March 15, 1933

SALES TAX ARREARS

LIB

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

What amount of sales tax fell into arrears in the years 1931 and 1932 respectively?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALES TAX ARREARS
Permalink
CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

Total arrears of sales and manufacturers taxes outstanding as at April 1, 1930, $3,726,316.63. Total arrears of sales and manufacturers taxes outstanding as at April 1, 1931, $3,458,90523. Total arrears of sales and manufacturers taxes outstanding as at April 1, 1932, $2,673,662.15.

Reduction in 1930-31 $267,411 40" " 1931-32

785,243 08" " two years.. .. $1,052,654 48

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALES TAX ARREARS
Permalink

DUFF COMMISSION COST

LIB

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Liberal

1. What was the cost of the Buff commission on transportation?

2. Have the amounts in question been paid? Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

1. Expenditure to date, $62,338.96.

2. Yes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DUFF COMMISSION COST
Permalink

LIGNITE COAL TARIFF


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Robert McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), and if he is not able to answer at the moment perhaps he will take this as a notice. I should like to know whether or not the tariff on lignite coal entering the United States has been reduced recently.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LIGNITE COAL TARIFF
Permalink
CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):

With the indulgence of my hon. friend I will answer this question tomorrow.

C.N.R ,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LIGNITE COAL TARIFF
Permalink

CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL


The house resumed from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Hon. R. J. Manion for the second reading of Bill No. 37, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes.


LIB

Samuel Factor

Liberal

Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):

Mr. Speaker, no member of this

house can afford to minimize the seriousness of the railway situation in Canada, aggravated as it has been by the depression prevailing in Canada and throughout the world, and any solution offered to meet the difficult problems facing the two great systems to-day ought to receive the sympathetic and thoughtful consideration of every member of this house. But, sir, that does not mean that we must swallow holus bolus a panicky piece of legislation which perhaps contains a few good clauses but which on the whole and reading between the lines means, I am afraid, the destruction of the principle of public ownership of our railway system.

I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in opening this debate. The hon. gentleman made a splendid speech; he gave a keen analysis of the transportation problem and made a dignified bid for the cooperation of hon. members on this side of the house. But, sir, unfortunately he was followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), whose remarks entirely destroyed the effect of the speech of the Minister of Railways.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
CON

Richard Burpee Hanson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is just your opinion.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Factor

Liberal

Mr. FACTOR:

I am expressing that as my opinion, but I am sure it will be the opinion held throughout Canada after the people read the Prime Minister's speech. The attempt made by the Prime Minister to cast all responsibility for our railway problems upon the Liberal party brought a political flavour into this debate, which was entirely unwarranted and which should not have been injected because of the magnitude and seriousness of the problem confronting us. If this debate has become more or less of an acrimonious political argument during the last few days the Prime Minister has only himself to blame. The responsibility for the present situation cannot be lodged at the door of the Liberal party; it must be accepted by the parliament of Canada and shared by members on both sides of the house. There was one responsibility, however,

which was assumed by the Liberal party, and which was discharged creditably and magnificently by the administration headed by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). That was the responsibility of joining disjointed, disconnected, dilapidated, insolvent and bankrupt lines of railways into one great national system-a system which, despite the difficulties that are being experienced at the present time, the people of Canada ought to be and are justly proud of; a system which, for railroads, motive power and service, is second to no railroad system either on this continent or anywhere throughout the world.

The Prime Minister in his speech made the statement that the system is owned by the bondholders and not by the people of Canada, and in the light of that statement he asks for the cooperation of the Liberal party, the Liberal party which has for years stood and stands now and will always stand for the integrity of the national railways as a publicly-owned and publicly-controlled system. He asked the Liberal party for cooperation in relation to the empire trade agreement when he knew very well that that agreement was permeated with principles and policies diametrically opposite to the principles enunciated by the Liberal party. How can you hope, Mr. Speaker, for the cooperation of the Liberal party in connection with this measure in the light of the speech the right hon. gentleman made the other day?

I suggest to hon. members opposite in all kindness and sincerity that it is about time they stopped throwing around this two billion dollar baby, the Canadian National system. It was all very well for my hon. friends opposite to hug and fondle and love it when the baby was healthy and growing normally; but I suggest that it is unkind and unsportsmanlike of them now, when the baby is sick and anaemic and needs care and attention, to leave it on the doorstep of the Liberal party. Let us once for all recognize the fact that it is the child of the Canadian people, and as such we as the elected representatives of the people, irrespective of party, must care for it and maintain and support it until it grows to manhood and is able to support and maintain itself.

The transportation problem is not a new one in this country; it is as old as the history of Canada. From the very beginning of our history we have had a transportation problem; from the very beginning of our history public moneys have been expended, public credits have been pledged, and public lands given, as well as aid in other respects, both

3EVISED EDITION

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor

to water and to rail transportation. Why therefore should we regret the expenditure of all this money? Did it not enable the pioneers in the dawn of our history to hew out a civilization for themselves out of a wilderness? Did it not enable those who followed these pioneers to settle on the western plains? Did it not enable our people to open up the natural resources of the country for the development of this dominion and the welfare of mankind? We have spent a good deal of money on our railways, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we have also spent millions and millions of dollars, in aids to navigation, in the construction and maintenance of canals which are now a charge on the public treasury. It is all very well to say that millions have been spent on the railways, but I say that these millions are a national investment which was responsible for the development of Canada as it is to-day.

Another point to be considered is this. The promise of railway construction was an important part not only of the terms of confederation but of the terms of the agreement under which three or four provinces entered confederation-British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and the other maritime provinces. The obligations to the maritime provinces were embodied in an agreement to construct the Intercolonial railway from Halifax to the St. Lawrence, as well as to construct the Prince Edward Island railway. The agreement with British Columbia was to connect the Pacific coast with eastern Canada, and that was accomplished by the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway which, although originally started as a government railway, was ultimately taken over and completed as a privately-owned system. We talk about the Canadian Pacific railway being a privately-owned concern. Have we forgotten, however, the millions of dollars we gave to that railway at the time of its origin? Have we forgotten the millions of acres of land we gave that railway? Have we forgotten the miles of ready constructed roads handed over to that railway? At any rate the Canadian Pacific railway was completed in 1885 and a few years after the Canadian Northern came into existence. That was a line of railway from Winnipeg northwesterly to Edmonton and easterly to Port Arthur, which so far as the Edmonton branch was concerned was completed in 1905 and the Port Arthur branch in 1901. In 1903, parliament authorized the building of a national transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton as part of the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition, and in 1911 the Hudson Bay railway was undertaken

as a government road. So that the Intercolonial, the National Transcontinental and the Hudson Bay railway were constructed with public money and operated by or on behalf of the government of Canada.

In 1903 the Grand Trunk Railway made application to parliament for the construction of a line from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, and although this application was refused, ultimately the decision of parliament led to the construction of two transcontinental roads in addition to the Canadian Pacific railway, namely, (a) the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg west to the Pacific, together with the construction of a national transcontinental road, and (b) the Canadian National Railways, constructing their line westerly from Edmonton to the Pacific coast, and extending the line easterly from Port Arthur through the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So that we have now these three transcontinental railroads trying to do business in a country of ten million people.

Time will not permit me to trace the history and the extent of the acquisition of various lines by the government of Canada. Suffice it to say that the government of this country is responsible for the ownership and operation of more than 22,000 miles of railway now included in the national system, a system which, as I have said, the people of Canada are justly proud of, a system which, despite tremendous burdens which the Canadian people are now shouldering, they are willing to continue operating; for they will never consent to the dismemberment of the national system of railways nor to amalgamation of that system with a private concern. The people will never consent, I say, to the dismembering of the national system nor to its amalgamation or operation as a privately-owned road.

That was the transportation problem. The government, as my hon. friends are aware, constituted the Duff commission to study this problem, to look into railway affairs in Canada; but quite improperly it failed to appoint on that commission a representative of that element of the community which is just as vitally interested in the problems of the road as are the bondholders and shareholders in England and the United States. I criticize the government for failure to appoint a representative of labour on that commission because I sincerely feel that had such a representative been on the commission, the report of the Duff commission would not have contained innuendos and direct statements about the high wages paid railway -workers and

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor

about easing the burden of the railways by a reduction in wages. It should have contained some provision to take care of the human element in this problem. To a certain extent this bill does take care of the railway worker by section 2, which reads:

The provisions of this act shall bind His Majesty and shall prevail over all inconsistent provisions of all other acts, but so that

(a) that part of section one hundred and seventy-nine of the Railway Act which relates to compensation of employees for financial loss caused to them by removal, closing or abandonment of any railway station or divisional point;

This legislation contemplates the laying off of many men because it provides that section 179 of the Railway Act shall continue in force. That section reads as follows:

The company shall not, at any time, make any change, alteration or deviation in the railway, or any portion thereof, until the provisions of the last preceding section are fully complied with, nor remove, close, or abandon any station, or divisional point nor create a new divisional point which would involve the removal of employees, without leave of the board; and where any such change is made the company shall compensate its employees as the board deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence necessitated thereby.

I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion): Is it fair to the railroadman who has invested his energy, his health and his very life in the service of the railway to be displaced from his job and be made a forgotten man? And the only compensation provided for him is that under section 179 wherein he will obtain a few hundred dollars for the loss of his residence. Is the government going to ask the people of Canada to approve of a piece of legislation which will put these railroad men out of employment, make forgotten men of them and provide only this type of compensation?

The causes of our railroad problem are set out on page 53 of the report of the Duff commission. There are seven contributory causes given, and I should like to refer briefly to these. The first cause given is:

. The over-development of railways beyond the immediate needs of the country.

The parliament of Canada must assume responsibility for creating that cause. There is no use in one party blaming the other, and even the people themselves have a share in this responsibility. What remedy is provided for this cause by this legislation? Sections 16 and 17 of the bill give authority to one man to abandon railway lines, to amalgamate services and to prohibit the construction of new lines. Parliament having 53719-192J

created this condition, having authorized the construction of these railways, should not have taken away from it the right to say what railway lines should be abandoned, what services should be amalgamated and what lines should be prohibited from being constructed.- Under the provisions of the Canadian National Act, the abandonment of lines or services could be carried out only with the consent of the governor in council, and all other agreements with respect to any change in lines had to receive the approval of the governor in council. I think this section in the bill should be strengthened so that the parliament of Canada, the elected representatives of the people, should have the say in these matters. But this legislation, Bill A, removes the control, even from the executive body, and parliament has no voice in the matter.

The second contributory cause is:

Aggressive and uncontrolled competition between two nation-wide railway enterprises, a competition the more disastrous in that one of the competitors was publicly-owned _ and supported by the full resources of the dominion.

This cause seems to show the fine hand of some of the members of this commission who were not in favour of publicly owned railways. What remedy is provided by this legislation for the removal of cut-throat competition? The bill merely expresses the pious hope that the railroads will cooperate. I must confess that in the short experience I have had in this house, I have never seen a piece of legislation which asks that two companies shall cooperate. We might as well embody in the marriage contract the hope that the husband and wife will agree upon all occasions. No contract could provide for a condition of that kind.

The third contributory cause, and in my opinion the most important, reads:

The reactions of the world trade repression which began in 1929 and has progressively increased in its severity with each succeeding year.

I humbly suggest that the commission might have added the following:

The insane policy of Tory'reactionary government in adopting a selfish, and narrow economic nationalism and the idea of a self-contained nation.

What remedy is provided in this legislation for this contributory cause? None at all. Our present problem has been created because no business is offering and no tonnage is moving. The bill provides no remedy. Perhaps the only remedy available is a change of government which I hope will come soon.

C.N .R ,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. Factor

The bill does not deal with this cause nor does it deal with the remaining four contributory clauses, which time does not permit my reading to the house. This legislation merely touches the fringe of this gigantic railway problem. In so far as it attempts to eliminate cut-throat competition and extravagant expenditures I am in agreement, and so is every hon. member of this house, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it was not only our railroads that went through this mad dance of uncontrolled and jungle competition. What about our industries? Some of them ruined themselves by unrestrained competition and over-expansion. What about our own individual selves? Have we not been competing one with the other for more and more material wealth and a more luxurious existence? It was only the trend of the hectic prosperity which prevailed from 1928 to 1930. Those who were in charge of the management of the operation of our railroads were only human beings; they followed the trend of the times and were guilty of making some intoxicating expenditures. But the blame cannot be attached to our national system alone; the privately owned company was just as guilty of reckless expenditures in connection with hotels, steamers, resorts, and so forth. Let us not be too critical and condemn the whole national system because of these expenditures.

I have carefully examined the provisions of Bill A, and in all sincerity I want to register fourteen main objections to it. Some of these may involve merely matters of detail, but others are fundamental, going to the very root of this legislation, and these, in my humble opinion, after an analysis of the bill, are objections which absolutely destroy any benefits which this measure might afford in [DOT] the solution of these problems.

First, the appointment of the first three trustees ought to be made from a panel to be provided by a nominating board instead of the appointment being made by the governor in council.

Second, all three trustees and not the chairman alone should devote their whole time to the performance of the duties of their office, and not be interested in any other companies.

Third, I believe there should be five trustees instead of three, but in any event one of them should be a representative of labour.

Fourth, the chairman of the board of trustees is given too much power under section 11. The provision that a majority vote be ineffective unless consented to by the chairman should be eliminated. The decision of a majority of the board should prevail.

Fifth, there should be some provision prohibiting the trustees from issuing their own bonds. The government should look after this.

Sixth, the chief operating officer should be designated as manager rather than as president of the road.

Seventh, the seven year term as provided in section 6 perpetuates the trustees appointed by the government.

Eighth, removal from office or reduction in salary except by address of both houses should be eliminated.

Ninth, subsection 2 of section 14 as to routing of export freight'through Canadian seaports is unnecessary and an unwarranted interference with the performance of the duties of the trustees and the internal management of the road.

Tenth, a section in the bill as originally submitted to the upper house provided that there should be no amalgamation. This section ought to be restored, but it alone is not sufficient. It should be strengthened. If this measure is going to pass, it should contain a definite and precise provision for the integrity of our national system of railroads under public ownership and control. There should be no ambiguity in the provisions of the measure in this respect.

Eleventh, section 16 is the most dangerous part of the legislation. It enables a one-man board to do everything, to amalgamate, to abandon lines, to lease lines, and this without the consent of parliament. Not only should the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Act be embodied in this measure, but it should be extended so as to provide that in addition to the governor in council the elected representatives of the people should approve before any amalgamation or any abandonment of lines takes place. After all, we must realize that settlements were made and new communities built up because of the construction of these branch lines, and surely before any of them are abandoned, the elected representatives of the people should have some say.

Twelfth, the creation of a tribunal as required in case of a disagreement should be enlarged so as to permit the public, the workmen or a municipality or any responsible body of citizens to initiate proceedings before the tribunal. As the measure stands now, only the railroads can initiate proceedings or cause the creation of the tribunal. It may happen that the railroads may have no need for a tribunal of this kind; they may agree to abandon a certain branch line or to the amalgamation of a certain service, the result

C.N.R,-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McIntosh

being to the detriment and disadvantage of a community or a particular section of the country, and that community or that particular section is helpless to create a tribunal before which it can bring its grievances. This legislation, if it is to pass, should contain a provision enabling communities aggrieved or any responsible body of citizens such as a board of trade, to place their complaints before an arbitral tribunal.

Thirteenth, I am not so sure that it is in the interests of the public to have the chairman of the board of railway commissioners as chairman of all these tribunals as provided by the measure. He may be and undoubtedly is a man of ability, a man who has a great deal of experience, but if he is the chairman of all these tribunals he is going to be bound by precedent, by tradition, and I believe he will be unable to administer justice at all times. If any dispute arises which requires the creation of a tribunal there should be a different chairman in each case. Hearings of the tribunal should always be public except when some confidential information is required to be divulged.

Fourteenth, I certainly object to the entire dissociation from parliamentary control of the biggest business owned by the people of Canada, namely, our national railway system, and the vesting of it in the hands of a one-man board.

Time will not permit me to go into some of the other details of the bill. I want to conclude with these remarks: This legislation does not adequately meet the difficult problems facing our railways to-day. It may be a step in the right direction, but, as I pointed out before, it is taken at the sacrifice of the very principle, the foundation of public ownership, and time alone will prove the efficacy of the measure. The Canadian people are looking to this parliament to give them some relief in the way of lessening the burden of taxation under which they are being crushed. The people are carrying an unbearable load of federal, provincial and municipal taxation and they are looking to parliament to give them relief through drastic measures of economy in the government of our country and the administration of our railroads; but I say, full well realizing the tremendous burdens imposed by taxation and by the deficit of our national railway system, the people of Canada are willing, yes, ready to continue to carry this burden and will not consent to the dismemberment of this great national undertaking.

Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate for a short time in this debate, I do so because of a sense of duty to the riding that I represent in this chamber and also because of the sense of duty that I have to the great west, to Saskatchewan, the province from which I come, and, in the last analysis, to Canada which must always be an important factor in weighing pro and con one's vote in this house. I am taking part in this debate also because I am far from being enamoured of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific railway bill that has been introduced by the present government. In other words, the bill is not satisfactory to me.

Another reason why I am taking part in this debate is that I do not want this opportunity to pass without registering my protest against this measure originating in the Senate when it should have come in the first place before the people's representatives in this House of Commons. Lastly, I am speaking in this debate because I am satisfied that the more members who do so the wider will be the area of opposition to this legislation, which is covered pretty largely by a report from which I shall quote before I am through, but which report is prejudiced in more ways than one.

One of the conspicuous features of this debate up to the present time has been that so few members on the government side of the house have participated in it. I wonder why. I wonder if it is because they have no cause upon which to base a debate. I wonder if it is because they feel that this measure is satisfactory. I cannot conceive of any such notion on the part of any hon. member sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker.

The railways of this country have played a very important part in the opening up of western Canada. I "would ask hon. members just where Canada would be to-day if it were not for the two great railway systems, both of which have been a great asset and have helped greatly to open up the four western provinces. But for them we would have no Canada as we know it to-day. We would have only a part of this dominion. When we are discussing this question we must not forget the phenomenal development oa Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, most of which has taken place from the first days of the present century.

Up to 1880, of railway development in the west, there was very little. But from 1880 to 1885 the Canadian Pacific railway system was in the building and in 1901 and 1903 were laid the foundations of the other great trans-

C.N.R.-C.P.R* Bill-Mr. McIntosh

Canada systems-the Canadian Northern, the 'Grand Trunk and the National Transcontinental. They aided in the development of the great lone land known as "the west.

It would indeed be a great lone land to-day if it were not for these two great railway systems. We speak of that country as a land of magnificent distances, which in itself indicates that the distances are so great that without railways settlement would be almost impossible, and development would not come as it should. But the railways daringly penetrated into the areas north and south and east and west, and then this great lone land took on new life. This land of magnificent distances became easier to settle and build up, and in its building up, first the railways, and then the automobile, together with human effort, played a- conspicuous part and brought the west to what it is to-day.

Before proceeding may I say that I have not a word to say against the Canadian Pacific railway system, because from President Beatty and his staff right across Canada I have found, as a member of parliament, that those who are running that great railway have always been on the alert to do the best that was possible by the country. The treatment that was accorded me by that system has been in every way satisfactory. the Canadian Pacific Railway is wisely extending its branch line services throughout the prairie provinces. So far as the Canadian National railway system and its late lamented president, Sir Henry Thornton, is concerned, I received also from that system the very best of treatment. I found the late president the soul ot honour and efficiency and every member of his staff and every representative of the system always eager to do their part in a constructive and businesslike manner in the opening up ot backward yet productive sections in northern Saskatchewan. No politics so far as I could see ever actuated the late president or the officials of the National system in the parts of northwest Canada with which I am m-timately acquainted.

Dealing with North Battleford more particularly at the moment, may I say that it is served by a main line and also by many branch lines. The main line that passes through North Battleford was built during the early part of the present century, running from Winnipeg and Saskatoon to North Battleford, and on to Edmonton. That is the old Canadian Northern main line. Then branch lines were built to Prince Albert and northwestward to Edmonton. But until after 1925 that part of Saskatchewan was not served as it ought to have been served by the railways. If you took a poll to-day of

[Hr. McIntosh.]

the electors in that part of Saskatchewan I am sure that you would find very few of them opposed to the sound development policy that was carried on by the late president of the Canadian National railway system. So far as conditions at the present day are concerned, in the North Battleford federal riding we have some construction not completed, and it has remained uncompleted because of the "penny-wise and pound foolish " economies which are being effected by the present government. May I point out that every mile which remains uncompleted would pay if built and bring in revenue to the National system, and help to meet the interest on its capital structure. Why this government is not pursuing a policy of sound constructive effort in northern Saskatchewan in regard to branch lines I do not know. Surely when you build a grade of sixty-nine miles, and then leave the ties by the side of the grade rotting, and allow the grade itself to fall to pieces, surely that is not economy. It is not sound business; it is not fair treatment; and I am here to-day to echo my protest against the retrograde policy pursued by the Minister of Railways and his department and the government in tying the hands of the Canadian National railway system and depriving of railway facilities that great area of country where there is business to be had for the railways, and where branch lines ought to be constructed, and where every mile constructed would mean enhanced revenue for the national system.

Coming to the question of the Duff commission which inquired into the railway situation in this country, I notice that the number of commissioners was seven; one from the maritime provinces, one from Quebec, two from Ontario, one from the western provinces, one for the United States bondholders, and one for the United Kingdom bondholders. I do not know why we had to imperialize the commission by appointing a representative from Great Britain. That may be all right, and it may be all wrong. Nor do I know why we should Americanize the commission by appointing an American to tell us in Canada what to do about our own railways.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Cameron Ross McIntosh

Liberal

Mr. McINTOSH:

Yes, I would say that here was a place to carry out the Canada first principle, and have a full-fledged Canadian commission inquire into the Canadian railway situation and make a report. Instead of having two representatives from Ontario on the commission I would have had one. I would have had one from the three prairie provinces

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Mr. McIntosh

and one from British Columbia. Do not mistake me. I am not arguing simply for geographic structure; I am not arguing to have geographic areas represented, but I am arguing that Canada as a whole, the whole nation, should be represented. In this respect there was only one man from Winnipeg to the ocean-a distance of 2,000 miles. Who was that man? He was a university president-a very splendid man-but one who could not be expected to know much about railway matters or to pronounce wisely or constructively upon the problems to be dealt with in any far-reaching investigation into the transportation question.

More than that, there was no representative of labour on the commission, and no farmer representative. Why should not the commission have had a representative of the great agricultural industry of this country, the industry which in 1930 the Prime Minister was going to protect to a point of prosperity. Then, when he appointed the commission he had not enough thought for agriculture even to give it a representative, when an inquiry was being had into transportation matters of special significance to farming. He gives no representative to labour. What is he doing? By his words, by his actions, by his appointments he is simply crucifying farming, crucifying labour; that is all he is doing. He is keeping them from having a voice in the report of a commission which will have far reaching effects upon the transportation, agriculture and labour problems of Canada.

We are told that every great event has its roots sunk deep in the annals of the past. The report of this commission is an event; I would not say it is a great one. Every near great event has its roots sunk not so deep in the annals of the past, and every minor event has very few roots to sink into the past or anywhere else. May I say the report of this commission is therefore not a great event or a near great event, but rather a minor one. This document is only an average event-a poor average event at that. I shall endeavour to show why it is a very, very minor affair, and why all the statements contained in it should not be heralded far and wide as the last word in the investigation of Canadian railway problems. I shall deal now with some of the prejudiced presentations made by this commission. If I can show that the commission has made mistakes, has made presentations that are neither sound nor unprejudiced, then I for one, as a member of this House of Commons, will have very little faith in the report of such a commission.

Let us turn, for instance, to the nine-year statement of comparative earnings

shown at page 15 of this report. What do we find? When dealing with the Canadian National system we find included in that system all the lines in the United States and in Canada. In other words so far as the commission is concerned, we are looking at the Canadian National system from an international viewpoint. But what about the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are not looking at it from an international viewpoint, but from a strictly national viewpoint. In my estimation we have there the first prejudiced presentation of the commission. Comparisons made by it are not sound. It is comparing the Canadian Pacific Railway, a Canadian system, with the Canadian National Railways, a Canadian-American system. It compares a national system with an international system. When we think of comparisons our minds turn to the comparison of similar, not different things. In that respect I believe the prejudice of the commission is clear and plain.

Let me go further. On the same page we find figures showing the interest paid on securities in the hands of the public. The figure shown for the Canadian Pacific Railway is approximately $122,000,000 and for the Canadian National Railways $402,000,000 odd.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

I believe the hon. member is incorrect.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
LIB

Cameron Ross McIntosh

Liberal

Mr. McINTOSH:

If we take the mileages

as about 23.000 for the Canadian National Railways and 16,000 for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and apply the average security per mile of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Canadian National Railway, what do we find? We do not find the figures I quoted, at all. We find a different set of figures. For the Canadian Pacific Railway we have the same figure, about $122,000,000, and for the Canadian National Railways $177,000,000. In other words, the first figures as given by the commission were three and a half to one; in the second place the figures turn out to be about one and a half to one. Therefore, when we compare the two figures we find that the first is about two and a third times out.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Would the hon. member

tell me. as a matter of information, what the $122,000,000 is?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink
LIB

Cameron Ross McIntosh

Liberal

Mr. McINTOSH:

Interest paid on securities in the hands of the public.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL
Permalink

March 15, 1933