No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Evidence Presented to the Duff Commission
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Extract
It is the purpose of this article to do for the evidence presented to the Royal Commission to Inquire into Railways and Transportation in Canada, 1931-32, what Mr. Plumptre did in a preceding number for the Canadian Macmillan Commission. In this case the need is even greater. To the writer's knowledge the only copy of these Proceedings which is available to the general public is the one in the Parliamentary Library in Ottawa. The current press affords only a fitful light upon the evidence; and from some of the hearings it was excluded altogether. If, therefore, any part of this material is to be made generally available, it must be through some such report as is here attempted. The difficulties in the way of condensation are clear to anyone who has attempted it; and in this case some 2136 pages, a large part of it closely argued, must be reduced to some 12 to 15 pages.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , May 1936 , pp. 195 - 208
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1936
References
1 At least two of the commissioners are understood to have given their copies to libraries; but use thereof is restricted for the present.
2 Volumes I-IV are paged consecutively, the final page of the last volume being numbered 2545. Volume V covering train conferences constitutes a separate series numbered 1-415. However, all the pages allotted are not used and the net total is 2136. The conferences en route on December 6-9 inclusive are reported in précis form only, covering 49 pages. It is greatly to be regretted that these hearings, some of which heard papers embodying a great deal of careful research, were not reported more fully. Fortunately all later train conferences are reported verbatim.
3 The figures in brackets refer to page numbers in the Proceedings. Reference to the train conference volume which is paged separately are shown as, e.g. (V, 413).
4 Appendix II of the Commission's Report not only deals fully with the testimony on the subject of motor competition but it also draws heavily upon a report upon that topic prepared by a Committee of officers of the two railways which does not appear directly in the Proceedings. It would, therefore, be a work of supererogation to touch on that topic here. Since this would appear to have been the topic on which the Commission was most anxious to confer with the provincial governments, its exclusion gives to the treatment below of the representatives of those bodies an invidious air. What appears is their defence of local interests and privileges, not all of them consistent with the national interest, but their constructive recommendations are omitted.
5 One economist did submit a written brief, but it does not appear upon the record.
6 It would appear as if Mr. O. S. Beyer, now director of the Section on Labour Relations under the Federal Coordination of Transportation, had assisted in the presentation of this brief.
7 Upon the functions of Boards of Directors, Mr. Gerard Ruel said: “…But ray experience with boards of directors generally is that they are of very little use. They deal with a lot of small things, but do not tackle the important things, neither do they understand them; they leave that to the administrative officers of the organization” (2316).