Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to

register a strong protest against this bill, because it is submitted to a committee of the whole house instead of to the regular committee before which such matters are generally studied. At page 2777 of Hansard the Minister of Railways and Canals is reported as Follows:

In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Heenan) as to whether or not it is my intention to submit this bill to the committee on railways, shipping and telegraph lines, I should like to say that it is ray intention to suggest submitting it to a committee of the whole house. These matters have been dealt with very fully by the royal commission. This commission travelled from coast to coast and took evidence from all those who desired to submit evidence. They heard provincial authorities, railway officers, railway employees-public bodies and individuals-any who felt that they had some contribution to make to the solution of the question. In addition, the Senate committee heard further witnesses, most of whom had appeared before the royal commission, and it is my opinion that it is not necessary to go to the trouble and expense of hearing these witnesses over again.

In the same debate I am reported at page 3000 of Hansard as follows:

First I would say that the matter of expense is only a pretext. What was the expense of hearing witnesses in the Senate? Does the minister know? Will he tell us? Was it so much?

There was no answer to that question. Then I continued:

The railway debt is $2,300,000,000, a figure-*

C.N.R.-CR.R. Bill

Mr. MANION:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is quoting from a previous debate on the same subject matter, namely the debate on the second reading of the bill. According to my understanding of the rules he is not entitled to do so.

Mr. POULIOT:

Speaking to the point of order, the rule of the house is to the effect that we cannot quote from a previous debate, if the quotation is in regard! to another matter. At this point however we are discussing the same bill, and I submit a member is entitled to quote Hansard on the same debate. However to save time and trouble I shall not insist upon reading further from Hansard, and shall be content to read some documents which do not appear on Hansard but which it is my intention to place on record. The quotation I have just read appears at page 3000 of Hansard of March 14, 1933. Any hon. member may find at that point what I said.

Then, I sent the following question to the assistant clerk:

Mr. Pouliot:

1. What has been the taxation of each witness heard at each of the sittings of the Senate committee on Bill A of the Senate from November 10, 1932, to February 16, 1933?

2. What is the total amount of other expenses incurred by that committee in connection with said bill?

On March 17, 1933, Mr. Speaker ruled as follows: "This is a matter for the Senate,

not the House of Commons. Question not in order." Then I wrote to the Minister of Railways and Canals. My letter under date of March 20, 1933, is as follows:

Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion,

Minister of Railways and Canals,

Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Doctor Manion,-

On Friday last I sent the following questions to the assistant clerk of the House of Commons.

The questions I have already mentioned are quoted in the letter. I then continued as follows:

The Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons wrote me thus: "This is a matter for the Senate, not the House of Commons. Question not in order."

Will you kindly give me that information?

With thanks,

Sincerely yours,

Jean-Frangois Pouliot.

The answer to that letter is as follows: Office of

The Minister of Railways and Canals,

Ottawa, Canada.

March 22, 1933.

Dear Mr. Pouliot,-

I am obliged for your letter of March 20, and for your suggestion that I give you infor-

mation as to expense incurred by the committee of the Senate which dealt with Bill A.

As the Speaker of the house has already advised you, such inquiries should be addressed to tbe officials of the Senate, who could no doubt give you the desired information.

Yours very truly,

R. J. Manion.

The letter is addressed to Jean-Frangois Pouliot. I then wrote the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen leader of the government in the Senate, the following letter:

Ottawa, March 23, 1933. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen,

Leader of the Government,

The Senate,

Ottawa. Ont.

Dear Mr. Meighen,

Pray find herewith enclosed copy of a letter to Hon. Doctor Manion, dated March 20, and copy of his answer dated March 22.

Would you kindly communicate with the officials of the Senate in order that the information asked for is forwarded to me as soon as possible?

With thanks,

Sincerely yours,

J ean-Frangois Pouliot.

Then I wrote another letter to the same right hon. gentleman, It is as follows:

Ottawa, March 25, 1933. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen,

Leader of the Government,

The Senate.

Dear Mr. Meighen,-

You will greatly oblige me if you answer my letter of March 23 at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Jean-Frangois Pouliot.

The answer of the right Hon. Arthur Meighen was as follows:

The Senate,

Canada.

Ottawa, March 28, 1933.

Dear Mr. Pouliot,-

On my return to Ottawa to-day I have your letters of the 23rd and 25th instant.

As I understand the procedure it would be necessary for you to move in the Commons that a message be sent to the Senate asking for the information you desire.

If such a message is received in the Senate I shall see that it is given prompt consideration.

Yours very truly,

Arthur Meighen.

This letter was addressed to J. F. Pouliot, Esq., M.P. It was impossible for me to have such an address moved in the House of Commons and communicated to the Senate. It would have been impossible for me to have the answer to-day when the bill is being considered before the committee of the whole house. So my good friend, the good Samaritan, the Hon. Senator Horsey, was kind enough to put the following question before the Senate:

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

Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Bill Inquiry-Expenses of Witnesses

Hon. Mr. Horsey inquired of the government:

Whether any expenses were incurred by the government for the payment of the expenses of witnesses who appeared before the Senate railway committee on Bill A, and, if so, what was the total amount paid therefor?

Bight Hon. Mr. Meighen: No expenses were incurred for payment of witnesses.

Mark you, Mr. Chairman, this answer is of the utmost importance, as it illuminates the whole matter. I shall repeat it.

Right. Hon. Mr. Meighen: No expenses were incurred for payment of witnesses.

This question and answer is to be found at page 445 of the official report of the debates of the Senate. I protest strongly, Mr. Chairman, against the bill being submitted to the committee of the whole house, and I expressed a similar protest upon the second reading of the bill. It is impossible for any hon. member to give a clear decision or to make a clear judgment concerning unknown facts. True, the minister has said that the commissioners travelled from ocean to ocean, and gathered an immense amount of evidence, with which they are satisfied. When the bill was originally brought to the Senate it was such a bad piece of legislation that the leader of the government in the Senate, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, refused to accept responsibility for it. Senators had the opportunity and the advantage of hearing witnesses in the Senate committee. Many witnesses were called, among others Mr. Beatty and Mr. Hungerford. They gave evidence which to a certain extent changed or transformed the bill. I state now that the matter cannot be properly considered in its present form, and that it should be studied carefully by a special committee of the whole house, a committee which has existed since confederation for the purpose of examining such matters. In that way any hon. members on the committee would have an opportunity to hear witnesses in connection with any point upon which they wished to base a judgment.

Now, sir, this bill is submitted to this committee. The statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals during his speech on March 7, when he moved the second reading of this bill was that in order to save expense and trouble we should study it here without hearing any witnesses. This is most startling. What is the expense? The leader of the government in the Senate says there is no expense in calling these witnesses. I understand it is a great honour for Mr. Beatty, Mr. Hungerford, Mr. Ruel and others to appear before a committee of the Senate. I do not know if they feel that it is such an honour

to appear before a committee of the House of Commons. That bill should have been moved first before the House of Commons. It came before the Senate first because the government had no other legislation ready to give to the Senate to examine, while we were discussing other matters in the House of Commons.

Now, sir, to show the committee, and prove to the minister himself, that it is absurd to go on with the study of this bill without hearing other witnesses, I will ask him the following questions:

How many superintendents and assistant superintendents, first on the Canadian National Railways, second on the Canadian Pacific Railway, are civil engineers?

How many officers earning $2,500 or more a year in the offices or management of both railways were there in 1930,? in 1931, and in 1932?

How many of them were dismissed each year?

How many of them are there this year, 1933?

How many of them have been dismissed since the beginning of the year?

On the other hand, how many men earning $2,500 or less have been in the employ of the Canadian. National Railways, and in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and how many of them have been set back in both railways for the same periods I have mentioned, in 1930, in 1931, in 1932 and since the beginning of 1933?

And if the hon. minister is kind enough to answer these questions I will be glad to ask him some more.

Mr. MANION:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to one matter which the hon. gentleman mentioned, that of the expense of bringing witnesses before a House of Commons committee, I did not emphasize that feature as much as he has emphasized it; I merely mentioned it as incidental. I pointed out that the witnesses had been heard1 before the royal commission and before the Senate committee, and that the evidence as given by these witnesses was, to a large extent, open to perusal of hon. members of this house and therefore was not necessary to repeat it. Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Beatty both appeared before the royal commission, Mr. Beatty appeared before the Senate committee, Mr. Hungerford took the attitude that his evidence had already been given before the commission and it was unnecessary to repeat it because there was no change in it. That was the point, the expense was incidental.

In regard to the dismissal of various employees of the two railways, I do not know

3S10

C.NJi.-CB.R. Bill

the details as to the men who were laid off. I cannot give these details at the moment and I do not know that it would help particularly in the consideration of this bill to give that information. The information in a general way has already been brought down; that is the house has before it, in replies to various questions, the number of employees which the Canadian National had in various years and the number which it has at the present time. That really covers the information the hon. gentleman wishes so far as that road is concerned. He also wanted to know how many superintendents on the Canadian National were civil engineers. I am sorry I cannot tell; there are some who are civil engineers, but I believe even my hon. friend, or myself, neither one of us being a railway man, will realize that a man does not need to be a civil engineer to be a superintendent. According to my information superintendents on the various railways of this and other countries are chosen from various groups of employees. Sometimes they come up from the ranks of the locomotive engineers, the firemen, and other classes of railway workers. And some come from the civil engineers. The reason is, I am informed, that it is considered better to have superintendents of various trainings, it is to the advantage of the road. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend any information I can, but I hope he will not ask for information, as to matters of which I have no knowledge, and cannot reasonably be expected to get.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Chairman, it is a good time to understand our position clearly. I do not want to have any evidence repeated. I have here the evidence, the report of the commissioners, the report of the debate in the Senate, and of the Senate committee, and the Hansard of the House of Commons containing the discussion on this bill. I do not wish any evidence to be repeated, but I want new faots to be put before the house. I cannot get them to-day from the Minister of Railways because he does not have them at hand, but if the heads of both railways were here I could secure that information from them. What the hon. minister has said proves that my contention was right.

Now, sir, I have another ground of protest against this bill, I would say a ground of protest at large. I am strongly against the abandonment of governmental responsibility. The government must have a policy with regard to the railways. The government has to foresee. The only way to have that policy applied and applied well is to put the railways

under the direction of the Minister of Railways. I do not see why the Minister of Railways is at the same time the Minister of Canals. Both of course are transportation systems, one by rail, the other by water; but canals should rather be under the Minister of Marine. The Minister of Railways 'has to supervise the whole railway system of this country from coast to coast and that is enough for one man. My idea about such legislation as this is that there is no reason for the government to abandon its responsibility, to put it on other shoulders, the shoulders of trustees whom they appoint, but who will not be responsible to this house. The only way to have the railway problem settled in this country is for the government to have a definite policy and then have it applied by the Minister of Railways to both railway systems and all branches of railways. On our statute books we have an extensive body of railroad legislation. It has been enacted by the parliament of Canada, both houses, it has been given the royal sanction and it is the law of the country. Now shall we vest some individuals with the (powers of parliament? I am here as a member of parliament, I and my two hundred and forty-four colleagues have certain rights. We can lay before this house the complaints we have to make, we have the privilege to submit legislation to this house, but as soon as this bill is passed the powers we now have will be handed to other people who will not be responsible to this parliament. Sir, it is a sign of weakness; a strong government should have a strong railway policy and be able to apply it strongly, apply it themselves, and not lean on others to apply it. This is my second ground for objecting very strongly to this bill.

Mr. HEAPS:

Mr. Chairman, this act provides for the amalgamation of the two great railway companies in Canada. I should like to address a series of questions to the minister; I presume he has the information available, because the effect of the bill is so great and has to do with so many of our people that I do not think we can over-estimate its importance. Already we have seen some of the results of this cooperation between the two companies; this afternoon the minister referred to the service between Montreal and Chicago, the first result of which was the laying off of probably several hundred employees on the two systems. So far during the discussion of this measure the minister has not given any information to the committee as to what might be the effect of this cooperation on the unemployment situation in Canada. Further, I should say it is common

C.N.R.-C.PJt. Bill

knowledge that for some considerable time the railways have been investigating to what extent they can amalgamate their services in various parts of the country. I understand that this amalgamation extends to the joint use of terminal facilities both in freight and passenger service, as well as the amalgamation of the freight and passenger services themselves.

Therefore I should like to ask the minister if he is in a position to tell this committee how far the railways have gone up to the present in regard to amalgamating their services; what the probable effect will be in regard to the number of men who may be laid off, and further what financial saving is expected after this cooperation is put into full effect.

Mr. MANION:

I am afraid my hon.

friend is asking a rather difficult question. He is as familiar as I am with the statements that have been made by various persons as to the savings that may be made by amalgamation. This is not amalgamation, but there is no doubt that through cooperation there will be a considerable saving, and no doubt some of 'that saving will be brought about by the laying -off of a certain number of men. I have no idea how many men will be affected in this way, but I am convinced that if business revives as we hope it will in the near future, instead of the railways even under cooperation laying off men they will be taking them on. My conviction is that when business comes back to anything like normal, not necessarily to the peak year of 1928, the railways will take on thousands of men no matter what may be done in regard to cooperation.

I cannot give my hon. friend 'the number of men who probably will be laid off; I do not think anyone in the country oould give that figure at this time. I do not suppose either Mr. Beatty or Mr. Hungerford oould say how many men are likely to be affected. In the first place any cooperation that may take place must 'be agreed to by the two railways; 'then it is put into effect, and until that is done naturally nothing like definite figures can 'be given1.

Mr. HEAPS:

T'he reply of the minister

is very unsatisfactory; he bases his statement on ifs and hopes. These have not proved very satisfactory in the past two or three years. It is not much satisfaction to the men who are to be laid off if they are told to hope that prosperity will return in the near'future; neither is it satisfactory to tell them that if conditions get a little better than they are to-day they may not be laid 53719-241

off. We do know that the president of the Canadian Pacific railway told a meeting in Winnipeg a short time ago that if amalgamation were carried out the railways could get along with from seventy to seventy-five per cent of the present staff. Under a complete amalgamation of these two systems that would mean the laying off of about forty thousand employees. On the other hand, if we do not have complete amalgamation but get as close to it os possible by means of cooperation-though I cannot see the difference between amalgamation and cooperation -we should be able to get a proportionate figure. So far as I can see, having in mind the service between Montreal and Chicago to which the minister referred, there is no difference between amalgamation and cooperation; it makes no difference to the men concerned what you may call it. They only know that they are to 'be laid off as a result of the two railway companies working together.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is the weak point in this method of dealing with this bill. My claim is that if the bill had been submitted to one of the railway committees or to a special committee of the house we could have heard the experts of the two companies, and could have obtained some idea as to what the financial saving would be and as to the estimated number of men who would be laid off. The first question addressed to the minister to-day brought the answer that he had no information to give us. If the Minister of Railways is not in a position to give the committee any information on the most vital point of the whole bill I say we should rise and report progress until the minister has the information the committee desires.

Mr. MANION:

No one in the world could give that information; it is asking for the impossible.

Mr. HEAPS:

It is not impossible at all.

If Mr. Beatty can tell the Winnipeg board of trade that forty or forty-five thousand men would be laid off as a result of amalgamation I imagine he could give us almost identical figures as to what would be done in regard to cooperation.

Mr. MANION:

I must say that I read

Mr. Beatty's speech, and I do not remember seeing any such statement.

Mr. HEAPS:

I quoted his exact words

when I discussed the matter on the motion for second reading. Mr. Beatty's words were to the effect that the two lines could get

CJV.R.-C.P.R. Bill

along with from seventy to seventy-five per cent of the present staff. Surely the inference is obvious; it means that if the present staffs of the two railways total about 170,000 men, 40,000 would have to be laid off.

Mr. MANION:

As a matter of information would my hon.. friend be good enough to quote the exact words, if he can place his hands on them?

Mr. HEAPS:

I will undertake to give the Minister of Railways the exact words of Mr. Beatty before the afternoon or the evening is over. I think most hon. members of the house read the full report of his speech, in the course of which the words I have quoted were used. I think that speech was delivered during the early part of last February. If Mr. Beatty could give the number of men who would be laid off through amalgamation surely it should be possible to get the number of men who will be laid off as a result of cooperation. Mr. Beatty also stated that by the process of amalgamation there would be a saving of some $75,000,000 a year. He can give that information to the public of Canada-

Mr. MANION:

That was under amalgamation.

Mr. HEAPS:

But if we take it on the basis of cooperation what is the difference?

Mr. MANION:

There is a vast difference.

Mr. HEAPS:

I know there is a difference, and that is why we want the figures. Surely we have a right to expect them. I have just been handed a copy of the speech made by Mr. Beatty in Winnipeg on February 8 of this year.

Mr. BOWMAN:

At what page?

Mr. HEAPS: