Commons and therefore members very often speak in turn. Some speak on the resolution preceding a bill, others on second reading, others on the bill in committee, and others on third reading of the bill. This is one of the reasons why the numerous readings are so important and cannot be dispensed with.
Naturally this is an opinion I am offering. The other day I was called an expert on procedure, which I deny completely. I have never claimed to be an expert on parliamentary procedure. I have been here for 31 years, and for 29 years I have had the opportunity to express my views freely in the house. But in my humble view experts in parliamentary procedure are dangerous people who make procedure difficult to understand in order to pose as the only ones who know anything about it. It is a very dangerous mentality. I speak as a member of parliament who has been here for a great number of years and who has done his best to establish a relation between what he had to say and what was before the house. That
3168	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways is one of my understandings of the few main rules that relate to discussion in the house.
Turning to the resolution now before us, it is one of the most important that has come before us this year. It is no less than a compilation of all the laws that concern the Canadian National Railways. There was so much legislation about the Canadian National Railways that some of the statutes we find in the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1952 are still separate one from the other. As a preamble to what I am going to say, I should like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee of what has happened with regard to the Canadian National Railways. First of all we had the Intercolonial which was managed by the minister of railways and canals himself. He had full authority with regard to the railway. Then there were some new railways that were built and which were bought by the Canadian government. During the first world war the Grand Trunk was purchased. Then the Canadian Northern was purchased and Mr. Gutelius was put in charge not of the Intercolonial Railway but of the Canadian government railways which included the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern. There was a lot of misunderstanding between the employees of the old Intercolonial Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway.
Mr. Gutelius came from the United States to manage the Canadian government railways. Then he was succeeded by Mr. D. B. Hanna, a gentleman who had been with the Canadian Northern in the first place. He took charge of the Canadian government railways. It happened during the Borden-Meighen regime. As soon as the Liberals came to power in 1921 propaganda was started by the Conservative newspapers to the effect that the Canadian National Railways should be free to decide their own policies without any interference by the government. The idea behind that propaganda of the Conservative press was to prevent the Conservatives who were managing the railway from being replaced by Liberals. It was done for a political purpose, in order to maintain complete Tory control of the Canadian government railways. Then, Sir Henry Thornton came. He came with a good reputation because during the war he had been in the British Isles doing some excellent work in transportation. He was quite exacting. He wanted to be appointed chairman of the board of directors and president of the railway, two positions that are entirely different and cannot be associated together in a practical manner. The legislation was changed


and a new act was passed. Sir Henry Thornton became president of the railway and chairman of the board of directors.
According to the Canadian National Railways Act, chapter 40 of the Revised Statutes of 1952, the Canadian government railways or the former Intercolonial Railway, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Northern system, formed the Canadian National Railways and the governor general in council may nominate not less than five nor more than seventeen persons to be directors of the Canadian National Railways. These directors shall be and are hereby incorporated as a company under the name of the Canadian National Railway Company, not the Canadian National Railways system, as Mr. Gordon stated before the committee the other day.
One should also draw attention to the fact that no stock ownership shall be necessary to qualify a director. The directors, therefore, represent not only the government of Canada but the people of Canada at large. They are there to fulfil a duty, which is a duty of control of the management of the railway.
Now, sir, the board of directors is entirely different from the management officers, with one exception which is that the chairman of the board of directors is also the president of the officers of the railway. The board of directors is as follows: Chairman, Mr. Donald Gordon, C.M.G., LL.D.; Mr. Wilfrid Gagnon, C.B.E.; Mr. J. A. Northey; Mr. H. J. Symington, C.M.G., Q.C.; Mr. R. B. Brenan; Mr. B. L. Daly; Mr. W. J. Parker. With regard to the officers, their names are mentioned in letters that are easier to read than those of the directors, and are contained on the first page of the last report of the Canadian National Railways. They are, Mr. Donald Gordon, C.M.G., LL.D, president; law, Mr. MacMillan, Q.C.; operating, Mr. S. F. Dingle, vice-president; the vice-president of the western region, Winnipeg; the vice-president of the central region, Toronto; the vice-president and general manager, Atlantic region, Moncton; the vice-president and general manager of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Detroit; the vice-president of personnel; the vice-president of purchasing and stores; the vice-president of research and development and the vice-president of traffic. There is a president and ten vicepresidents whose duties are entirely different from the board of directors.
I appreciate the good work that the Minister of Transport has done since he assumed that high office. His knowledge of the law makes him familiar with all the

intricacies of the management of the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National Railways is a big company, a company with an income and expenditure, on the average, of $600 million a year. I have some sympathy for Mr. Gordon, and I expressed it to him before the committee. I said I thought he was working too hard. On March 31 last, Mr. Gordon said:
No man works harder; no man has more frustrations, and no man has more fun than I have.
This shows that he has a complex character, but a happy disposition. I quote the following from the committee report:
If you come here, it is in order to permit the members of parliament to help you, and we can do so only inasmuch as we know the facts.


Mr.   Gordon@: Quite so, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you did not tell us much, if we knew nothing, then why should you come here?
I thank you for the information you gave us about the sale price of the hotels. It is the most important statement you have made since you were president and chairman of the railway.
The directors appointed by the government form the board which constitutes the company itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata will realize that I support his right to go into these matters of detail to which he is referring because they relate to Canadian National policy, but I think I am entitled to ask for a statement from Your Honour as to where one draws the line between the kind of detail that I wanted to mention and the kind of detail to which my hon. friend is referring. I do not object to what my hon. friend is doing, but when he is finished I think I should be permitted to come back and debate in some detail the matter of Canadian National pensions.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word on the point of order. X was very much surprised to hear my hon. friend object to what I am saying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not object at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not because he has capitulated before the Chair has rendered its ruling that I have to follow his example. My hon. friend knows a lot about splitting hairs with regard to procedure. He does it all the time. I am not splitting hairs, I am speaking of the law that we are consolidating here. What I am saying is entirely relevant because if we cannot speak of the law with which we are to deal, we might just as well gag everybody in this chamber. On this occasion my hon. friend has been too quick. He knows too much about Beauchesne, and not enough about the law itself. He knows too much about small things, and he forgets 50433-201
Canadian National Railways the essentials that I bring to his attention as well as to the attention of the members who form this committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this is the way you treat me when I am on your side, what would you do if I were against you?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend is on my side, why does he object to what I say? I say that here we are to deal with legislation that affects a concern owned by the people of Canada and which has an income and expenditure of approximately $600 million a year, and which is faced with a deficit that Mr. Gordon wants the country to make up.


Mr. Low:: Go ahead and tell us your story.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you very much.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In view of the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, perhaps I should say a word before the hon. member for Temiscouata proceeds. I did not make any definite ruling when I rose before. I merely, I hope, expressed doubt as to the advisability of proceeding with a general debate concerning the Canadian National Railways on a resolution intended to introduce a measure to consolidate the various enactments, of which hon. members will understand there are a great many.
I think this situation is clearly distinguishable from the one which faced us earlier in this session with regard to the Defence Production Act, when the amending bill cut off the expiry date and therefore re-enacted the entire Defence Production Act for an indefinite period. I think hon. members will appreciate that this situation is different from the former one.
However, I have made no ruling and therefore I cannot say that the hon. member for Temiscouata is out of order. I intend to give the matter mature consideration because, as I said, I think it is an interesting point. Similarly, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre chooses to rise later on, we will have to deal with that as it comes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, there is more wisdom in what you have said than in all the judgments of King Solomon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear; now everybody is happy.


Jean-François Pouliot: He deserves it.
The directors appointed by the government form the board which constitutes the company itself. Their duty is to control the management of the company by the president, the ten vice-presidents and the other officers of the company.	,

Canadian National Railways
As no stock ownership is necessary-and this is very important-to qualify the directors, these are the trustees appointed by the government to look after the management of the company by the officers whom they appoint, including the president, and for whose management they are responsible to the government.
I hope I have made myself clear. I hold no grudge against Mr. Gordon, or any other officer of the company. I am on talking terms with all of them. On the other hand, I want the minister to have full and complete authority over the management of the railways by its officers. And if the directors are not fulfilling those duties, then they should be dispensed with. The duty of the management is to follow the instructions of the minister; and the board of directors has the duty to look after the management of the company by its officers. Have I made myself clear on that?
To my mind the other doctrine is all wrong. I had occasion to discuss this matter before the committee in 1952. As reported at page 44 of the proceedings of the committee on railways and shipping, my learned and distinguished colleague from Greenwood said:
Now, I would like to ask you this question: is it a matter of policy to keep the board so small? I am sure that Mr. Gordon would agree with me in general that it is a good thing for an executive head to have as much in the way of fresh ideas from outside as he can get. I don't mean the directors should interfere with management,-
I completely differ with him on that.
-but I merely mean that you get fresh views if you have a fairly wide range of people on the board, I would have thought; and I would like to know whether that conclusion was arrived at as a matter of policy. It seems to me that you deprive yourself of the advantage of outside views.
To that Mr. Chevrier answered:
In the first place, these members of the board of directors are permanent, they are not employed in an advisory capacity.
That is clear. He continues:
They are appointed by the governor in council to administer the affairs of the railways; and while there have been representations from time to time to increase the number on the board, the government has not seen fit to change it.
The point of view of the hon. member for Greenwood, who is now sitting across from me, was that the number of directors was not large enough, and that they were there to advise Mr. Gordon. My point of view, as I expressed it later at the same sitting, is that we must look after quality instead of quantity, that the president of the railways should get authorization of the board of directors to make any decision, and that there was no use having a larger number of directors if they were to be treated like school children

by the president of the railways, who happens to be chairman of the board of directors.
That was my point of view, and it was entirely different from-indeed it was opposite to that of the hon. member. Then the report of proceedings goes on in this way:


Jean-François Pouliot: What would be the number that you would suggest?


Mr. Macdonneil:: Well, Mr. Pouliot, I did not have it in mind to suggest any particular number, I was just dealing with the general idea of the possibility of a greater representation on the board of directors.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are going on the assumption that the more numbers you have on the board the better will be the results. Speaking personally, I am for quality and not for quantity. The purpose of the board of directors is to advise the management, and, as I see it, the more advisers we have the more difficulties we may expect.
The meaning of the word "advisers" was different in the mind of the hon. member from what it was in my mind. I could have used the word "controllers". Then the report continues:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not with a man like Mr. Gordon; he keeps the directors in their place.
How could the hon. member have spoken in that way? Does a man who is as highly paid as the president of the railways, and chairman of the board of directors, ask for their advice? Does he ask for their consent when he has an important decision to make? No; his duty, according to the hon. member- and he is satisfied with it-is to keep them in their place.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question. Does he never permit any room for facetious remarks? I apologize for having been facetious when I said "Mr. Gordon kept the directors in their places".


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend, I believe, is one of the best read members of the house and he should not try to explain a mistake he has made in speaking. He is somewhat similar to one who makes a blot of ink on a letter and then tries to erase it. The result is that it looks worse and finally he must rewrite the letter. I think the hon. gentleman should rewrite his letter. I have great respect for him as I think he is one of the finest men around Ottawa, even in Carleton county.
But I do say to him honestly that our conception and understanding of the management of the railway is entirely different from his. His idea is to leave Donald Gordon alone to boss the show; my idea is to take control of Donald Gordon, to let the directors hold him by the hand to prevent him from falling into the same excesses that were the downfall of poor Sir Henry Thornton. Imagine how great Sir Henry Thornton would have been if he had not been the sole boss of the

Canadian National Railways for many years. He was alone and his extravagances were notorious. He used to change the curtains and rugs in his house every time he had a visitor of note. There was no check on him. Mr. Bennett had some difficulty with him. He brought him before a committee of the house with regard to extravagances in connection with his private car and so on.
I do not know whether Mr. Gordon was speaking humorously or not, but he said in Montreal that he was a hotel keeper, that he was a banker, that he was a railway man, that he was a caterer; there was not a thing that he was not. One should be more modest; one should realize that it is impossible for one man to manage a big company like the Canadian National Railways.
I had occasion to say this to Mr. Gordon before the committee. I felt that I should say that as a member of parliament because it was my duty to do so for the good of the country. It was my duty to prevent him from making a faux pas because a faux pas in connection with such a large concern may mean a loss of millions of dollars to the country. Will he be engaged again or will he not? I do not know.
If the law is to be changed I hope it will not be done in the way some books on procedure have been put out by Pepper, scissors and glue. It is very easy to cut up sections of the law, paste them on a piece of paper without any changes and then say that it is an important compilation. I am reminded of some books on procedure that have been quoted quite often in this house. Pepper was a messenger here, and everybody knows what scissors and glue are. It was Pepper, scissors and glue.
I hope that the compilation of the Canadian National Railways legislation will be different from many of these works by the experts which we might call Pepper, scissors and glue.
I should like to make one constructive suggestion. I make one only so it will not be forgotten. If I made many, some of them might be overlooked. My suggestion is that we make the management of the Canadian National Railways as efficient as any department of government. How could it be done?


Solon Earl Low: Only that?


Jean-François Pouliot: This is one to start with; I
will have others later on. I wanted this one to be digested thoroughly before I made others.


Solon Earl Low: But you want it improved from that point upward?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am making one suggestion
and if my hon. friends have others they will 50433-201i
Canadian National Railways be welcome to make them. If they are good they will be accepted and if they are not good they will have to console themselves.
How is it possible to do this? The only way to do it is to notify Mr. Gordon that before his services are hired again for a certain number of years he will have to be only the president of the Canadian National Railways for a term and then the board of directors will have to fulfil their duties and give instructions to Mr. Gordon instead of receiving instructions from him.
I hope I have made myself clear about this. The time of the house is very precious and I do not intend to take up too much of it. I hope that what I have said is clear and I hope I have converted the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) to my idea of parliamentary responsibility as applied to the Canadian National Railways. This would be a great step forward in connection with the finances of the Canadian National Railways.
If the directors are reluctant to take this step and assume the responsibilities of their office, I suggest to the minister that there is one thing he can do, that is to appoint the members of the House of Commons who have been on the railways and shipping committee to be directors of the Canadian National Railways. We would then have a board composed of members of all parties. It would be non-political and there would be an opportunity to improve the management of the railway. Having said that, I will reserve any future occasions for making more constructive criticisms.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the various points of order that have been raised and to your own comments thereon and I do not think I am any less confused now than I was before they were made. So, if I should happen to be out of order in what I wish to say, I would ask that you call my attention to the fact. I do not think that I will go any further afield than the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has gone. I am not going to talk about Mr. Donald Gordon; I am not going to talk about a good many things which he has mentioned, although I would say, with regard to the recommendation that he makes, his desire to have the Canadian National Railways become as efficient as any government department, I do not know where that leaves us. Most of us on this side of the house have claimed for a good many years that the most inefficient business in the country is the various departments of the present Liberal administration.
However, to deal with the resolution before us, it states "that it is expedient to introduce

Canadian National Railways a measure to consolidate the various enactments relating to Canadian National Railways". The resolution goes much further than that, of course, and I do not know how we can confine our discussion to those matters that are now within the scope of the law,, because I notice that there are five other matters that are to be dealt with in the new bill. These five are as follows: Firstly, the bill will authorize the company to operate a telecommunication system. Secondly, it will authorize officers and employees of the Canadian National Railways to act as directors of partially-owned companies. Thirdly, it will authorize it to construct short lines-I do not know whether that is complementary to the telecommunication system, but I fancy it means short railway lines-without specific parliamentary authority. The fourth is authority to operate motor vehicles, and the fifth makes provision for extinguishing charters of constituent corporations. There are five matters beyond the consolidation of the laws relating to the Canadian National Railways.
I should like to ask the minister a question, but before doing so I do want to comment on one part of this resolution, that dealing with the construction of short lines without specific parliamentary authority. Once again here we are getting away from the authority of this parliament and centralizing authority in the government. Here, of course, it is within the company, but the company is a crown company. We in this group are entirely against the centralization of power. That is one of the basic principles of the movement for which we stand. The only authority that we recognize is the authority of the people. That being so, the only way the people can exercise their authority and the only way they can express themselves in the exercise of that authority is through their parliamentary representatives. If we depreciate the authority of this parliament, then we are depreciating the authority of the people of Canada.
The minister may rise and say that this is only a little thing and it only involves short lines. It is like the old question, how long is a rope? I do not know what "short lines" means. You can think of the term shortness only in comparison. If you compare it with the national system from Halifax to Vancouver, then a short line could conceivably be 500 or 600 miles, but if you consider a short line as being a spur track to shunt some railroad cars on, it is a different matter.


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. member will permit me, I said last night when, I believe, the
fMr Hansell.]

hon. member was not in the house, in referring to short lines, that we were thinking in terms of lines not exceeding six miles in length?


Mr. Fulton:: Will that be written into the bill?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad to hear the minister say that. We do not have the bill before us, and it is understandable that we cannot discuss its contents to any extent, but even six miles is a reasonable length, and I do not think we should quibble much about it. However, it depends largely on where that six miles is. It could be between two provinces; it could be a tunnel; it could be something that will divert traffic in a corporate city. There may be a variety of things for which we are saying we are going to give authority to the Canadian National Railways.
There is another point here that is extremely important. I understand that the Canadian National Railways have the power of expropriation. If they have that power, and if we give them the authority to build a six-mile railway extension without reference to parliament, what are we doing? We are giving them the authority to expropriate almost anything that might be in their way, in order to build that six miles or less of railway. However, perhaps we will have to deal with that when the bill comes down; and if we do not like it we will have to vote against the clause.
There is a very general question which I should like to ask the minister in connection with the Canadian National Railways. I should like to ask him, does this resolution preceding the bill give the Canadian National Railways anything that it does not give comparable railways?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the question is a little too broad for me to answer in any simple way. If we are talking about the subject of the short lines or branch lines, I might perhaps give him this explanation, and at the same time reply to the question which my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) raised last night. As I understand the terms of the Railway Act, which applies of course to the C.P.R. and other railways in Canada, the situation is that, if any of these railways desire to build a branch line not exceeding six miles in length, it may do so with the approval of the board of transport commissioners. The Canadian National Railways is in the position where it does not enjoy that power, and it must obtain, as the law stands at present, the approval of parliament. If I might point this out to the hon. member for

Macleod, I should like to emphasize that that approval at the present time deals with two aspects: first of all, the power or capacity to build a particular line; and, second, the provision of the necessary funds in order that the railway may make the expenditures. The fact remains that, even after the proposed change is made, the Canadian National Railways will still require the approval by parliament of its budget in order to dispose of the funds necessary to carry out the construction. Perhaps I have not answered fully the question which my friend the hon. member for Macleod has just asked. However, I think it would be extremely difficult for me to compare the whole structure and powers of the Canadian National Railways with those of other railway companies in Canada.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps we can wait until the bill comes down and then ask questions.
(Translation):


Mr. Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, the debate at the resolution stage affords me an opportunity of acquainting the house and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) with a project calculated to promote the growth of the city of Alma, county seat of Lake St. John, and also to provide the Canadian National Railways with an additional source of revenue.
One of the clauses of the bill to be introduced following this resolution provides that the Canadian National Railways will be authorized to build short lines without specific parliamentary authority.
By virtue of these new powers, then, the Canadian National Railways could extend the present line from St. Gedeon to St. Joseph d'Alma, thence back to Hebertville Station to continue on to Jonquiere and Chicoutimi.
The route followed by this road was that of the first of our railway lines, constructed some 75 years ago to answer the needs of colonization. The parish of St. Joseph d'Alma had barely been established then, its population was only a few hundred and a small lumber industry had just been set up.
Since then, the Saguenay-Lake St. John district has expanded wonderfully. Lumber companies were first in their efforts to further the industrial growth of the Lake St. John district. At present it boasts six mills producing wood pulp and newsprint. Aluminum followed and gave its powerful impetus to the industrialization of what is commonly known as the Saguenay kingdom. The town of Alma, situated in the very heart of the Lake St. John district, has not in the least trailed behind other towns of the Saguenay
Canadian National Railways with respect to that development. What was a tiny village 75 years ago has become an industrial and commercial centre numbering nearly 15,000 people. It is the home town of most of the workers of the Riverbend mill, which produces nearly 700 tons of newsprint a day and employs 800 people. The aluminum smelter of Isle Maligne employs 1,200 workers who live in the towns of Isle Maligne, Naud-ville and Alma.
That community of close to 20,000 people is served by a modern hospital and a 1,000-watt radio station. Last year the Department of Transport recognized the importance of the town of Alma when it authorized the Boreal Airways Ltd., to use it as a stop-over on the Bagotville-Chibougamau flight, and has granted generous subsidies for the building of a municipal airport. Quite recently the Department of Public Works, realizing the fast growth of the chief town in the Lake St. John district, decided to put up a modern building to accommodate federal public services.
I am not asking the Canadian National management to "blaze the trail" or even to follow suit. All I am asking is that they recognize the rapid and steady development of that important industrial community which gives them more than a quarter of all the revenue from the Lake St. John line, with its outlets into Quebec and Montreal.
People who contribute such a substantial revenue to the Canadian National Railways should benefit from lower transportation rates and to have available within their district, or rather at their doorstep, a railway ensuring a fast and convenient passenger service.
Because the hon. Minister of Transport has never failed to give my requests his kind consideration, I hope that, when conferring upon the authorities of the Canadian National Railways the supplementary powers provided in the bill, he will ask the company to give top priority, among the short lines contemplated, to the extension of the railroad going from St. Gedeon to the town of Alma and thence to the station of Hebertville. The national railways will find it an additional source of revenue, while the population of the industrial centre formed by Alma, Naud-ville, Riverbend and Isle Maligne will be pleased to see that their long-cherished dream will at last come true.
(Text) :


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There are one or two
references that I want to make to this resolution, especially arising from the remarks made
3174	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways by the hon. member for Temiscouata who, in his analysis of the situation on the Canadian National Railways, asked for the restoration to parliament of its right to examine the Canadian National Railways affairs and to ascertain whether or not the will of parliament was being carried out.
That has been a stand that we in the official opposition have been taking for a long while. We have emphasized the need for the restoration to parliament of a power which was once exercised but which in the last few years has fallen into disuse. The loss of this power has become a serious matter. In the present session on several occasions we in the opposition have endeavoured to secure information with regard to the Canadian National Railways, but without much success. I mention these things because they indicate that some amendments should be brought in when the consolidation of the Railway Act is made in order to restore to parliament a power which it does not possess today because of the stand taken by the members supporting the government.
I mention just one or two recent examples as indicative of the degree to which the concealment of information with regard to the Canadian National Railways has become a way of life. Indeed, blackouts and secrecy have been imposed on parliament in recent months respecting the Canadian National Railways. That was not the course followed in earlier years. I was impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata as he demanded that information be available to parliament. I went back for a moment to February 14 last when I made a motion in this house with a view to securing information for parliament and the people with regard to Canadian National Railways. That motion read as follows:
For a copy of all letters and communications since the 1st day of August, 1954, written by the minister, deputy minister or any officials in the Department of Transport to the Canadian National Railways, or any officer or official thereof, concerning the leasing of or intended leasing or management agreement of the Queen Elizabeth hotel in the city of Montreal to the Hilton Hotels Corporation.
That was a reasonable request asking for information as to what the Canadian National Railways is doing with Canada's money. As the hon. member for Temiscouata said, the Canadian National Railways asks parliament for the money. When it has deficits, the people pay. But when information is asked for, the people are denied it. I was interested in noticing the vote on that occasion. I find that my friend the hon. member for Temiscouata on that occasion joined with his colleagues 

and voted against the giving of information to parliament on that motion. I am glad he has changed his attitude.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I should like to give him an explanation.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I shall be glad to hear it.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend does not happen to be a member of the committee on railways and shipping. When Mr. Chevrier was minister of transport some years ago he asked the members of the committee if they wanted to have some information concerning the salary paid to Mr. Gordon. No member of the committee, including myself-perhaps I was wrong-agreed to ask for the information. That constituted a precedent, and until the committee changes its practice it is no use to ask for information when the committee does not want to have it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that the explanation scarcely covers the situation. Indeed, it complicates the simplicity that I endeavoured to incorporate in the attitude taken by my hon. friend on that occasion. However, I must say we welcome the hon. member to the support of the ranks of those in the house who do ask for information from the Canadian National Railways. We do so because of the fact that the experience of the last couple of years has not been conducive to the building up of the morale which is so necessary on the part of the Canadian National Railways.
I ask the minister to go from one end of the country to the other, and he will find that the employees of Canadian National Railways today live in fear. They feel themselves thwarted and frustrated because of the lack of direction being exercised in reference to themselves. They realize there will be layoffs but they would like to have some understanding of the policy that is being followed in the administration of the Canadian National Railways Act. They would like some message that would tell them there is going to be an end to this haphazard policy under which men are laid off without any apparent reality and without any consideration of their services in the past.
It took us months to find out that some
8,000	men had been laid off in three months. The records of Hansard are replete with questions asked by members with regard to layoffs, and the explanations given by the minister scarcely indicate there is that efficiency that should characterize a great organization such as the people's railway. Over and over again the answer has been that it is impossible to give the information because it is going

to be so difficult to bring together the numbers laid off in the various divisions. When the question is asked how many men have been placed on part-time employment the answer again-and seriously given-is that Canadian National Railways does not have the information. That is not good enough. Surely the minister will take this opportunity to give assurance to these employees, something of hope, something of the policy, something of what they may expect.
They find it difficult to understand expenditures being made that seem unjustifiable. Let me mention one that was referred to recently. At a time like this when the railway is running into a deficit, the employees find it difficult to understand why two private cars should have to be repaired at a cost of $130,000 each. They ask: Why is this period chosen? Why are we chosen to be the ones upon whom the management of Canadian National Railways depends to wipe out the deficit? Why should there be such expenditures? Why should there be an expenditure of $20 million on a hotel and yet when we try to find out how it is going to be operated we are told it is not in the public interest to give the information?
Some change must be made in the act to restore to parliament what the hon. member for Temiscouata said should be restored, the power of parliament to find out and to ascertain, and not have that power restricted to the right to inquire with no right to the information. What about the answers that have been given to questions recently? I have a number of them here. As found at page 3116 of Hansard of April 25, the hon. member for Wellington-Huron asked the following question:
By Ontario districts, how many employees of the car department of the Canadian National Railways have been laid off during (a) the year 1954; (b) the months of January, February and March, 1955?
This was the minister's answer:
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. member and explained to him that the Canadian National Railways do not assemble employment figures by districts, and in consequence it is not possible to answer the question as asked.
It is time they did. We have asked for such information for months but we have been met by a stone wan of secrecy and blinders have been placed upon parliament by the subterfuge of the excuse that they do not keep the records that way. As a matter of fact, I suggest to the minister that he ascertain the exact facts from the Canadian National Railways. From my own
Canadian National Railways knowledge each district reports each week as to employment in that district. This was the rest of the answer:
If the hon. member would care to rephrase his question, the management will give the employment information that is available.
Rephrase simplicity? Hansard is full of answers like this, and they are causing a feeling among Canadian National Railways employees today that there is something seriously wrong somewhere. Let me give another example. At page 2992 of Hansard of April 20, the minister made a statement with respect to lay-offs at Winnipeg. He said:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday referred to staff reductions by the Canadian National Railways at Winnipeg and other places and put the following question to me:
"How does he square the lay-offs now taking place with his statement in the house on February 7 that no further staff lay-offs were anticipated?"'
This is the answer:
If the hon. member will reread Hansard of February 7 he will find the opinion there given was that of Mr. J. R. McMillan, vice-president of the railway in Winnipeg, and not that of the Minister of Transport.
That sounds to me like a facetious play on words and not the kind of information to which the railway employees of this country are entitled. Let me go on. On February 28 last I had a motion before the house which was in the following terms:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the minister or Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways relative to a question placed on the order paper in the name of the mover of this matter on the 28th January last, the purpose of which was to ascertain the number of section and maintenance men, office staffs, etc., who have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways during the periods particularly set forth in the said question.
You will remember what the answer was, Mr. Chairman. The answer was that such information was not procurable because the Canadian National Railways did not keep the kind of books that would give the information-and that on a railroad as large as the Canadian National. That aroused the employees everywhere throughout the country. If the railway does not have such records it is time they started to keep them. Certainly they spend enough money on staffs to be able to furnish that simple information.
On March 7, as found at page 1762 of Hansard, the following question was asked by the hon. member for Royal:
1.	How many hourly rated employees of the Canadian National Railways were laid off between January 1, 1954 and December 31, 1954?
2.	How many monthly rated employees "official capacity" of the Canadian National Railways were laid off between January 1, 1954 and December 31, 1954?
3176	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
This was the answer by the minister:
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that in order to answer the question as asked it would be necessary to secure information from divisional, district, regional and headquarters offices and require a special staff . . .
Then he went on to refer to the number of employees in the employ of Canadian National Railways at the several periods. I think, Mr. Chairman, when the minister introduces these amendments he should give consideration to bringing back to parliament the right to find out whether or not things are as they should be on the Canadian National Railways. The minister may say the committee does that. We have heard that story before. I have read almost all the committee reports, and the evidence taken. I noticed this: Whenever a question is asked that might furnish information which officials of the Canadian National Railways regard as not being in the public interest, and so often the public interest is apt to clash with the interests of officials of the Canadian National Railways, the information is not given.
Sir, I suggest, and I do so in the most serious way, that this is the picture of Canadian National Railways employees across Canada today. They are disturbed. They do not know where the axe is going to fall or when. They are afraid to get in touch with a member because so often they say, "We dare not do that." Much of the information comes in from sources that are anonymous, and therefore the information has to be checked. I ask the minister to say something to those railway employees that will restore their morale at this time.
Let me give you a recent example. Strong complaints have been made about R. F. Welch Limited-I think that is the name of the company. Mr. Gordon gave his promise that the things complained of would cease after March 31, but he did not say what year. Since March 31, 1,000 people who have been recently brought into Canada have been placed on two extra gangs out of Calgary, according to my information. What about the men who have been laid off? Why were they not given an opportunity, those who would be fitted for that work, to take this employment? A promise was given by Mr. Gordon that this was going to stop, that the injustices resulting from the hiring agreements of that company would be a thing of the past. Within the last two or three days one of the union representatives has been in touch with me concerning this question, and he simply requested that the matter be placed before the minister, and justice and equity asked for those who have been diligent and loyal servants of the Canadian National Railways,


Everywhere across the country there is fear. There is nothing that destroys morale more quickly, whether it is in corporations, in homes or anywhere else, than fear. I ask the minister whether he will do something to remove these clouds of fear that today hang over the Canadian National Railways employees, and give them a message of hope. At the same time he could once more give parliament the right to have information which, however concealed behind expressions such as have been used in recent months, is available and is simply being denied to parliament, as I see it, by the officials of the Canadian National Railways because they are afraid to have the information available. It is not going to help their competitors. How will it help their competitors to know how many employees have been laid off? The competitor allows it to be known how many employees have been laid off. Do that, and I say to the minister he will do a great deal to change deficits into surpluses. Today they fear. Today they are frustrated. Those are not of the elements that together give the cohesive unity and co-operation that will bring about at least a closer approximation of revenues with costs than has been the case during the last year.
(Translation) ;


Mr. Villeneuve:: Introducing as it does
legislation providing for an extension of the powers of the Canadian National Railways, particularly with a view to allowing the company to construct short lines without special permission, this resolution provides us with an opportunity of dealing with a subject which is of great interest to the northern part of the constituency of Roberval, which I represent in this house.
At the present time, this part of my constituency, including the municipalities of Dolbeau, Mistassini, St. Stanislas, St. Eugene d'Argentenay, Notre Dame de Lorette and Ste. Elizabeth de Proulx, plus part of this last named community and four others situated in the adjacent constituency of Lake St. John, is served through Dolbeau where the Canadian National Railways terminal is situated.
The economic advantage of a railway line and station to any community is well known. The value of such facilities can only be appreciated, in fact, by those who are deprived of them. Mistassini is in that case. Its trade, its postal service, its tourist facilities, the projected establishment of small industries, the existing industries and its agriculture, in a word, the economy of Mistassini in general is seriously handicapped by the lack of a railway.

The Mistassini area holds a population of
4,000	people, 3,000 of whom live in the town of the same name. Its economic life is based on forest products and the paper mill of the St. Lawrence Corporation, on trade of various kinds and on agriculture. A railway would strengthen the economic situation of the Mistassini area and would enable its industrious people to show what they can do. Ten years ago that district was contributing little to the economy of the district but its geographical location enabled it to assume an ever-increasing importance.
The bringing of the railway to Mistassini would require a two-mile extension of the line and the building of a bridge across the Mistassini river, which separates Dolbeau from Mistassini.
As they are made of wood and are more than 25 years old, the Dolbeau station and freight and express sheds are in need of major repairs, and as this project would probably mean the shifting of that station and those sheds to another part of the town of Dolbeau, the Canadian National should not miss the opportunity to rebuild those buildings which are out of date and not in keeping with such a fair town.
Fully aware of the needs of Mistassini and of the projects made for the future of that fast growing town, which now enjoys all essential services except those of railway transportation, I rely on the sympathetic consideration of this government and the Canadian National Railways for this project which I am anxious to see carried out, as are all my fellow citizens from Mistassini.
(Text) :


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thanks to the hon. member for Temiscouata, Mr. Chairman, and those who have followed him, perhaps I can now conclude the remarks I sought to make some time ago. I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert that we have been having far more difficulty than should be the case in our efforts to obtain figures about lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. However, we have been able to get some information. The figures we have obtained cannot be described as the numbers that have been laid off. But since we have been given levels of total employment at certain periods we can, by a process of simple arithmetic, determine what the net decrease has been. That does not take into consideration any additional numbers who may have been hired and fired in the meantime.


John George Diefenbaker: Or those retired.
Canadian National Railways


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. In the light of the figures appearing at page 2102 of Hansard for March 17, 1955 it appears that between August 1954 and January 1955 there was a drop in employment on the Canadian lines of the Canadian National Railways to the extent of 7,758 persons. It is a figure of that kind which makes the matter of lay-offs by the C.N.R. a serious one.
On that same page there are figures for the western region; and I note that in that area nearly half of this decline in employment has taken place. In that same period, from August 1954 to January 1955-and I understand all of these dates are at the middle of the month -there was a decline in employment of 3,844 persons.
I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert that we should be able to get information far more readily than is the case. But even more important than getting the information is to have a stop put to this trend of lay-offs which is so serious for the men affected, as well as their families, not to mention the community as a whole.
I wish also to join in the protest made concerning the way in which the Canadian National Railways circumvent collective agreements with certain unions by contracting work out to R. F. Welch Limited. This is a serious matter. As hon. members may recall, I have asked the Minister of Labour in the house if his department could not go into this matter in some way. However, when I suggested that a commission of inquiry be established the minister replied that he did not feel there was anything his department could do. Meantime, employees of the Canadian National Railways doing this kind of work, and doing it under collective agreement, find that they are by-passed by a company which goes outside the terms of the agreement, when the work is let out by contract to the R. F. Welch company.
I wish also to say a few words about the policy of the Canadian National Railways with respect to its retired employees. Like the hon. member for Temiscouata, I feel I should relate my remarks to the legislation before the house. One of the acts to be consolidated is the Canadian National Railways Act; and I find that under the provisions of that act, by cross-reference to the Railway Act, the Canadian National Railways may set up and administer its pension plans. As hon. members know, there are a large number of retired C.N.R. employees on pensions that are ridiculously low. Again, if reference is made to Hansard, this time at pages 1762 and 1763 of March 7, 1955, it will be found that there are still ten retired C.N.R. employees on

Canadian National Railways pensions of less than $25 a month. In addition, there are 3,209 on pensions of only $25 a month. The tables on these pages are exhaustive, and I shall not attempt to repeat all the figures given.
However, may I say by way of summary that it appears there are a total of 19,460 retired C.N.R. employees who are on pensions, and that of that number there are 7,008 who are on pensions of less than $40 a month. Bearing in mind the fact that 3,209 are receiving only $25 a month, I suggest the time is long overdue for an increase in the pensions of those who draw only the basic pension, and for an adjustment in the pensions of those who are in the lower and middle brackets.
I regret the new Minister of Transport finds that he cannot say anything concerning these retired employees that is different from what his predecessor said. The main reply given to the associations who appear before the government from time to time is that these pensions are given and their amount determined by virtue of a contract. The argument is put forward that other persons who are drawing pensions under the terms of certain contracts are not having their pensions increased; and the question is then asked: Why should the government or why should the Canadian National Railways take action of that kind?
If it were true that no other group of pensioned employees had received any increase after going on pension, it would still not excuse the government from giving a lead in the matter. But as hon. members know, there are a number of instances where retired employees have been given increases even after going on pension. Certain levels of government in this country, as well as in other countries, have taken action along this line. For instance, in the last two or three months the retired teachers in this province of Ontario were given increases in their pensions. As a matter of fact the Canadian Pacific Railway makes a very slight addition to the pensions of those who are in the low brackets. I admit the supplement is small, and I admit also that the amount is taken off when the pensioner reaches the age of 70 and goes on old age security. But at least there are these examples of other employers who are trying to do something for their retired employees who are suffering because of what has happened in the meantime to the cost of living and to the value of the pension paid to these people.
After all, it should be recognized that if the Canadian National Railways is a great institution today, it is partly because of the work being done by those who are now its employees and partly because of the work


of those who have been its employees in the past. I submit it is not fair to these faithful servants of this government-owned railway, who have served in years gone by, to ask them to continue on pensions of the amounts I have repeated this afternoon.
I strongly urge the Minister of Transport to take a new look at this matter. I do not blame the minister, coming new to this portfolio, for following in the footsteps of his predecessor for a little while. A great many problems have been thrown on his doorstep, and there are many strings he has to pick up, with the result that it is only natural that he would carry on along the lines followed by his predecessor. The fact remains however that he is the person who is finally responsible, and that he is the person who is in parliament and who is answerable to members of parliament. I suggest therefore that he should take his own fresh look at the situation with a view to understanding just how serious the situation is for these people, and that he should try to find some way to do something about it, either by persuading the Canadian National Railways to act in the matter or by persuading his cabinet colleagues that the government should act so there would be brought about an increase in the pensions of these people who are in the lower brackets.
There were some other matters about which I wished to speak, but because so much time has been lost I shall only mention them in passing. I think it has not been good for the morale of Canadian National employees generally; I think it has not been good for the standing of Canadian National Railways in the eyes of the Canadian people, that the C.N.R. should have sold four of its institutions to be turned over to private hands. I refer to certain hotels and summer resorts. Likewise I feel that way about the decision of the management of the railway to lease the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal to the Hilton chain. I have had a great many letters about these matters from citizens of Canada who wonder how these things gibe with the loyalty the Canadian government and the Liberal party are supposed to have to the principle of public ownership involved in the ownership by the people of Canadian National Railways.
These matters have been debated at length in this house, but I wanted to register my protest against what has been done in the context of steps that have been taken which have the effect of lowering the morale of Canadian National personnel and which affect the prestige and standing of the Canadian National Railways in the eyes of the Canadian people. So far as I am concerned and so

far as the members of this group are concerned, we are proud of the fact that we have a publicly owned railway system such as the Canadian National Railways, including not only its railroad operations but its various subsidiary operations. We do not want that excellent system to suffer in the way that we feel it has been suffering recently.
To me the things we have been discussing today are exceedingly important. I refer to the matters I have just mentioned in passing, and particularly to the pension position of those who are already retired and to the uncertainty and fear of losing their jobs that hang over so many of the employees. In the name of the prestige which the Canadian National Railways deserve in this country I call upon the government to review these matters and do something about them, particularly to raise the pensions of those in the lower brackets and to put an immediate stop to the lay-offs that have been taking place.
(Translation):


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, like the previous speakers, I must say that the consolidation into one statute of the various enactments relating to the national railways is a step in the right direction; however, there are some parts of the present resolution which, to my mind, are a cause of serious concern, and this prompts me to protest against anything in the resolution which would remove from the control of parliament certain activities of the management of the Canadian National Railways. In my opinion, a member from the province of Quebec cannot help noting the more or less favourable attitude of the Canadian National Railways towards our province.
Among the Canadian provinces, Quebec is the one with the least trackage having regard to its population and, after Newfoundland, the province with the least trackage having regard to its area. In view of this treatment inflicted upon the province of Quebec, whether deliberately or not, by the management of the national railways any legislation which could remove from the control of parliament certain activities of the management of the national railways cannot but cause concern.
We have a case in point in the now famous Chibougamau railway matter; the policy of the C.N.R. management has brought great financial losses to the lake St. John district. In fact, because the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railroad has not been built, a $20 million refinery, which was to have been erected at Chicoutimi, will not be built-
Canadian National Railways


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member should be more serious!


Léon Balcer: Well, I received my information from a mining engineer who is well conversant with the matter; he has met the promoters of the refinery.
He told me that when those people saw that a railway line was being built from Chibougamau to Beattyville and that the mining companies of Chibougamau could use the smelters at Noranda, well, those people abandoned their project of investing nearly $20 million in such a refinery. If such a large smelting plant had been built, it would have provided employment for a large number of people in Chicoutimi. My hon. friend from Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) may find that funny, but I think that the people of Chicoutimi, as well as those of his own constituency and elsewhere, have been able to see for themselves that the Canadian National Railways had lost the pioneering spirit which should characterize such an enterprise.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Has the hon. member read that part of the report of the Eastern Smelting Company-the company which intended to build the refinery at Chicoutimi- where it is stated that the refinery project was dependent on the securing of a contract from the United States defence department?


Léon Balcer: I shall be pleased to listen to the hon. member if he will make his own speech when I am through with mine.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I have read the
report, even if you have not.


Léon Balcer: I have not read the report,
but I have information which might be as interesting as that in the possession of the hon. member.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I prefer the information coming from the directors of the road. You would do well to answer my question.


Léon Balcer: If the hon. member wants
to talk about railways, he will have that opportunity in the course of this debate. Still, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, I protest against any bill as a result of which parliament would be deprived of control over the activities of the management of the Canadian National Railways.

Canadian National Railways
Quite recently we have been aware of certain mistakes which have aroused strong criticism throughout this country, particularly the well known case of the Canadian National hotel in Montreal. That question was discussed at great length in the railway committee. I do not wish to labour the point, but it must be admitted that there has been quite a lot of violent criticism directed at the Canadian National Railways. That is why I consider it absolutely necessary for parliament to continue and increase its control over the management of the railway, and that it should even be able to force them to give any information desired at any time.
Since my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has very ably stated the relevant facts, I shall not cover the subject again.
As a representative of the province of Quebec, I deem it my duty to take this occasion to ask the government to urge the authorities of the Canadian National to extend the total length of their railway lines in the province of Quebec in a proportion commensurate with our population.
The Canadian National now has a wonderful opportunity to contribute to the development of the province of Quebec through the construction of a railway on the north shore, whose mining and forest resources are practically limitless and where it would be possible to develop nearly seven million horsepower. If the Canadian National did its duty there, that part of my province would undergo a much greater expansion. It is, of course, an important undertaking; I trust nevertheless that, even if not the first year, but in the not too distant future, the Canadian National Railways would benefit to an extent which would enable them to overcome their financial difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make these few remarks in order to protest against any attempt on the part of the government to withhold from the supervision of parliament anything which has to do with the management of the Canadian National Railways.
(Text):


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with two matters before the resolution passes. The hon. members for Prince Albert and Winnipeg North Centre have referred to the relationship between R. F. Welch Limited and the Canadian National Railways. A number of men employed by R. F. Welch Limited have been engaged in my constituency during the summer months, and there is a good deal of dissatisfaction


over the arrangements. It is very difficult for a member of parliament to find out how many are employed by R. F. Welch Limited at any given time, how much per day these men are paid, how much per day R. F. Welch Limited is paying for the services of the men.
At the beginning of this century we did take advantage of immigrants by asking them to do jobs that Anglo-Saxons disliked very much, and very low wages were paid. In the middle of the twentieth century I do not think it is good enough to bring immigrants to the country and ask them to compete with men who belong to unions, at wages which are apparently a great deal less than would be paid to Canadians undertaking that work. I have been told that R. F. Welch Limited makes up to $2 a day out of the labour of as many as 1,200 men at a given time. I do not know whether it is that much, or how much it is.
I realize that the men are under obligations to R. F. Welch Limited as a result of that company making it possible for them to be in Canada, but I think the parliament of Canada has a right to know all the details in connection with the relationships which exist between R. F. Welch Limited and the immigrants who come to Canada, and how much if anything the company is making per year as a result of the use of immigrants on the maintenance of way of the Canadian National Railways. I hope the minister will persuade the Canadian National Railways that these are matters of public concern. All the people of Canada have a right to be told exactly what are the details.
Earlier this afternoon the minister was kind enough to give the house some information regarding the operations of the two dieselized trains which started on Sunday. Earlier in the session I raised the question to find out why the Canadian Pacific had been able to announce the new faster service before the Canadian National Railways. The minister was able to draw my attention to the fact that both railways announced the service on the same date, but in the Gazette on that particular date the Canadian Pacific did announce in detail the saving in time that would be effected across the country, whereas the Canadian National Railways merely announced that they too were going to run a faster train.
The only reason I raise this matter is that throughout the years I have been a great advocate of public ownership. Having travelled on both railways, I think the Canadian National Railways has always given a comparable service. Some of my colleagues

are favourable to the Canadian Pacific, but both railways have given service of a very high order.
However, in recent months particularly there is a feeling that the Canadian National Railways are not getting a fair break. While it is true that the Canadian National Railways have a slightly longer run from Montreal to Vancouver, the difference is only 49 miles. Until Sunday the Canadian Pacific led the Canadian National Railways by only 15 minutes in the distance of 2,930 miles. If throughout the years the Canadian Pacific was able to drag along with just that difference, I cannot understand why now it becomes so much more hazardous for the Canadian National Railways to make the run across Canada in the same time or in 15 minutes less time than the Canadian Pacific.
I was a member of the railways and shipping committee some years ago when I believe it was Senator Reid, the member for New Westminster at that time, who expressed the opinion, when Mr. Vaughan was president of the railway, that the Canadian National could easily cut off 12 hours. I think Senator Reid said that coming east they were 12 hours late out of Edmonton but reached Ottawa on time.
I believe Mr. Vaughan admitted that the Canadian National Railways could cut their time by 12 hours, but he said that they wanted to arrive at Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and other large centres at convenient hours, and there was not much point in going into Saskatoon at three o'clock in the morning or leaving Winnipeg in the middle of the night or reaching Toronto or Montreal at sometime between midnight and four o'clock in the morning. So those schedules were considered satisfactory.
It is hard for me to understand, if the Canadian Pacific is now making the run safely in the time they set out, why the Canadian National should have to take two hours and ten minutes longer. The Canadian Pacific will leave Montreal at one o'clock; business people will be able to have their lunch on the train, and in due course this train will reach Vancouver at 9.10 in the morning. So business people going from Montreal to Vancouver by train will have a half day in Montreal and a full day in Vancouver.
Those who travel via C.N.R. will have to hang around in Montreal until 3.25 in the afternoon and they will reach Vancouver at 1.45 p.m. on the same day the Canadian Pacific train will arrive at 9.10 a.m. So those who are travelling for business reasons will lose all the morning and it will be well on into the afternoon before they arrive in Vancouver. It would seem to me that the Canadian National should be able to make the
Canadian National Railways run across Canada as quickly as the Canadian Pacific, or certainly do better than run two hours and ten minutes slower.
It has always been argued that the Canadian National has a better roadbed. I came back from Winnipeg at Easter on the Canadian Pacific. I have been a C.N.R. man all my life, but I wanted to see what the Canadian Pacific was like. I was able to see the new dome cars, and they are very attractive. Those who have travelled over the C.P.R. will agree that there are a great many sharp curves as you follow the north shore of Lake Superior. Those who have travelled across the Rockies will also agree that the Canadian National has a much better crossing through the mountains. I checked, and I find that the Canadian Pacific has to climb to a height of 5,332 feet at Stephen, as compared with a maximum of 3,717 feet at Yellowhead on the C.N.R. In other words the C.P.R. has to climb 1,615 feet higher to cross the mountains. The Canadian Pacific at Calgary is at a height of 3,438 feet, which is 1,349 feet higher than the Canadian National-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. In interrupting the hon. member who has the floor, I realize that I may appear to be exercising some unfairness. May I say that I have been in the chamber during the whole course of this debate except for 15 minutes. I understand that there has been a sort of tacit agreement that what we do today shall not be considered binding, because the matter of what is and what is not relevant is under study at the moment.
I am going to ask the hon. member who has the floor and those who follow him if they will ask themselves whether the matters they are discussing can conceivably be brought within the terms of the resolution which is before us. The hon. member is discussing the respective merits of the timetables. Some of the subjects which have been brought up for discussion-and on this matter I have my own views but I am not going to inflict them upon the committee at the moment-may or may not be regarded as falling within the purview of this resolution. Others definitely cannot be said to do so.
I am not going to rule anybody out of order today on the ground of irrelevancy because of the latitude which has been allowed. However, I am going to ask the members of this committee not to go any further afield than their good sense tells them the resolution would allow.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall conclude this portion of my speech and in fact my whole speech very shortly. I was merely raising this particular problem

Criminal Code
in order to express the concern felt by many of my friends with regard to the future of the Canadian National Railways.
I am most anxious that parliament should not be placed in the position that we have less information and less supervision of the officials of the Canadian National Railways. As I said, I think there is a tendency to ask parliament to give up some of its responsibilities to the management and to the government. In the resolution it has been proposed to give the Canadian National the right to construct short lines without specific parliamentary authority. I am quite concerned about this trend that seems to be developing, and it certainly is giving a great deal of concern to Canadian National Railways employees who feel that the government-owned company is not getting its fair breaks.
I shall conclude by saying this. The Canadian Pacific Railway has taken the lead in introducing this stainless steel train. It is able to boast that it is the only railway in Canada that has dome cars. I agree with Austin Cross who wrote in the Citizen yesterday that the new train is one of the finest anywhere. I think it is a pity that the Canadian National Railways have not been able to get similar equipment and are not able to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the run from Montreal to Vancouver and from Vancouver to Montreal.


Miss Bennett:: In view of the fact that it is almost five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, when we proceed to the consideration of private members' bills, may I call it five o'clock?
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen-baker for the second reading of Bill No. 186, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: While I have not checked the matter, the hon. member for Prince Albert will permit me to say that, if he speaks now, he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was introduced on March 18 in order to cover the matter of the pollution of interprovincial streams. Because of the long period that has elapsed 
since its introduction I should like to refer to it for the purpose of having it on the record. It reads:
Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of ten thousand dollars for a first offence and of twenty thousand dollars for a second offence, or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Such punishment, of course, would be in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code with relation to summary conviction penalties.
I want to thank all those who have spoken on this amendment. Generally speaking I think there has been agreement that the pollution of our interprovincial streams is a matter of ever-increasing seriousness, and that across Canada in practically every province the waterways are becoming polluted to a degree that will ensure, in a matter of a generation, the almost complete destruction of their usefulness for domestic or manufacturing purposes, unless action is taken.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Garson), in dealing with the matter, contended that a question such as this could be dealt with on the basis of co-operation as between province and province. In the past few weeks I have had from various parts of this country considerable correspondence indicating that this problem is national in scope and that federal action is necessary to meet it and to punish those who would destroy for the great body of the Canadian people the usefulness of the God-given rivers which supply our manufacturing industries and are also a source of our domestic water supply.
There was a request on the part of various fish and game organizations for legislation such as is embodied in this amendment. A recent example, to which I shall but allude, was the occurrence on the North Saskatchewan river. As a result of the dumping of effluents by Canadian Chemical Company Limited into the North Saskatchewan river at a point east of Edmonton, the waters of the river were rendered unusable for a period of three months by the cities of Battleford and Prince Albert, the town of The Pas, and by people living between Edmonton and The Pas.
To summarize the minister's stand, he said first of all that there was no need for this legislation inasmuch as the amendments to the Criminal Code recently passed by par-

liament, which became law on April 1, would cover the situation. When the minister referred to that point I asked him a simple question, as is found at page 2504 of Hansard for March 29. The minister was turning to another point, and at that time I said:
Before the minister goes on with that, will he permit a question?


Mr. Garson:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: It has to do with the suggestion he made the other day that the new section is different in import and purport from the old section.
Then I read the old section, which was as follows:
A common nuisance is an unlawful act or omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all His Majesty's subjects.
That section had been in the law for many years. That was the section at the time the event took place to which I referred a minute ago, when the North Saskatchewan river was to all intents and purposes but a floating sewer of effluents that had been dumped into it by an industrial concern east of Edmonton. The amendment which became law this year reads as follows:
(2) For the purposes of this section every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or
(b)	obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
Then I asked the minister this question:
What is different in these two sections?
The minister replied quite frankly and said:
If I understand my hon. friend's question correctly he is asking me whether I contend that the new section differs in any point of substance from the old section. I agree that there is no substantial difference between them. I did not argue that there was.
However, a reading of his earlier remarks would indicate that one of the reasons he gave for opposing the amendment I suggested was that the new amendment to the Criminal Code now in effect would make it a punishable offence to destroy the waters of any river, so far as use by the public was concerned, in the manner which was in evidence on the North Saskatchewan river.
Then the minister took up another line, as I saw it, and stated that the amendment now before the house did not cover municipalities dumping sewage into rivers. I am not so sure he was right in that regard, because it would make it an offence for any person to dump raw sewage into a river. However, to
Criminal Code
make assurance doubly sure I asked the minister this question, as is found at the top of page 2507:
If my amendment were altered to include municipalities which put raw sewage into rivers and thereby contribute to the pollution, would the minister then accept it?
This was his answer:
I am now expressing my own personal views. I would not accept it because I would think if that were done it would expose a great many municipalities, including perhaps the city of Ottawa, to prosecution in police court, which prosecution would in my judgment contribute very little, if anything at all, to the solution of the problem with which the hon. member is attempting to deal. In other words, I do not think police court prosecutions are a solution for river pollution.
In other words the minister first took two stands, and when faced with an answer to both those stands he finally took the position that he did not believe prosecution was the best means to prevent wrongs such as were committed against the peoples of the cities of Prince Albert and Battleford and the town of The Pas. I think the best summary of the situation was given in an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 15, 1954. After reviewing the situation prevailing on the North Saskatchewan river the editorial went on to say:
Hitherto there has been a tendency to take the protests of the people of Prince Albert and Battleford much too lightly: to regard the unpleasantness of their water as little more than annoyance; even, on occasion to treat the efforts of elected representatives to obtain a solution as mere politicking. Why this should have been the case, why the right of human beings to water as pure as nature and normal circumstances offer should have been so disregarded, we don't know. But we suspect the fisheries report

That was the report issued a few days earlier by the director of fisheries of Saskatchewan.
-will put a different complexion on the matter; and for that reason above all it is to be welcomed.
Then there is the following:
To this end it may be necessary to widen the scope of federal law so that it covers a broader range of types and effects of pollution-so that it is more in accord with conditions likely to crop up in our industrializing age. But law is only a deterrent, not a preventative. Something more is needed, something which will meet the difficulties caused by the fact that pollution of waters in one province may, as in the case of the North Saskatchewan, produce harmful results in another. Here we believe the establishment of an agency patterned on the prairie provinces water board or, for a start, an extension of that board's powers, offers the best solution.
Well, a board has been set up. In addition, as the Star-Phoenix editorial points out, teeth should be put in the law. As the law is at the present time, the opinion of the best counsel procurable was to the effect that the section did not permit of any successful

Criminal Code
prosecution being launched against the wrongdoer. The same situation prevails in other parts of the country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Was that opinion of counsel, to which he has just referred, based upon the fact that counsel was not assured that there was sufficient evidence upon which a conviction could be obtained?


John George Diefenbaker: No, far from it. The question whether there is sufficient evidence is for the court. What was submitted to counsel-and by "counsel" I refer to the legal representatives who were consulted-was based upon the premise that the city of Prince Albert or any of the other municipalities had sufficient evidence upon which to establish the identity of the wrongdoer, and the opinion was that the section in question did not permit of a successful prosecution. I think it is pretty obvious when the section is read. It says:
A common nuisance is an unlawful act or omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all Her Majesty's subjects.
My hon. friend says, as I understand his argument, that the unlawful act consists of the breach of a provincial health statute. Once that breach is established it gives rise to a prosecution under the section in question, as amended in the present Criminal Code, because of the fact that the doing of the act in question contrary to the health act of an individual province gives a right of action.
The opinion of counsel was that such was not the fact, and that the unlawful act as comprehended by the section in question must be an unlawful act within the meaning of the Criminal Code itself. Indeed, counsel gave legal precedents to support that viewpoint, and gave us their opinion that there was no right of criminal action to prosecute the wrongdoers who, for a period of three months, flouted the comfort of tens of thousands of people. I mention that not in order to bring forward this amendment as a means of protecting only the people of Saskatchewan along the North Saskatchewan river alone, but the people of several provinces along the course traversed by that river.
I feel that we in Canada face a problem which will have to be met. In the United States it is being met, but in Canada it is being by-passed by both parliament and the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.}
legislatures. I am not condemning the government of Alberta in any way when I say this, but according to the representatives of the government of Saskatchewan the government of Alberta did not take a very distinct interest in assuring that the waters, after they left Alberta, would be suitable for consumption in the other provinces the river traversed. After all, a number of great industries have been established in Edmonton, and certainly Alberta will do nothing to assist the other provinces in preserving the waters of the river unless the federal authority joins in and places teeth in the Criminal Code of this country, without which there is no protection to anyone living in a province through which a river passes on in turn to another province.


Solon Earl Low: Might I ask the hon. member a question? Is he not expressing merely his own personal opinion on that matter, based on some assumptions rather than on evidence?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the opinion of the representatives of the government of Saskatchewan, the department of health and the department of engineering, and it is my opinion based on a full examination of the documents. It was not by way of criticizing-


Solon Earl Low: But is it based on the opinion of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


John George Diefenbaker: After all, when you have two departments of two elements of government, federal and provincial, each trying to avoid responsibility you will not get unity.


Solon Earl Low: Is my hon. friend insinuating that the province of Alberta was trying to avoid responsibility?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: I challenge that very definitely.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not insinuate it, I state it as a natural fact.


Solon Earl Low: I challenge that.


John George Diefenbaker: I would expect that. As a matter of fact, if my hon. friends have any questions to ask I would say that they had every opportunity to participate in this debate, but they maintained a silence which is somewhat unusual. Now that I am summing up the matter-


Solon Earl Low: My hon. friend did not make such silly statements then.


John George Diefenbaker: Facts are never silly.


Solon Earl Low: Bring out the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently I have stirred up my hon. friends. It is due, in part, to a realization that what I am stating is a fair and reasonable conclusion based on what actually occurred. If what I said was not borne out by the lengthy returns that have been brought before the house, and if it was not supported by the representations of the department of health in Regina, then there might be some reason for my hon. friends to raise an objection. But the fact remains that there was no prosecution initiated in any way by the government of Alberta to protect us.
They joined with the other provinces to discuss the question of a water board. They set up the machinery, but when it came to acting the attitude of the government of Alberta was that this was not their concern beyond the extent to which they had already co-operated. They refused, according to the representatives of the government of Saskatchewan, to act to support effective action to preserve and protect the water supply of provinces other than Alberta.


Mr. Holowach:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member aware that Alberta has introduced measures to make it impossible, or rather to make it illegal, for anyone to pollute rivers? If so, I do believe the hon. member is rather unfair in casting a reflection on Alberta which is quite mindful of its responsibilities, not only to the people-


John George Diefenbaker: If that is a question and if the question is whether the province of Alberta has done something to protect and preserve the waters of the North Saskatchewan river so they will be usable in our province, my answer is that anything that has been done has simply been in an attitude of co-operation, but with a definite refusal to accept any responsibility to put teeth in the legislation concerning any water board that might be set up to assure that the people in the other provinces would receive water that was usable. I do not see why my hon. friends should become so aroused over that.


Mr. Blackmore:: Because you are misrepresenting the case, that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: It is funny how my hon. friends-


John Horne Blackmore: Nothing funny about it.


John George Diefenbaker: -can get in such a state of excitement now, when they had nothing to say when this bill was being debated. They were the essence of silence. Indeed, they were absent, and now they are present.


John Horne Blackmore: There were not such slanderous remarks then.
Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: I simply point out this, that the very fact they are stirred up indicates there is some reason for the criticism which I am offering.


Solon Earl Low: I hate to interrupt my hon. friend again, but a moment ago I rose at the point where my hon. friend said, and I cannot quote his words exactly, that although the province of Alberta had joined in setting up the water board it had refused to act. I wanted to ask my hon friend if he had read the letter which the Minister of Justice quoted in this house on March 29, as recorded at page 2505 of Hansard, written by Dr. Cross, the minister of health in Alberta, to Mr. Bentley, the minister of health in Saskatchewan, under date of January 24, and particularly the last paragraph of that letter.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; I read it, and I heard it read. But Mr. Bentley has since said, through his representatives, that there has been no serious co-operation on the part of the Alberta government and its officials to protect and preserve the waters of this river.


Solon Earl Low: I would hate to base my case on Mr. Bentley.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not represent the thing accurately?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, my hon. friends keep on interrupting and making these loose statements, but the record stands. My hon. friends are opposed to this amendment because they do not want teeth put in the legislation. They realize that one, and possibly more, of their industries in Alberta would be subject to prosecution. Naturally, with the solicitude that the provincial attitude gives them, they oppose the amendment in this form because it would place teeth in the law and would preserve us under the law from pollution, by making it possible to punish effectively those who deliberately pollute interprovincial streams and thereby deny the use of the waters of those streams to other provinces.
Having said that, and having pointed out the dangers, I would hope to receive support from various hon. members. In particular I would refer to the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Tucker), who on April 2, 1954, indicated in the house that the pollution of rivers is a crime under the present nuisance section of the Criminal Code, and that if it was not a crime, then in his opinion under the law it should be made one.
It is a crime to place in rivers anything that will interfere with the lives of fish. Under the Fisheries Act that is set out as a pseudo-crime; but, as yet, it is no crime to put interprovincial rivers and waterways in

Criminal Code
a condition whereby they cannot be used by humans. It is because of that, sir, that this amendment was drafted in a form that the law officers of the crown believed would cover the situation, a form which in my opinion places in the hands of those who are wronged the power to launch prosecutions against those interests, however powerful they may be. It provides suitable and heavy penalties against any industries or other bodies anywhere that would flagrantly destroy the water resources of the nation in interprovincial streams.


Mr. Speaker:: The business of the house reserved for this hour having been dealt with, the house will revert to the business which was being considered at five o'clock.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Marler-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate the various enactments relating to Canadian National Railways into one statute, also, to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may operate a telecommunication system, to authorize officers and employees of the Canadian National Railways to act as directors of partially-owned companies, to authorize the company to construct short lines without specific parliamentary authority and to operate motor vehicles and further to make provisions for extinguishing charters of constituent corporations.
Colin Emerson Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position, because the hon. member who spoke previously said that he thought any further remarks on this matter might be tempered with common sense. I find that I have to judge my common sense as compared with that of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.
I realize that this debate has been very wide. It has covered perhaps the whole gamut of the Canadian National Railways. But there is a matter of very great importance which I should like to bring to the attention of this house at this time, and I hope it will not be completely out of place. As a matter of fact, when I look at the resolution I see that it has to deal with the construction of short lines without specific parliamentary authority, and also authority to operate motor vehicles.
I should like to say only a few words in connection with the commuter systems in this country. First of all I should like to speak generally, and then I should like to come down to the specific situation which I find in my county and the county of Peel.
If I may be permitted to say so, the general principle is perhaps that the Canadian National Railways has arrived at a point in its outlook and in the general business practice of this country when it must decide whether it may have to change its methods of carrying on railroading. It has always been assumed that the long runs were the ones that paid in this country, but I notice that not so long ago before the committee the chairman of the company made the suggestion that it might be considered feasible on the part of the Canadian National Railways to look into the matter of the short interurban runs, and to deal with suburban services.
It is exactly that of which I should like to speak. It may well be that we have arrived at that stage of railroading. I should like the minister to note the lack of public support for this railway and the fact that the Canadian National Railways is now showing a deficit. If we are cognizant of the rights of the people of this country we should not be asking for an extension of this service, and I do not want to be placed in the position of asking for that. But I do say, Mr. Chairman, that the time may have arrived for us to consider the carrying on of interurban communication, particularly having in mind that many parts of this country are becoming thickly populated. People are coming into large centres for industrial reasons, and they are finding that as the population grows they have to live farther out. They
Canadian National Railways have to come into the great cities or industrial centres to work or carry on business.
In my county of Halton-and may I speak too of the county of Peel, with deference to the hon. member for Peel-we have this situation. We have Toronto itself and metropolitan Toronto. I think I can safely say that thousands of people have gone from the centre of what used to be considered Toronto to live out in the southern part of the county of Peel and the southern part of the county of Halton. They go back daily into Toronto and nearby centres to work in factories or offices, or to carry on their business, whatever it may be.
That area from Oakville to Toronto, a distance of 21 miles, has a population of 700,000 people including outer Toronto proper. A very large number of those people are commuting every day to Toronto and nearby from Oakville, from Clarkson, from Port Credit, from Mimico and all those surrounding centres; and, of course, they are coming home at night. Serving that area we have actually only two great highways, the lake shore highway, which is rather antiquated, and the Queen Elizabeth way. Every morning and every evening you see those highways completely and totally congested. It takes about an hour, an hour and a half, or even two hours at times to get into the city or get home, to say nothing of the danger that is created.
For some time we have been asking for commuter service over the Canadian National Railways, because that is the line that runs through Oakville, Lome Park, Port Credit and so on. What I am saying applies not only to my area but generally to the areas of many hon. members of this house. We are asking that something be done to increase or better these services.
The service at present is this. In the morning we have two trains-they are not actually commuter trains but merely trains that run from Hamilton and pick up people at these various points-that arrive in Toronto before nine o'clock. We have another that arrives between nine and ten o'clock, but it is not a commuter train at all. In the evening, leaving the city, we have three trains that leave after five and arrive by 7.30, which is a very late hour.
Although I have not made an exact survey of the other services throughout Canada, I think perhaps the most nearly comparable and most outstanding service is that at Montreal. It is an old city and the people there have been given this service for many years. In place of two morning trains I find that they have ten modern trains that arrive in Montreal before nine o'clock. In place of

Canadian National Railways three evening trains they have some twelve trains. Then of course they have trains interspersed during the day and later on into the night.
I am not saying this is absolutely correct, but I am told that the population in my area, in the counties of Halton and Peel, is now almost twice that being served in the same area down near Montreal. In addition, the cars we are using on what might be called our sham commuter service are old. They are not up to date. The service is not speedy. There are great delays.
The fare has been raised by 75 per cent since last September. In other words, where we were paying $10 for 40 rides down to the end of the county, we are now paying $17.50 for 40 rides. There has been no improvement in service, although there has been some improvement in the cars and equipment. By September 1 there will be another 25 per cent raise and we shall then have had a raise of 100 per cent. On the other hand, down in the Montreal area I believe there has been a raise of about 50 per cent.
We are not finding fault with the Canadian National Railways in connection with what they decide to do in the Montreal area as to the number of trains, the price they charge or anything of that kind. What we should like to have is some parity of service, some recognition of the fact that we are a growing area and that we have a great problem which is becoming greater every day.
In all fairness may I say this. Personally I believe that the whole of the people of this country are responsible for this railway. We have been to the commission and we have been to the president. Sometimes I think, as was said this afternoon, that the president owns the railway when he is giving orders but the people own the railway when it comes to paying the bills.
What I should like to suggest to the minister, if he would take it into consideration, is not that extra trains be put on at this time. Perhaps we cannot afford that. Perhaps the Canadian National is being pressed. I suggest that he go into this whole question of the future service of the Canadian National Railways to this country, with particular reference to the conditions in these thickly populated areas.
We would ask that this one thing be considered by the minister. There are several of what we call flyers, to use common terminology. For instance, there is the Chicago flyer, which very often has to stop at Oakville, and very often it is flagged down at Clarkson. Without losing much time or without much loss with regard to service I should


think that flyer could stop and pick up these commuters. Going out from Toronto in the evening, between 4.30 and seven o'clock, are two such trains that also could be used for this purpose. That is all we are asking at this time.
This is a pressing problem, and one that is growing greater all the time. Without offering any criticism of what the company or the government does for other centres, we ask that they consider the problem we have with this growing population and growing industrialization. We ask that, if it is at all possible, we be brought to parity with other large centres in this country. We also ask that consideration be given to making some use of the service that is already available there. We suggest that it be opened up to the commuters of my county and, if I may say so with respect, those of the county of Peel, because this matter is a great problem to them as well.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: As it
is nearly six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, may we call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would think there is a great deal of material that could either be discussed on this resolution or left to the estimates. Much of what I might have said I shall leave to the estimates. I shall not, for example, discuss at any length the feeling I experienced over the last week end when that magnificent Canadian Pacific transcontinental train, the Canadian, with its dome cars, started on its way across the country with public attention focused on it, everybody thinking about it and reading about it, and press representatives clamouring to get on it, when at the same time the equipment of the new C.N.R. train definitely, and regrettably, had to take second place. In fact, so much did it have to take second place that the C.N.R. had to run a special train on Saturday to give the press people an opportunity to view the new equipment, because they were all going to ride on the new C.P.R. train Sunday night. I think things like that are perhaps much better left to the estimates when we can discuss them in detail.
But, Mr. Chairman, when we look at the Canadian National Railways it does stir our imagination more than a little bit. When you think of the history of these lines, somewhat checkered at times, you cannot help

but feel that there is a challenge to Canadians to take this tremendous transportation system and do everything each one of us can to see that it attains and retains the preeminent position it should rightly have.
I should like to refer to the people who work for the railway, and I am not talking now about the minister or the president of the railway but of what we sometimes think of as the little people, the men up and down the line, track walkers, engineers, conductors, the people in the offices, all those who are going to be affected directly or indirectly by the legislation presented to the house. When we think of them and realize the life of service they have given to the organization and the tremendous job they have done in working for it, I think we should all feel a sense of gratitude and want to do anything we can to help them.
Actually it was not my intention to intervene in this debate at all until I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Albert this afternoon. They struck a responsive chord in me, because I could not help thinking that if the hon. member for Prince Albert, in addition to all the experience he has had in the house, had had the experience of being present at the sessions of the railways and shipping committee a few weeks ago he would have been even more vehement in his protests and, if it is possible, even more definite in his views.
When I look at the resolution before us it brings to mind the complex problems of the Canadian National Railways, and one cannot help but have a great sense of sympathy for the president of the road in his job of trying to balance the financial dictates of his vast empire with the reasonable demands of the tens of thousands of people working with the railway for job security and a decent living. I imagine that is the sort of thing that must weigh heavily on him at all times, and it is in regard to that aspect of his work that I think those of us in the house must have very great sympathy for him.
But, Mr. Chairman, in considering this legislation, which is to be referred to the standing committee, may I say now that I have no sympathy whatsoever with the attitude of either the president of the company or the minister in their appearances before the committee on railways and shipping and the reactions they displayed there. I bring up this point now because I believe the attitudes they revealed there should not be repeated, particularly in the present instance, when we are going to engage in far-reaching studies of this vast enterprise and with all the resources available to us attempt to benefit it and move it even further ahead.
Canadian National Railways
To point out the sort of thing which I think should not be repeated in the committee may I refer to three cases of arrant disregard, in my estimation, of the purposes of the house and its committees. The first one to which I turn my attention concerns the president of the road himself. Incidentally, all three instances had to do with the consideration of the C.N.R. hotels, although they occurred at widely scattered intervals during the work of the committee. On one occasion we were examining a situation in which, although the book value of certain hotels was some $3,300,000, they had been sold for $915,000. I make no comment at this point as to this particular transaction, except to say it seems to me that $3 million is a good deal of money, $915,000 is a good deal of money, and it is a fit subject for a committee such as this to look into with some care and investigate in some detail.
Mr. Gordon had complained somewhat about the line of questioning we were following, and at one point in our investigation he said:
I am only talking about the questions by Mr. Hamilton and the type of inquisition that is going on in this committee, which is perfectly new to me. Mr. Hamilton, you seem to have started a new regime in respect of how to treat the president of the C.N.R. in this regard.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to raise a point of order. It seems to me what took place during the questioning of Mr. Gordon in the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned by the government is scarcely pertinent to this legislation which, as I understand it, deals with the consolidation of the charter of the Canadian National Railways, plus four or five amendments. I think if the hon. member were speaking about the sale of one of these hotels it might be perfectly reasonable to elaborate on the powers of the company, but I do find it difficult to believe it is in conformity with the rules of the house to be discussing the procedure before a sessional committee which has made its report, in the debate on a resolution which was not before that committee and which is not to be referred to that committee.


William McLean Hamilton: Answering the minister's point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can quite see that he might come forward with the alacrity he has against these remarks, particularly because of his subsequent responsibility-


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member has no right to reflect on the minister or anybody else in the remarks he is making. I believe the point of order I raised was quite proper, and perhaps the hon. member would reply to that point.
3190	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


William McLean Hamilton: I am
in the process of so doing, Mr. Chairman. The reason I think it is necessary to introduce the point at this time is that already this year we have had a committee which has dealt with the affairs of the Canadian National. Certain things of which I disapprove happened during the meetings of that committee. We are going to have another committee now to which this particular bill is to be referred. It has been indicated by the minister that witnesses will be called before that committee, and the committee will have an opportunity of discussing this legislation in its entirety.
I am attempting to place before the house at this point something I think is perhaps even more germane than some of the other points raised; that is, my views on the attitude which should be taken by the minister and those under his control toward this particular committee which is to deal with this legislation. We have a certain rule of relevancy in this house, which I think is what the minister may have had in mind. If I were attempting to go forward from here to discuss in detail or draw conclusions from the proceedings of this previous committee I think perhaps there would be much in what the minister had to say. But my point, Mr. Chairman, and I must stand on it subject to your ruling, is that it is reasonable to look ahead and also to learn something from that which has gone on in the past. As a matter of fact, if we do not learn from what has gone on in the past, if we do not use the past as a guide to the future, I do not know what sort of guide we are going to use.
Because of that, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite proper to place before the house the treatment accorded a committee in the past, and to say it is our hope that similar treatment will not be accorded in the future.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I should deal with the point of order which has been raised by the minister and to which the hon. member who has the floor has replied. Hon. members will recall that when the committee was sitting this afternoon I expressed some doubt as to whether a resolution of this kind enabled hon. members to debate all phases of policy with regard to Canadian National Railways. I am confirmed in that doubt by the manner in which the debate has continued since. I really feel we are going entirely too far afield. At the same time I do not wish at this time to make a definite ruling that one member is out of order in discussing a certain phase of this matter when other hon. members who have spoken previously, as I said before, have in my interpretation
TMr. Marler.]

of this particular resolution gone somewhat farther afield than I think might be proper.
Under these circumstances I am not going to say that the hon. member was out of order, except when he attempted to indicate in his reply the purpose of the minister in raising this point of order which, of course, he will realize he cannot do. He cannot attribute motives to another member. I am not going to say at this time that the hon. member is out of order, although I feel that this discussion in committee is very far afield. The hon. member commenced his remarks by suggesting that certain subjects which he might have for discussion on this resolution would be deferred and discussed on the estimates. What I am going to do now is to request the cooperation of the hon. member in deferring this type of discussion until the estimates of the minister are before the house, and that at this time he will relate his remarks more particularly to the resolution which is before us.


William McLean Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I should just re-emphasize that I have tried to set aside all my points which I think could be held until the transport estimates are considered. I am bringing up this matter now because this committee will begin to sit shortly and there probably will not be an opportunity before the transport estimates are considered to put this information on the record and to ask that some consideration be given to it when this committee meets. I continue this comparatively short quotation. Mr. Gordon said, in that particular outburst of his:
I am in the hands of the committee, but I do ask some mercy in the amount of detail you are striving to get in connection with the affairs of this hotel operation. No other executive officer that I know of in the country would stand for it or put up with it for a moment.
That is my first quotation. I only remind the house and the minister, Mr. Chairman, at this point that here was a transaction affecting some hotels with a book value of over $3 million, which had been sold by this railroad for $915,000. It was necessary in this particular case to probe and probe, and eventually that probing got too embarrassing. In our attempt to do our work as committee members we got this type of response. Personally I do not feel it was quite appropriate.
Later on the same gentleman made another statement. I think it is even more revealing, because it indicates the attitude toward this past committee and the attitude which, unless it is checked, may well continue toward the

next committee. On that point Mr. Gordon said, at page 150 of the committee report:
I am willing to answer any questions that are-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I previously requested the co-operation of the hon. member, and as I said I do not wish to deprive him of the privileges which were accorded to other members. However, I really feel that a reading of statements made before a previous committee in this connotation is certainly getting very far from the point. If the hon. member does not wish to confine himself to the resolution which I will indicate once more mentions a measure to consolidate various enactments relating to Canadian National Railways, and certain other particular matters, then I must call him to order. I feel that the terms of that resolution give the hon. member considerable scope for discussion, but I do not see how the terms of the resolution can give him scope to introduce these particular matters from the other committee.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member prefaced these particular remarks by pointing out that when this measure receives second reading it will be going to a committee of the house. Then he went on to indicate that he hoped there would be a difference in the attitude of Mr. Gordon before this second committee of the house.
I do suggest that in doing so he is much more in order than other hon. members who wander all over the field, talking about C.N.R. policy. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace is dealing specifically with what is to happen when this particular measure goes before the committee, and I do suggest he is quite in order in drawing attention to the attitude taken before the other committee by the president of the railway, and expressing the hope that there will be a different attitude taken before the committee which will consider this measure.


William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wishes me to make a definite ruling I would be quite prepared to rule that I cannot accept that concept of this matter. I do not think we are in this committee to consider the attitude of any witnesses before any other committee. We are in this committee authorized or privileged to discuss only the matters embraced within the resolution before us, a resolution that has nothing to do with the attitudes of witnesses before committees. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will agree with me in that respect.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask Your Honour if an hon. member discussing a resolution of this
Canadian National Railways kind, and being told the bill is to go to a committee, is not in order in discussing what he thinks should be taken up in that committee?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member is in order when he discusses the resolution before the committee. Surely the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will agree that there is nothing in this resolution which would enable the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace to discuss attitudes adopted before other committees. I would presume that each committee is its own master, and I really think we are treading on ground which has not been covered before when we allow this type of debate on a resolution of the kind before us.
As I have said, I have tried to extend every leniency, in view of the way this debate has proceeded and in view of the doubt I expressed this afternoon as to the matter of relevancy in respect of a consolidating statute. At the same time I do feel that the discussion taking place now is not relevant to this resolution.


Howard Charles Green: Would the hon. member be out of order in suggesting, in a debate of this kind, that for example Mr. A or Mr. B should be called before the committee to give evidence? I should think that would be quite in order. And if that can be done, then surely it is in order to object to the attitude taken by Mr. A before another committee of the house.


William Alfred Robinson: Of course the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will not expect me to answer hypothetical questions when we are dealing with one specific point of order. I have said that I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member who has the floor, and it would be my wish to extend to him as much courtesy as has been extended to other members who have taken part in the debate. But I do feel that we are now going entirely too far afield, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra must agree with me when I say I am sure that a discussion concerning attitudes of witnesses before committees is not relevant to this discussion.


Mr. Trainor:: In the matter of relevancy, would Your Honour extend the same latitude as was extended earlier to the hon. member for Temiscouata?


William McLean Hamilton: The
uncertainty in my mind about the situation in which I now find myself is caused by a statement made in debate last night by the minister, when he said the bill would be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It is conceivable,

Canadian National Railways Mr. Chairman, that the minister's statement might be grounds for voting against this resolution. It was a point, along with others, entered by the minister in the debate; and it seems to me we should be given reasonable latitude so that we may debate the various points made by those who are not in agreement with us.
The arguments I have attempted to advance are, essentially, arguments dealing with this point raised by the minister, when he says that he plans to refer this bill to a committee. This might lead hon. members to the conclusion that if the bill is to be referred to the committee, and the committee receives the same cavalier treatment which has been shown by certain other people to other committees, there would be no use considering the bill at all.
To this might be added the observation that earlier this afternoon, and without interruption from anyone in the house by way of a point of order, the hon. member for Temiscouata quoted somewhat copiously- indeed, more extensively than I have-from the proceedings of this committee; and he proceeded to build on those quotations a very considerable argument in connection with this resolution.
It seems to me that the two cases are fundamentally similar. However, mine is further buttressed by the fact that I am replying to material entered in the debate yesterday by the minister, whereas today the hon. member for Temiscouata was commencing something entirely new, concerning which he went back over the proceedings of the previous committee, quoted from them and built a case on them, and did the whole thing without any points of order whatsoever being raised.
I know all of us-you, Mr. Chairman, more than any of us-are trying to achieve a reasonable solution; but it does put someone like myself in a most difficult position if, when a minister proposes to refer a bill to a committee, we cannot advance reasons why such reference should be examined with some care, and perhaps should be even reconsidered under certain circumstances. It puts us in the almost untenable position of having answers to certain points ruled out.
Having said that, I would turn for a moment to what from past experience I would judge the minister's attitude to be on legislation such as this. I have not detected any great sympathy on the part of the minister for any suggestion that a sincere attempt be made to examine into the Canadian National Railways, and to obtain from such examination facts upon which the consideration of particular instances might be based.
I think that has a very great bearing on this resolution. If time and again we are


going to come up against this wall of secrecy, this unrelenting hot air curtain as I referred to it at one time, on the part of the government, beyond which is hidden information, it will make it extremely difficult for us to go ahead. For example, there was this statement in committee by the minister:
I think we have come to the point where we are passing judgment on the board and I doubt whether that would be the wish of the committee.
The minister was referring to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. He seemed to think there was something wrong in a committee of this house passing judgment on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. I think at that point we diametrically part company. It would seem to me that in certain cases committees of this house are formed primarily for that very purpose, to examine the acts of government departments, to examine the acts of subsidiary government bodies, to examine groups to which legislative or executive power has been delegated, and then come to our own conclusions as to whether or not they have properly fulfilled that trust.
I cannot criticize too strongly the attitude of any minister of the crown who may come before a committee and indicate that that committee should not pass judgment or by inference examine actions within the field of study which has been delegated to it.
Were it not for the points of order I would have been through with all this in ten minutes, but there is one last point and I return again to Mr. Gordon who had the following to say in committee:
Please do not press me to the point, where, by adding one indiscretion to another, you get me into the position of having revealed ail.
It is my hope that in dealing with this bill perhaps for the first time in the many years since this committee has been operating, witnesses will come before the committee and reveal all. It is my further hope that they will not consider it an indiscretion to reveal all. In the checkered history of this railways and shipping committee has there ever been a more startling statement, a statement which may well be repeated in the next committee unless it is checked right now, than that of the president of the Canadian National Railways indicating that he feels that when he has revealed all he has committed an indiscretion?
The committee is called to inquire into the accounts, into the revenues and into the operations of the railway. We can only again express the hope that when this legislation is passed to the committee which will study it on behalf of this house this authoritarian attitude on the part of the minister and the

president of the company will be substantially reversed and information will be forthcoming, that co-operation will be forthcoming without having to question and question in order to receive what we think is a reasonable explanation.
In Montreal on Saturday evening I attended a rather good performance of "The Mikado". As I sat there in the audience I listened particularly to the little girl Yum Yum in the second act. I thought of the minister, I thought of practically every minister and particularly the president of the C.N.R. The first four lines of her song were:
I mean to rule the earth,
As he the sky-
We really know our worth,
The sun and I!
It is about time some of those people over there came down to earth and were a little more reasonable. As my colleague says, some of the ministers' satellites should consider this. I would remind hon. members of the next four lines of this song, which I think apply to hon. members on this side:
Ah, pray make no mistake,
We are not shy;
We're very wide awake,
The moon and I.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations before the minister speaks. I had intended to refer to two or three matters which I hoped might be in the bill. The first was with regard to the directorate. As the hon. member for Temis-couata paid me the compliment this afternoon of quoting some things I had said and differing with them, perhaps I may be allowed just a moment to comment on what he said.
I do not know that the hon. member for Temiscouata and I are quite as far apart as he thinks. He took me to task for saying that I did not think the directors should interfere with the management. He seemed to take from that that I did not think the directors should exercise any control, but I did not mean that at all. What I meant was that as regards the ordinary routine management of the company I did not think the directors should be putting their noses into this or that matter. I think the duty of the directors is to meet at stated intervals in their board meetings and decide there upon questions of policy, which of course is their responsibility, and give what assistance they can to the management by way of advice or otherwise.
As I said a moment ago, I do not think they should check into all kinds of detail. The hon. member for Temiscouata referred jocularly to the possibility of directors in the time of Sir Henry Thornton checking into the curtains on Sir Henry Thornton's windows, 50433-202
Canadian National Railways which according to the hon. member for Temiscouata were changed after every important visitor. That seems to me to be the kind of thing that directors should not have to do.
Having said that, I come to the point which I wish to raise with the minister. By the way, I note that in the bill there is to be a provision whereby officials of the railway may act as directors, I think of associated or other companies. My question is one that I have raised before in the committee. The Canadian National has a small board of directors, most reputable men, and I have no question to raise about them. My only question is about the size of the board, and I raise that question for two reasons.
First, it is the habit of large corporations, certainly in the case of the Canadian Pacific, to appoint to their board of directors a considerable number, I should think a score or more, of leading businessmen in the community. I suggest for the minister's consideration that this ought to be the case with the Canadian National, and I make this suggestion for two reasons.
First, men with wide experience ought to be able to offer good judgment and good advice. Second, men with wide business backgrounds should be able to help the road get business. After all, the Canadian National Railways are in competition and they need business, and should use the same methods to get business as anybody else. I am not sure as to the present position of the legislation. It may be that the minister will answer that this can already be done, that no legislation will be needed. But in any event I raise that point.
The second point I wish to raise with the minister has reference to the Turgeon report of 1951, which contains a good many things that were recommended to be done. I read the chapter on the Canadian National-Cana-dian Pacific Act and there are some recommendations there. I read the chapter on accounting and statistics and there are some recommendations there, and so on through the report.
I am asking the minister this question. Has full cognizance been taken of those recommendations; and if any of them have not been put into effect, would it be proper and appropriate to consider whether, at the time this mopping-up act is being put through, any loose ends of that kind-if there are loose ends-might be taken care of? There are a considerable number of very important recommendations in that report, and I raise that question for consideration.

Canadian National Railways


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a brief word, because something has been said which I thought was not complimentary to President Donald Gordon. If I am in order I should like to give a concrete example of his fairness and good judgment. In Fort William an office hand was sent to some position in Winnipeg. It was found that it was a mistake, and he was sent back and his salary was reduced by $40 a month. He tried for over eight years to get that salary back. Then we brought the question to Donald Gordon. The reason he settled the matter, put the man back with his increased salary and give him $3,600 of back pay, was that he wanted to have contented men. I do not care in what capacity I find Donald Gordon, there will be a soft spot in my heart for him because of his consideration of the workers who are under him.


Mr. Lennard:: The hon. member for Simcoe North in another debate last Friday made some complaint about a train that met the Cunard liner Scythia several months ago in Halifax. While he did not mention the railway line, it was a boat train that met the Cunard liner Scythia in Halifax, and his complaints were recorded. I might say they prompted me to rise this evening to make some reference to an experience of my own several years ago.
When Mrs. Lennard and I returned from the coronation in late June, 1953, we landed at Quebec from another Cunard liner, the Samaria. We had our reservations on a Canadian National boat train from Quebec to Toronto. There were two trains; one took passengers to Montreal and points north, I believe, and the train on which we were booked by-passed Montreal and proceeded to Toronto. That train was about the filthiest and most outmoded affair on which I had ever travelled. You can imagine my shame when all these people from other countries- England and Scotland in particular-had to travel under such conditions. It did not bother me too much personally because, being a Canadian, I had travelled under all sorts of conditions; but I did feel thoroughly ashamed on that occasion that these people from other countries should be welcomed on such an outfit.
On that train several of the sleepers had the old gas lamps. There was not a uniform diner; there was a club car where meals were served by a crew that was certainly far from perfection. Even after we had entered Ontario and were west of Cornwall, at the evening meal, that crew was still charging Quebec hospital tax, at which I protested, of course. That was after we had been in Ontario for over an hour. That is

how little they knew of the proper methods in travelling across the country.
I had forgotten this incident and had passed it off as a mistake, as probably it was a time when they had not the proper cars or accommodation, and I thought it was something that could not be helped. But when the hon. member for Simcoe North brought up his experience of only two months ago on another boat train serving the Cunard line, I thought it was about time something was heard of my experience of several years ago. If that is the pattern the Canadian National railways have adopted in meeting our visitors from abroad and in serving the Cunard line, it is about time that pattern was changed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you please tell us when it occurred?


Frank Exton Lennard: About June 29, 1953.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not under the present minister.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am not blaming the minister. I hold the minister in the highest regard.


Owen C. Trainor: In view of the latitude that has been extended in this debate up to the present, I have no apology to offer on the score of relevancy for anything I may have to say. I wish to discuss several points under this resolution, and the one I wish to discuss particularly is the sale of the four C.N.R. hotels, the one in Port Arthur, the one in Brandon, the one in Minaki, and the one in Pictou.
After a great deal of delving and with extreme difficulty the information was pried -and I use the word advisedly-from the management of the C.N.R. that these hotels had been disposed of for the sum of $915,000. Let us examine for a moment the method of sale that was adopted. Do not forget that these hotels were the property of the Canadian people, and as such it was incumbent on those who are supposed to represent the best interests of the Canadian people to get the best possible price.
The method adopted in selling these hotels was to call for tenders. Has anybody ever heard of a commercial concern with a similar merchandising problem on its hands calling for tenders? As a matter of fact these properties, I submit, ought to have been placed in the hands of skilled real estate merchandisers, and they should have examined the market and decided on possible purchasers. In the case of one of these hotels, the one at Port Arthur, an attorney informs me that he had a client who approached him and suggested that he had heard that this hotel was for sale and he wondered how much they might

take for it. He intimated he had heard that it might be purchased for approximately $400,000. In regard to the second hotel, the one in Brandon, I have had representations made to me that a number of people would have been prepared to pay a quarter of a million dollars for this hotel.
That makes a total of $650,000. I do not know the appraised value or the price or the cost factor with regard to the hotel at Minaki, but I do know that the golf course alone cost the Canadian people a million dollars. There was information available some years ago that an American person wondered if he could have bought the hotel for $2 million, but he was advised that it was very unlikely that he could have done so. I know nothing about Pictou lodge.
In view of all this it seems only reasonable to think that if competent real estate salesmanship had been exercised a great deal more money could have been obtained for the Canadian people for this asset which was in their possession.
I leave that matter, Mr. Chairman, and proceed to deal with the question of C.N.R. pensions which my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already mentioned with regard to this question of pensions, many of which are on the basis of equal contributions by the employee and the railroad, it seems to me that the employee has paid into the fund in dollars that were worth 100 cents or in excess of 100 cents, and is now being paid off in dollars that are worth approximately 50 cents. This is definitely ^ a responsibility of the government. For this reason I would suggest that the government has a moral responsibility to see to it that these people are paid their pensions in com the same as that with which they paid for them.
The government may say that this is the fate of everybody who buys pensions. That is true. If one buys a pension from an insurance company one must take the same risk. But I would point out that the insurance company has nothing to do with the value of the Canadian dollar, whereas the government has a great deal to do with it. Consequently I would submit that there is a good case for the government to make adjustments in these pensions so as to compensate people for the depreciation of the dollar, which is a government responsibility.
That is my argument. I would say this is a fundamental question in the Canadian economy which, of course, goes far beyond the question of C.N.R. pensions. But at the same time the C.N.R., as an agency of government, has a definite responsibility to see
50433-202J
Canadian National Railways that justice is done to all classes of the Canadian public; and the C.N.R. pensioners are certainly a part of that public.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister closes the discussion on this resolution I should like to place before him three or four questions. The first one has to do with this sentence in the resolution, namely that the bill will "authorize the company to construct short lines without specific parliamentary authority". The minister gave some explanation this afternoon, but I could hear only parts of it and I am not just clear as to what he meant. In the Railway Act, under section 183, there is given to a railway company power to-
. . . construct, maintain and operate branch lines, not exceeding in any one case six miles in length,' from the main line of the railway or, except as hereinafter provided, from any branch thereof.
It is my understanding that this section applies to the Canadian National Railways.


George Carlyle Marler: No.


Howard Charles Green: Many provisions of the Railway Act do apply to the Canadian National Railways.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, but I understand that provision does not apply to the C.N.R.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will explain in what way the C.N.R. is exempted from the provisions of that section I shall be grateful. There are subsequent sections which deal with the manner in which authorization can be obtained for the construction of a branch line, and I think they quite adequately protect all the parties who might be interested. There is also provision under which an industry can force a railway to construct an industrial spur, which would be a branch line something of the type the minister has in mind. I should like to have an explanation as to why the C.N.R. needs some special provision having to do with branch lines, and whether that provision will put them in a different category from the C.P.R. in respect of branch lines.
The second question has to do with the sentence which says that the C.N.R. is to be given power to operate motor vehicles. I understood from the minister last night that the company is already operating motor vehicles through a subsidiary company, but will he give a further explanation as to whether there is to be any change in the C.N.R. policy of operating motor vehicles?
At the same time perhaps he could also indicate whether the government intends at this session to bring in any legislation having to do with agreed charges. As the minister knows, a report by Mr. Turgeon was tabled just a few weeks ago. Both the railways and

Canadian National Railways the motor carriers are vitally interested in what is to be done as a result of that report. Perhaps the minister could tell us this evening whether there is to be any legislation at this session. It would seem to me that matter would be extremely material so far as the railways operating motor vehicles is concerned.
Then the third point has to do with the abandonment of lines. Apparently there have been quite a few instances in which the railways have abandoned lines in recent months, and there is a good deal of uneasiness over this policy. Will the changes that are contemplated in this legislation make it easier for the C.N.R. to abandon lines? At the present time they can do so only with the approval of the board of transport commissioners. That means there is an opportunity for the people affected to protest.
In his explanation the other night the minister pointed out that power was being taken to extinguish the charters of subsidiary companies of the Canadian National Railways. That raises the possibility that in this way the abandoning of lines will be facilitated. I would ask the minister to give us an explanation on that point.
Then finally there is this point. Last night the minister said the new legislation would consolidate, among other things, certain provisions which were found in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act. That act, of course, has to do with the two railways. I do not quite understand how part of that act can be taken out and put into a Canadian National act without affecting the Canadian Pacific Railway. This act to which I am referring was designed to bring about cooperation between our two great railways. It seems odd that some portion can now be taken from that act and be put in a Canadian National statute without the Canadian Pacific Railway being brought into the Canadian National statute as well. I may be quite wrong in thinking that such could be the case, but I would ask the minister to explain to the committee what the result of the proposed legislation will be in respect of this particular act.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Before this resolution is carried there are one or two comments I should like to make pertaining to it. I notice that provision is made in the resolution "to authorize the company to construct short lines without specific parliamentary authority and to operate motor vehicles, and further to make provision for extinguishing charters of constituent corporations".
.1 wish to draw the minister's attention to the portion pertaining to the operation of
IMr. Green.]
motor vehicles. The minister will recall that when we were discussing Canadian National Railways in the special committee some time ago the president, Mr. Donald Gordon, made extensive reference to the operation of motor vehicles by the C.N.R. That is particularly important to me, because I wonder what significance this provision has with regard to the expansion of the services already in operation by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.
The C.N.R. and the C.P.R. operate motor vehicles now, and I am wondering whether, if the C.N.R. gets permission through parliament to operate motor vehicles, the railway may be in the position of being able to override the provisions of any province regarding the issuance of licences for motor vehicles. I should like the minister to clear up this matter for me when he replies. As the situation stands today, if the railways want to operate motor vehicles in the city of Calgary, for example, they have to get a licence from the provincial government, and they must show need before any more licences are issued so the industry will not be overcrowded, and in order to satisfy other precautions laid down by the province.
It was pointed out to us by Mr. Gordon, president of the C.N.R., that the railways were now using the operation of motor vehicles to extend, as he put it, competition with the trucking industry of Canada. The railways are operating specially equipped flat cars by which they can carry their trailer trucks by rail for long distances. As a result they are hoping to provide keener opposition to the trucking business of the Dominion of Canada. That is a point about which I think we as members of parliament should be very cautious. The railways are now hauling goods in their trailer trucks on these specially equipped flat cars at ridiculously low rates. In fact it has been suggested to me by some of the large trucking companies that the railways are carrying these goods on these piggy-back cars, as they are called, at less than cost.
I believe the Railway Act specifically states that no railway shall haul goods at less than cost. When I asked the president of Canadian National Railways about that point he said-I forget the exact words he used-that they were making some profit but he was unprepared to say how much it was. There is a great deal of conjecture about whether or not the railways are actually hauling this traffic at less than cost, and there is very great national danger in that operation. We know that the railways are entering into agreed charge arrangements. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned

that a few moments ago and expressed the hope the minister would elaborate on, it. I also would like the minister to deal with it.
The railways are now entering into agreed charge contracts. They enter into an agreement with a large manufacturing concern or a large retail store such as Eaton's, Simpson's or Simpsons-Sears, under which they haul large quantities of goods for these large companies either at cost or very close to it. This puts these large retail concerns in the position of more than competing with our small merchants. It should be understood that the small merchants provide far more of the services required by the country than do the large manufacturers or retail merchants such as Eaton's, Simpson's or Simpsons-Sears.
By entering into agreed charge contracts the railways are assisting the large chain stores not only to meet the competition of the small merchants throughout the country but to eliminate them. It is dangerous to allow the railways to operate motor vehicles and enter into these outrageous agreed charge contracts. We might as well face the fact it is not the intention of the railways to meet the competition of trucks but to eliminate the truck as a competitor. We might as well recognize that now. Those of us in western Canada and the maritime provinces are more concerned over this type of so-called competition than those who live in central Canada, where other forms of competition bring about a lowering of railway charges.
I am very much concerned about this matter, and I ask the minister to comment at some length on the statements I have made, particularly pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles by railway companies and the use of agreed charges,


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I have noted some 21 points that were made during the course of the discussion last night and today, and I think hon. members would not really expect me to reply to each of them. Many of them were raised during the discussion in the special committee on railways and shipping owned by the government.
In order to illustrate the immensity of the task of replying to some of these questions, may I refer to a few examples. One of the subjects of discussion today has been the arrangement made between the C.N.R. and the Hilton Hotels Corporation. I find that subject took up from page 134 to page 158 of the proceedings of the special committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We still did not get the answer.


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member for Mackenzie referred to the speed of the two transcontinental trains. I see that took up from
Canadian National Railways page 66 to page 69. I am quite sure members of the committee will realize that if I were to do justice to the management of Canadian National Railways I should read from the evidence extracts to show what the president of the railway said in reply to questions on various subjects.
I think that these few examples are sufficient to show how unwise it would be for me to attempt to deal with each of these various questions which I think, strictly speaking, refer to the operation of the railway and the policies of the management but not to the statutes governing the railway itself.
There have been, however, a number of points raised in connection with the legislation itself, and I should like to try to deal with these as summarily and as simply as possible. The first of the important questions raised was that concerning the short branch lines. As I understand the law at present, Canadian National Railways requires parliamentary approval for two aspects of branch line construction. First of all it must have an appropriation or an amount included in its capital budget with the approval of parliament; and secondly, it must have specific legislative approval of the branch line which it proposes to construct. Other railways in Canada which are governed in this respect by the Railway Act are subject only to this disability, that provided the branch line does not exceed six miles in length all they require is the approval of the board of transport commissioners.
In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred a moment ago, the Canadian Pacific enjoys a rather peculiar situation. Under the agreement which 1 believe was ratified by parliament in 1885 the Canadian Pacific has the power, without either parliamentary approval or the approval of the board of transport commissioners, to construct branch lines from its main line-I understand that refers to the portion of its main line lying to the west of Callander, Ontario. The position of the Canadian National is that it does not enjoy the powers with regard to the construction of short lines that are enjoyed by all the other railways in Canada governed by the Railway Act.
As I said last night and again this afternoon, the proposed legislation is to limit the short line provision to those lines not exceeding six miles in length. The purpose which the management of Canadian National Railways has in mind is the necessity of meeting the demands of industry for lines that do not rate as short spurs but which have a length of up to six miles. The management hope that if this power were given they would be able

Canadian National Railways promptly to build these short lines when required. At the moment the situation is that although there may be funds in the railway's capital budget available for the construction of such a short line, let us say five miles in length intended to serve some industry, if the application to the railway for the construction of the line is made after parliament has adjourned then the railway is in the position of being unable to respond to the demand until it has parliamentary authority to construct the line.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be desirable that Canadian National Railways should be freed from this disability, and that it is not unreasonable to give it the power to build these short lines. This is particularly true if members of the committee will bear in mind that the necessary funds must be appropriated by parliament and included in the capital budget, so the freedom of action which Canadian National will obtain under the proposed legislation is less than that enjoyed by other railway companies, and much less than that enjoyed by the Canadian Pacific.
I should like to be fair in my explanations to the committee, Mr. Chairman, on that one point. This afternoon the hon. member for Macleod spoke of the facility with which the Canadian National could expropriate land required for its right of way. I believe I should be fair to the committee by saying that the Canadian National has what I think ought to be regarded as much more effective powers of expropriation than the other railways have. In other words, as I understand it, under the statute the Canadian National can deposit a plan and thereby become immediately the owner of the land affected, whereas as I understand it under the Railway Act there is no provision for obtaining immediate possession. I believe the other railways, in the matter of expropriation, are under some slight disability in comparison with Canadian National Railways.
I do feel that the request of the management to be empowered to construct a line up to six miles in length for industrial purposes 's reasonable and removes a disability which ought now to be removed in the interests of the operation of the railway.
The next question which was raised concerning the provisions of the bill was that respecting motor vehicles. As I endeavoured to explain last night the railway now has powers through subsidiary companies to operate motor vehicles. They have been under this disability in the past, that at times when consideration has been given to the abandonment of a short line the railway has been in the rather peculiar position before the board of transport commissioners of being unable
[Mr. Marler.l

to offer, on behalf of the railway company itself, to undertake to provide motor service in lieu of a passenger train. They have had to produce the undertaking of some subsidiary to provide that service. They have no power to operate motor vehicles, so they are unable to give a formal undertaking that they will establish a motor service as an alternative to the train service they propose to abandon.
At all events I should like to assure the members of the committee, and particularly the hon. member for Bow River, that there is no intention on the part of the government, in adding to the powers of the railway that of owning and operating motor vehicles, to make any sinister change of policy. We merely intend to make a change which will enable the railways, in effect, to do through the parent company what they have been doing already through subsidiary companies.
There is no suggestion either that in granting this power the railway shall be free from the necessity of complying with the requirements of provincial governments so far as provincial laws apply to the operation of motor vehicles owned by the company.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask the
minister this question? Would that not be infringing on provincial rights? Could we legally put something like that in federal legislation, which would be a violation of provincial rights?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think it would be an infringement, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is competent for parliament to empower a federal corporation to operate motor vehicles. I do not believe, for instance, that merely because the power is derived from parliament the operator of the motor vehicles could claim he would not be subject to the laws of the province in the operation of those vehicles. I think my hon. friend could find many examples of dominion corporations operating motor vehicles strictly in conformity with provincial requirements.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask the
minister this. Suppose the province decided that it was not necessary to have another trucking concern within the province or within the city where the company was making its application. Suppose the province said they would refuse to grant a licence on the ground that the operation was not necessary. Would they be able to do that if we granted the company parliamentary authority to carry on this type of operation?


George Carlyle Marler: There are some constitutional aspects of that question which I would hesitate to try to dispose of summarily. I suppose the question would come up as to

whether it was an integral part of the railway operation. All I can say to my hon. friend, and I hope he will be satisfied with it, is that there is no intention in the legislation to relieve the railways of the necessity of complying with the requirements of the province in the operation of these motor vehicles.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and also the hon. member for Bow River referred to the question of agreed charges as having some connection with the power to operate motor vehicles to be provided for in the bill. I would like to assure both hon. members that there is certainly not in my mind any connection between these two subjects. In relation to legislation concerning agreed charges, and the possibility of its being brought before parliament at this session, at the present time I can merely say the matter is under active consideration, and that as soon as a decision has been reached by the government it will be announced. If it is intended to introduce legislation at this session I take it that due notice will be given of that fact.
I do not think, however, that the question of agreed charges of itself really relates to the management of the railroad, in the sense in which I am using the term at the moment. We are concerned with the legislative provisions which govern the railways, and I think I can assure my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra that nothing in the bill which it is proposed to introduce will refer specifically to agreed charges, or deprive the railways of the right to take advantage of the statute as it exists at the present time or as it may exist after amendment, if amendments are thought necessary.
Then the question was also raised as to whether the provisions of the bill would make it easier to effect the abandonment of lines. I think I should answer that by saying that inasmuch as none of the amendments to the various enactments which it is proposed to make deal with the subject of the abandonment of lines, I do not think I should say that the bill would make it either easier or more difficult. I think possibly if it were easier it would merely be in the context upon which I touched briefly a moment ago, in that it might conceivably facilitate abandonment if the railway were itself able to undertake to supply motor vehicle service in lieu of train service, and to do so formally in its own name rather than in the name of a subsidiary. But with that exception I can see nothing in the proposed legislation which makes the abandonment of lines either easier or more difficult.
Canadian National Railways
With regard to the provisions concerning the abandonment or surrender of charters of constituent corporations, I am sure the hon. member will find, when the bill is brought down, that the dispositions are procedural in character, and not intended to affect the rights of any person or community which might be served by the constituent company. I take it that it is the intention, where a company or charter has served its full purpose and has run out its time, so to speak, that there should be a simple method of putting an end to the legal existence of the company concerned. I think the hon. member will find that the provisions of the bill deal merely with the question of procedure rather than with the questions of substance that I think he has in mind.
Another point raised was in connection with the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised the point as to whether there could be partial repeal of a statute which appeared to concern both of the great railways. I may assure him that it is not intended that the whole act should be repealed, but there are parts or sections of some of these joint statutes which apply to the Canadian National Railways and which can be repealed without in any way affecting the fabric of the remainder of the statutes. In fact I think if my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra will examine what I said last night he will see that I merely mentioned that act as being one of those which have to be consulted when someone wishes to have the complete total of all the enactments which apply to the Canadian National Railways, and there are parts which properly may be consolidated into a bill affecting the powers and rights of the Canadian National Railways.
One other point was raised by the hon. member for Bow River. He spoke of the question of the transporting of goods by the railways at rates which were less than cost. I take it his comment applies to the tariffs which have been set up between Montreal and Toronto particularly, and which are competitive. I am told that these rates do provide a small margin of profit to the railways, and that they are not operating this service at a loss. In any event, that is really outside the scope of this legislation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would those rates which, as the minister has indicated, provide a small margin of profit be made available to the different trucking concerns?


George Carlyle Marler: I think if we embark upon the subject of competition between rail and trucking organizations or companies we will

Canadian National Railways certainly be going far afield from this bill. My understanding is that this applies to the transportation of goods, but not to the transportation of trucks. I know the hon. member raised the question during the discussions before the special committee, but that is not the subject of these low rates.
Then I find two other points were raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. The first of these was with regard to the composition of the board of directors of the railway company. I listened to his observations with a good deal of interest. May I point out to him, however, that the resolution contemplates the consolidation of the existing enactments relating to the railway company and that, in consequence, it is the intention in presenting the bill to reproduce the existing provisions of the law with regard to the composition of the directorate. I should like to say to him that I shall be perfectly ready to give consideration to his observations concerning the composition of the board, without giving him any positive assurance that I shall come around to accepting the views he expressed this evening.
Finally, the hon. member for Greenwood raised the question as to whether all the recommendations of the so-called Turgeon report of 1951 had been implemented. My understanding of the matter is that all the recommendations have been implemented, but that is an understanding that I have merely acquired second hand. I have not had the time or opportunity to take the report and see exactly what legislative provisions have since been enacted to fulfil the recommendations which Judge Turgeon made at that time. But I understand, and I have been told on a number of occasions, that all the recommendations Judge Turgeon made in his 1951 report have been implemented.
The hon. member spoke with me yesterday on the subject of the uniformity of accounts, which was one of the recommendations of the Turgeon report. I understand the board of transport commissioners has made a recommendation to the railways on the subject, and it is hoped that a system of uniform accounting will become effective on January 1, 1956. I think perhaps that may be the last of the recommendations. Implementation has taken time, but I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood will understand the complexity of the task and the great difficulties that arise out of the necessity of formulating a plan which will suit both railroads and which at the same time will be workable.
I am sorry I have taken up so much time in dealing with the various matters covered by the resolution, but I do hope I have


covered everything. It does seem to me that when the bill is before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines there will be opportunity for hon. members to deal with each of the dispositions of the bill and make such criticism as they may think proper.


Mr. Hahn:: Last evening in speaking to the resolution the minister said, as reported on page 3160 of Hansard:
I should perhaps add that the decision to effect this consolidation does not result from any change in government policy concerning the Canadian National Railways. As I said at the beginning of my remarks the primary purpose of this legislation is to consolidate the various legal provisions relating to the Canadian National Railways.
I read the address of the minister quite thoroughly, and I am wondering whether or not the primary purpose behind the legislation should not have been that of efficient operation in as economical a fashion as possible. Would the minister agree that that is one of the purposes of the consolidation, from the viewpoint of economy? If so, I shall have other remarks to make.


George Carlyle Marler: I did not follow the hon. member.


Frederick George Hahn: Is not the legislation being consolidated with the purpose of trying to run the railroad as economically as possible?


George Carlyle Marler: I think my answer would be that legislation is not needed for that purpose. If the hon. member will consider the matter I think he will realize that the mere consolidation of the various enactments to be found throughout a whole score of statutes will facilitate, first of all, the task of those who have to work with the charter or the legislation concerning the Canadian National Railways, that is the officers of the railway itself, and also the public who have to deal with the railroad and who want to know what are the legal dispositions that apply to it.
There is no other purpose in mind so far as the consolidation is concerned than to bring these scattered enactments together and consolidate them into one statute. There are five other changes which the resolution indicates and which have been proposed to be incorporated in the bill, but with those exceptions there are no changes that I can think of.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Marler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 328, respecting unemployment insurance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I made quite a long statement at the time the resolution was before us I do not propose at this juncture to say very much more.
At that time I outlined the various changes we had in mind. I think it is fair to say that a reading of the debate which followed will indicate that there was only one point which came under very serious discussion or which received what might be called criticism. This had to do with the proposal, the double-jointed proposal really, that there be an increase in the length of the minimum period during which unemployment insurance benefits might be paid.
There was no criticism on that side of the house; but associated with that was a proposal that there should be a decrease in the maximum period of benefits from 51 to 30 weeks with, of course, as I outlined quite fully, an interim arrangement under which the equity of any presently insured worker need not be affected by that change.
I am going to repeat that we believe most firmly that the new proposals will give better protection to the average unemployed worker by increasing the minimum duration of benefit from the present 6 weeks to 15 weeks. I should like that to be carefully borne in mind, because that is going to affect a great many workers. This can be done without increasing the contributions by transferring some of the unused benefits to the place where they can be taken advantage of. In addition, the proposed changes will make it easier in some respects for claimants to requalify for further benefits after being back at work for a short time.
To illustrate my statement that much of the benefit set up is not used, may I give some figures showing the experience over a five-year period which I think will be of interest. The average duration authorized for all claimants during that period has been 26 weeks. The average benefit taken by all claimants has been for 9 weeks. The percentage who drew from 1 to 19 weeks was 90-1 per cent; from 20 to 29 weeks 6-4 per cent; for 30 or more weeks, 3-5 per cent.
We feel it is important that benefit should be made available to those who are genuinely in the labour market, and that there should be a substantial minimum benefit available for 50433-203
Unemployment Insurance Act young persons and those who have difficulty in obtaining steady employment, both of whom are apt to have no more than the minimum qualifying contributions.
When I made a statement something like that on April 4 I ended up by saying that for these 3 [DOT] 5 per cent who now exceed the 30 weeks of benefits thereafter an alternative social security program would seem to be appropriate. At that time, some hon. members asked me what I meant by "more appropriate". I can say now that one more appropriate way in which those persons might then be taken care of was incorporated in the statement made this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the railway committee room.
Even after all that is said, the equity of the worker at the present time under the act is not affected in any way at all during the three years given by the interim plan. I again assure the house that during those three years the working of this benefit period will be very carefully watched to see even how it affects this 3-5 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate it is my intention to refer this bill to the standing committee on industrial relations, which is being organized this week.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which remain of this sitting it would not be possible, of course, to deal with the bill which has now been in our hands for some three weeks. The best I can hope to do this evening, I think, is to make a few remarks, and I can continue those remarks when this house sits again.
I might make a few comments on the statement just made by the minister, and I might say in that regard that I had thought the minister would pick up tonight some of the remarks which he rather cut short at the conclusion of the resolution stage. At that time he implied that he would use the next opportunity to answer more fully some of the comments which had been made at the resolution stage. Many of us were glad to welcome that arrangement because we thought that in the meantime we would have the bill in our hands and be prepared to go ahead with discussion.
However, tonight the minister has made one remark with which I feel I must deal immediately, although I make no promise that this is going to be the last the house will hear of it. The minister referred a few moments ago to an interim arrangement which would take care of those persons who have had their benefits drastically curtailed by the reduction which is contemplated, from

Unemployment Insurance Act 51 weeks to 30 weeks. He used a few words in describing these people which brought home to me, even more forcibly than an examination of the bill had done, just how far the thinking of the government and the commission has gone along the lines of a bureaucratic approach to the administration of this act.
The minister said that after all he had to deal with the average. It is not a case any more of those people having a claim on the fund by reason of contributions they have made; no longer a matter of whether or not a worker had built up over the years an investment, let us say, in this fund; no longer a matter of whether his claim was that of a person who can be deemed to be now permanently unemployed by reason of chronological age or whether he is temporarily unemployed because of a shutdown in the plant in which he is generally employed. No; the minister's remark was that the average was 29 weeks, or some such period. Then he went on to quote percentages, and said that those who claim from 1 to 19 weeks were 90-1 per cent of claimants. Since I took these figures down hurriedly perhaps the minister would correct me if I have made an error. Those claiming from 20 to 29 weeks were 6-4 per cent, and those over 30 weeks 3'5 per cent.
He implied that a great many of these people were not what he termed genuinely in the labour market. I am at a loss to know just what the commission might mean by "genuinely in the labour market". If by "genuinely" they mean that a man is physically able to work, anxious to work, and mentally capable, but happens to be over 60 years of age and therefore is not available to the labour market in their interpretation, then I must object most strenuously to that. In my estimation, if a man who has worked to 60 or 65 years of age and who is still strong physically, capable mentally and willing to work, is told by the employer for whom he has worked for many years in steady employment that his services are no longer required by reason of the fact that the laws of the plant in which he is employed state that on a certain date he must retire from this employment-if this man who is able and willing to work makes application at the district office for employment, the employment officer has just as great an obligation to place him in employment as he has to place a 20-year-old man who applies for employment. The need of that man may be just as great, for all that employment officer knows.
There has been some talk about pension plans. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to

me that I recall reading of certain cases where counsel were prohibited by the presiding officer of the court from referring to the fact that people who were engaged in litigation were covered by insurance. In my estimation the same thing applies here. I do not think it is any business of the officer in charge of any divisional employment service whether or not that man who has been laid off from his work by reason of age is covered by a pension. If we are going to admit that kind of thinking, then we are going to place this unemployment insurance on a means test basis. It was not set up in such a way. These people have paid their premiums, many of them for years and years. Many of them have never had occasion to ask for benefits from the fund.
In the same way many of us have paid premiums for years and years for fire insurance on our homes and business premises. We hope we will never have to call on it, but I am sure no one would shout louder than the persons who have drawn up this act if, when the day finally came that they had a fire in their premises, the insurance company were to say to them, "No, you do not really need those premises anyway; therefore we cannot pay your claim despite the fact that you have paid your insurance premiums for many years. You are no longer eligible for benefits from our company; and after all, if our company paid all these claims we would go bankrupt." That is the type of thinking we find in the case of the officers of the commission who drafted this bill and the minister who made this unfortunate remark this evening.
Even more unfortunate than that remark was his follow up, when he referred to his earlier statement on alternative welfare which he had said would be more appropriate. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, it has been a well kept secret in the cabinet that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) intended, at an appropriate time-and no doubt in response to a provocative question-to make the statement which he made yesterday in this house.


Mr. Weir:: Hear, hear.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am glad to have corroboration from the government benches.


Mr. Hees:: That was the only reason he spoke.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We were glad to hear that the government had finally decided to take some action.


William Gilbert Weir: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rowe:: You should have said "hear, hear" three months ago.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: However, this evening the Minister of Labour has referred to the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday which were, I understand, elaborated upon today in the meetings which are taking place.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And in the press.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Apparently the alternative welfare which the minister wishes these persons to accept is nothing more nor less than unemployment relief administered by the welfare department of whatever municipality the worker happens to reside in. I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that such relief is also administered on a means test basis. It always has been so administered, and it always will be. It is available only to those persons who are destitute. For that reason it is useless to the man who has been deprived of employment by reason of the fact that he has reached a certain stage in life, namely the stage where his only sin, let us say, Mr. Speaker, is that of having grown older than his employers wish him to be.


An hon. Member:: The colour of his hair has something to do with it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You mean if he has any hair left. This man has a right to a proper benefit from a fund which he himself has helped to build up. He has a right to insurance. For this government, through these commission offices, to tell that man that the only relief available to him is the relief afforded through the welfare department of his municipality is, in my estimation, an insult to that man.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one in this house who is not aware of the stigma which is attached to the application for relief afforded only to the destitute. For a man who has been self-sustaining all his life, who has never been laid off from work, who has maintained his family, who now owns his home, who has at length reached retirement age and who is still capable of work, to be told by the commission that there is available to him some assistance in
Unemployment Insurance Act his old age but that he must get it through the local welfare fund is, in my estimation, an insult to that man.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I say to the minister that we are going to fight this clause right straight through until the last vote is called. We have no alternative. I think it is a disgrace and a shame. Because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that I have many more things I should like to say on this bill without interruption, Mr. Speaker, would you please call it ten o'clock?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend while she was speaking, but in her remarks she referred to workers who were in receipt of pensions and who, she alleged, had been refused unemployment insurance benefits only on account of that fact.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, no, Mr. Speaker; the minister has misunderstood me. I referred to remarks which were made at the resolution stage of this bill in reference to the fact that, after all, a great many of these people who had retired because of age were in receipt of pensions and accordingly, supposedly, would not require unemployment insurance benefits. I did not say the minister said that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I understood that the hon. member said it was within her knowledge that officials of the unemployment insurance commission had refused benefits because of that fact. I am glad to have her denial.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, I did not imply anything of the sort, and I am glad to have the opportunity of setting the matter right.
On motion of Mrs. Fairclough the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Lapoinie:: Tomorrow we shall continue with the debate on the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
50433-203J
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 27, 1955