Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)
I have no objection to that. The decision is as follows:
Daylight Saving; Change of Time.
The Chief Commissioner:
Under an interim judgment issued herein the railway companies, who had issued circulars advancing the time of their clocks to become effective at 2 a.m., on the morning of March 31st, and which action had been taken by the railway companies so as to enable them to carry on their former operations and maintain their passenger connections and freight operations with the American roads, who had already advanced their time,-were required to appear before the Board to show cause why the cir-
culars issued should not be cancelled and standard time maintained on the railway systems.
A hearing was held in Ottawa on the 1st instant, when judgment was reserved. Further representations were made by members of Parliament opposed to daylight saving, with a view of having the matter opened up and, if necessary, further hearings held.
In view of the action I think the board ought to take, I am of the opinion that no further hearings are necessary or would serve any useful purpose. When the interim judgment was issued, no consideration whatever had been given 'to the debates in Parliament which took place when the Bill of 1918 was passed, and this for obvious reasons.
In construing statutes the question is not what was or was not said in debate. In almost every instance opposing views can be found in any debate. It is by reason indeed of divergence of opinion that debates are necessary. It is the action of Parliament as crystallized into law that has to be construed. The question, then, is not what members of Parliament intended to say. The issue, therefore, is not to be determined by inferences and findings that may be drawn from a number of divergent opinions expressed in debate and by speculation as to the result of these divergent opinions on the minds and intentions of the majority, i.e., members who, while voting, do not take part in the debate.
On the other hand, the question is what did Parliament intend by what it said. While the members speak in debate, Parliament has spoken only through the Act. As a result, in the construction of statutes, weight is not attached to the opinion of individual members of Parliament. Ramsay, J., in Bank of Toronto v. Lamb, 1 Q.B. at p. 186, says :
" In referring to the Acts of the legislature we express almost an excessive deference for them; but we compensate ourselves for this lip loyalty to the words of the statute by disregarding wholly the sayings of the individual legislator." , .
Cases dealing with the subject may be found collected in Gosselin v. The King. 33 S.C.R. 255. The Chief Justice, at p. 263, says:
" I deem it expedient, however, to say a few words upon the question raised during the argument of the reference by counsel to the debates in Parliament for the purpose of construing any statute. Such a reference has always been refused by my predecessors in this court and, when counsel in this case began to read from the Canadian Hansard the remarks made in Parliament when the Canada Evidence Act in question was under discussion I did not feel justified in departing from the rule so laid down, though, personally, I would not be unwilling, in cases of ambiguity in statutes, to concede that such a reference might sometimes be useful. The same rule is observed in England."
Since the interim judgment was issued, however, a new Daylight Saving Bill has been introduced in the Senate. It has been read the second time, and is now being considered by the Senate in Committee. This coincides with the view taken by the House of Commons, the resolution submitted there reading:
"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient to re-enact at onoe c. 2, Statutes of 1918, " The Daylight Saving Act, 1918.' "
It is therefore apparent that both Houses ot Parliament consider the question in the light
of an expired Act instead of in the light of existing legislation which merely requires action by the Governor in Council to be made operative during the present year for general purposes, and action by the Board to be made operative for railway purposes.
As a matter of law, under all ordinary canons of construction to be followed in determining rights as between parties, my opinion that the Act of 1918 is still in effect remains unchanged.
Different action, however, has been taken in constitutional cases where the issues involved are large and general in their application, and are not confined of necessity to individual rights. Here, the issues cannot, in any sense, be described as personal. They are entirely general in their application; the whole country is affected. -
This distinction is pointed out by the then Chief Justice of Canada in the Gosselin case already referred to. Reference is made by the learned Chief Justice to Mr. Lefroy's work, where judicial opinions are collected, wherein the general rule has been more or less disregarded in the construction of the British North America Act. Reference may be made to Le-froy's book (The Law of Legislative Power in Canada), pp. 17, 18, 26, 27, 54, 194, and 195.
The Supreme Court itself, in re prohibitory liquor laws, 24 S. C. R. 170, not only considered debates accompanying the submission of the resolutions of the respective legislatures, but, to some extent, adopted statements contained in them as the basis of the judgment in that case delivered. Reference may be made to the judgment of Gwynn, J., at p. 206.
In view of the action, therefore, of both Houses and the peculiar character of this question, I have examined the debates with a view of ascertaining whether or not, as has been alleged, the intention of Parliament was to enact a law which was not limited only in operation to a period to be prescribed in each year, but ceased to have all force on the expiration of the year 1918.
As might well be expected, divergent views are expressed. In the Senate I find that the Honorable Mr. Bcstock, at p. 77 of the Debates, says:
" It says : * This Act shall be in force during the present year for such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.' That refers to the present year, but of course it can be put in force by the Governor in Council in another year. It is left in his hands. But, as I said before, we are now accustomed to legislation by Order in Council, so we understand the situation."
Honorable Mr. Beique, referring to Section 3 of the Act which was relied upon as limiting the whole force of the statute to the single year, says, at p. 92:
"This Act shall be in force during the present year for such time as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council. That is, during this year. That is so worded because this year has commenced. But when the Bill becomes law it will remain on the statute-book until it is repealed. The Bill is a permanent Bill on its face, and I think should be interpreted as such." [DOT]
On the other hand, the contrary opinion was urged both by the Honorable Sir James Lougheed, Government Leader in the Senate, and by the Honorable Mr. Ross. The Leader in the Senate, in whose charge the Bill was, at p. 96 is reported:
*41 after the expiration of this year it Is decided to continue it, it can be continued simply by declaring that this Act shall continue in force.
iJ|o11 Mr. Dandurand ; Through another Act?" Hon. Sir James Lougheed: Through another Act."
A motion to make the matter plain was negatived in the Senate, not on the ground that is was desirable that the Act should be a permanent Act, but on the ground, as I read the record, that the Bill as already expressed made it clear that the Act ceased to be effective at the conclusion of the year 1918.
The Honorable Sir George Foster was in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons. At p. 196 he is reported as follows:
"This Bill is for this season only. My hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) will not need to come back next year, if the Bill does not work well, to have it repealed. Its effect ceases at the end of the season, and the duration that is given to it is in the choice of the Governor in Council; it will be proclaimed in and for the length of time that is necessary."
It would occur to me that the expressions of opinion of the honorable members in charge of Bills, in cases where the debates of Parliament can be considered (and, in view of what appears to be a common misunderstanding in both Houses, I think they ought to be in this case), are entitled to the greatest consideration. The statements of members in charge of Bills are statements which other members would naturally rely on. Over and above this, last year the Bill was a Government measure, and the interpretation placed upon it by the two members of the Cabinet having it in charge would largely represent the understanding Parliament had of the subject.
If, under the particular circumstances of this case, the ordinary question can be reversed, so that consideration is to be given not to what was intended by what Parliament has said, but what Parliament intended to say, there appears to be no doubt whatever but that Parliament understood that the Daylight Saving Act should expire with 1918.
The Board is not only a judicial but also an administrative body. The powers of the Board, under the Act, in many directions are extremely wide. Not only are they largely discretionary, but they have in certain instances been well defined to be legislative in their character.
Ought the Board now to take jurisdiction under the Daylight Saving Act, however absolute it may be in law, under circumstances which make it clear that, in so far as members of Parliament are concerned, such jurisdiction should not extend beyond 1918? I have come to the conclusion that to put the question is to answer it. Whatever the legal situation may be, under the circumstances the Board ought not to exercise that jurisdiction. This is a democratic country governed entirely through its representative assemblies. The question here, as already pointed out, does not affect rights as between parties, but an issue affecting the public as such. The wishes of Parliament, whatever those wishes may be, ought to prevail.
It is further obvious that in exercising the j>owers conferred on it by Section 5 of the Daylight Saving Act, the Board, in any event, ought to consider the action taken by the Governor in Council under section 3.
In my opinion, the Board under all the cir-[Mr. Meighen.j
cumstances, can take no action under the Daylight Saving Act of 1918.
Standard or local time is determined in' Canada by provincial law. The underlying basis is the Greenwich time, which is the mean time of the meridian of Greenwich, adopted in the first instance as the standard time by English astronomers, and is now the zero meridian of the world:
As an hour is equivalent to each fifteen degrees of longitude, the Atlantic standard meridian 60, which passes through Sydney and Glace Bay, is, Greenwich time, four hours slow.
The eastern standard meridian ?5 is slightly west of Cornwall, and between Ottawa and Montreal; the central standard meridian 90 is some thirty miles west of Fort William ; mountain standard meridian 105 passes a little to the west of Regina; and the Pacific standard meridian 120 is a short distance east of Kamloops
Each successive standard meridian is one hour later than Greenwich, and as a result the Pacific standard meridian is eight hours slow of Greenwich time. The time of each standard meridian, theoretically, governs half an hour on each side thereof.
Most of the different provincial parliaments have found it impossible to give effect to time as required by proper meridian-reading practice. No difficulty existed in Nova Scotia, which of course, is entirely within the half hour of the 60 meridian.
prince Edward Island, although also entirely within the area controlled by the sixtieth meridian, by its Act intituled "An Act to Alter the Present Method1 of Reckoning Timev" being Chapter 21 of the Acts of 1889, adopted Intercolonial standard time, which was 12 minutes and 29 seconds fast of the local time of the meridian passing through the provincial clock in the Daw Courts Building, Charlottetown.
On the representation of the Intercolonial Railway authorities and of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that they had determined upon the adoption of Atlantic standard time in the operation of railways in the ,prov-ince, and in order to prevent confusion and inconvenience to the public, New Brunswick, by its Act, Chapter 5 of the Statutes of 1902, adopted Atlantic standard time.
I have been unable to find any statutory provision dealing with the question in Quebec.
Ontario provision is found in Chapter 132 of the Revised Statutes, 1914.
This Aot provides that whenever an expression of time occurs in any Act or in any Rule of Court, by-law, deed, or other instrument, heretofore or hereafter enacted or executed, or where any hour or other period of time isstated orally or in writing, or any question asto a period of time arises, the time referred to or intended shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be " standard time ". The Act declares that as regards that part of Ontario which lies east of the meridian of 90 degrees west longitude, standard time Should be reckoned as five hours behind Greenwichtime, and as regards that part of Ontario which lies west of the meridian standard time should be reckoned as six hours behind Greenwich
As the ninetieth meridian is the central standard meridian, it will be observed that under this Act the operation of the eastern standard meridian is carried half an hour farther west than it ought to, theoretically. The Act has been amended by Chapter 20 of the Acts of 1918, Section 25, as follows:
"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations, and may from time to time amend, modify, suspend, repeal, and re-enact such regulations varying the reckoning of standard time as defined by subsections 2 and 3 hereof.
"(5) Such regulations may authorize the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board to fix thie time-taJbles of all railways subject to its control, and to make such other orders as ma^ be necessary for the convenient carrying out of the provisions of this Act, in so far as may be necessary or convenient for carrying out the said regulations."
In Manitoba the question is covered by the Interpretation Act, Chapter 89 of the Revised statutes, 1902, Section 8, s.s. (r) reading:
" The time used upon the Canadian Pacific Railway and known as central time, being the time of the ninetieth meridian of west longitude, is hereby declared to be the standard time of this Province, and when any statute heretofore or hereafter passed refers to any particular time of day, such standard time shall be considered to be meant."
In Manitoba, again, theoretical requirements are not, therefore, followed, as the Manitoba Act carries the time of the central standard meridian through the whole Province, while, theoretically, time based on the central standard meridian ceased between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg and at a point some twenty miles west of Winnipeg.
In Saskatchewan time is governed by the Interpretation Act, Chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes, 1909, Section 6, s.s. 33, which reads: The time known as ' mountain standard time ' (being the local time at the one hundred and fifth meridian of west longitude and being seven hours behind Greenwich time) is hereby declared to be the standard time of the province ; and when any Act refers to any particular time of day such standard time shall be considered to be meant."
As a matter of fact, instead of the time of the one hundred and fifth meridian being observed throughout the province, that time commences at Broadview and Bredenbury.
The provision as to Alberta is to be found in the Interpretation Act, chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1906, section 7, s.s. 22, which reads:
44 The time known as 'mountain standard time/ being the local time at the one hundred and fifth meridian of longitude, is hereby declared to be the standard time of the province; and when any Act refers to any particular time of day such standard time shall be considered to be meant."
The provision relating to time in British Columbia is contained in the Interpretation Act, chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes of 1911, section 26, s.s (43) which reads as follows:
44 (a) Where an expression of time occurs in any Act of the Legislature, whether heretofore or hereafter passed, or in any Rule of Court, by-law, deed, or other legal instrument, whether heretofore or hereafter made, passed, or executed, or whenever any hour or other period of time is stated either orally or in writing, or whenever any question as to a period of time arises, the time referred to or intended shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be what is known as Pacific Standard time, reckoned as eight hours behind Greenwich time."
Not only is time, as theoretically correct, not being observed by legislation, but as a matter of fact time changes on the railways have not, in the past, observed the provincial enactment. To illustrate; The New Brunswick standard time is fixed by the sixtieth meridian. This carries the time of the sixtieth meridian some eighty miles west of its proper operation. The Intercolonial does not change its time in New Brunswick, but carries the time of the sixtieth meridian to Mont Joli, an appropriate divisional point in Quebec, while the Canadian Pacific, in changing its time at St. John, changes it some 70 miles east of the westerly boundary of the area theoretically controlled by the Atlantic standard meridian.
In Ontario time changes on the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways at Port Arthur and on the Grand Trunk Pacific at Armstrong, while the Ontario Statute continues the time of the meridian 75 degrees west longitude to the meridian of 90 degrees, thereby continuing that time for some 35 miles more westerly. The time of this meridian, theoretically, ceased between the meridians of the eighty-second and eighty-third degrees, at or near Woman River on the Canadian Pacific and Secord on the Grand Trunk Pacific, while, as a matter of fact, time on the railway changes approximately 40 and 55 miles east of the meridian of 90 degrees.
Without further elaboration, eastern standard and mountain) times all govern farther westward than the theoretical limit. To add one further example: theoretically, mountain
time should stop and Pacific time commence about at Bassano instead of at Field. The points at which time changes in the past have been made are the result, not of theories but of the conditions required by and the demands of public safety and railroad operation.
In some of the provinces legislation dealing with daylight saving has been passed. British Columbia has adopted the measure for this year.
The provision in force in Prince Edward Island is as follows:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Time Saving Act.
4,2. During the prescribed period in each year in which this Act is in force the time, for general purposes in this province, shall be one hour in advance of the time as fixed by the Statute 52 Victoria, Chapter 11, Section i.
"3. This Act shall be in force in each year during such time as the Summer Time Act of Canada is in force.
444. Where any expression of time occurs in any Statute, Order in Council, Order, regulation, rule, or by-law or in any deed, time-table, notice, advertisement, or other document, the fixing of the time with respect to which is within the legislative jurisdiction of this province, the time mentioned or referred to shall be held, during the prescribed period, to be the time as fixed by this Act." Chapter 2 of the Act of 1918.
It will be noted that this provincial action is predicated on the Dominion Act, and treats it as continuing.
In Nova Scotia the former statute adopted for standard time the standard Atlantic meridian (the 60th). By the provincial statute of last year the following provisions are made:
4'2. Where an expression of time occurs in any statute, act, enactment, law, order in council, rule of court, order, by-law, rule, regulation, deed, or other instrument heretofore or hereafter enacted, executed, or made, or where any hour or other period of time is stated either orally or in writing, or any question as to a period of time arises, the time referred to or
from 10 to 30 trains per day, you will quite readily understand that in the grain rush season, when we are employing more train men than we are at the quiet season, there will be men set up as we say, men promoted from brakeman to conductor and from fireman to engineer, to take care of the additional movement, and in place of those promoted men you will bring' on green men from below. Trains ore operated either by rights given them on a time-table, or by rights given them iby the train despatcher in train orders. Passenger trains are operated under time-table rights. The freight trains more largely, or chiefly, are operated by rights and orders from the train despatohers in such language as this:-Run extra from Winnipeg to Fort Frances. Now that is all the order that the freight train may receive. That confers the right on that train to make that movement, and with time-table rights trains moving on that same subdivision, passenger trains in other words, it is up to the freight train to work his own passage according to the' timetable, the watch in his hand, and his judgment as to what speed he can make, taking into consideration the capacity of his engine, the weight of his train, the distance he has to go, and the grades he has to overcome. You can quite readily recognize that with junior men, perhaps for the first time set up as conductor and engineer, if, in addition to watching the time, they must figure out and think, is my watch American time or Canadian time; then he takes his timetable and says in regard to this particular part of the road, are these figures Canadian time or American time; and then exercises his judgment as to whether he can go 8 miles in the time between the time shown on his watch and the time on the time-table, and figure out the weight of his train as against the grade. For an inexperienced man there is considerable responsibility. As an operating man, I want to support what has been said here this morning, that I would ibe very loath indeed' to take the risk of operating under these conditions where we require that man to carry in mind at a certain section of the road all that I have said. He cannot tell by the clock. He must consider, Am I Canadian or American, is the time-table Canadian or American."
Representations were also made by different brotherhoods interested^ Mr. Laiwrenoe appeared for the I/ocomotlve Engineers. Hie was not interested in the question of daylight saving as such one way or the other, but took the stand that one time only ought to ibe observed in railway operations, and urged that for this reason daylight saving time should! be adopted on Canadian lines.
The same position was taken by Mr. Best, on behalf of the Looomotive Firemen. Mr. Best wired other officials of ihis organization as follows :- i i ,
" Advanced time in the United States directly affects railway employees engaged in international service. No corresponding legislation in Canada. Question before Railway Commission tomorrow morning ten o'clock. Uniform time seems eseutial to safe operation. What have you to offer? "
Two ansewrs were filed:, one from the representative at Brockville, a point from which trains operate into the United States, as follows :-
" Uniform time is absolutely necessary for safe operation of trains in international service."
While the answer from the representative at Winnipeg was-
" Your wire received. Favour uniform time on all railways."
Mr. T. J. Coughlin, who appeared for the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, said:
"While we can work under two times it is not a safe proposition. It is a second chance for a man to make a mistake. Whatever you adopt let it be uniform, let there be one time."
The difficulties and dangers consequent on change of time seem to be somewhat exaggerated, the zone of danger unduly extended. Operating conditions everywhere are not affected. If it were possible to change time latitudinally as done at longitudinal points, at divisional stations with changes of crews, there is no reason why changes of time on the latitude when understood should be any more dangerous than changes of time on the longitude which we now have. ,
While the paramount issue of safe operation requires as few changes as possible, and while that result is best secured by the operation of one time in both Canadian and United States territory, the real point of danger is on subdivisions where two times are necessarily used.
The companies in their case treated the situation under the supposition that time would have to be changed whenever the border of the respective countries was passed, and this rule was applied in their evidence, for example, the Canadian Pacific has a line running from Farnham to Newport. The line here crosses at mileage 26.3 into American territory. It returns to Canadian territory at mileage 32:5, and returns again into American territory at mileage 43.4, continuing In American territory to Newport, mileage out of Farnham 58.4.
From the manner in which the case was argued, from the railway standpoint, (time would be changed as follows: From Canadian to American, from American to Canadian, and from Canadian to American in this short run. As I see it, this is really unnecessary. I cannot imagine that the slightest difficulty would be raised under the American law to the Canadian railway, the trains of which are despatched from Farnham, maintaining its Canadian time through the one division.
In like manner the difficulties that have been raised in connection with the New York Central operation running into Ottawa could easily be obviated. The movement in this case is from Tupper Lake into Ottawa. The run in Canadian territory is only some fifty miles. There are no important intermediate stations on it, and no points at which complications would arise between Canadian railways if this comparatively short run in Canada was operated on American time, thus obviating any change in time on this run.
If, as a principle of general application Parliament should determine that in this country summer time cannot be adopted and no time except that made standard by provincial Act can be used, I am of the opinion that the time at the despatching headquarters of any international division, in the interests of public safety, should apply throughout that division, for example, on the Grand Trunk line to Portland, despatched out of Montreal, Canadian time ought to he maintained to Island Pond, Vermont. Island Pond is a divisional point and is the end of the line of the Canadian crews. The time at this point would become American.
The same practice would apply to the operation of the branches to Moore's Junction, Mas-sena Springs, and Alburgh Junction. Conversely, the Boston and Maine running into Canada despatched from White River Junction would maintain American time to its Canadian terminal at Sherbrooke.
This practice could not apply, however, generally. For example, on New York Central trains running into Montreal, the time would have to be changed in transit on the one division at Adirondack Junction. The same considerations apply to the service on the Delaware & Hudson System, which connects with the Canadian Pacific at Delson Junction, and to the Canadian Pacific, Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo, and New York Central trains operating between Toronto and New York via Buffalo.
Another important movement is that of the Canadian Pacific, Montreal to St. John. The changes here, however, can be made at divisional points. In order to do this American time would have to be adopted in Canadian territory at Megantic and carried as far as McAdam Junction in New Brunswick.
In Western territory, applying the principle above stated, there would seem to be no reason why the Canadian National System should not be operated on slow time in American territory. This would necessitate no change of time whatever on that movement.
On the movements from Winnipeg south different considerations apply, and the time would have to be changed. The service running from Neche into Portage la Prairie is despatched from American territory, as is also the service from Wakopa to Brandon. If the lines maintained American time to Portage la Prairie and Brandon, no operating difficulty would result.
The Operating Department advises that in regard to Grand Trunk Pacific movements through Northgate and the Canadian Pacific movements through North Portal and Coutts, time can be changed as at a divisional point owing to the fact that the Canadian crews hand the train over to American crews at the border.
I should point out that the Canadian Pacific do not always change crews entirely at divisional points, as the train conductors are not changed at Broadview, although the engineers and firemen are; so that, as a matter of fact, conductors on this line now have to operate on two times.
The international movement is a good deal involved in British Columbia, having particular regard to the operations of the Great Northern. The Legislature of British Columbia, however, has adopted daylight saving.
Giving full effect, however, to these considerations, undoubtedly it is more dangerous to operate railways under two times than it is under a single time, although it well may be that that operation can be carried on without accidents.
Theoretically, there should be no trouble at all in changing time. It is a very simple operation. Theoretically, there ought to be no accidents at all in railway transportation. The rules, if observed, would prevent accident. This, of course, does not apply to cases where accidents occur owing to the destruction of material. A very large percentage, however, of accidents occur owing to what has been termed "failure of the human element," and the effort in railway operation is to reduce the opportunities for failure of the human element to as small a compass as possible.
With this end in view, derails and interlocked signals are insisted on at level crossings and drawbridges. These appliances involve a large expenditure. They would be entirely unnecessary if it were safe to rely on the human element. An ordinary signal would be all-sufficient as long as it was observed. For the same reason, time locks are placed on signal apparatus. Automatic block signals are installed. Double train orders are now issued as against single train orders, so as to provide a check on the mental operations of the conductors, engineers, and operators, and to afford a chance, in case of failure, for correction before disaster occurs.
In order to make this the more certain the rules require the reading of all orders the one to the other by the different officials handling them, and require conductors and engineers to advise the brakemen and the firemen of the contents of all orders received.
As a matter of general experience whenever two times are used in one municipality mistakes are made in appointments and misunderstandings occur. This doubtless is well appreciated in Ottawa owing to the fact that while Parliament observes standard time, the hotels, shops, business institutions, and the general Ottawa public observe summer time. I have no doubt this has proved a great personal inconvenience to members of Parliament owing to the fact that their hotels and the great majority of people they do business with observe summer time.
Railway employees to a large extent live in urban centres, and if railway companies do not observe the local time in effect where the railway employees live and, to a large extent, work, they would be subject to similar inconveniences. But the obligation of the railway crews to correctly observe two times is much more serious than in the- ordinary case. Mistakes in appointments owing to conflict of times while vexatious are certainly as a rule not serious. In the case of a conductor or engineer making such a mistake when different times have to be observed on the one division or run, particularly where those in charge of freight trains are obliged to calculate where an opposing passenger train running on a time different from that they are for the moment operating on should be passed, a head-on collision would in all probability result.
It is impossible for the Board to hold that the railways, in adopting the time used on the American lines, have done anything which militates against the safety of the travelling public or the employees working on the trains. On the other hand, what has been done is in ease of public safety.
I -have hitherto made no reference to the arguments made by Members of Parliament opposed to daylight saving. This is not because they are not deserving of the most careful consideration, but because they require the consideration of a question which, as I see it, this Board has no right to pass upon. The issues presented were, in substance as to whether daylight saving should be enforced against the wishes of a great number of agriculturists and some inhabitants of cities.
The Board has no jurisdiction whatever to force summer time on anybody, nor, on the other hand, to prevent its use by railways unless such use is shown to be against the comfort, convenience and safety of the travelling public. The matter of settling the time standard of the country has never been dele-
gated by Parliament to the Board. In my humble judgment it ought not to be.
It is unfortunate that the question of public safety has become interwoven with the discussion of the question; unfortunate that unless summer time be adopted in Canada, more or less danger will result to the Canadian travelling public. It is entirely open to Parliament to consider whether or not these circumstances are or are not offset by other disadvantages, or whether the disadvantages, in turn, of summer time in some parts of the country are not overweighed by the advantages of summer time in some other section.
These considerations are not open to the Board. It can only consider time as an incident to railway operation. As already pointed out, local time has never been observed by railways operating in Canada, nor has it been observed by railways operating in the United States. The different points in the United States where time now changes under American law were fixed by the exigencies of railway operation.
I find that in England the practice of the railways, before the English Act of 1880 was passed, which standardized the mean time of the Greenwich standard meridian for England and Scotland, was to run on Greenwich time and pay no attention to local time, and that in some cases clocks, as a result, had two sets of hands, the one showing Greenwich time and the other the time of the locality.
Further, there is no Dominion law giving the Board any basis on which to fix railway time If it had to be sun time it would in most instances depart entirely from local time as fixed by local legislatures, and would bring about chaos. If the railways, again, are to be run on provincial standard time, notwithstanding the exceptions made in the Provincial Acts arbitrary changes would have to be made in former railway practice of many years standing. Again this year, the local time in British Columbia is summer time and if local laws are to be adopted the change in time between British Columbia and Alberta would be two hours. Time changes of necessity are more or less of a nuisance and more or less of a danger to railway operation. The changes worked about by longitude must be put up with, but in order to obviate the necessity of a change brought about by latitude in the future it is possible that Parliament will think the matter of sufficient importance to bring up the question with the proper authorities of the Government of the United States. Daylight saving is a matter for Parliament, and the Board having no jurisdiction cannot pass upon the merits of the issue one way or the other. .
Subtopic: ADOPTION OF OTTAWA TIME FOR SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.