October 26, 1951

LIB

John Horace Dickey

Liberal

Mr. Dickey:

If my hon. friend cannot understand plain language, then I am afraid that I cannot elucidate any further for him.

There are one or two other aspects of this legislation with which I should like to deal briefly. The first is that under this legislation the board of transport commissioners is for the first time being given the power to examine competitive rates. What the result of the examination of competitive rates by the board will be it is impossible at this stage to say with assurance. But with that power given to the board by this legislation we shall have the assurance, which we have never had before, that any competitive rate that a railway brings into effect must be in truth competitive; that the competition must exist, and that the rate proposed as a competitive rate is sufficient to reimburse the railway for the services performed so that it will not be in the position, for purposes of competition, of performing expensive services at a ridiculously low figure, recouping its losses from some other traffic.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. Johnston:

What about the agreed

charges clause?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

John Horace Dickey

Liberal

Mr. Dickey:

If my hon. friend wants to

deal with that matter, that is fine; but I was particularly interested in the competitive rates, as I will now show. I think that is something which is of particular interest to western Canada and to the maritimes because of our feeling that in many instances-having regard to the low freight rates enjoyed by shippers in central Canada because of the competition of water and truck transportation-we were paying the bills for some of the services the railways were giving in central Canada. It will now be possible for the board to look into that situation and make sure that the freight rates structure in some parts of Canada is not bearing an unfair burden in order to maintain services in other parts of Canada.

Another matter I should like to mention is the action being taken under this legislation to deal with the question of transcontinental rates. That action will have a distinct effect on the freight rates on traffic both east and west, between the maritimes and points in western Canada; and I would hope that the bringing into effect of this provision will result in a substantial reduction in the tariffs in both directions for traffic of that kind.

We in the maritimes might perhaps think that the provision with regard to the $7 million subsidy to maintain the trackage in northern Ontario is of little interest to us. That is not a proper conception. The savings that will be made possible through that

subsidization scheme will also have the effect of reducing the through rates from the mari-times to the prairie provinces and from the prairie provinces to the maritimes. That will be another benefit added to the readjustment of the transcontinental rates.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say only this. I wish to compliment the minister on having brought down this legislation. Along with other maritime members I am delighted at the obvious unanimity of the opposition parties in support of the principle of this legislation, no matter what the small disagreements may be on detail. I will support, with a great deal of pleasure, the motion for the second reading of this bill.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):

At

the outset I should like to join with the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) in his reference to the chairman of the board of transport commissioners, Mr. Justice Archibald. It was my pleasure many years ago- more years than one likes to recall-to be recruited into the army by Mr. Justice Archibald who was then a recruiting officer for the old 10th battery, associated with Halifax for many, many years. I followed him overseas and afterwards into the law school, and became associated with him after he became a judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia. I appeared before him on many occasions. He is a man of great integrity, a man with a sense of public duty and responsibility, that forced him to efforts possibly beyond his strength. I am sure everyone will regret that owing to ill health it has been necessary for him to relinquish the position which he has filled so honourably in the past.

I cannot possibly follow the hon. gentleman in all the other comments he made with respect to this bill. He warned against one becoming a prophet, and I will attempt to avoid that category, though the hon. gentleman himself prophesied that nothing but good would flow from this bill. I hope his optimism is justified.

This is, as everyone has said, a most important measure. The bill itself deals with many matters. As the minister pointed out, it deals with everything from passenger tariffs to the appointment of the board and various matters such as that; but those of us from the east and the maritimes are in agreement that section 332A is the important section of this bill. It is that section to which I shall draw the attention of the house this afternoon, with particular reference to any possible implications to the maritime provinces. The marginal note of section 332A reads: "National freight rates policy." We are laying down, apparently, a national

Railway Act

policy with respect to freight rates. If that marginal note is a correct description-and I think it is-then it might easily follow that this legislation may be as important as any we may pass this session, at least in so far as its effect on some parts of the nation is concerned. This bill in setting forth this national policy says:

It is hereby declared to be the national freight rates policy that, subject to the exceptions specified in subsection four, every railway company shall, so far as is reasonably possible,-

And omitting a few words which are not material to the meaning, we read these words:

-charge tolls to all persons at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise.

Section 2 (a) reads:

To establish a uniform scale of mileage class rates applicable on its system in Canada. . .

And so on. Then we come to paragraph (b) which reads:

To establish for each article or group of articles for which mileage commodity rates are specified, a uniform scale of mileage commodity rates. . .

In other words the emphasis in this section, Mr. Speaker, is on the mileage; and in that it follows of course the report of the royal commission at page 126, section 9 (b), which reads:

The establishment of one uniform equalized class rate scale throughout Canada applicable on each of the two major railway systems, expressed in mileage distances or in specific rates between all specified points on each railway. . .

There again, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis is on the mileage and the uniformity of the rates. I am certainly the first to admit that I would not want to enter into a technical discussion of the rate structure, how rates may be applied or how they are created; but in reading these sections it would appear to me that it would be a fair question to ask whether what is proposed in these sections of the bill is the establishment of a new rate structure in which at least milea|e is going to play a very prominent part, more so than it has in the past. We all know of the complicated structure we have had with its various rates, its various qualifications, additions, arbitrary structures and so on, which frankly confuse most laymen and many lawyers. I do not think I would be reflecting upon most of the members of the House of Commons, including many of the legal profession and certainly myself, by saying that they have often baffled us and still do. I am suggesting that with that background, on reading these sections it would appear that with this uniformity to which reference has been made we are having a simplification in which the rate in future is to be based largely on mileage. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, the effects can be very

Railway Act

serious indeed, and particularly I suggest they would be serious to the maritime provinces.

The fact that the maritimes have a long haul is known to all. It does not require any great argument to establish it. In their report the royal commissioners dealt with that. They presented an analysis of waybills showing the relative haul of central Canadian points and also of the maritimes, and at page 28 they say:

The waybill analysis indicates that approximately 93 per cent of the freight traffic originating in the maritime provinces moves on commodity rates and that the average haul per ton is 319 miles, but that about 30 per cent of the 93 per cent moves on the average from 733 to 812 miles.

In the next paragraph they go on to say:

On the other hand, while approximately 80 per cent of the freight traffic originating in central Canada moves on commodity rates and the average haul per ton is 234 miles, approximately 90 per cent of this, on the average, moves from 80 to 167 miles. It will thus be seen that, compared to central Canada, the maritime provinces do, at least on a large part of their originating traffic, suffer a disadvantage in respect to length of haul.

It does not need a royal commission to tell us that Mr. Speaker. The 'history of our transportation system ini the maritimes is well known. I do not think some of us are cynical, but when we hear today about the construction of transportation systems and the great benefits that will be derived from them, we recall statements which were made about transportation systems in the past, and the history of them. I think the history of ours is well known; at least it is well known to the maritimes. Briefly, the old government railway was constructed for what purpose? To keep the movement of goods and troops as far away as possible from that country to the south of us which we now call our good neighbour. When that road was built it was expected that there might be a war at any time; so what happened? They built *the railway from Halifax to Montreal, and they followed the coastline just as far away as possible from the nearest United States point. You have this long, tortuous, twisting haul running up the bay of Chaleur and the Matapedia valley, and finally "down the St. Lawrence river to Montreal. That in itself was a part of the national policy of that time which created the transportation system. That makes our situation in the maritimes very very difficult indeed. Not only is it a fact that the long haul is there, but there is the other fact. We have to use that haul because of national policy, and also because of international policies. The situation in the maritime provinces is such that the goods we produce are now largely sold in central Canadian markets, and to a great extent we are dependent upon those

markets for consumer and other goods, including capital goods, which we have to buy.

That is a situation ahout which we do not complain. It is the situation to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) referred earlier this afternoon, due to the incidence of national policies and later on of international policies, and I refer to the loss of sterling and other markets, to the exchange situation and the like.

We are now at the end of that long, attenuated railway line, the only saving feature of which is that it is run by most efficient men in a most efficient manner; and the minister and his department can share the credit for that. I say it is well run, and that is a compensating feature in the situation. It is because of that fact that some of us in the maritime provinces are concerned about any change in the freight rate structure which could be attributed to a mileage basis.

May I say in parentheses that I appreciate very much what the minister said at the outset, namely that this bill is to go to a committee and that it will be there studied without any commitment as to details. That clarifies the position of all of us in the house today, and I welcome what was said. But to go back to my original thought, if it follows that because of the changed basis we do have substantially increased rates, then- and I am minding the advice of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey); I am not donning the robes of a prophet-I would say that the effects on the maritime provinces would be just as serious as were the effects of the collapse of the wooden ship-building industry in the maritimes; and that was the most disastrous situation we ever had. That is how serious the position may be.

I am not for one moment overlooking the matter which the hon. member for Halifax stressed, and rightly so: that the section we are considering embodies the safeguard of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. He stressed that, and I think from the argument he advanced he was justified in so doing. I am glad he appreciates what the Maritime Freight Rates Act has done for the maritime provinces, and for Nova Scotia in particular. I am sure all of us are glad to see sitting in the house this afternoon the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), who was a member of the government of Nova Scotia responsible for the setting up of the Duncan commission, out of which flowed the Maritime Freight Rates Act, to the benefits of which the hon. member for Halifax referred. I say that because the Maritime Freight Rates Act was the climax of a long period of stress and demand in the

maritime provinces, sparked to a great extent by Senator Dennis and the Halifax Herald, which culminated in the creation of the Duncan commission, from which flowed the Maritime Freight Rates Act. That was in 1927.

Again, without going into technical detail and without becoming involved in arguments as to the application of the act, as I read and understand it the act said that it scrapped the rate existing in 1927 and set up a new rate 20 per cent below the one then obtaining. That 20 per cent was arrived at because the commission found that until 1911 or 1912 the government of Canada had recognized its responsibility under its national policy and had not raised the rates in the maritimes, but that following 1912 the rates had been raised to such an extent that the Duncan commission decided a reduction of 20 per cent would compensate for it.

So we find this 20 per cent statutory reduction becoming effective. But the act went on to say that the board of transport commissioners could change the rates if it found under certain circumstances that the costs justified it, and so on. As a matter of fact, the benefits of the act-and I believe many will agree with this-have been lost to a great extent because instead of the rates being increased they were decreased because of truck competition. I am not so sure what benefits are flowing from the Maritime Freight Rates Act today. I sometimes wonder if those of us in the maritime provinces would not be in a better position if the act were revised and amended, because we hear it said, as was said today by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low)-I am sure quite innocently-that we are in a preferred position under the act. Every once in a while we hear talk about handouts. Actually none of these things take place. As I said, I know the hon. member for Peace River spoke in a kindly way, and I appreciate the position he took. I would point out, however, that we do not have a preferred position: it may have been at one time, but certainly it is not today. And I repeat that there are no handouts under it.

I may be wrong, but the picture as I see it is this. If there is a change in these rates, and if as a result of equalization the board of transport commissioners decides to raise the rates, then what happens under the Maritime Freight Rates Act? We have been getting 20 per cent off. With a rate of $1 today under the act we pay 80 cents, with the 20 per cent off. So if the board were to raise the rate to $2, as it might do, and as it can do under the act-I see one hon. member disagrees by

Railway Act

shaking his head-what happens? I shall not argue with the hon. member, but I am saying such an increase is quite possible. The power is in the board to revise those rates. If they were to raise them to $2, what would be the result? The result would be that instead of having a rate of 80 cents we would have one of $1.60. That is too high. It might strangle the little bit of trade that is going on in that particular item? If you are going to kill a man, it does not matter whether you cut off his head at the neck or saw him in two at the middle. The result is just the same; he is dead. It makes no difference in freight rates, that you have a theoretical or statutory reduction of 20 per cent, if after the rate is reduced by that 20 per cent it is still so high that your trade is strangled. You die, economically. And, as I see it, that is a possibility under the freight rates act. What I say is not based entirely on supposition, either, because if one turns to page 126 of the report of royal commission he will find this:

8. The hoard has requested the railways to submit to them the railways' proposals for equalization of freight rates throughout Canada subject to statutory prohibitions contained in section 325 of the Railway Act and in the Maritime Freight Rates Act.

In other words the royal commission asked the railways to submit briefs based upon this proposed equalization. They were anticipating that parliament was going to pass this measure. But they wanted the team all harnessed and ready to drive through the gate as soon as parliament had opened it.

As a result, what happened? The railways submitted their schedule of rates, and they did so having in mind the very safeguards the hon. member from Halifax discussed a few moments ago, which he says give us protection. They submitted those rates. The railways may be wrong; they may not know what they are talking about, but I think it is generally recognized that they employ a fairly good legal staff. They have had great experience, and I suggest that when the railways submitted rates under that instruction from the royal commission they first considered the effect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the safeguard set out in subsection 5 of section 325 of the Railway Act.

I have in my hand an interview with Mr. Rand Matheson, manager of the maritime transportation commission. That is a commission for which the boards of trade in the maritime provinces are largely responsible, and is financed by the governments of those provinces. Mr. Matheson is to some extent a quasi-public servant or civil servant, and is recognized as a freight rates authority in the maritime provinces as well as throughout

450

Railway Act

Canada. He gave an interview to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald some time in September and is quoted as follows:

Proposals by the Canadian railways for equalization of freight rates-

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Alfred Dion (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that he should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

I am dealing with the

principle of the bill. I am dealing with equalization. I think we all agree that at least to maritimers equalization is an important part of this legislation. Dealing with equalization Mr. Matheson continued:

. . . across the country would approximately double present rates in the maritlmes, and would thereby have detrimental repercussions of far-reaching consequence on the economy of the four Atlantic provinces.

That is not the statement of a prophet; that is not the statement of a politician. That is the statement of a recognized expert in the maritime provinces dealing with this matter. He gave certain examples. For example, the first class rate to Moncton in carload lots is $1.87 per hundred pounds, the fifth class rate is 94 cents. The proposed new rate would be $3.70 for first class as compared with $1.87, and for fifth class, $1.48 as compared to 94 cents. In the case of the first class rate you would have a percentage increase of 97-9 which is as near as you can get to a 100 per cent increase. In the case of the fifth class rate the increase would be 57-4 per cent. Perhaps Halifax is concerned in this. At present the first class rate per hundred pounds is $1.94 and the proposed new rate, according to Mr. Matheson, will be $4.23.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

May I ask the hon. member to what he is referring when he mentions proposed new rates?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

I warned the minister that I did not want to be involved in any discussion on this, but these are the rates proposed by the railway companies to the board of transport commissioners as a result of paragraph 8 on page 126 of the report.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I do not want to interrupt the trend of thought of my hon. friend, but this legislation does not deal with any rate. This legislation provides enabling authority which will permit the board of transport commissioners to equalize freight rates. When my hon. friend refers to a proposal submitted by the railways I contend that he is not in order because there is no such proposal before this house. I submit further, although I am not going to stop my hon. friend because I want him to put on the record everything he wants to, that he is dealing

with a . matter now before the board of transport commissioners for investigation and which has been adjourned until January 10. I submit that this matter is sub judice and should not be considered now.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

If I may rise on that point of order-

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I did not raise a point of order, I simply asked a question. Having been answered I stated that there is nothing in this legislation which permits the hon. gentleman to deal with a proposed increase in rates.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Alfred Dion (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

There is no point of order before the house. There is only the question asked by the minister.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

As the minister said, this

matter has been adjourned to January 10. It was before the board as a result of the report of the royal commission to which the minister referred. The minister has introduced a bill implementing some of those recommendations. It was the report of the royal commission that permitted the companies to file this tariff. It is true that it is most unusual to have tariffs filed with the board of transport commissioners before parliament had seen the bill, but that is what happened.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

Will the hon. member agree that the matter is now before the board of transport commissioners for adjudication?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

I think that is correct.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

If it is, does the hon. member think he should discuss a matter under investigation?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

I do not think it is a question of discussing a sub judice matter. I think it is proper to refer to a public document which is factual and to read what is stated in that document without attempting to draw any conclusions.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I do not intend to continue my interruptions. I disagree with the hon. gentleman, as I think the matter he has brought up is one which should be discussed before the committee. I hope that Mr. Matheson will come forward and make the representations there which are included in this article.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

I am not pursuing the matter further. I have placed some of these figures on the record, whether they are sub judice or not. These are the submissions of the railways based on the suggestions of the royal commission, having in mind all the safeguards to which reference has been made. I say to you that if the railroads are not entirely insane, if the figures they have submitted

have any relevancy at all, these safeguards will be of very little use and the maritimes will face a situation which could be described as verging on disaster.

I realize that if one feels strongly about a bill up for second reading he should consider whether he will vote against it, and I wondered what attitude to take. However, I would not want to take that position at this time; and I do not intend to, because this bill is to be referred to a committee. I did feel better, as I said earlier, when the minister said that even the government was not to be committed to the details of this bill until it had been referred to the committee. There must be some misgivings or doubts with respect to it, and I think properly so. We hope and believe that this committee will call representatives-of course they will not call all those who appeared before the royal commission-of the maritime transportation commission and from other areas in Canada who are interested in this situation, because it is a most serious thing for Canada.

It is not altogether a railway problem. I am not blaming the railroads for having proposed rates such as they have. I intended to read the quotation from Dr. Angus which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) quoted earlier; but to summarize it, he said that it was not a railway problem, it was a complaint against the federal government which in effect is attempting to subsidize the railways in order to enable them to forgo higher freight rates.

I presume the minister has read the statement by Dr. Innis, and I draw his attention particularly to page 307 of the report where Dr. Innis states:

No scheme of equalization can be devised which will overcome the effects of competition in the St. Lawrence region as reflected particularly in competitive rates. An obsession with equalization will obscure the handicaps of the maritimes and of western Canada and perpetuate their paralyzing effects.

"Obsession" is the descriptive term used by Dr. Innis with respect to equalization. Whether you like that or not, Dr. Innis was one of the commissioners and is recognized as being something of an authority. I suggest that when you read those words you must wonder just what effect should be given to this proposal of equalization.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

Dr. Innis signed the report.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink

October 26, 1951