March 21, 1938

LIB

Norman McLeod Rogers (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. ROGERS:

On a temporary basis.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The minister says, on a temporary basis, but this temporary basis of a five day week has lasted some years now, and I do not know that there is any guarantee that the proposed four day week will be any more temporary. The next thing I suppose will be a three day week.

TMr. Woodsworth.]

If there were an increase in wages, it would be a different matter. And why not an increase? If every time there is a depression the government step in and government money is given in order that shareholders shall not suffer, why should not government money be given that the wage-earner should not suffer?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Who are the shareholders of the Canadian National Railways? They are the people of Canada.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

And who are the bondholders?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

The hon. member said shareholders.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Well, let me correct

myself.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

There is a very important difference.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Yes, there is, and I thank the minister for correcting me. But I say that the bondholders have been helped again and again; finance has been helped again and again. Now the government apparently are going to permit a definite degradation of the standard of living of large numbers of railway employees. I cannot see why the employees and workers should suffer and the shareholders and bondholders not suffer. To me the reply of the minister- and I presume he gave a reply which is satisfactory to the whole government-is far from satisfactory to the workers concerned, very far from being satisfactory to them. Imagine the feelings of nearly a thousand people in Winnipeg when they read the response of the government to their plea as brought before the house-people for whom the five day week has meant a struggle just to keep going, to keep their families fed and clothed, in many cases being unable to send their children to school to get proper education, at least in the higher grades. Some of us know very intimately the homes concerned in this matter and what the lay-off will mean to these homes. But all we can get from the government is that they have no direct responsibility, that they hope this is a temporary arrangement and that really we should not talk about the matter in parliament. I cannot understand that. Where else should we talk about these matters?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

East Edmonton.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, I am not going to make it a question of politics. We were particularly careful not to make this a political question as we introduced it. There was not a word by my colleague to make it a political

C.N.R.-Shop Employees

question, although we might readily have done so. But if parliament amounts to anything it is in parliament that great national questions of this kind ought to be dealt with. Although we want action in this case, we instance this as a part of the greater problem that is facing this country. We are told that we cannot discuss unemployment or cannot hope for very much in the way of a solution until some commission reports.

I shall make this a party question right away. The government are evading responsibility. They say, "The Canadian National is under a board; we are not responsible." Again they say, "A commission has been appointed; we are not responsible." Surely this parliament still has responsibilities. If there is coming what is called a recession, or another depression, across this country, surely it is time now that the government indicated to the country at large where they stand with regard to matters of this kind. I instance my own city of Winnipeg again; everyone knows the condition of that city-almost bankrupt, unable to get assistance from the province, and doubtful how much will be forthcoming from the dominion in the matter of relief. This large number of people involved are not ne'er-do-wells, not people who do not want to work. I am not holding the government wholly responsible for the depression; it is in part due to world-wide conditions, but I do urge that governments exist in order to meet depressions and other economic problems. The government cannot escape that responsibility.

The poor individual, whether he be railway employee or other employee, is to-day almost helpless. In the pioneer days if a man could not find a job in one place he could go to another. If he could not find a job in one occupation he could change to another. If he could not find a job in the city he could go to the country. But to-day if he goes to the country he is met by an army of people coming into the cities looking for work. Under these circumstances we have a right to introduce a question of this kind here. I resent the implication of the minister that such a question should not be introduced into this house, which primarily is charged with maintaining the welfare of the people of Canada.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Robert John Deachman

Liberal

Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):

I rise merely to correct an error in the statement of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Woodsworth). The intensity of bitterness of his speech is probably because he is unaware of certain facts which should be called to his attention.

My hon. friend suggested that there has been no cut in the wages of money. I would point out that the cut in the wages of money has been greater than the cut in wages of railway men. In 1920 the average rate of interest upon the bonds and treasury bills of the dominion government was 5-121 per cent. In 1937 the average rate had fallen to 3-748 per cent. The reduction therefore in the wages of money-I figured it out rather hastily-appears to be twenty-seven per cent. I am going to ask my hon. friend if he will be good enough to check something which I have not the opportunity of checking because I have not the material available here. I should like him to check up the real wages of the men employed on the railways of Canada from 1920 to 1937. I read some time ago-speaking from memory-that when the cost of living is taken into consideration those wages have gone up thirty-six per cent since 1920. My authority is a book which was published from McGill university, and I think I can get it for my hon. friend. I should like this dealt with purely as a matter of fact-not of discussion, not of anger, not of antagonism; I should like to know exactly what the facts are as to the issue raised by my friend of the relative wages of money and of men.

There is another thing which I think should be called to the attention of this house. I want as much as anyone to see railway men get a high wage, a fair wage, a wage in relation to the wage which other men get for similar work. But it must be remembered that when their wages are raised it is a charge upon the cost of moving goods. In addition I point out to my hon. friend that it is a basic charge and, as there are sometimes three, four or five different freight rates imposed upon the movement of goods, the added cost is pyramided. I question if those who seek to advance the rate of wages paid in particular industries are in reality producing an increase in the real wages of the people of the country. When you raise the wages of the railway men either freight rates must go up or the deficit of the railway must increase, which causes taxes to go up. Then it falls particularly upon one class in the community, the farmers; for they pay the freight rate both ways, and, as I pointed out in this house a short time ago, the average wage rate of the farmer, if you can put it in the form of wages, is much lower than that of the other classes of the community. I think this should receive some consideration when we are discussing a proposition such as this.

C.NJZ.-Shop Employees

I go on to ask my hon. friend this further question. I want to know what the Canadian National Railways is expected to do. It has a certain amount of repairs to make. Is it to make repairs which are not needed, in order to provide employment? If the railway is forced into that position there was substance in the argument of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) when he suggested that people will eventually come to the conclusion that there is something in amalgamation and that we ought to consider seriously some different method of approach. I suggest to you that we want to handle the affairs of the Canadian National Railways as the affairs of a business institution are handled; that we want to be careful in spending our dollars; that we want to have some regard not only for the wages of the men but also for the wages of those who are paying the freight bills; that these things must receive some consideration from the house, far beyond a mere statement that men shall be employed whether or not there is work for them to do. There are principles of sound economy in the administration of a business enterprise, even when it is under the control of the government, and I suggest that after all these principles are very much the same as those followed by ordinary business concerns in their transactions. We should try to look at things from the broad viewpoint, not in the interest of one section of the community, as my hon. friend appears to do, but in the interests of every section of the community. Only in that way can we reach the natural balance in our economic institutions which will permit the progress being made in this countiy that ought to be made.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud

Liberal

Mr. L. P. A. ROBICHAUD (Kent, N. B.):

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with most of the previous speakers that at this time the railways should not lay off men, not only for the sake of the men themselves but also because of the bad moral influence it would have on the business of the country, since we are endeavouring to prevent the invasion of business , recession from the country to the south of us, permit me to express my amusement at the wild enthusiasm of some of the speakers in behalf of government interference at this time. Those same members would be the first to rise, in a week or a month, and criticize and upbraid the government for interfering with the management of the railways. We have heard that in this house before. On the other hand I can well imagine the enthusiasts for amalgamation being tickled to death over the debate which has occurred to-day. They will say, "It will

help us. They are not going to effect economies, therefore they cannot reduce their deficit, and that is a mighty good thing for our argument in favour of amalgamation."

I really do not think we should interfere. We have a board of directors and railway officials who are endeavouring to carry on their business as a private business should be conducted. We have been saying in the press and in this house that there should not be any government interference; we have heard some very severe criticism of the government because they allegedly had interfered, but to-day the same hon. gentlemen are upbraiding the government and the minister because they are not interfering. I hope I am not being rude to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), but I cannot help saying that in the three years I have been in this house I have marvelled at the apparent inconsistency of some hon. members here. We heard them on the question of sanctions against Italy, for instance. They rose in their places and upbraided the government because they did not take a certain stand which naturally would have implied a certain line of action. Then the next day or the next week they rose again and denounced some other stand on the part of the government that would have been the natural consequence of the first action they suggested. A man should be consistent in this house, and I do not think an hon. member with the experience of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre should set such a bad example to the new members.

Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to find that the farmers have an advocate and friend in this house in the person of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). But as time goes on I am afraid he is going to have difficulty in reconciling his advocacy of agriculture with his defence of the poor bondholders. One of the difficulties I find in connection with the farmers of my constituency, and I dare say it is true in other constituencies in Ontario at least, is that they tend too much to think that an increase in wages means a loss to them, while actually it is a fact that the wages received by the workers buy the eggs, butter, wool and beefsteak they have to sell. On the other hand it is true that for the most part the bondholders already have enough money to buy all these things they need. The worker never has sufficient to buy the best or the highest quality of food. The letting out of men employed by the Canadian National, which is the question now before the house, would

C.N.R.-Shop Employees

at once affect the amount of farm products consumed by the families concerned. There is no doubt of that, and I think people who pose as friends of the farmer ought to make it very clear that a fairly even spread of purchasing power to all the people of Canada would be the best thing that could happen for agriculture.

Then may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) what is parliament for? We cannot talk about foreign policy because it is going to start or stop a war, whichever it may be. We cannot talk about the Canadian National Railway letting out men. We cannot talk about unemployment, because a commission has not reported, and it always takes a commission so long to report. What can we do?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Norman McLeod Rogers (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. ROGERS:

Already there have been three or four debates on unemployment, and there will be more.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
UFOL

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Then they must have been out of order.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Norman McLeod Rogers (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. ROGERS:

Not at all.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
UFOL

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Since parliament, during this session at least, has done nothing but talk, it is going to be a serious matter if we cannot do even that.

I feel that the greatest extravagance Canada has permitted herself in the last six or seven years has been the vast amounts of money spent on relief. The amount has been great, and it has been detrimental to the people who received it. For very many years to come we will be paying large sums of money resulting from the deterioration of people who have received relief. So that it will pay us to keep away from it, and to keep people by giving them useful work, even though at the time it may seem to cost more. The relief business is bad-and we know it; at least in private conversation everybody admits it. And may I say to the gentleman sitting at the rear, in the rump of the Liberal party and with the hon. member for Halifax-

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

Which one?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
UFOL

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

The senior member- that it is to be hoped that the day may speedily come when the government members may all sit on one side of the house. That will be very much better.

The hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Robichaud) seemed very much upset about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre needs

no one to help him defend himself, but I must point out that there has been no hon. member in the House of Commons who, over a long period of years, has given more unselfish service for the masses of the people. It ill behooves a member who has been here only three years to get excited about this matter when there are so many other matters which he might helpfully excite himself about.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of some of the observations made this afternoon by some hon. gentlemen opposite, there is a danger of the position of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) being greatly misrepresented. It is only to remove that possibility that I say a word or two at this time.

It must be recognized by hon. members that, while the Minister of Transport is a member of the government and therefore when speaking, speaks on behalf of the government, he is also the only person in the house who is in a position to place before the house the views of the management of the Canadian National Railways, when any question bearing upon the conduct of the railways comes up for discussion in parliament. This afternoon the minister has necessarily been in a difficult position in presenting the views of the management, as distinguished from those of the government. During the course of his remarks I believe he has made quite plain where he was presenting the views of the management of the Canadian National Railways and the views of the government. Because of a reference to the matter being the concern of the railways, one or two hon. members have construed the minister's remarks as meaning that the government was not concerned with the question of the dismissal or the lay-off of a large number of employees. May I say at once what I know the minister was equally anxious to say, that there is no concern of the government which is greater than that affecting the livelihood of numbers of men and women. We all realize that there is no other single question which can affect so intimately the well-being of the citizens of our country as the question of unemployment. For years past this problem has been with us, on a very large scale. The mere mention of the possibility of any increase in the numbers of unemployed, especially at a time when we have hopes that matters are going to improve materially, makes the question one of the deepest concern to members of parliament generally, and particularly to the government. So I wish to point out that when the minister spoke of the question as one which was not the

C.NJt.-Shop Employees

concern of the government, he did not mean the government was not concerned about it; he meant that the question of what men should be laid off or what men should be retained in the employ of the Canadian National Railways was a matter for which the management and officers of the railway had a primary responsibility, and that it was not the primary responsibility of the government.

May I point out that the minister's remarks with reference to the bearing of this debate on what is taking place at the moment have also been misconstrued. They were not intended in any way to imply that the government did not wish all hon. members to feel free to discuss this question, or any other question. May I say to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) who has just taken her seat, that, far from showing any evidence of a desire to stop discussion, only one member of the government has spoken thus far, and the debate has been in progress for nearly two hours. There has been no suggestion that the subject should not be fully discussed.

When the minister voiced a regret that the discussion had taken place at the moment, he made his meaning perfectly clear by stating that at this particular time the unions were negotiating with the management of the railways in connection with the lay-off of some of the men. He said he felt it was unfortunate that, at a time when the matter was being discussed between the two parties concerned, a debate should be taking place in the house, which might lead to some misunderstanding on the position of the Canadian National Railways, a publicly owned railway vis-a-vis the Canadian Pacific, a privately owned railway. The minister's remark, as I understood it, and as I believe the house understood it, far from being an argument in favour of unification, was an argument directly the opposite. What the minister stated was that the Canadian Pacific railway, a privately owned company, can apparently take up these questions-as it did a question similar to this one some months ago-and settle them without any discussion in parliament. But the moment the Canadian National Railways, under similar conditions and for similar reasons, follow a like course of action, immediately that course of action becomes the subject of a political debate, or of a debate in the parliament of Canada which, to a certain extent, seems or seeks to bring the railways under political control.

The concern of the government is not only with the well-being of railway employees, but with the success of the operation of government owned railways. That is the phase

of the question to which the minister had special reference when he mentioned the debate which had taken place last night respecting the merits of government and privately owned systems. His point was that the management of a privately owned system appeared to be free to act in accordance with what they believed to be in the best interests of the road, from the economic point of view, and that it would seem from the discussion in parliament that the government road could not be operated in the same way, without the possibility of political interference.

With respect to all government owned enterprises I believe we must recognize that we cannot have it both ways; we cannot have political control and at the same time complete absence of political control. That is something which has to be kept in mind in connection with all government owned enterprises. If they are to be operated as privately owned business organizations are, then they must be operated free from political influence and control. There is always the possibility, in connection with any government owned enterprise, that there will be more in the way of criticism and of interference than would ever occur in connection with a company under private management.

Coming back to the immediate matter before us, I personally do not complain of the discussion which has taken place. Rather, I see as a result of what has been said the possibility of further and even more careful consideration of the question by the management itself. I am sure the management of the Canadian National Railways have no desire to be indifferent to the wishes of the government and members of parliament with respect to refraining, wherever justified in so doing, from increasing the numbers of unemployed. I am sure, too, that the management will be the first to take cognizance of what has been said in the discussion this afternoon with respect to the serious nature of any change at the present time which might affect employment.

I remember that some years ago, with respect to the same organization, we had the same question before us. For economic reasons, a number of employees were being laid off. I believe hon. members who were in the house at the time will recall that I told the house of having personally spoken to Sir Henry Thornton, the then president of the railways, about the situation. But I had pointed out to Sir Henry that, while it was perfectly true that the government had no desire to interfere with the management of the railways in the discharge of its duty, never-

C.NJt.-Shop Employees

theless we were directly and vitally concerned with the all-important question of unemployment in Canada. I said we hoped that, as one of the great employers of labour in this country, we might, without being guilty of anything in the nature of political interference, say to him what we would say to all other employers and all other enterprises, namely, that so far as it was possible, his company should seek to cooperate with the government in helping to meet the difficult situation of unemployment. I believe that such will be the case of the present management of the national railways with respect to the present situation, and I hope that hon. members will understand that such also was what the minister sought to convey in the remarks which he made.

Right Hon, R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the debate this afternoon has served one very useful purpose: it has brought home to every hon. member a sense of the tremendous responsibility resting upon us as the representatives of the people in this house. All who are familiar with the conditions and circumstances alluded to this afternoon must have had their sympathies stirred and their emotions quickened as they realized the plight in which so many people find themselves. It was my sad lot, perhaps you will say, to have had to deal with this problem from much the same angle as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I can recall how hon. gentlemen who then sat on this side of the house thundered anathemas against the government of the day for nob having taken steps to deal with this problem as it should have been dealt with. Hon. members who were in the house in those days will recall the bitterness of some of the observations then made, but to-day another set of men are charged with responsibility. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is new to this house. He was not a member of parliament in the days from 1930 to 1935, and we now have the Prime Minister interpreting his remarks. It reminded me of the interpretation which Pharaoh sought amidst great difficulties because he felt that his dream had not been properly understood. I looked this up and find it is as follows:

And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.

But the Prime Minister is now interpreting the observations of the Minister of Transport, and all is well in Israel. He has made it quite clear that the Minister of Transport

did not mean what he said, that "what he meant to say is what I now say, speaking as Prime Minister," and that you must draw an acute and sharp difference between what he said as Minister of Transport and what he said to this house as interpreter for the management of the Canadian National Railways. This dual capacity in which he found himself is rather difficult, and it was a kindly act on the part of his Prime Minister to interpret his vision to the house in the terms in which he has. I am sure it will be appreciated both in and out of this house that an interpreter of dreams has arisen, so that there will be no difficulty hereafter, when the Minister of Transport speaks, in the matter of attaching any importance to it until his remarks are interpreted to us by the Prime Minister.

The real reason why this matter is of tremendous importance to the House of Commons lies in the fact that this government and this parliament must provide all the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways. Not only the deficits but also the capital expenditures must be provided in some way by the Minister of Finance. I looked up the statute a few moments ago and I found that in years gone by we did anticipate some of the capital requirements of this road as well as of the Canadian Pacific in order that there might be some form of regular employment- not that it should continue at forty-eight hours a week. The Minister of Transport was quite correct when he observed a few moments ago that the men in many of the shops found their time seriously cut down during the period of greatest depression; but this country did anticipate capital requirements, and in anticipating them, employment was furnished. I am quite sure from what the Minister of Transport said-I hardly thought it was correct, but he must know and I do not'-that all the maintenance requirements in connection with equipment had been taken care of. Certainly that was not my understanding of it, but if it is right, it creates a condition of very great difficulty. If all the requirements with respect to equipment have been met and provided for, of course it creates a*much more serious situation than if there were-

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Maintenance requirements.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF SHOP EMPLOYEES
Permalink

March 21, 1938