March 28, 1955

LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

Mr. Speaker-[DOT]

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

May I remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):

I should like to review as completely as possible, but at the same time as quickly as possible, the principal points which have come up during the course of the discussion of this motion. The first topic I have noted relates to the information given to parliament concerning railway matters. The first thing I should like to say is that there is certainly no desire on my part or upon the part of the government to conceal the facts relating to the management of the Canadian National Railways. If we had no responsibility whatever with regard to the management of the railways, then it would be very easy for us to respond to all inquiries without regard for the consequences.

However, Mr. Speaker, since we have responsibility for the Canadian National Railways there are certain rules we must observe, and it is for that reason that, though very often the correspondence between the Department of Transport or the minister and the Canadian National Railways has no particular implication, it has been the custom followed by the government, both when the Conservatives and when the Liberals were in

power, to look upon this kind of correspondence as privileged. It is for that reason that, since I have been minister, I have opposed the adoption of motions requesting the production of such correspondence. It was not particularly because I wished to frustrate members of the opposition in their attempts to obtain the correspondence they wished to have, but merely because that has been the tradition.

I feel there are good reasons for it. I believe one of the obvious reasons is the fact that very often the information requested would prejudice the position of Canadian National Railways vis-a-vis its competitor. It is not, I believe, in the interests of the railway itself that it should be called upon to make public certain matters which have been the subject of questions or the subject of motions. There is another aspect of that too, Mr. Speaker, and that is that there are very often occasions when customers of the railway are dealing with it and when, in turn, the railway is dealing with suppliers, contractors and others, when clearly it would not be to the advantage of the railway that the details should be made public or that a customer should feel that all his affairs and all his dealings with the railway are subject to publication at any time.

I am quite sure that if hon. members had for a moment the responsibility of deciding whether or not information concerning the railways should always be made public, they would realize there are many instances in which it would not be in the interests of the railway that such information should be made known and thus given to its competitor, the Canadian Pacific Railway. No one, I think, would suggest that the same information would be made public by the Canadian Pacific Railway, either normally or during the course of a shareholders' meeting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel the same remarks are pertinent to replies to questions that have been asked during the course of this session. Certainly so far as I am concerned I have sought to obtain the information when questions have been asked and I have believed it proper to reveal the information to parliament. I believe I should say a word about the answers that have been given. First of all, I should like to say that none of the information I have given has had any other origin than the Canadian National Railways. In other words, though it has been implied on one or two occasions that perhaps I was providing the facts, I want to assure hon. members that such is not the

case.

I have in my hand the answers to six questions which were put concerning employment on the Canadian National Railways. On reading them I notice that in each case the reply states that "the Canadian National Railways advise as follows", and then the information follows. I assure hon. members that the source of the information is not my imagination, but is the records of the Canadian National Railways. I believe the information given is truthful and accurate; otherwise, as the responsible minister, I should not give it to the house.

I should like to say also that no answer has been given while I have been minister that I have not examined personally. I want to say, therefore, that I accept full responsibility for the language used in all the answers which have been given. I have reread them since the debate this afternoon, and while I might perhaps be a somewhat prejudiced observer, I do not believe any fair-minded person would say that the answers given were arrogant, or that they suggested the minister lived in an ivory tower and wished to withhold information, except under the circumstances to which I have already referred.

On this same subject of questions I should like to say that a number of questions have been put concerning lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways. I am quite sure hon. members will appreciate the difficulties that arise from the use of this term "lay-off". As I understand it, if the railway discharges an employee and immediately engages another in his place, there is in fact a lay-off and there is also the engagement of a new individual. Consequently when members ask for information concerning lay-offs, it seems to imply a consideration of all the cases where the services of an employee have been dispensed with or where he has voluntarily retired.

We have not, in the Department of Transport, endeavoured to avoid giving information concerning employment with the Canadian National Railways. The difficulty has arisen when questions have been asked that would have involved special research on the part of the railway staff. If any member had made a case for having special information concerning a particular date, I think we would have endeavoured to obtain that information. We have received information as to the total number of employees on the railway at the middle of each month. Whenever questions have been put and the records of the railway company would permit us to give an answer in that way, we have made no effort whatever to conceal the facts concerning employment figures.

28, 1955 2471

Committee on Railways and Shipping

Not very long ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked about employment during the month of February. I must say I was sorry I was not able at that time to furnish the information, for the simple reason that the information was not then available. In fact it was only this afternoon that I was able to obtain information with regard to the level of employment in the middle of February. I would have liked to give that information to the hon. member for Prince Albert who, I am sorry, is not in his seat at the moment. Had he been here I would have told him that at February 15 employment in the Canadian National Railways was 102,262, which shows very little difference from the figures for January, 1955.

I do not want unduly to prolong the discussion, but I think hon. members would be interested to know that there are very marked fluctuations in the level of employment in the Canadian National Railways. If I might merely put a few examples on record, I believe they would serve to demonstrate the difficulty of arriving at any very positive conclusions from the number of persons employed at any mid-month point.

For example, in March of 1952 the employment level was 118,561, whereas in the following month it was 113,375. One would have thought that meant a tremendous number of lay-offs. Yet only a few months later in the same year the total was back to 120,095 employees which, up to that time, was probably an all-time high in employment on the railroad.

I notice that as between the highest and lowest month of that year there was a difference of some 6,700 employees, while in 1953 there was a difference of some 11,000 and in 1954 of some 6,000. So the figures from month to month can be very misleading. And it is a fact that, though August seems to be the month of peak employment-a fact which I am sure hon. members will understand-the month of minimum employment seems to vary and is not always the same every year.

At all events I would say that we do not wish to conceal any information concerning employment with the Canadian National Railways, and if questions are asked concerning employment at mid-month dates it is usually not too difficult to provide the information hon. members desire to have.

Then the hon. member for Greenwood referred to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. I think I shall merely say to him tonight that there is on the order paper legislation to consolidate into one statute the various enactments relating to the Canadian National Railways, and he will

2472 HOUSE OF

Committee on Railways and Shipping have an opportunity to debate the matter fully when that legislation is under consideration.

On the subject of pensions, to which a number of hon. members have referred, I think I can only say that the subject was covered very fully last year by my predecessor, Hon. Lionel Chevrier; and after reading with a good deal of care what he said, as it appears at page 3125 and following of Hansard for last year, I do not believe I can say it either more eloquently or more clearly than he did. I have also had the opportunity to read the remarks on the same subject by Hon. Douglas Abbott, who was my predecessor in the House of Commons for the constituency of St. Antoine-Westmount, and who held the portfolio of finance. His remarks are to be found at page 2576 of Hansard for last year. Consequently I do not believe I would be doing more than taking up the time of the house if I were to reiterate the views these two gentlemen *expressed so clearly last year.

I should like also to touch on the question of the inquiry into the accident which befell the Super-Constellation aircraft at Brampton late last year. It was my original intention to hold both a technical and a public inquiry into the causes of this accident. However, after I had had the opportunity of reading the evidence and the report of the technical board, and after the officials of my department had given extended and careful study to the evidence and the report-which may I say in passing was tabled in the house, made public and available to the newspapers -it seemed to me that a public inquiry could have no result other than to duplicate what had already been done by the technical board.

Before the inquiry of the technical board was initiated it did seem to me there might be some very real doubt as to what was the cause of the accident. I think it is a fair statement to make, after reading the evidence and the findings of the commissioners, that there could really be no doubt as to the cause of the accident. I thought possibly, too, originally, there was some possibility that officials or employees of the Department of Transport had been at fault. I would like to assure the house that had the technical board ascertained any facts which showed fault on their part, even though it might have seemed to be a duplication of effort I would have felt that a public inquiry should be held, so the public would be fully aware of the fact and could see to what extent my department was at fault.

However, after reading the evidence most carefully I came to the conclusion, just as the commissioners did, that my department

had not been at fault. Consequently that was another reason which seemed to me to justify more than adequately the decision I came to afterward, namely not to hold a public inquiry. It also seemed to me-and perhaps I might be accused of being too sympathetic to the pilot-that a public re-examination of all the facts brought out before the technical board might easily be regarded as a persecution of the pilot, rather than an attempt to throw new light on the subject. I would tell hon. members that the case of the pilot is under consideration by my department, and I assure them that his case will be studied sympathetically, and that the treatment he will receive will be just and fair.

I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I would reach different conclusions on the evidence. I do not think perhaps there is any difference in sympathy between us, so far as the pilot is concerned. But I must say that, having read the evidence, I do not reach the same conclusions he does; and I do not think the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are other than those to which the board came itself. I should like to remind the house that the board consisted of three aeronautical specialists: D. W. Saunders of Toronto, who is district superintendent of air regulations of the Department of Transport, a former pilot and one of Canada's first flying instructors, who acted as chairman in this instance; Dr. J. J. Green, M.B.E., of the defence research board, who is also an experienced aeronautical engineer and who until recently was scientific adviser to the chief of staff for air; and Group Captain Leigh, a member of the R.C.A.F., who was head of the R.C.A.F. auxiliary group in Toronto. I think the quality of the three men whose names I have just mentioned is a guarantee both of the independence of the board itself and of the impartiality with which the inquiry was conducted.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

Would the minister permit a question? In view of his expressed sympathy for the position of the pilot, would he care to comment on the fact that at the hearings the pilot had no counsel? There was no one representing him or advising him in any way. Would the minister care to comment, particularly in the light of some of the questions put to the pilot?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

I do not think I should comment on that at the moment. I think really it comes back to the evidence given before the board. I think I should say quite candidly to my hon. friend that I do not entirely share his view with regard to the questions. He read some to the house this afternoon and I did not detect any unfairness in the

questions. I do not believe it was anything but the fairest and most impartial inquiry by the technical board.

Some comments were made during the course of the debate, I think by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), about T.C.A. flying over military airfields. I say with deference that I do not really believe that subject is pertinent to the motion we are now considering. I would feel at a disadvantage if I attempted to reply now to what the hon. member said, for the simple reason that I would necessarily have to go far beyond the limits of the present motion in order to do so. I do not wish to evade my responsibilities to discuss the matter, but I would prefer an occasion when I would be within the rules of this house in giving a full explanation and replying fully to my hon. friend.

There are just two other matters to which I should like to refer. A number of hon. members have spoken of the arrangement for the management of the new Canadian National hotel in Montreal. I think I shall merely say in that connection that the Canadian National Railways made public, I think approximately on November 15, a very full statement regarding the parts of the arrangement with Hilton which they believed ought to be made public. I should like to say that no pressure whatever was exerted at any time upon the management of the railway to make an arrangement with the Hilton people. The decision which has been taken is a free decision of the management of the railway, and no pressure of any kind has been brought to bear upon the management by the government.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

William McLean Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):

Would the minister permit a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

I think if my hon. friend would wait until after I have dealt fully with the subject it would be better. I would have no objections to questions then. I might say that I did not interrupt him, although I felt very much tempted on several occasions to do so.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

William McLean Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):

You are an unusual minister in that.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

In my political life I have always found that patience is a useful virtue to cultivate, and since listenina to my hon. friend I have been endeavouring to cultivate it intensively.

I think hon. members will realize that the setting up of this committee affords them an excellent opportunity of discussing with the officers of the railway the arrangement which has been made concerning the

Committee on Railways and Shipping management of the hotel, and of putting questions which they believe they have the right to ask in order to elicit information which they think is necessary in order to pass judgment on the merits or otherwise of the arrangement itself. I have a feeling that Mr. Gordon, chairman of the board, will probably be able to convince those who are willing to approach the matter with an open mind. I think not only that he ought to be able but that he will be able to persuade fair-minded people that the, arrangement which has been made is in the interests of the railways and is advantageous to them.

So much has been said on the subject that I would like merely to quote two references, which are quite brief. In the 1954 report of the Canadian National Railways, which was tabled last week, paragraph No. 71, one of the four referring to the new hotel, reads as follows:

This specialized form of patronage can be secured only through a vigorous sales organization extending into all of the principal cities of the United States where the great majority of conventions originate. The Canadian National has been able to retain the services of such an organization on very favourable terms through an agreement with Hilton of Canada, Ltd., the Canadian subsidiary of Hilton Hotels Corporation. Through this management contract, there will be brought to the new hotel and to the Canadian National system generally the extensive solicitation facilities of the world's largest hotel operators, and the special skills of an organization already pre-eminent in the American convention business.

I should like to quote just a few paragraphs from an editorial which appeared in the January, 1955, issue of the Hotel and Restaurant magazine published in Toronto, as follows:

They tell us that many Canadians were both shocked and surprised to learn that America's leading hotelman, Conrad Hilton, will take over the management of the new $20 million Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal when the C.N.R., its builder, opens it in 1957.

That's a lot of baloney.

Those are the words in the editorial; that is not my language.

Let's look at it this way: Who else but Sheraton and Hilton can do the type of a selling job that will be required for this hotel? And Sheraton already has two big establishments in the city.

Surely it would be foolish not to take full advantage of the facilities the Queen Elizabeth will offer for the staging of the largest conventions. That is what it is being built for and that is what it must be run for. How can masses of American conventioneers and tourists be attracted without a big, hard-working, widespread selling organization operating for the hotel south of the border?

Let's think for a moment of the hotelmen who are now operating in Montreal. Would you want to see them competing against this big, luxurious, new hotel, against its tremendous financial advantages (as outlined in our July editorial) for the Canadian business? Or would you want to see

2474 HOUSE OF

Committee on Railways and Shipping them benefiting from the flood of U.S. business that perhaps only Hilton can bring into this country?

I am quite sure that any words I might utter this evening will not convince hon. members opposite that what they said this afternoon and evening should now be unsaid, but I do hope the meetings of the committee will afford them an opportunity of going into the matter and perhaps forming a new opinion with regard to the arrangement, and also perhaps convincing themselves as I have been convinced that it is a good arrangement for the railways and therefore a good arrangement for the people of Canada.

I should like to say just one or two words more. The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) spoke this afternoon with regard to the proposed branch line from St. Felicien to Chibougamau. I think I should say that at the present time it is not possible for me to add anything to what was said by my predecessor, Mr. Chevrier, during the discussion on the bill last year.

I offer my apologies to the hon. member for Chicoutimi for replying to him in English rather than in French, but I do so because it is necessary to quote a letter in English. This afternoon he spoke about the traffic guarantees which are required. He certainly left the impression that it was the opinion of those in the lake St. John area that the necessary guarantees which had been arranged by them were more than sufficient to justify the building of the line. I do not want to dispute any statement that he might have made concerning the impression which existed either in Chicoutimi or Roberval, but not very long ago one of the persons who had been particularly interested in the subject sent me the last letter which he had received on the subject. Whether he misunderstood it or whether I misunderstood him, I do not know; but after describing the traffic he went on to say:

You will recall that in our meeting at Quebec I stated that the additional traffic which I then understood the local firms were prepared to guarantee-

I will skip the details.

-was not sufficient to justify the construction of the line.

It was not sufficient, Mr. Speaker. In other words, those who have made representations concerning traffic guarantees in relation to this branch line have been told that what they have offered did not constitute a sufficient guarantee from an economic point of view. I wish to say for the benefit of the hon. member for Chicoutimi and also the

hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) and Lake St. John, who have manifested a continuing interest in the subject, that the matter has been under continuous study since I have been Minister of Transport and I may say that it is receiving most sympathetic consideration. As soon as it is possible to make a constructive announcement on the subject I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have taken rather a long time replying to the comments of various hon. members. I was interested in the reflections of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) concerning the West Indies steamships. The reason I took out a copy of the report and read from it was not to verify the fact he alluded to concerning the maturity of bonds in 1955, with which I was quite familiar. I was looking back to see whether the bonds which then carried a rate of interest of 5 per cent had been issued at a time when that was the prevailing rate for money. It seemed to me they were issued quite a long time ago, and I do not believe it would be reasonable to suggest they should have been paid off earlier than the date upon which they could have been called. Since they could not be redeemed before 1955 they are being redeemed in 1955. That was the fact I was endeavouring to check by rereading the report. I might assure my hon. friend that I had read the report before.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell:

Would the minister permit a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

Certainly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell:

When the minister was discussing the question of the hotel and referring to the meeting of the committee, I would like to know if I was wrong in getting the impression that he thought the information would be available when we got to the committee so we could fully understand the proposed transaction and, as he expressed the hope, be convinced by it. There apparently has been some question about the information, and I am anxious to ensure that when we get to the committee we shall not be frustrated by the want of it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

I can give the house no assurance that the committee will have the contract with Hilton, the production of which was refused by me earlier. Just offhand I am not able to say to what extent the management of the railway will consider that it is able to give any information in addition to that which has already been made public, on November 15. I do not propose to anticipate what will be the position of the committee. I think hon. members will have to

allow the committee to sit and questions to be asked, and then the committee will decide to what extent the questions ought to be answered. No doubt the management of the railway will tell us to what extent they feel they can answer them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell:

I would just venture to call to the minister's attention the fact that this committee is empowered to send for papers, persons and records, which was not the case with a certain previous committee.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

That fact did not escape me.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

John Borden Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):

Would the minister permit a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

William McLean Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):

Just a quick one. In his remarks the minister indicated that the arrangement with Hilton has been a matter of railway management, and the decision had been arrived at by the railway management. Would he indicate to the house whether the government as such is in agreement with this policy and the action which has been taken?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

The government considers

that the subject was a matter which should be decided by the management and, believing that, it allowed the management to decide it in accordance with the provisions governing the administration of the railway property.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink
PC

Thomas Miller Bell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell:

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Sub-subtopic:   ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Permalink

March 28, 1955