1955-06-27

PORT OP HALIFAX


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	For the first five months of 1955, what has been the tonnage of (a) import traffic; (b) export traffic; (c) domestic traffic, going through the port of Halifax?
2.	How does this compare with the same period in 1954?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	(a)	import	traffic	
955,496(b)	export	traffic	
838,491(c) domestic traffic	
529,9272.	(a)	import	traffic	
792,353(b)	export	traffic	
435,765(c) domestic traffic	
448,178



BRITISH IMMIGRATION


Mr. Pouliot:: Since January 1, 1947, how many British subjects
(1)	have migrated from Great Britain to Canada;
(2)	have applied for certificates of Canadian citizenship; and (3) have been granted such certificates? (4) From January 1, 1947, how many immigrants from Great Britain have been deported?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The available statistics make it impossibie to answer this question in the precise form in which it is framed. The following answers are the closest approximation readily available:
1.	The total number of immigrants from the United Kingdom from January 1, 1947 to April 30, 1955, was 287,195.
2.	Statistics of applications for citizenship are not segregated by nationality or country of origin.
3.	From January 1, 1947 to May 31, 1955, 11,296 certificates were granted to British adults under section 10(2) of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Detailed statistics for minor children given certificates under section 10(5) have been kept only since January 1, 1951. From that date up to the end of May last, a total of 1,052 certificates were granted to British minor children.
4.	The number of persons deported to the United Kingdom from January 1, 1947 to March 31, 1955, totalled 1,383, including 569 ship deserters.



NON-BRITISH IMMIGRATION -APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP AND DEPORTATIONS

Jean-François Pouliot: Since January 1, 1947, how many immigrants other than British subjects (1) have migrated to Canada; (2) have applied for certificates of Canadian citizenship; and (3) have been granted such certificates? (4) From January 1, 1947, how many immigrants from elsewhere than Great Britain have been deported?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The available statistics make it impossible to answer the question in the precise form in which it is framed. The following answers are the closest approximation readily available:
1.	The total number of immigrants from all countries other than commonwealth countries from January 1, 1947 to April 30, 1955, was 753,221.
2.	Statistics of applications for citizenship are not segregated by nationality.
3.	From January 1, 1947, to May 31, 1955, 99,065 certificates were granted to non-British adults under section 10(2) of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Detailed statistics for minor children given certificates under section 10(5) have been kept only since January 1, 1951. From that date up to the end of May last, a total of 9,355 certificates were granted to nonBritish minor children.
4.	The number of persons deported to all countries other than commonwealth countries from January 1, 1947, to March 31, 1955, totalled 2,312, including 777 ship deserters.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I
ask the Minister of Transport if he can comment on an item in this morning's Globe and Mail with regard to the ferry between North Sydney and Port aux Basques? The report says that it came to light Friday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -that the channel at Port aux Basques is two feet too shallow to allow the new ferry to enter the harbour. Apparently the official concerned blames the harbour for this situation. I wonder whether the minister could comment on it. It seems almost unbelievable-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I do not believe the report that the channel is of inadequate depth has any foundation in fact. I think the story has arisen out of a misconception as to what are the facts. I know that further work is contemplated in Port aux Basques harbour but I do not believe any further dredging of the kind implied by what the hon. member has said is to be done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister aware
that the official is reported as saying it will require two years to dredge the channel?


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Speaker, having
seen how some of these reports are made up I can understand that may be speculation on the part of somebody, but I do not think it has any relation to the facts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the Minister of Transport confirm his impressions about the Port aux Basques harbour and advise the house in due course?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I can add anything further to what I have already said on the subject. I take it the hon. member will have an opportunity of going into the question more fully when the estimates of the department are before the committee.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Have representations been received and is the department giving consideration to a possible extension of the gaspereau fishing season in the Grand lake area of New Brunswick? I sent the minister notice of my question this morning.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I did not receive notice but I have received quite a number of letters and wires from fishermen in the area during the past week. There has been quite a small run of gaspereau this year. Because of that it is all the more important that we only have the normal fishing season to allow a good escapement of spawning gaspereau so we will have future catches. Therefore no extension of the fishing will be allowed this year.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it not true that, with the poor weather conditions, a small extension now would not affect conservation plans this year?


James Sinclair: Our scientists say no. Anothei factor, of course, is that at the end of the season the fish are not the same quality as they are at the beginning of the seasor because they are heavy with spawn. Therefore in the interests of conservation we art keeping the season as it always has been.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question? During the debate on the fisheries estimates I asked whether the department would make a full investigation of the poor gaspereau season this year.


James Sinclair: The fisheries research board is always concerned about the variations in catch, and it is precisely because the catch is low this year that we must ensure that adequate numbers of gaspereau can spawn so we will have better catches in the years ahead.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of his statement to the British and Canadian doctors last week that no province stands in the way of health insurance, will he say what steps the government is taking to expedite the establishment of health insurance throughout Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Seemingly unlike my hon. friend, I feel that the way to make progress in this desirable matter is to affirm that all levels of administration are seeking, within the context of what they regard as best, to do their best.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I had said in answer to the question that was put to me that any province was blocking something, I would have been accused by the hon. gentleman of creating a situation that did not lend itself to co-operation by all provinces. Now, I am not going to put myself in that position. I used the word "blocking" in the sense that no province was deliberately seeking to do something for the sake of being obstructionist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that the minister has dealt with the preamble to my question, will he answer the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I think it is quite clear to everyone in the house and in the country that the government is certainly not delaying any of these important matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have been delaying for 36 years.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I was
going to ask the Minister of Public Works a question, but since the Minister of Trade and Commerce is an engineer, perhaps he can answer it. Considering the outstanding display of decorative flags in front of the building, does he not think the money for the purchase of new lumber was well spent?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can only congratulate the Minister of Public Works on the very fine appearance of the decorations on parliament hill.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the further representations that have been made by the automobile dealers' association, is the minister in a position to say whether or not a decision has been made by the government as to rebates being given to retail dealers in respect of the excise taxes paid on cars in their possession when the budget was introduced?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I was expecting to discuss that on the bill when we reach it tomorrow or Wednesday.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 452, respecting loans to assist fishermen engaged in a primary fishing enterprise-Mr. Harris -Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
The Chairman:: I might inform hon. members of the committee that this bill has been considered and reported by the banking and commerce committee, and the amendments made therein will be found in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, June 23, at pages 811 and 812.


Mr. Nowlan:: Is the minister going to make a statement, in view of these amendments?
Fisheries


James Sinclair: This is not my bill.


Mr. Benidickson:: I am authorized to say on behalf of the Minister of Finance that the additional recommendation on page 812 which comes from the standing committee on banking and commerce is not objected to. When we reach clause 6 of the bill I will ask the Minister of Fisheries to move the appropriate amendment to cover a recommendation which involves some increase in the maximum financial liability, and therefore was beyond the powers of the committee on banking and commerce to amend.


Mr. Bryce:: Is this bill going to apply to the fisheries in the prairie provinces?


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two general observations. We found ourselves in a position of happy unanimity on this bill, in the committee. I think this is a case where all concerned-the banks, who were originally the sole parties mentioned as affected by the guarantee, the credit unions who came and presented their case to the committee, and all others concerned-came to a common conclusion which seemed most likely to benefit the industry.
I should like to add just a word more. The appearance of representatives of the credit unions from both the east and west coasts was a matter of great interest. The story they had to tell, of the way they had stepped in and assisted the industry, the history of their success, and their readiness to co-operate in the extensions proposed by the bill, all seemed to augur well for the success of the bill. And, as I say, we found ourselves in a position of happy unanimity in recommending the amendment we now have before this committee for consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, before clause 2 carries I should like to join in what the hon. member for Greenwood has just said. I was not a member of the banking and commerce committee, but some of us were invited to sit in as representatives from fishing communities.
I listened to the discussions. It is true that all members of the committee were very much impressed by the presentation brought forward by the credit unions from the east coast, from Quebec and from British Columbia. I think this was a rather unusual situation. This was a bill which, undoubtedly, had received careful consideration by the government before it was introduced,

Fisheries
and one which involved a pretty complicated question of financial administration. After having studied the measure, in view of the representations made by the credit unions the committee unanimously accepted a very important amendment, which we are glad to see is now approved and accepted by the government. I think this speaks very well for the credit unions. It would seem to indicate the greatest possible display of co-operation on their part, and of co-operation from all parties in the House of Commons. Because, as someone said at the close of that committee meeting, we sometimes think we are in four parties when we sit in the House of Commons; but this time we had no parties, because it was entirely a matter of unanimity. It is a great tribute to these credit unions, because it is well known that for a period of 20 years they made possible the financing of the operations of fishermen when no one else would do it. When I say this I am not criticizing the banks in any way, because probably in many instances the risks were such that the banks could not be expected to accept the responsibility; and there was also the further fact that in so many communities there are no banks.
It was these little credit unions which came into the picture and, over a period of years, helped not only to rehabilitate the fishing industry but also to strengthen themselves and also to increase their stature to such an extent that they were recognized unanimously by all members in the committee, and now by the government of Canada.
This is a step in the right direction. We hope the bill will be amplified still more in the future. But at least this is a great step in the right direction. It is one of several steps which have been taken during the last few years when we have had various matters of legislation dealing with the fishing industry. At one time it looked as if the fishing industry was the forgotten industry in Canada. Ministers who were dealing with that department felt, it seemed, that they were either on the way up or on the way out. It is good now to see that the industry is getting the recognition it deserves.
I notice in section 2 that the definition of "fisherman" is one "whose principal occupation is participation in a primary fishing enterprise". I hope the minister will-and I am sure he will-use quite a bit of latitude in the interpretation of that expression, because certainly on the east coast, while there are many fishermen whose full time occupation is that of fishing, there are others

who spend part of their time in farming or other occupations and fish for only part of the year.
The income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue have had some difficulty in specifying what is a "principal" occupation, and it is possible that the minister in this instance may have the same difficulty. In this connection, again, I hope and expect that he will give those who are engaged in fishing the benefit of any doubt he may have. It may be that there will be some who would be spending no more than six months in a year in fishing operations; yet, if they are bona fide fishermen for part of the year, they should come under this section.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who have spoken, in recording my approval of the action taken by the committee on banking and commerce in recommending the inclusion of credit unions, and my appreciation of the fact that the government has accepted this recommendation.
I think this was a striking indication of the capacity of two young men who appeared before the banking and commerce committee, one of these from Nova Scotia and the other from British Columbia. They gave most helpful accounts of the operations of credit unions, and impressed every member of the committee with their competence to represent their organizations.
It was, I think, almost amazing to see the committee gradually realizing that it was unanimous. Those of us who spoke first of all in support of the inclusion of credit unions-and I speak for myself in this regard -got up feeling that we had certain opposition to overcome. When we began to look for it, to our surprise we found there was no opposition, and that everyone was in accord with the move.
As I say, those two young men, Mr. MacMullin from Nova Scotia, and Mr. Mc-Master from British Columbia, deserve the thanks of the co-operative movement in this country. May I conclude by saying that this group as a whole records its very great satisfaction on the new status that has now been accorded to the co-operative banking system of this country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before this clause carries I should like to raise one point, already discussed by my colleague from Digby-Anna-polis-Kings. I am referring to the expression "principal occupation" as it appears in the clause. Is it clear that that is going to be interpreted by and large so that no question will arise? If not, might it not be worth

while to consider adding the word "substantially". If we get to the stage where we have to say that it is a man's principal occupation, it seems to me there may be some difficulty. Whether it is necessary to leave it or not, I ask the minister if he would consider it now, because the word "substantially" would get away from the difficulty if it would be sufficiently strong for the purposes of the minister. I should like him to consider it even now.


James Sinclair: This actual phrasing was the phrasing of our department. It is the phrasing which is satisfactory to the fishing industry. After all, it is not the government who says that this man can qualify for a loan and this man cannot; it is the judgment of the bank manager or the chairman or the treasurer of the credit union who is going to approve the application for a loan made to the fishermen. He can very quickly tell from the actual amount of income the fisherman reports he makes from his fishing whether the fishing is the principal or substantial part of his income. But the actual phrasing of this section is satisfactory to the fishermen's organizations, to the credit unions, and to the Department of Fisheries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the situation will work out exactly as the minister has described it, subject only to this. Would it be possible in terms of common sense for the department to raise the question that loans were unauthorized because they were made to people whose principal business was not fishing? Is the minister satisfied?


Mr. MacEachen:: 
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I think it was by accident that I was the first speaker at the resolution stage who brought to the attention of the minister the advisability of considering the inclusion of credit unions as well as banks in this legislation. I was pleased to note the support which that suggestion received at the time and subsequently in the committee on banking and commerce. I am delighted to see the amendment which the committee recommended. Having said that, I want to record my pleasure at the amendments which have been recommended. I know that this is a recognition of the excellent work which has been done over the years in financing fishermen.
I have been a bit concerned over the matter brought up by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings with regard to the interpretation of the words "whose principal occupation is participation in a primary fishing enterprise". I too hope that a generous interpretation will be given to that statement. For instance, I note that in my riding there are a good many people who actually fish only two months. They are lobster fishermen and they are limited to two months' activities because of the season. Yet they spend much of the rest of the time preparing for the short fishing season. They consider their primary occupation as being that of fishermen, although they may be employed for a greater length of time during each year at some other subsidiary occupation and may earn even a greater amount of money from the subsidiary activity than they earn from fishing activities if they happen to have a bad year with a good deal of stormy weather during the fishing season. I should therefore

Fisheries
like to think that the interpretation put on this legislation would mean that it would apply to persons who are fishermen within the meaning of the term "fishermen" in that area.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to commend the government for introducing this legislation, to thank the committee for introducing the amendment to include the credit union as a lending agency, and also to express my gratitude to the government for accepting the amendment and incorporating it in the present bill.
The matter of credit is one of the greatest problems that have been connected with the fisheries of Newfoundland and is, I believe, one factor which has contributed greatly to the slowness of its development. In Newfoundland the fisherman gets credit from the local supplier. The local supplier in turn gets credit from a larger supplier, perhaps in the same neighbourhood. This larger supplier in turn gets credit from the general supplier at St. John's who in turn gets credit from the banks. As will be seen, there are at least two and sometimes three middlemen distributing credit between the bank and the fishermen themselves. This bill which will enable the fisherman to get credit directly from the bank will, I believe, be a great stimulus to the fishermen to modernize their equipment. It can be seen that when there are so many middlemen between the bank and the fishermen, the cost of this credit must necessarily be high and be a burden to the fishermen themselves.
With respect to the inclusion of the credit unions, I may say that in Newfoundland by law we call them co-operative credit societies, but they are the same thing. In my riding there are 262 settlements. All of them are fishing settlements. These 262 settlements are distributed along a coast line of, roughly,
1,000	miles. In that area there are only four communities in which banks are located and three of those banks are within a radius of 30 miles of each other. The other bank is located at the extreme end of the riding. It can be seen that if the lending institutions were limited to banks alone, this legislation would not be of a great deal of use to the fishermen of my riding. The fact that credit unions have been included will be a great blessing, although not at the very moment because at the present time there are in my riding few credit unions that are capable of lending amounts of considerable size. But I should like to point out that in my riding there are some 30 or 40 fishermen's locals of the Newfoundland fishermen's federation and each of those locals is capable of developing into a co-operative credit society. I hope

that the introduction of this legislation will stimulate that development.


Mr. McWilliam:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support the amendment. At the same time I wish to express thanks on behalf of the New Brunswick members to the government and to the members of the banking and commerce committee for their acceptance of this amendment. I am sure it is going to mean a great deal to the fishermen in financing equipment and other fishing gear. As you know, most fishermen- particularly inshore fishermen-who use small boats and small equipment and live in remote villages have little source of credit. A credit union is their only banking institution. Again I express the thanks of the fishermen, the credit unions and the cooperative societies to the government for their consideration and, I trust, acceptance of this amendment. In particular I wish to express the thanks of the fishermen, the credit unions and the co-operative societies of Northumber-land-Miramichi.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3 as amended-Minister to pay losses of hanks under certain conditions.
Mr. Barneli:: I should like to make one brief reference to clause 3. Like other members who have spoken, I am happy to see the amendments which have been proposed in the definition section but I think that clause 3 indicates what was suggested at the resolution stage, namely that this being a new piece of legislation, it is still somewhat in an experimental stage. In that connection I would mention the limitation which is placed on the size of the loan, that of $4,000, in clause 3 of the bill. At this time I am not rising to object to the fact that that has been the figure set. However, I hope that the ministers, and in particular the Minister of Fisheries, will be making a close study of the workings of this bill and that it will not be too long before we shall find coming into the house an amendment to the bill which will relax some of the provisions with regard to the maximum size of loan. I think the Minister of Fisheries would probably agree with me that on the British Columbia coast, because of the type of fishing boats and gear which is being developed there and which is coming into increasing use, there may be cases where loans of a larger size than the present maximum of $4,000 could be quite usefully used by the fishermen. As I say, I hope that matter will be kept under constant study and that perhaps within the next session or two we shall find coming into the house an amendment

Fisheries
which will have the effect of increasing the maximum allowable under the insured loans plan.


James Sinclair: Hon. members should bear in mind the fact that the purpose of this bill is to provide for intermediate credit. As far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, fishermen can get long-term credit. For loans for the acquisition of new boats and their permanent capital equipment there are provincial loan boards. In case of draggers and long-liners there is also a subsidy from our department. There is no such provincial fisheries loan act on the west coast in British Columbia, but it is easier there to get longterm loans from other sources.
As far as the $4,000 limit is concerned, I feel that is a reasonable start for the type of fishermen we are trying to help, namely the small fishermen. Our fishermen's indemnity fund provides insurance on equipment up to $7,500, on which there is a 60 per cent coverage, which means that the fisherman would get back $4,500 on his policy in event of loss. This guarantee ties in very closely with the $4,000 limit on these loans. But the main purpose of this is to grant intermediate credit to enable a man to improve his boat, his engine or his gear, and not so much for the acquisition of new capital equipment which is a matter of long-term loans and is dealt with by other agencies.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Extent of minister's liability.
James Sinclair: It is on clause 6 that an amendment is to be moved by the government. While I am on my feet I should like to say one or two things about the bill. Various members have rightly given credit to the credit unions for having this legislation amended. I think the real credit goes to the members of parliament from the fishing ridings. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said that the way this developed was quite an unusual occurrence. After all, the bill is patterned on the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and since there is no provision for credit unions in the Farm Improvement Loans Act the officials of the Department of Finance, I am quite sure, took it for granted they would not be included here. But on the night the resolution was discussed, fishing members from every corner of the house got up and spoke so strongly in favour of credit unions that the Prime Minister, as you may remember, called me over and told me to send the bill to the banking and commerce committee so that we could see whether they could be included.
Therefore it was the pleas of members from fishing ridings that brought about this amendment.
Clause 6 was drafted at a time when only the banks were included in subclause (b) which provided that the total amount of loans which would be guaranteed in the next three years would be $15 million. Now that credit unions are to be included the subclause has been reworded to provide a $10 million guarantee in the total of loans to the banks and $10 million to the credit unions. The actual amendment reads:
(b) to make any payment
(i)	to a bank in respect of loss sustained by it as a result of a guaranteed loan made after the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed loans made by all banks exceeds $10 million, or
(ii)	to any lender in respect of loss sustained by it as a result of a guaranteed loan made after the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed loans made by all such lenders exceeds S10 million.
That is the exact wording of the recommendation that was made by the banking and commerce committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it clear that the $10 million is the amount from time to time outstanding? Is it clear that is what is intended?


James Sinclair: You are back in the finance department now.


William Moore Benidickson: That assurance was given at the resolution stage in the statement then made.


James Sinclair: I so move.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Sinclair moves:
That subclause (b) of clause 6 be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
(b) to make any payment
(i)	to a bank in respect of loss sustained by it as a result of a guaranteed loan made after the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed loans made by all banks exceeds $10 million, or
(ii)	to any lender in respect of loss sustained by it as a result of a guaranteed loan made after the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed loans made by all such lenders exceeds $10 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I still do not believe it is clear that it means the amount from time to time outstanding. I think as it is worded it means when loans have been made up to $10 million, even though a lot of them may have been paid off. If that is intended, well and good. If it is not intended, then the words "from time to time outstanding" should be inserted.


William Moore Benidickson: I emphasize again that in the long formal statement made when the resolution was introduced indication of that intention was given and is in the statement.
5305	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall make one final comment. I do not think indication of intention is any good if the words do not bear it out. If the parliamentary assistant agrees with me that the words as they stand bear or could bear the interpretation I suggest, then it would be a very easy matter to cure the defect now. I do not think a statement of intention is of any value. If the legislation comes before a court, the court cannot take account of a statement of intention. It has to take account of the words of the statute.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 14-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can one of the ministers say on what date it is intended to have the act come into force?


William Moore Benidickson: Just as soon as the regulations can be prepared.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, now.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY ACT AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR EXPROPRIATION OF INDIAN LANDS

George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 508, to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon this bill?


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, we have not got copies of the bill.


Walter Edward Harris: I gave the whip of your party a copy quite some time ago.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Is
the minister not going to make a statement on the bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood it had been agreed that I do leave the chair. I suppose any statement could be made in committee.


Mr. Green:: Before you leave the chair, may I point out that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace was on his feet as you stood up, and I submit we should still be on second reading and the minister should make a statement.


Walter Edward Harris: I noticed that the hon. member rose but he did not object to second reading. I think the minister would make a short statement on the first clause of the bill, but in any event I point out that second reading was in fact carried without objection.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I of course regret that I did not see an hon. member who was rising, but I did not notice him and second reading seemed to pass without objection. Thereupon I asked whether it was agreed that I should leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole. I must take it we have reached that point. Of course any statement which the hon. member requires can be made just as easily in committee.
The house in committee on Bill No. 508, to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Indian lands.


William McLean Hamilton: Will
the minister now make the statement I expected he would make on second reading of the bill?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not know that I can make the statement the hon. member expected me to make, but I will repeat what I said the other day when the bill was introduced. The purpose of the bill is to declare that the seaway authority is a corporation empowered to take or use land without the consent of the owner within the meaning of section 35 of the Indian Act. If one refers to the Indian Act, one finds in subsection 1 of section 35 the following:
Where by an act of the parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature Her Majesty in right of a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation is empowered to take or to use lands or any interest therein without the consent of the owner, the power may, with the consent of the governor in council and subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the governor in council, be exercised in relation to lands in a reserve or any interest therein.
I understand that there was thought to be some doubt as to whether the St. Lawrence seaway authority was, in fact, the kind of corporation that is described in subsection 1

of section 35 of the Indian Act. The purpose of this bill is merely to make it abundantly clear that the authority is that kind of corporation, and therefore has the power to expropriate lands in an Indian reserve. As hon. members know, in particular there are lands in the neighbourhood of Cornwall that form part of an Indian reserve and likewise there are also lands near Caughnawaga, in the province of Quebec, where the seaway authority will need to expropriate for the purposes of the seaway.


William McLean Hamilton: First, Mr. Chairman, I make this passing observation. It might have been just a little easier to discuss this bill if the minions of the house had not been depositing on my desk, at the moment the minister was making his statement, a copy of the bill. It would have been preferable if the minister had been on his toes sufficiently to see that the bill was distributed following first reading on Friday.


Walter Edward Harris: I object very strenuously to that, Mr. Chairman. I have the responsibility for seeing that the business of the house is conducted expeditiously. Everything was done to have this bill in the hands of the hon. member at the earliest possible moment.


William McLean Hamilton: repeat that when "at the earliest possible moment" is the morning on which the bill is to be discussed, and late in the morning after the house has met, it is too late.


Walter Edward Harris: If you have no desire to go on with the bill now, we can adjourn it, of course.


William McLean Hamilton: It
is a simple bill, and I am quite prepared to take it. I am simply pointing out, for the benefit of the government, that this is not normal procedure. It is a procedure which is subject to criticism, and it is a procedure which should not be repeated in the future.
Certainly I think that all of us in the house, all of us on this side I am sure, would not want to do anything to delay or to hold up in any way the progress of the seaway itself which has been a dream of many Canadians, if not all Canadians, since the turn of this century. I was interested, in looking into the background of this bill, to find that even back in 1932 the Bennett government negotiated a treaty with the United States which died in the United States Senate. Both before and after that time, all parties had made very strenuous efforts to bring this seaway about.
I shall not, for many obvious reasons, touch on the broader aspects of the seaway. I think perhaps we will deal with some of those when
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act we come to the transport department estimates. I do think, in connection with this bill itself, we might pay attention for a moment to the attitude of the seaway authority to the responsibility with which it has been charged, and to its relationships with other groups. I feel that is important because we must read the bill in the light of the use which is going to be made of the powers which are being confirmed by this bill.
In that connection, I turn to certain observations of the president of the seaway, who will presumably direct measures under this amending act. He made a statement to the Montreal chamber of commerce, and in the course of those remarks he said this:	I will
read them first in the original French of which, while certainly not as good French as Mr. Chevrier used, it may be said "It is a poor thing, but my own." He said:
(Translation):
Other critics claim that our plans for remodelling Jacques Cartier, Victoria and Mercier bridges are inadequate. If this criticism bears only on the problem of traffic between both shores, I am not overconcerned about it. If it refers to navigation, I beg to differ sharply. This criticism is unjustified. Our statute, in effect, calls for canalization works, not for works having to do with roads or vehicular traffic. The St. Lawrence seaway authoriy was not established to solve traffic problems either at Montreal, at Beauharnois or at Welland.
(Text):


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to rise on a point of order. What we are talking about at the present time is a bill which will enable the St. Lawrence authority to expropriate Indian lands. Now, I cannot offhand think of anything more remote from the bill than the Victoria bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge or the Mercier bridge. It seems to me they are wholly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. We are not talking about the authority that has been given to the seaway authority under the statutes. We are not discussing its present powers of expropriation. All we are dealing with is the question of whether or not the seaway authority should be permitted to expropriate Indian lands.
Now, as the hon. member who is speaking knows, none of these bridges are located on Indian land. No expropriation of Indian lands is required in connection with the Mercier bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge or the Victoria bridge. It is not, Mr. Chairman, as if there were not other opportunities for the hon. member to make these observations. There are estimates provided for the St. Lawrence seaway authority and when those are before the committee these remarks would be relevant.

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act


William McLean Hamilton: In
connection with the minister's remarks, I might perhaps proceed in a few moments to discuss the bridges per se, at which time we can debate that. But it was my intention at this point, in setting the stage for my remarks, to point out that the seaway authority has had a callous disregard for the interests of those communities and those areas which are affected by their projects, and that in the light of that callous disregard which is evidenced in their own words, we should be doubly careful about giving them powers to expropriate lands from people who perhaps might not be in the same position as other people in this country to protect their own interests.
Now, turning again to my argument which, as I said, has nothing whatever to do with the bridges, I have here a news item from the Montreal Star of Tuesday, March 22, commenting on the speech of Mr. Chevrier, the president of the seaway authority, which says:
The head of the St. Lawrence seaway authority asserted today that it "has not been set up to solve problems of traffic either at Montreal, at Beauharnois or at Welland."
Hon. Lionel Chevrier, in an address to the Chambre de Commerce de Montreal, struck back at critics of seaway plans, whose views, he said, "are unjustified".
He said there were some critics "who pretend that our plans for remodelling Jacques-Cartier, Victoria and Mercier bridges are inadequate".
And this is the pertinent sentence:
"If this criticism takes note only of the problem of traffic between the two shores, I am not overconcerned."
And again, quoting Mr. Chevrier:
"Our statute, in effect, imposes on us the task of canalizing-not roadworks or traffic."
Here is a case in which we are being asked to confirm strong powers to be exercised by this authority, powers which they say they need for the completion of their job. These are powers, as I shall demonstrate in a few moments, which could redound greatly to the detriment of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve, and the Indians who live there. I think it is only right that, in examining this confirmation of powers, we should realize the way in which such powers are likely to be exercised. They are likely to be exercised, Mr. Chairman-and the quotations in both English and French which I have placed on the record substantiate this contention-in a way which says:	There
is only one thing which matters, and that is the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. Other interests, other desires, other people's feelings are not to be taken into consideration. They are-as Mr. Chevrier put it so well-"canalizing", and they

are going to drive the St. Lawrence seaway through, no matter who suffers in the process.
Now, in the course of following through on that very strong-minded and somewhat dictatorial attitude, the authority has established a route which requires them to expropriate these Indian properties. I now turn to a subject which, while the minister may not like it, has a direct relationship to the expropriation of these Indian lands which is the route of the seaway. There are, and were, numerous alternative routes in that area which the seaway could have followed. I suggest that the necessity for this measure coming before the House of Commons today would not have existed had the seaway authority taken a little more time and given a little more consideration to alternative routes.
We find for example that it is not only the Indian reserves which are troubled by the route chosen; it is causing problems also along that south shore of the river which could have been avoided, had a route more to the centre of the river been chosen.
Referring to that problem, we find an expert on the subject, Mr. George Mooney, of the St. Lawrence municipal bureau in Montreal, saying in a recent report:
One fact dominates the other. It is that, for all time to come, consequent upon the construction of the seaway channel in the location decided upon, a servitude has been placed on the St. Lawrence river which, hereafter, will necessitate costlier bridges or costlier tunnels than otherwise would be necessary had the channel been constructed more towards the mid-stream of the St. Lawrence.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member for some time following the point of order raised by the minister, to which reply has been given by the hon. member. The minister pointed out that the amendment, as set out in Bill No. 508, has, after all, a very narrow application. As I understood him, the hon. member explained that, in dealing with matters of somewhat wider import, he was merely laying the groundwork for his argument with respect to this amendment.
I have given the hon. member leeway to lay that groundwork; but it seems to me at the present time he is engaged in a discussion of alternative routes, and other matters entirely foreign to the import of this amendment. I would therefore be much obliged if he would proceed now from the groundwork to an actual discussion of the clause.


William McLean Hamilton: shall attempt to satisfy you, sir, but with all due respect I would point out that the reason for this particular amendment is the route which has been chosen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question? How could the route the hon. member is talking about be related in any way to the problem of expropriating Indian lands at Cornwall?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest that it would be necessarily related to the problem of the expropriation of Indian lands in Cornwall, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is responsible for Indian affairs, probably, despite his blind spots in some directions, knows of the existence of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


William McLean Hamilton: And
he may be well aware of the fact that the route chosen for the seaway touches on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. It is possible that he is aware of the fact that one of the purposes behind this bill could very well be that it is necessary to expropriate or take over certain of the lands in the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. I am spelling it out in detail for the minister's benefit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might interrupt and ask another question, because I think it is relevant to the hon. member's point, is it not true that even if the route were changed so that it was not necessary to expropriate at Caughnawaga, we would still require this legislation for the purpose of expropriating at Cornwall? Therefore, it seems to me what we should discuss is whether or not the corporation should be given the power to expropriate Indian lands and no other question.


William McLean Hamilton: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I shall proceed in a moment to satisfy the minister. But on the other hand, he does bring up a most interesting point because, since it is the route which requires this particular bill, perhaps we can go back and discuss alternative routes in the area of Cornwall. If we could find such routes which were satisfactory the bill would not be necessary at all. It is my feeling that a bill which is designed to expropriate lands because of those routes traversing a certain area concerns such routes.


William Alfred Robinson: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I make it quite clear to the hon. member that in my interpretation this bill has nothing to do with routes.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that here we have a bill which proposes to give this seaway authority very wide power to expropriate Indian land. Surely, if an alternative route can be chosen which is not going to require such expropriation, the hon. member is in
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act order in suggesting that. I do not see that there should be any question of a discussion of that kind being in order. Just because the bill is a small one, just because we get it at the last minute and just because the two ministers concerned, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, seem to be in a big hurry to get it through, is no reason why the rules of debate should be altered to suit this particular bill. I am sure the hon. member is in order. This question of routes is the one question that is involved in fact because if the route did not go through an Indian reserve there would be no need whatever for the bill.


William Alfred Robinson: I sincerely hope that the hon. member, who is an old member of the house, is not suggesting that I am altering the rules of debate as he seemed to do in his remarks on the point of order. I thought I was adhering strictly to the rules of debate which say that discussion in committee shall be strictly relevant to the clause of the bill. That is what I am asking hon. members to do, to confine their discussion strictly to the clause of the bill. I have indicated that I was extremely lenient with the hon. member who has the floor in waiting for him to lay his groundwork. Now that he has laid his groundwork, we can discuss what is actually contemplated in this amendment, and that is the matter of expropriating Indian lands. I have indicated that the groundwork for discussion is in order, but I certainly do not think that a major debate on the question of route is in any way in order on this clause of the bill.


William McLean Hamilton: Let
me turn now to the specific clause of the bill, Mr. Chairman. It would seem to me that this is primarily a rather cozy little arrangement which might leave the Indians very much out in the cold after negotiations between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, his department and the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Section 35 of the Indian Act was read to us by the minister. He did not read subsection 3. I shall read it:
Whenever the governor in council has consented to the exercise by a province, authority or corporation of the powers referred to in subsection (1), the governor in council may, in lieu of the province, authority or corporation taking or using the lands without the consent of the owner, authorize a transfer or grant of such lands to the province, authority or corporation, subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the governor in council.
Section 35 goes on to state that any amount that is agreed upon or awarded shall be paid to the Receiver General of Canada for the use and benefit of the particular band of Indians. We have here a situation that

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act is not comparable with that which I would say is normally envisioned by the act. The St. Lawrence seaway-and I made reference to this in my earlier remarks-is one of the great projects of this century. It is one which is affecting the economic life of both the immediate area through which it passes and a large section on either side. This is particularly so in so far as land values are concerned in the Montreal area. Without detailing farm by farm what is happening in that area, it is well to know that from Sorel up to and beyond the Caughnawaga reserve-and I use this as an example because I know the area perhaps a little better than I do the Cornwall area-on the south shore of the river land has skyrocketed in value. If there ever were gold-plated farms in the Dominion of Canada-and I hope the minister does not object to the terminology "Dominion of Canada"-these gold-plated farms exist in that area right now. Land is being transferred from owner to owner at prices which are unbelievably high, prices which, until this route was determined upon, would never even have been dreamed of or considered. The reason is that the Laprairie basin, which is immediately adjacent to the east of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve, is considered one of the areas likely to be the most highly developed industrially as a result of this seaway. In referring to that, Mr. Mooney, in a speech to the Engineering Institute of Canada, had this to say:
Now that the channel Is definitely under construction. a lively interest is being shown in the whole of the area abutting on the Laprairie basin. This vast area is being thought of as an ideal site for future industrial growth and development.
There is much common sense in this view. Large industrial sites with both port and railway facilities on the island of Montreal have now been virtually pre-empted. There are still areas where light and medium industry can be located but very little indeed which has the facilities which a large industrial operation requiring portside as well as railway sidings can function from. Any industry dependent on large shipments of primary natural resources such as coal, grain, iron ore, timber, petroleum, and other bulk commodities and whose output is destined for foreign as well as inland domestic markets requires both water and rail shipping facilities on its doorstep. Such sites are difficult to find on the island of Montreal today.
Referring to the value of this area, Mr. Mooney said:
It is for this reason that the Laprairie basin offers such promise and it is the existence, proximity and availability of the Laprairie basin and its hinterland that underlines the promise of future industrial growth and expansion in the Montreal area.
Here is an area which is immediately adjacent to one of these Indian reserves on which the seaway authority proposes to expropriate land. Similar things could be said about the


Cornwall area. Yet what protection, what means of assurance is there that these Indians will be getting a fair value for lands which may be expropriated? As far as I can see, unless the minister has some suggestion to offer, the bill presently before us gives no protection whatever.
It is a measure by which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on the one hand, without any immediate interest in this save as one of his many responsibilities, that of looking after Indian affairs, works out an agreement with the St. Lawrence seaway authority which has a great interest in keeping the price down. It would seem to me quite possible that under such circumstances the people who would come out, not second but third or fourth or fifth place, would be the bands of Indians on this particular reserve. As I said before, the reason I am raising this point is that I do not think the section was originally written into the Indian Act envisaging the expropriation of lands under circumstances such as these.


Walter Edward Harris: We might just as well settle that once and for all. If my hon. friend has read the evidence given before the Indian affairs committee he will have seen that I covered that very point, though not by name. I did not mention the St. Lawrence seaway authority, but I did say that the power of expropriation and administration under section 35 was designed to permit the expropriation of land by public utilities.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: I
thank the minister for his interjection, but as all of us know there are various kinds of public utilities and there are various ways in which they influence the area in which they are erected. It is specifically my suggestion here that the normal public utility does not result in an increase in the value of land to anything like the magnitude which has resulted from the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. Normally a public utility like a water or power plant or something of that nature will spread its benefits almost equally for many hundreds of miles in every direction. The increase in the value of land close to such a public utility is not noticeably greater than the increase in the value of land three, four, five or ten miles removed from it.
Here we have a particular situation where land for many miles on either side of the seaway has grown tremendously in value, but where the land immediately adjacent to the seaway has increased in value to an almost incalculable degree. We are being asked to give the government power to turn some of that land over to the St. Lawrence seaway

authority without any particular qualification or any particular indication that the interests of the Indians concerned are going to be particularly well represented in a particular situation. That is the point of my criticism of this measure.
I would have been happy, and I think we all would have been happy, realizing that these lands must be expropriated if the government is going ahead with this project, and I think it would have been fairer to the Indians, had an agreement been worked out or had a measure been brought down in which there would have been arrangements for independent representation of the interest of the Indians and in some measure representation by the Indians themselves. I suggest that the business of one branch of the government negotiating with another branch of the government for an exceptionally valuable property, which neither of them own as such and which is essentially the property of people who were here long before even this long-lived government, is something which is not advisable.
To use the legal term, I should like to see the transaction at arm's length; I should like to see this a transaction in which two people do not have their hands in the same pocket, in which two people do not come to a conclusion which may be beneficial to them but which definitely will be a detriment to the people who are now rightfully in possession of the property being bartered for.
Having said that, I only add that I hope the minister can give us some assurance in this regard. We do not want to stand in the way of progress as represented by the seaway. Section 35 contains several references to terms that can be prescribed by the governor in council and before this measure passes I should like to have the minister give us some indication that those terms will include special protection for this group of people because of the special circumstances which surround the expropriations prompted by this measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to give that assurance. I may say regarding the Caughnawaga reserve that negotiation between the St. Lawrence seaway and the band council have already begun. I do not know whether these negotiations are at arm's length, but they have been of a most friendly character. May I say that I regard it as my duty as superintendent general of Indian affairs to see that the Indians are just as well treated in these expropriations as anyone else. If I have any doubt on that score, or if they express any doubt on that score that doubt will be settled in the manner in
27, 1955
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act which expropriations usually are settled regardless of whether Indian or other lands are concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say just a brief word about one word used by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. Perhaps I should have risen at the moment he used it, but even at this late date I think I should suggest to him that he might find a better and more appropriate word to use in referring to employees of the House of Commons. I find that the dictionary supports my impression that the word "minion" is a word of contempt. I suggest that employees of the House of Commons, the page boys, the Hansard reporters, the amanuenses, the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and all the rest of them are not minions. They are the sine qua non of this establishment; we could not get along without them.


William McLean Hamilton: Just so that there may be no doubt left on the record, may I say that there are other interpretations of the word "minion" than the one given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I consulted the dictionary.


William McLean Hamilton: will find another dictionary. I certainly used the word in the kindest sense when referring to the employees of this house.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a brief word on this bill. I rise now because of a phrase used a moment ago by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he said he considered it to be his duty to see that the Indians received as good treatment as anyone else with whom the St. Lawrence seaway authority would be negotiating. I want to suggest to him that is not perhaps quite enough and that in the case of our Indian population there is a special situation which I think demands more generosity than that shown to other people in a similar situation. I should like to see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be extremely tough with the St. Lawrence seaway authority and to get as good a bargain as he can for the Indians and not use as a yardstick the price they have to pay for other properties, even some of the gold-plated property which our friend the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace was speaking. I think we have here an instance where we are obliged actually to break an agreement with the aboriginal inhabitants of this continent when we take away from them property that was granted to them in the first period of settlement of this country. For that reason I think we should be extra
5312	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act generous rather than merely as generous as we are prepared to be with white inhabitants.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for
Nanaimo has expressed the sentiments of this group in almost the same language as that which I had intended to use. I support what he has had to say. I think we have a particular long-standing obligation to these Indians. I trust that the minister will see that they are treated not on a commercial basis but generously because of our obligations in that respect.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask an explanation of section 1. I read here that this is the revised "statures" of Canada. Does it mean going up or down? I refer to the second line.


George Carlyle Marler: I think we can take it that that is a misprint, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a question of privilege, I suppose it is, I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that when he was reading some, shall I say, less favourable meanings of the word "minion", he should have read the one which appears first in the Oxford English dictionary and which is "favourite child".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the rest:	Servant,
animal, slave.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Howard Charles Green: Is there any significance in the fact that the words used in this amendment are "empowered to take or to use lands or any interest therein without the consent of the owner" whereas the present section 18, clause 1, of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act uses the words "take or acquire"?


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that I do not think there is any particular significance to be attached to the fact that in one place it states "take or acquire" and in the bill it says "to take or to use". I think it is perhaps because of the nature of what may be described as the usufructuary interest of the Indians in the land.


Howard Charles Green: Would that give power to use the land for certain purposes and not actually acquire it?


George Carlyle Marler: I cannot see how it could be interpreted in that sense. I take it that there is this distinction, if I might cite an example in the province of Quebec. It is quite possible that you might have ownership of land belonging to one person and the usufructuary interest therein belonging to another, and it might very well be that you would have to take expropriation proceedings against both.


But as a matter of policy I do not think that the seaway authority has any interest in anything else but the outright acquisition of title to the lands they are going to occupy. I might say that in other connections the question has been discussed, and they have wanted to have absolute title and not merely some lesser interest.


Howard Charles Green: It would seem to me that the same words should appear in the new clause
5.	Otherwise the St. Lawrence seaway authority might simply put a part of their works on the land and be able to do so for a much smaller sum of money than would be required to buy the land outright. In that way the Indians would suffer. I may be completely wrong, but it seems odd that you have in section 18 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act the words "take or acquire lands" in the first subsection and the words "to take or to use lands or any interest therein" in the fifth subsection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not a lawyer but I have had a little experience administering the Indian Act. These are the words in the Indian Act. I have seen cases where I think the British Columbia Electric Company and various other utilities have obtained the right to use-what is the term-an easement over lands without actually taking ownership. These words are taken from the Indian Act and of course relate to the Indian Act and not to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. They are the words in the Indian Act. But in the case of the St. Lawrence seaway it is intended to take the lands outright, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the minister of Indian affairs has just had a word to say -I may say I did not hear the previous discussion in connection with this matter- I should like to ask him this question. Has there ever been a case on the question as to whether or not Indian rights acquired under treaty can be abrogated and diminished by an act of parliament? I wish the minister would clarify that matter. I think that is one of the major rights that the Indian tribes rely upon, namely that in treaties that have been entered into as between their respective Britannic majesties and the ancestors of the present Indians, those rights are above parliament. That has been the contention of the Indian tribes across this country and it is one of the things upon which they place the greatest reliance. I simply ask the minister this question. Has there ever been a case wherein the crown has been able, by procedures such as this or by a statute passed by parliament, to challenge and to deny those rights which were granted to the ancestors of



13SS

[Stage Direction]
Indians living today on these reserves or on Indian lands and thereby taking from them the one possession they have, namely the right to rely upon a promise made to their ancestors that as long as the sun will shine and the rivers flow the rights granted by respective British sovereigns in direct treaty relations with the Indians should not be interfered with?
John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand there is no treaty involved in the case of the reserves along the St. Lawrence. I also cannot help reading the words of the Indian Act which the hon. member participated in enacting before I was a member of the house and which gives this power, under section 35, to take or to use lands.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume that parliament enacted that statute, knowing what it was doing. I am not learned in the law as is the hon. gentleman, and I would rather leave the answering of the rest of the question to my learned friend the Minister of Finance who knows far more about it than I do.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to hear from him.


Mr. Harlcness:: I should like to remind the minister that while this act was put through parliament, it was put through by virtue of the large Liberal majority. A number of us opposed it.


An hon. Member:: You did not oppose it.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman. With becoming modesty the minister has called upon the Minister of Finance-who is a lawyer and who also has experience, having been head of this department-to clarify the matter. I should like the minister to do so. This is a matter that is easy to pass but it is the type of thing that will cause further resentment unless there is sound legal justification for what is being done here. Expediency has never been a justification for tearing up treaty rights and treating them as a scrap of paper. That is the reason I asked the question. I was not doing it in any combative way and I see no reason why the minister should have taken the attitude he did unless it was the prick of conscience with respect to what is being done. This is the beginning of a new course of action and I was simply asking for information, something that the Indians have a right to know because they place great reliance on their treaties. Possibly the Minister of Finance would be able to clarify it.


Walter Edward Harris: In order to accommodate the hon. member and to see that this discussion
Public Service
comes to an end, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said, there are no treaty rights involved on the St. Lawrence river and therefore this is an academic discussion in which we are now engaged. On the other hand, in all the negotiations we had with the different representatives of the Indian bands no one suggested to me that it would not be desirable or even necessary that normal progress should be made and that the normal extension of public utilities was not desirable even on Indian reserves.
As I recall it, this particular section was only objected to by one or two of the bands which wrote in some five years ago-I must say I have refreshed my memory on this point recently-when this matter came up for discussion. I made the explanation I made earlier to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, that there was no discussion on it. It was generally accepted that public utilities as such were a feature of the Canadian economy and that it was desirable to have them and extend them, if necessary. On the other hand, we did write into the section, as hon. members recall, quite good safeguards to see that the rights of the Indians were preserved and that they did get adequate compensation for whatever might be taken from them.
On the more general question, however, of whether there is an inherent right in parliament to alter treaties, I can only say that my hon. friend knows quite well that on several occasions litigation has occurred in the west with respect to treaty rights, and to my knowledge the courts have always upheld the treaty rights, although on occasion they have disagreed with the contention of individual Indians who might seek to put a different interpretation on them than the courts did.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: By leave, shall this bill be read a third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


George Carlyle Marler: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 507,

Public Service
to amend the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act in respect of salaries of certain public officials.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister going to make any further statement?


Walter Edward Harris: I recall that at the resolution stage I was asked to provide certain information with respect to the appointees to the various boards. I have a statement, and I should like to have permission to table it, showing the names of the various persons, their appointment, date of appointment, present salary and their occupation prior to being appointed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does it not seem desirable that before we have to continue discussing this matter we should have these figures in our minds? Could the minister not read the statement?


Walter Edward Harris: What figures have you in mind?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If this is the information that was asked for, none of us has seen it yet. The minister says it is going to go on the record, but as I understand it we are going to be asked to go ahead and discuss the bill immediately.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the resolution stage I put on the record the salaries at present received and the proposed salaries. I therefore take it my hon. friend wishes me to read the other information contained in the statement. The board of transport commissioners consists of Judge Kearney, chief commissioner, Mr. Wardrope, assistant chief commissioner, Mr. Sylvestre, deputy chief commissioner, and Mr. Mac-Pherson, Mr. Chase and Mr. Matthews as commissioners. Judge Kearney was high commissioner to Ireland, high commissioner to India and ambassador to Argentina, as well as being a judge. He was appointed on the 1st of November, 1951. Mr. Wardrope was a barrister in Hamilton and was appointed on the 8th of November, 1938. Mr. Sylvestre was at one time a member of the house. He served in the late war, is a barrister and was appointed on the 18th of April, 1945. Mr. MacPherson was at one time minister of highways in British Columbia, and was appointed on September 21, 1939. Mr. Chase was appointed on the 27th of July, 1948 and was chairman of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Engineers. Mr. Matthews was a chartered accountant in the province of Ontario and was appointed on the 1st of January, 1953.
The tariff board consists of Mr. McKinnon, Mr. Leduc and Mr. Buchanan. Mr. McKinnon, of course, has been a civil servant for a great many years. He has been connected with the 
tariff board since its inception and was appointed on March 25, 1940. Mr. Leduc, the vice-chairman, was a member of the Quebec legislature. He is a civil engineer and was appointed on the 1st of April, 1949. Mr. Buchanan was also appointed on the 1st of April, 1949. He was a farmer and commercial poultryman in the province of Manitoba.
The income tax appeal board consists of Mr. Monet, the chairman, Mr. Snyder, assistant chairman, and Mr. Fisher and Mr. Ford-ham as members. Mr. Monet was appointed on January 1, 1949, and subsequently appointed as chairman in 1951. He was a practising barrister. Mr. Snyder was at one time deputy attorney general of the province of Ontario and was in private practice when he was appointed on the 1st of February, 1954, Mr. Fisher was assistant deputy minister of national revenue under this government and was appointed on the 1st of January, 1949. Mr. Fordham was a member of the legal branch of the taxation division and was appointed on the 1st of April, 1951.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, when this measure was at the resolution stage I pointed out that our task of increasing salaries, pleasant as it is, must be regarded with a sense of responsibility. I further reminded the committee that many taxpayers who find their own incomes in process of reduction and not increase will inevitably look with a critical eye at salary increases; especially in those cases where the present salaries appear to them to be on a generous scale.
In studying the matter further, it seems clear that the salaries at present paid are on a reasonably generous scale and, indeed, to the ordinary taxpayer might look quite large. Further, we feel that salary increases should not be dealt with in any routine manner at the present time, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is budgeting for a deficit and there is still a good deal of unemployment. In these circumstances it seems fair to suggest that, when we consider increasing salaries already reasonably high in the judgment of most persons, we should have in mind at least three tests: First of all, length of service; second, extent of responsibility borne; and, third, recognized success.
Applying these to the tax appeal board and the tariff board-the transport board will be dealt with later-highly as we regard the services of both these bodies, and our regard is very high, we feel that the argument for increases does not seem conclusive or adequate except in the case of the chairman of the tariff board, Mr. McKinnon, who we

believe qualifies under all three tests and who has frequently represented Canada abroad with great distinction. As I said, I am confining my remarks to the tax appeal board and the tariff board. The board of transport commissioners will be dealt with separately. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we do not feel we can vote for the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as two or three of us in this group indicated when we were at the resolution stage, we feel that parliament should not be asked to support this legislation. I indicated at that time, as did my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), that in our view this legislation should be looked at in the same manner in which we looked at the legislation increasing the salaries of judges. We indicated in that case that we did not mind increases for those whose salaries were in what might be called the lower or medium brackets. But when we are dealing with salaries that are already well in excess of $10,000 a year, we do not feel present conditions warrant an increase.
As I indicated at the resolution stage, increases have been provided for all the positions covered by this bill, except one, within the last four years. In the case of the income tax appeal board, increases were provided for all the members in 1953. In the case of the members of the board of transport commissioners, increases were provided in 1951. In the case of the tariff board increases were provided for all but the chairman in 1953. We are dealing here, Mr. Speaker, with salaries which at the present time range from a low, if one can use that word, of $11,000 a year to a high of $16,000 a year. The proposed increases vary in themselves from $1,500 a year to $2,500 a year. We in this group are not opposed to efforts to improve the standard of living of our Canadian people. But we do think, as was pointed out so effectively by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway last Thursday, that this is not the place to start. We feel the place to start is with those whose standard of living needs to be increased.
If the government would come along at this session, as there is yet time to do, with some improvement in the position of those on old age pensions; if it had done better than it did with respect to those on the war veterans allowance or if it would consider the case of Canadian National retired employees or its own superannuated civil servants, there might then be some case for
Public Service
the government pleading for increases for the people mentioned in this legislation. Because that is our view, Mr. Speaker, we feel that we cannot support this measure.
I am interested in learning that the Progressive Conservatives have come to that view as well. It is true that at the resolution stage members of that party asked questions which led some of us to wonder whether they might support this bill. We are glad to have their support of our opposition to this measure. I must confess that we wonder why it is they were prepared to support the increases in judges' salaries, some of whom were already drawing much more than these people are drawing, but now take a different line. They approved of salary increases for judges already drawing $20,000 and $25,000 a year, yet now they feel that these salaries are too high. I leave that to the members of that party to explain. Nevertheless, I am glad to know that they will join with us in opposing this legislation. We shall vote against the bill.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should say just a word with respect to the position this group holds in so far as this bill is concerned. Generally speaking, we are not opposed to increases where we believe increases are justified, and where we believe that the men in responsible positions are deserving. As a matter of fact, our Social Credit philosophy is a spending philosophy. We believe that if you do not spend, you cannot have. I think most people would agree with that, even though they do not belong to our organization.
In order to be consistent, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe we can support this bill since we did not support the previous bill relative to increases. I am wondering if the reason for the increases here is because the government finds itself unable to get competent men at the salaries already offered. We could hardly think that is possible. We see no particular reason for such tremendous increases as are given here. The salaries range up to $16,900 a year, almost $17,000 a year, and the smallest one is $13,500; that is considerably over $1,000 per month. It is quite a salary. I fancy that when we are in committee stage and can ask questions we shall find out whether or not these positions carry any pension rights. But for the reason of having to be consistent, we cannot very well support this bill since we did not support the previous bill similar to it.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.

Public Service
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in this instance, as so often happens, most of the points in argument were brought out at the resolution stage. However, one or two observations were made by hon. members, including myself, which might be amplified.
When the resolution was under consideration we made certain reservations and asked for more information. I do not feel, therefore, that there is any obligation resting upon us to support the measure from that standpoint.
In recent years this party has established its position of being against increases generally. We have been most wary of them, and have been consistent at all times, even though at times our stand may not have been the popular one. I find it amusing to review the anomalous position of the C.C.F. when they refer to the position this party has taken. In 1951 when we were debating a resolution respecting increased salaries for the board of transport commissioners that measure was given support by the C.C.F. Today, however, we find them saying that they are going to vote against the measure now before us. In addition to that they criticize what they say is an inconsistent position taken by this party, and say that when we oppose the measure we place ourselves in an unfortunate position.
The observations I made at the resolution stage were directed chiefly to the board of transport commissioners, and my thoughts today are along similar lines. I might add however that the same argument would have equal weight when applied to any of the requests for increases now set before us.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) spoke earlier in the debate there were two points of which he took cognizance. I think his words were that there were two sets of operations. It was pointed out first of all that these increases follow logically the increases in judges' salaries. I believe it will take only a moment to show that this is not true. Hon. members on the opposition and government sides of the house, when discussing increases in judges' salaries, pointed out that there were weaknesses in appointments to the bench and that satisfactory candidates were not available. It was indicated further that the Turgeon report had recommended a strengthening of the bench.
In addition, it was said by those taking part in the debate that, in the matter of appointments to the bench, different parts of the country have to be considered and that in different areas the duties are performed in greater or lesser degrees. It was said that
in some parts of the country the duties falling upon the judges were heavier than upon the judges in other parts. Except in the case of the chief commissioner, I suggest that none of these arguments can be applied in the present instance. The statement that the salary increases suggested in this instance follow logically the increases in judges' salaries, which found support in the House of Commons a short time ago, is not a valid argument.
The second point is a troublesome one, and concerns the civil servant status of members of these boards. The minister pointed out that there is a widening gap between the $2,500 increase given by statute to the chief commissioner and the smaller increases suggested for the rest of the members of the board.
This whole situation requires closer examination, and more by way of explanation. It is suggested that if the commissioners, other than the chief commissioner, are to be placed in the category of civil servants, they should be put in a special classification and should not be attached in any way to the chief commissioner or to other members of the judiciary. It is pointed out that the commissioners are non-professional, and the point is made that there are some lawyers serving on the commission-and I am referring particularly to the board of transport commissioners, of which two members are laymen. In view of this fact it is urged that these members are in the class of civil servants. I do suggest however that they are not in the same position as career civil servants, and the argument that senior civil servants were given increases in salary last year is not valid. These gentlemen are appointed to their positions later in their lives; they do not have the civil service background, as such, and perhaps in this respect they should be placed in the category of board members, where their positions would correspond to those of members of the pension commission, or some other body of that kind. We have always made the general reservation in connection with salary increases, that when salaries get above the $10,000 mark-the sum equalling the indemnity of members of parliament-very special consideration should be given. I suggest there is a danger that with these increases we would be establishing a spiral that would be hard to overcome.
On the one hand we must consider the increases that were made in the salaries of members of the bench. It is true that support for those increases was given, on our part, chiefly because of the necessity to strengthen the bench, as well as for some

other considerations. But to attach the salaries of members of the board of transport commissioners to the salaries of members of the bench, itself, is a dangerous procedure, because it means that every time the bench is brought into focus we are bound automatically to consider salaries of members of the board of transport commissioners. I suggest this creates a vicious spiral, because every time civil servants receive increases we would have to decide automatically that the board of transport commissioners must receive the same treatment.
So that we must consider this as a triangle, with the bench on one side, permanent civil servants on the second side, and the board of transport commissioners on the third. Each time one is affected, all are aifected. This is a danger, and I suggest a separation should be made so that each could be dealt with on its merits.
I have pointed out the two considerations in this instance, and have said that the increases now sought do not fall into the same category as those voted to members of the bench a short time ago. Any such submission must fail, because those who introduced the bill with respect to judges' salaries have not followed the same line of argument. The second point, which is even more dangerous, is that we should place them in a special category of the civil service. I have pointed out that the members of these boards are not in the same position as permanent civil servants; and the fact that last year highly placed civil servants received increases in salaries does not mean that those set out in this measure should be made.
The three tests suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) earlier in the debate are to my mind the most valid that could be applied in this instance. I suggest there should be a complete reconsideration of the suggested increase in salaries to members of the board of transport commissioners, other than the chief commissioner who is, perhaps, in the same position as appointees to the bench, and whose salary is fixed by statute.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the transport board is not weak. They have done a very good job. We have fine men on that board but because they are doing a good job, are strong and are taking their onerous duties to heart, it does seem strange that we cannot support the salary increases. This is one time when virtue does not have its own reward. If they were in the position of the bench itself, which has weaknesses which we all admit, then perhaps we could make out a good case; but I do feel that we
Public Service
cannot support the increases at this time because it would be inconsistent with our position throughout the past few years, particularly in 1951, when we said that a spiral of increases for everybody under present economic conditions in Canada would be dangerous.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the increases that Bill No. 507 proposes. As a basis of my remarks, I am going to use five headlines that appeared on the market page of the London Free Press of last Thursday. The first one is: "Farm Status in Economy Seen Falling". The second: "Textile Company Gives Up, Blames Government Policy." This company had been in operation for 32 years in St. Catharines, Ontario, and had employed 432 people.
The dominion bureau of statistics issued a report last week which said: "Cash Farm Income Drops." This was the third successive annual drop. There was a fall-off of $34,200,000 in the first three months of 1955. Then we have an item from the steel companies which reads: "Steel Firms Worried on Price, Wages Rise." And finally: "Spokesmen for Industry Fear Idling of 5,000." This refers to the footwear industry in Canada.
The fact that during the past year many thousands of Canadians have found their incomes or salaries drastically reduced, some of them experiencing a reduction over a period of three years and, as far as agriculture is concerned, no relief in sight, should be an indication that this is not the time to indulge in a further round of increases. It is only an invitation to all groups in the economy that can do it to force another price rise, another wage rise or another salary increase. Because of that I am taking this opportunity to oppose it.
I am not going to deal with the question of the increase that was granted to the judges. My colleague the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) dealt with that very well. I do not think I need to answer the accusations of the C.C.F. party prior to the lunch hour; but I do want to point out that this is another round of salary, wage and price rises. Do not forget that we have already priced ourselves out of world markets. The article in the Free Press dealing with the footwear industry points out that the daily wage paid to the workers in foreign lands amounts to 44 cents to 75 cents per day, while our Canadian workmen receive $1.45 an hour. We cannot afford to increase prices in the face of such competition.
I oppose this bill because thousands of working people would accept the proposed

Public Service
increase as a full yearly wage. Thousands and thousands of people in Canada would be glad to take it as a full yearly wage. It is not just quite realistic when one considers the present state of affairs in our country. Close to 600,000 people in this country were unemployed last year. I am safe in saying that because of unemployment their salaries were drastically reduced during the past year. I do not think they will appreciate the fact that people in the upper income brackets are to receive increases as high as $2,500.
If the proposed increases are justified, then veterans on disability pension are entitled to an increase, old age pensioners, recipients of family allowances and civil servants are also entitled to increases. Perhaps the government is going to withhold these increases until just prior to the next election, which would be a smart move on its part, of course.
Let us not forget that the members of these boards can quit if they do not like it. If they think they can get more money elsewhere, or are not satisfied with the salaries they are getting, they can easily resign. It might surprise the government to know how many good men they could get if a vacancy existed on any one of these boards.
Finally, many of my constituents are of the opinion that members of parliament are getting too high a salary, and who am I to say they are not right.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill merits more discussion than was indicated in the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) this morning. He seems to treat these increases in salaries in a rather light-hearted manner. There would seem to be a rather touching concern for those high-paid appointees of the government. Let us have a look at the figures. The chairman of the board of transport commissioners is to be raised from $16,000 to $18,500; the assistant chairman from $14,000 to $15,500; the deputy chairman from $13,000 to $14,500 and the other commissioners from $12,000 to $13,500. The other two boards, the income tax appeal board and the tariff board, are to get similar increases. The ordinary members of each of these two boards are being raised to a yearly salary of $13,500.
These are not small salaries, Mr. Speaker. These men will be among the highest paid people in the country. It is not a matter of raising the salaries because of an increase in the cost of living. There is not the slightest suggestion of that. Of course, were the government to lose the increases on that fact the argument would be completely untenable. This is in fact merely a handout to

government appointees who are already receiving very high salaries.
I suggest that the minister has given no valid reason whatever for these increases. His explanations will be found in the first place on page 5171 of Hansard for June 23, where he had this to say:
The decision to increase the salaries of the members of the various boards follows logically upon the decision to increase the salaries of the judges. It is for the purpose of carrying out a decision which was made consequent upon the other decision.
These men with whom we are now dealing are not in the same category as judges at all. The judges are dealing with the general public. These particular men occupy special positions in government. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) has pointed out this afternoon, there is no fairness in tying together the salaries of the judges and the salaries of the men who occupy positions on these boards. But then the minister gave a second reason which is to be found at page 5176 of Hansard. It also was given on June 23. He said this:
The fact is that when the proposed changes are carried out the salaries of the junior members of the board-that is the members-will be at the rate of that of an assistant deputy minister . . .
He summed up his reasons in these words:
You therefore really have the two forces operating. You have the judges' salaries in the one case and you have the senior civil servants' salaries in the other. We have attempted to place those in their proper relation to other circumstances.
He was questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning tying in the salaries of the members of these boards with those of assistant deputy ministers, and the minister admitted that the figures in this bill are being assimilated to the highest salary being paid to an assistant deputy minister.
I have taken the trouble to look up the salaries that are being paid to assistant deputy ministers and I find that the situation is as follows. In the Department of Agriculture the assistant deputy minister gets $9,500 a year as compared with $12,000 which the ordinary member of the board of transport commissioners is already getting and the $13,500 he will get if this bill becomes law. In the defence department there are two assistant deputy ministers, one paid $12,000 a year and one at $9,500. In the defence production department, there is one at $13,500. That is one case in which an assistant deputy minister is getting the figure that these members of the board will be getting when the bill becomes law. One only gets $12,000. In the Department of External Affairs there are one at $11,000, two at $9,750 and one

at $9,625. In the Department of Finance there are two at $15,000 and one at $13,500; they receive the highest pay of any assistant deputy ministers. In the Department of Fisheries there is one assistant deputy minister at from $9,000 to $10,000. In the Department of Justice there are two at $15,000 and one at $9,000. In the Department of Labour there is one at from $9,000 to $10,000. In the Department of National Revenue there are two at $10,500. In the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources there are two at $11,000. In the Department of Public Works there is one at $11,000. In the Department of the Secretary of State there is one at $10,500. In the Department of Trade and Commerce there is one at $10,500. In the Department of Veterans Affairs there is one at $12,000 and in the Department of Transport there is one at $12,000. I point out that only in the three departments-those of finance, justice and defence production-are assistant deputy ministers getting the salaries which will be paid to the ordinary members of these boards.
I think it is particularly significant that the assistant deputy minister of transport is getting only $12,000. The members of the board of transport commissioners do not have any more important work to do than does the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Transport; yet they are to get $1,500 a year more than he gets. Furthermore, the deputy minister of transport gets only $15,000 a year but the chairman of the board of transport commissioners is now to get $18,500 and the assistant chairman is to get $15,500 which is $500 more than the deputy minister of transport; and the deputy chief commissioner is to get $14,500 which is only $500 less than the amount paid to the deputy minister of transport.
We believe that these salaries are out of line. I do not understand why the government would, for example, increase the salaries of the board of transport commissioners in view of the stand that board has taken with respect to railway labour in Canada. Just a year ago-on February 15, 1954 -the board of transport commissioners handed down a decision on the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for an increase in freight rates. I have here the press dispatch and I find this wording in the subheading: "Labour warned to go easy on pay issues" and under it I find this paragraph:
And it inferentially-
That is referring to the board of transport commissioners.
-cautioned rail labour-currently locked in big-money contract negotiations with the railways-
Public Service
to watch its step lest rising labour costs price the railways out of more business and thereby price workers out of jobs.


Walter Edward Harris: That is what the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) just said.


Howard Charles Green: Then there was another admonition:
The board said labour costs have been the biggest single factor in boosting railway operating expenses, and it found a connection between these expenses and declining volume of rail business.
If the board of transport commissioners feel free to lecture labour, as was shown in that particular issue, then I suggest they are not going to be on very firm ground after they have had these substantial increases for themselves.
Railway labour has had rather rough usage from parliament in having compulsory arbitration forced on them although the government has set up no sort of body so that compulsory arbitration could be fair to labour. Railway labour has simply been told that they had to arbitrate or that they had to settle and they are told by the board of transport commissioners that they should not be asking for any increases in salaries. Yet in the face of these facts, the government now comes in with these substantial increases in the salaries of the board of transport commissioners.
It would not be so bad if that board had been given additional responsibilities since the time of the last raise which was in 1951. Their salaries have already been raised twice since the second world war. They were raised in 1947 and again in 1951. In 1951 there was a report by Mr. Justice Turgeon and his associates who constituted a commission to investigate transportation in Canada. In that report they recommended that there should be set up a central authority to deal with transportation of all kinds in Canada, including not only the railways but also shipping, air transportation and, presumably, motor vehicle transportation. If that course had been followed and if a central authority of that kind had been set up, there might have been some excuse for these increases. Such a step was not adopted and the board remains today as it was at the time when this report was made by Mr. Justice Turgeon and the other members of the commission.
We submit that these increases should not be put through in this brisk manner as though there was nothing to them and with the inference that anyone who dares oppose them is being just a little petty, that after all they should not presume to question increases of this kind. Our belief is that the time has come to stop this policy. There is a great

Public Service
deal in what the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) has said. There are a great many Canadians across this country who are worried about whether they are going to have jobs next winter; there are a great many who are worried about how they are going to give their children adequate education, and certainly those veterans who are on war veterans allowance have not been dealt with in this same open-handed manner. If there is any justification for increasing salaries in this way there certainly is justification for considering the situation of the old age pensioners in this country.
For these reasons we believe that there is no excuse whatever for bringing in a measure of this kind. We would hope that the government would not adopt this habit of taking people who now have large salaries-as I said, they are among the largest in the country-and feeling sorry for them and then bringing in substantial increases of this kind.


Mr. Hahn:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Income tax appeal board. The Chairman: Shall this clause carry? Mr. Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
On clause 2-Transport commissioners' salaries.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall this clause carry? Mr. Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
On clause 3-Salaries of tariff board members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this clause carries, there is just one further word I should like to say. It applies not only to this clause but to all of them. Indeed, it applies to all increases of this kind that have been proposed from time to time by the government. It has been argued repeatedly that higher salaries are needed in order to attract to these positions the calibre of persons desired to do this kind of work. It seems to me that there is a fallacy in that argument of which note should be taken.
As I see it, all that means is that in order to attract a person who is already making $30,000 or $40,000 a year you have to offer a salary which approaches the amount he is already making. The point that my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others of us in this group have tried to make from time to time is that calibre is not necessarily determined by the amount of salary a person may be making. A lawyer

may be making $30,000 or $40,000. This, of course, proves he is a very smart lawyer but it may not prove he is of the calibre that it is desired to have in judicial positions. It may simply prove he knows the tricks of the law. It may simply prove he knows how to get around the law. It does not necessarily follow that the calibre of person needed in a judicial position, whether it is as chairman or a member of one of these boards or whether it is on the bench, can be determined by the amount of money involved.
It seems to me that this parliament has not yet given due weight to the opportunity for public service that is involved in positions of this kind, to the prestige that goes with them and to the measure of security involved. It does seem to me we should not be asked for increases of this kind or for any more along this line, until consideration is given to that. However, Mr. Chairman, if this is the end of this round of salary increases in this session of parliament, I hope the government will not allow the session to die without bringing in increases for those groups that have been mentioned many times during this debate, groups of people who really need an improvement in their standard of living.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Before the clause carries, I should like to ask the minister whether the members of this board receive any other emoluments or remuneration than these salaries. For example, are they allowed any other amounts for expenses? If so, what are the amounts and under what circumstances?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to go into the details of travelling expenses and the like on my estimates which cover the tariff board, the clause about which we are speaking. I do not know of any emoluments other than the ordinary expenses of conducting business, but I shall let my hon. friend know.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 192, to amend the Library of Parliament Act- Mr.	Pickersgill-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe
East) in the chair.
Library of Parliament Act
On clause 1-Librarian.
William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose, we had been considering clause 1 and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for York-Humber. Shall this amendment carry?


Miss Aitken:: In moving an amendment to Bill No. 192 on June 15, I thought I was moving a very simple amendment in which the qualifications the Canadian library association has set would be the qualifications that would be recognized in making appointments to the positions of parliamentary librarian and assistant librarian. However, the amendment seems to have produced a reaction that may or may not be significant. The minister expressed himself immediately as very forcibly opposed to this amendment. It would almost seem as if he had already some person or persons in mind for these library posts, persons who did not meet the qualifications this amendment suggests.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced the bill with bland assurance and said that this was his bill only by courtesy. Later he said the bill was the result of the work of the joint committee on the library, and there was no need whatever for politics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I meant with reference to the committees, not anything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not the minister.


Margaret Aitken: When I said it was a very simple amendment suggesting the qualifications recognized by the Canadian library association, politics suddenly reared its confounded head. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pointed out, red herrings were dragged all over the debate. The minister said that this bill was recommended by the joint library committee, and that is why it was his bill by courtesy. However, the hon. member for Peterborough pointed out that the committee had not drafted the bill and, as I understand it, had not even seen it before it was presented to the house. The hon. member for Macleod pointed out that it was a reflection on the present librarians, and the minister agreed wholeheartedly with that interpretation.
I cannot see how it is any reflection whatever on the present librarians who have been commended from all sides of the house. As I mentioned the other day when this subject was up, it is no more a reflection on the present librarians than is the bill itself. Then the minister pointed out that the present librarians could not have been appointed if this amendment had been in the act at that time. Of course, that does not mean anything because there were no library schools and no degrees given at that time.

Library of Parliament Act
There was some complaint, too, that this amendment would be too restrictive and there would be a limited number of people from whom to choose for these positions because of the demand for these degrees. It seems to me that suggesting the qualifications as set down by the Canadian library association is the sensible way to do it, because the librarians themselves have set their own standards and surely they are the best judges. If there are schools not included in the Canadian library association's list, then all they have to do is raise their standards to meet the qualifications set down by that organization.
The hon. member for Timiskaming introduced another red herring. She said if we were to go into this degree business to such an extent the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be without a job, because he has not a medical degree. Then she asked what we would do in those circumstances. Well, that was a real red herring. I do not consider that a parallel situation at all. As I understand the situation the minister is the policymaker in his department, and the deputy minister is an administrator. It is a fact that the deputy minister of national health and welfare is a doctor. It is also true that the deputy minister of national defence is a soldier.
One hon. member said the chief librarian should have administrative ability, and that therefore the bill should be passed. Of course it is true that the chief librarian does have to have administrative ability. But the degree of bachelor of library science naturally includes administrative training and ability. So I would point out that my amendment is simply to safeguard against the library of parliament becoming a vehicle for political patronage. It is a recognition of the standards that librarians have sought for themselves as a profession.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two before the vote is taken, partly to correct an obvious typographical error at page 4853 of Hansard where I am reported to have said that my objection to the amendment-
-is that it restricts the appointment to a limited group of Canadians; and I do not believe it will always be the case, when one of these vacancies occurs, that the best possible appointee will happen to be someone trained in library science.
What I am sure I did say was "will necessarily happen to be". I think that is borne out by what follows, where I said:
I think if there are two people equally good, one would prefer that-


That is to say, a person trained in library sciences. And I continued:
-but I do not like to see a lot of Canadians excluded from any hope of getting this position because they do not happen to have a particular degree.
That of course is the sole basis of the objection I have made on behalf of the government, one which I believe will commend itself to most of our friends. But I am troubled by the amendment from another point of view. The hon. lady, in proposing the amendment, said this, as reported at page 4842 of Hansard:
I have been told by the Canadian library association that there are two library schools in Canada accredited by the American library association. These are the library schools of the universities of McGill and Toronto.
It seems to me that if we have to accept the accreditation of the American library association, and in that indirect way get the accreditation of the Canadian library association- otherwise I cannot think what purpose that statement might serve-it is doubtful whether we could comply with the law, if this amendment passes, unless the Canadian library association subsequently took some kind of action.
Moreover, if this is meant to imply that these are the only library schools accredited by the Canadian library association, that would exclude the graduates of any other Canadian library school. I am wondering whether that would not embarrass any administration that might be in office in carrying out the conventions of the constitution, that when the librarian is a person whose mother tongue is English the associate librarian shall be one whose mother tongue is French, or vice versa. I do think that is a very important point. The observance of that convention, particularly in the library which serves this chamber, is more important than any of the other qualifications; because if there is to be equal treatment for all members, regardless of which of the official languages happens to be their mother tongue, it is really essential that one of the two senior officers in the library of parliament should be able to talk freely in the language such members habitually use.
I think I have nothing further to add at the moment.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister is just kicking up a smokescreen. There are plenty of graduates of either of the recognized universities. I am not concerned about that question. All we are asking is a recognition of Canadian standards. That is all we are asking from the minister. I know perfectly well that so far as medicine, law,

accounting or registered nursing is concerned, there has to be an accreditation board. Otherwise there would be nothing to go by.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question. Would he name the library schools accredited by the Canadian library association? I understand there are two accredited by the American library association. I cannot think why the hon. lady said that unless it is that, up to now, there are none accredited formally by the Canadian library association. If that is true that would make it impossible for any appointment to be made.


William Gourlay Blair: Do you not know?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


William Gourlay Blair: The hon. member was pointing out that there were two schools in Canada that were accredited by the American library association, in common with other boards for professional people. I know that so far as the United States is concerned it used to be the rule for a graduate in medicine applying for internship that he had to come from an accredited school in Canada. I remember being appointed an examiner for a United States insurance company, and I had to show that I came from that school. What the minister has said is just a smokescreen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Mr. Lennard:: Oh, nobody interrupted you when you got up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Lanark does not object, I do not see why the hon. and talkative member for Wentworth should.


Frank Exton Lennard: I do object.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order that the committee may be informed as to what we are voting on, would the hon. lady tell us the names of the library schools accredited by the Canadian library association? Would she tell us their names, so we will know what we are voting on?


William Gourlay Blair: I was about to go over that when the minister hopped to his feet. I do know that Toronto and McGill are accredited, and I do not doubt that other schools sooner or later will be accredited, or forced into accreditation. The point is this, that I notice the civil service has asked for these degrees. They have asked for B.A and B.L.S. degrees. This is only a safeguard for the future. Not only is it a safeguard for the future, but the point is that the library of parliament is possibly the most prominent library in Canada. I can picture all through my own
Library of Parliament Act province of Ontario that the cities and smaller towns are asking for accredited librarians. All through western Ontario they have county libraries, and are asking for accredited librarians.
All we are asking is that the recommendation of the governing body, the Canadian library association, be carried out, and that a person who is accredited be placed in charge of the library here. We are not asking anything else, simply for accreditation, which they deserve in common with all other such bodies. If you do not agree to that, then you might as well throw out the possibility of registered nurses, dentists or doctors, or members of the bar, or any of those people being accredited. We are simply asking for accreditation, so that when we place a man or a woman in the library of parliament he or she will be duly accredited, and that this will serve as an example for all other municipalities, towns or cities that are about to hire librarians.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I listened with some surprise to the minister. I understood him to suggest that the effect of carrying the amendment would be to introduce racial discrimination. Did I understand him correctly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I did not make any suggestion of that kind. I just asked a question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the minister not say or imply that it might be difficult for a person speaking the French language to qualify for this post?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What did the minister say, then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I did say was that the hon. lady in proposing the amendment had said there were two schools accredited by the American library association. I have asked three times if we can be told what schools were accredited by the Canadian library association. If I understood correctly, the hon. member for Lanark, who I believe seconded the amendment, said those same two schools were accredited by the Canadian library association. If that is so, it means you would have to be a graduate of Toronto or McGill in order to qualify under this amendment if it were passed.
That is even more restrictive than I at first thought the amendment to be. I did not suggest any racial discrimination at all, because there is nothing to prevent a person speaking either official language from going

Library of Parliament Act to McGill or to Toronto that I know of, but it is unlikely that you would have a very wide range of people from those two places. I say this amendment would make it very restrictive. Indeed it might be that only a single person or none at all would at once meet the qualifications of this amendment and the convention of the constitution. That is all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am glad the minister has corrected the impression I received from his first remarks. Certainly the furthest thing from my mind is that there should be any such discrimination. He has corrected it to this extent. He has pointed out that anyone can go to McGill or to Toronto. I am not in the business of advertising either. Nevertheless the opportunity is there, and I am glad the minister has corrected the impression which I very distinctly got from his first remarks.


Mr. Hees:: The minister seems to make of this something other than a professional appointment. A librarian is a professional man, just like a doctor, a lawyer or any other professional man. It requires a great deal of specialized training. I think the minister will agree with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not agree.


Frank Exton Lennard: You do not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then I do not think you are as smart a man as I thought you were.


George Harris Hees: When the minister spoke the other night he put up a very fictitious argument. He said that Sir John A. Macdonald promoted librarians who did not have library degrees, and some other Conservative prime minister had promoted librarians who did not have degrees. Of course they did not; there were no degrees in those days, and the minister knows that perfectly well. It was a smokescreen. Again this afternoon he put up a smokescreen. He tried to make out in some way that we were objecting to the idea of there being a librarian whose mother tongue is English and a librarian whose mother tongue is French.
Of course we agree with that. We simply state that this is a professional position. Since a lawyer requires to have a degree in law, and a doctor to have a degree in medicine, we feel that a person appointed to the highest post of its kind in Canada should have professional qualifications.
I cannot see how the minister can possibly disagree with that. It seems to me his desire and the desire of the government is to skate around this matter. It makes it very obvious that this is a political plum for


which they are grooming some specific person. I do not think there is any doubt about that in anybody's mind at this stage. That being so, I just do not think it is good enough. I think this appointment should be given to somebody who has at least received a proper degree in this specialized training. It is a profession, and the person should be recognized as a professional man, not just somebody who has served as somebody's secretary in the past and for whom the government would like to find a nice, cushy job.
I think that is exactly what the minister and the government intend to do with this position. It is a slur on the Canadian library association and on all those people who have taken the time and trouble to acquire those degrees. It is simply saying to the people who have the education, it is of no consequence at all. What you really require, if you want to be the librarian of the parliament of Canada, is to serve as a secretary of some minister; to have been a good Grit, a good party member who has done what he has been told to do. If you have, then you are qualified. Qualifications as a librarian are of no importance at all. It is time we took these appointments out of the realm of straight politics and put them back where they belong, namely in the realm of qualifications.


Mr. Small:: I have been trying to follow this debate ever since the bill was introduced. I recollect that when the matter was up for discussion in April 1954 it was gone into fairly fully. A certain situation arose in the library because of the damage caused by fire and water. At that time there was considerable difficulty in procuring the staff necessary to do the work of re-examining and reclassifying the books.
When the librarian made his report he said that with the staff he had available it would take him 20 years to complete the job he had on hand. If he had additional help he could possibly speed it up. In fact, he went so far as to say that to do the work he had to borrow personnel from the national library, from the University of Toronto and from McGill University. To do the necessary work required long hours. If my memory is correct, he said the work was done mostly by women. The hours were so long that it was beyond their physical capacity.
A review of the whole situation so far as it affected the library of the House of Commons was made. They said the system of cataloguing the books was out of date; that it was done now according to the library of congress techniques in the United States.

He said that suitable help was not procurable. I asked what salaries were being paid at that time. He said that a cataloguer received something in the neighbourhood of $3,800, and that they had difficulty in getting them. Questions were asked about the qualifications, whether they would require a degree in library science in future in order to occupy the position of librarian in the House of Commons and whether henceforth all applicants would be required to have that degree.
I did not take the trouble to ask just what universities or colleges gave degrees in library science, but I had the impression at that time that there were four in Canada. The librarian did not name them. 1 presume that at that time the staff came from the national library and from the universities of Toronto and McGill. He said there were four colleges who were recognized as giving degrees in library science, and there were quite a host of others in the Dominion of Canada who were not recognized but were training librarians. The latter were not recognized by the American library association.
He went on to discuss the matter of salaries that were paid; and when we were told that the salaries were so meagre or parsimonious as $3,800 for a qualified librarian, and particularly degree men, I said there were men in the departments who had no degrees at all who were getting much higher salaries. A committee was set up and a report was brought in.
I do not think there is any objection to the bill as it stands, except that it is not necessary for one in the position of librarian to have a degree in library science. The impression left in the minds of the members sitting on that committee was that in order to qualify for a position of any sort in the library a person would have to have this degree. It now turns out that this is not necessary; it turns out that not everyone must have this degree. It was brought out by the librarian in setting out the qualifications that he has competent people in his department.
Furthermore he said it was understaffed and could not possibly do what it had to do, particularly with the cramped quarters in which it must operate at the present time. But he does have within his employ a staff which is competent and capable of taking over. He did not say whether they had degrees, because this degree of library science has come into being only in the last 15 or 16 years. The librarian himself does not have this degree of bachelor of library science, but if he were asked to write one of these
Library of Parliament Act examinations I have not the slightest doubt that he would have the necessary qualifications.
Many people have come to the top through hard work; they have come up the hard way by learning as they went. He has imparted that knowledge to those who may succeed him. That is the best of all degrees. In my time I have had young men who have just come out of university turned over to me for further education in the chosen lines which they were to follow. I never had the benefit of university training, but they were turned over to me to round out their education.
I think the same thing applies as far as the librarian is concerned. We have a competent man in there and now they are trying to make the library staff into a semi-exclusive club. If people want to enter into the library they will say, "So far can you go and no farther". When a man gets near the top it may turn out that he cannot go any further because it has been set down here that he must possess certain attributes for the top job. It is said he must understand parliamentary procedure, constitutional authority; that he must have had training in finance and engineering and administration. He must have all these qualifications, with a knowledge of what the ministers and members may want, and sometimes anticipate it.
But if they do not pay a salary even equal to that of a high class bank manager, how can they require these qualifications for a head librarian? He would be just out of this world if he had all those qualifications. The rest of the staff are being told, "Oh, not for you this juicy plum. You are just too dumb." That is just about what it adds up to.
The only objection we have to this bill as it stands is that you are making the position unobtainable for those who are working in the library. You are telling them they must undergo the training and do the things that are necessary to be done, but when it comes to filling the position with a high salary, that is to be a different story.
All this has been very educational. I was glad I got the information on this matter. There were a lot of things I learned about what they had to do in order to supply information to members of this house. It certainly is a job that not everyone could aspire to. This job has been taken out of the hands of the civil service commission because people are not anxious to work in the library. They cannot secure applicants because there is no allure or incentive. There is no future in the job because of the salary being paid.
5326	HOUSE OF
Library of Parliament Act
I understand in recent years an increase was granted, but the salaries are still not what they must be if you are going to insist on this qualification that they have this degree. It would also be better that the employing be turned back to the civil service commission in order that they may fill any vacancies. However, probably things will remain as they are. The hon. minister of fish stories the other day gave what might be termed a piscatorial narration. He implied that we were trying to make the library staff like a union.
The hon. member for Lanark referred to the medical and legal professions, which are governed by certain qualifications. I think it is only just and right if you are going to have a system for securing help in your library that you should be able to give the jobs to those qualifying. If the applicants have not the necessary training you should train them for the job; then when they get to the top they will be able to handle it without having to bring in any outsiders to look after it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have not joined in this discussion previously. I listened to the hon. member for York-Humber review the situation as she saw it, and I think all of us will agree that she assembled her arguments against the amendment which were advanced in committee-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is her amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that-against those who opposed that amendment, and in doing so she revealed a capacity for analysis which is borne out by the fact that the hon. member was chosen as one who had done an outstanding job as a press columnist in Canada during the current year, having received the award of the Canadian women's press club. That honour came to her within the last few days.
I am not going to enter into this controversy about university degrees and the like. Judging from what the minister said when the legislation was before the house on June 15 I do not think he has given a very good answer. There have been suggestions as to subterranean considerations behind this amendment, and I think the whole matter could be cleared up easily if the minister would answer one simple question. Does the government intend to appoint as general librarian a political itinerant whose qualifications do not include the possession of any university or library science degrees or the like, but which have been restricted to those of an assistant in a minister's office. Is it intended that such a gentleman shall be appointed to this position?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The purpose of this' bill is to abolish the post of general librarian, so there will be no question about anyone being appointed to that position if the bill passes. Neither the position of general librarian nor parliamentary librarian will be abolished as long as the present incumbents continue in office. I know of no project to terminate the tenure of either incumbent. I am perfectly certain that the government has no one in mind for these appointments, and that there will be no one in mind until the time comes to make them.
I must say that my colleagues and I are flattered by the apparent assumption by hon. gentlemen immediately opposite that we will still be in office to make the appointments under this bill. I think they are justified in that assumption, but it rather surprised me because this restriction, until the act is amended again, would apply to any group of people who occupied the treasury benches.
I would be sorry to think that, if by some miracle hon. gentlemen opposite were translated to this side of the house, the hon. member for Danforth, for whom I have great esteem, could never hope to become parliamentary librarian.
I think the hon. member for Danforth was under a misapprehension about the bill, as it does not exclude any member of the library staff or anyone who is not a member of the library staff. It is the amendment that would do the excluding. The bill would leave it to the governor in council; and of course, because these appointments are made on the recommendation of the prime minister, that would leave to the prime minister of the day the recommendation as to the most suitable person to appoint.
As I pointed out when this bill was before the house previously, when appointments have been made by the party which now occupies the treasury benches, since confederation, they have invariably been made from the staff of the library; and when appointments have been made by the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, or the antecedents of the party-because they had different names in those days-of hon. gentlemen opposite, they have invariably been drawn from outside the staff of the library.
If we should occupy the treasury benches when either of these appointments came to be made, I think it is most unlikely that, with the competent staff that everybody in the committee has agreed the library has, it would be necessary to go outside the staff of the library to make an appointment. But I would not like to think that, if there were some eminent person available-say, for example, the head of another library-though he might

not have had a degree from McGill or Toronto, he would therefore be ineligible and the governor in council at that time could not appoint him. I would not like to think that even some eminent privy councillor like Hon. Martin Burrell who, if he happened to be available and who had great knowledge of constitutional law and parliamentary procedure and great learning, would be rendered technically ineligible because he did not happen to have a degree, or that some civil servant in the same position might not be transferred to this position if it seemed at the time that he was the best qualified person. The position of librarian is assimilated under our constitution to the position of a deputy minister, and in none of our statutes are any fetters put upon the choice of the governor in council in appointing a deputy minister.


John George Diefenbaker: That is so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite wrong to say that the deputy minister of my hon. friend's department must be a doctor. There is no such regulation whatsoever in the statutes. I think there would be two views about whether a doctor is necessarily the most suitable person for the administrative head of a great department of state.
It is only a few days ago that hon. gentlemen opposite and newspapers supporting them were criticizing us because a distinguished airman who had undertaken to retire from the air force and become a civilian was being appointed as deputy minister of national defence. They were criticizing us because they said he would be too service-minded for this civilian post; and I agree that it is a civilian post and that it should be a civilian post.
As I said, I thought the hon. member for Greenwood shared with me the view that there was something to be said for the distinguished amateur. At any rate I am unrepentant in my view that while you obviously must have professional people for professional jobs, when you come to this kind of position requiring not only administrative skill but learning, I believe that general education and particularly a familiarity with constitutional history and constitutional law is apt to provide a better kind of qualification for a parliamentary librarian even than training in a library school; though if you could get both together, I think that would be still better.
I certainly do not for one moment want to suggest that I think people who went through library schools should be excluded. I do not think that. To any reasonable person I think that such training would commend 50433-336$
Library of Parliament Act itself as an additional good qualification. But I should not like to see us obliged to take a second choice because he happened to have this degree, and drop as the first choice someone we thought to be a better man or a better woman because that man or woman did not happen to have taken this particular library course. That is the whole position the government has taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow one question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: When will be the respective retirement dates of the present general librarian and the parliamentary librarian?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand it both these gentlemen have attained the age of 65; but under the present regulations, of course, action has to be taken to retire them, not to extend them. At any rate, there is no definite term. I happened by sheer accident to read this morning some account somewhere of Mr. Martin Burrell's funeral. He was within a few weeks of 80 when he died, and he died in office. Hence I do not think any presumptions of any kind can be drawn from the age of the librarians.


John George Diefenbaker: It was my impression that both these gentlemen are about to retire. Both are estimable gentlemen, effective gentlemen and excellent administrators, as has been shown from my experience. Does the minister now say that he has no idea whatever that they are about to retire?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say that if either of these gentlemen has any such intention, he has not indicated it to the government.


Mr. Coldwell:: I want to say a word on this matter, Mr. Chairman. When we considered the amendment to this bill we decided to support it because we wanted to make sure that political patronage would be eliminated from these appointments. What the minister has said carries a good deal of weight, because not always does a university degree mean that you are getting the best possible person for a given position. But when you weigh that consideration against the experience of the past, when we have had political appointments, I think it is wise to put into this act something which outlines the qualifications an appointee should have before the appointment is made.
I am going to support the amendment because of that consideration. I should like to see the government itself come forward with some suggestion as to what might be written into the act in order to make sure that the person who is appointed shall be equipped
5328	HOUSE OF
Library of Parliament Act with the necessary qualifications, other than those of membership in a political party or acceptability to a political government at the time.
Of course I recall the time the present librarian was appointed, and I remember all the lobbying and so on that was indulged in in the house by some politicians who had an ambition to become librarians. I was delighted when the government of the day-it was done by the prime minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King-appointed the present librarian in face of the lobbying that was done at that time for the appointment of one or more persons whom I might name but for the fact that it would not be proper for me to do so now. I think the house is wise in trying to write into this bill, even if the amendment is not worded just in the way I should like to see it worded, some limitation so we may be assured that the person who is appointed will be properly qualified for this extremely important position.
Before I sit down may I say that I think the present staff of the library is competent and that it has been competent ever since I have been in the house. When Hon. Martin Burrell was librarian the people he had associated with him were remarkably competent and not only were always courteous but were willing to go a long way in trying to serve members of parliament.
Not only am I happy with the recommendation of the library committee, which I approve, that we shall have a librarian and an associate librarian; I also approve the suggestion that one of these shall be Englishspeaking and one shall be proficient in the other official language of our country; that is, French-speaking. I should like to see the House of Commons provided, perhaps in association with the library, with some competent research personnel who could give further assistance to members of parliament in their research. I say that, although it does not come within the orbit of this particular bill. While I realize there is some logic in what the minister has said, nevertheless, believing as I do that some limitation should be placed upon the government with regard to an important appointment of this kind, I am going to support the amendment.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the questions? Since the amendment was moved several days ago perhaps I should read it to the committee before the taking of the vote. It was moved by the hon. member for York-Humber:
That section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subparagraph (4) to the proposed new section 5:	...
(4) No one shall be eligible to be appointed as parliamentary librarian or associate parliamentary
[Mr. Coldwell.l

librarian hereunder, unless such person is fully qualified as a librarian holding either the bachelor's or master's degree in library science, of any school or university awarding degrees in library science, recognized by the Canadian library association.
Amendment (Miss Aitken) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 59.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Coming into force.
John George Diefenbaker: Do I interpret this clause correctly to mean that if either of the two librarians who are now in the parliamentary library retire by reason of reaching the age of 65 years-


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are both over 65 now.


John George Diefenbaker: -within the very near future, the act will come into effect when either one of them retires?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Right.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he has no information whatsoever to the effect that either one of these gentlemen has any immediate intention of retiring from his present position?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is absolutely correct.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other question I should like to ask. I do not know whether or not it particularly comes under this clause. During the course of his remarks the minister stressed the need of training in constitutional history and the like. What is the significance of such qualifications being required in these librarians? In the view of the minister are they pre-eminent qualifications for appointment of a person or persons to the position or positions of national librarian for Canada? Does the minister say those qualifications, to which he made such lengthy reference and which he stressed so particularly, are in his opinion the most important qualifications for the positions in question? I should like to hear him amplify that and give some reasons for that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the first place, if I said- and I do not think I did-that these were the most important qualifications, I certainly did not intend to give that impression. I think the most important qualification in a parliamentary librarian is a capacity to administer the library to the satisfaction of the members of both houses of parliament.
It does seem to me, since so much of what we do here is concerned with parliamentary procedure, constitutional forms and the law

and the constitution, that education in that field is likely to make a man or woman rather more helpful in the capacity of librarian from the point of view of helping members to find the right kind of references than any other kind of training. But I do not think it is an essential qualification. In fact my whole point, and I have tried to emphasize it throughout, is that I do not like to see some narrow and restrictive qualification placed on this position at all.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister would
scarcely go as far as to say that a person qualified with a library degree would fall within that narrow restrictive niche to which he referred in his concluding remarks, would he? Surely the minister has not that low an opinion of those who graduate in library science.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister happened to marry someone who was a graduate of a library school and he did not do so because he had a low opinion of the person in question. I have the highest opinion of this kind of qualification.


John George Diefenbaker: Have we another applicant here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But, as I say, I do not like to restrict appointments to this position merely to those people who happened in their youth to choose to go through a library school. It seems to me, sir, that I have been out of order and that this whole discussion is out of order, because this question was decided by the committee a few minutes ago.


George Harris Hees: Then the minister would suggest that as a library degree is a restrictive factor in obtaining this very high appointment, the university library courses should be discontinued because they do not seem to help and, as far as we can see, seem to hinder.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: That is what the man said.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Proposed Senate Reform SUPPLY


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



SENATE REFORM

Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to bring to your attention a matter of keen concern, I believe, to this house, the other chamber and people generally throughout the country. I refer to the long discussed question of reform of the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that those to your right should laugh, because this important issue has become almost a national joke. However, there never was a time in our history when we should laugh less at our parliamentary institutions, so well established and designed for the government of this country, than at this time when many other countries of the world have lost their democratic freedom. I believe we might justly be prouder of our institutions today than at any other time in our history. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there never was a time when hon. members of this house, no matter from what district they come, were more challenged to preserve carefully the basic and fundamental principles of our parliamentary institutions.
One of the most important of these institutions is the other house, the Senate of Canada. Long before we had a British North America Act the upper house was recognized. There are few countries in the world where the upper chamber has not been recognized, although perhaps in different forms than that which is laid down for us.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it was one of the fathers of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, who found it would be possible to bring the provinces together by guaranteeing minority rights and the rights of the provinces by the establishment of the Senate of Canada. That is borne out by the statements made at that time, which indicate that it was not to be a forum that would become so strong as to be in conflict with the Commons. They believed the role of the Senate would be that of a restraining influence. It would be a body that could revise hasty legislation that might be passed in this house. It would not be responsible to popular sentiment or appeal throughout the country, but as a result of Senate action people generally would have time to use their collective common sense and assert themselves.
5330	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform
It was also suggested that in the minds of the fathers of confederation the members of the Senate were to act more or less in the role of judges of what we do in this house. They were not to be partisan supporters or blind admirers of everything the government might do. Its members were to be selected from amongst men who would lend dignity and distinction to the public life of Canada. They were to be chosen for their acknowledged achievements or for their moral and intellectual qualities, and were to be placed in a position high above the tide of party strife. It was thought that senators so appointed would invest their decisions with a moral authority in the country which no popular leader could afford to wholly disregard. In other words they were to become more or less the safety valve of this house.
In order to better ensure the impartiality and independence of their decisions, like those appointed to the bench, senators were not to be appointed for a term of years but for life. Such a senate would, in the first place, exercise an immense influence upon public opinion. Being men of experienced judgment they would know that in any conflict they must give way to the elected representatives of the people. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that it was carefully designed not to conflict with the authority of parliament, but was to be composed of men who were impartial, to act more or less in the role of judges in order that this house might take cognizance of their leadership in many respects. At no time was it intended that they should be in conflict with or take away from the authority of this house. As I have said, they were to act more or less as a safety valve.
If those men were living today how gravely disappointed they would be; because I feel that the result has been more or less the opposite. I am not going to go into details. It does appear to me that there has been a different attitude towards that constituted body as set out in the British North America Act. Down through the years there has been a different attitude as between those who sit to your right and form the government today and those of us who represent the other old historic party that is now Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Back in 1893 the Liberal party clamoured in its convention for a reform or abolishment of the Senate. The Liberal party was in power for 15 years, and they had a substantial majority in the Senate. The Senate defeated important measures of Sir Robert Borden's government, one of which was the building of three dreadnoughts for the British navy.


Our party sitting here today is not asking for the abolition of the Senate. I am not expressing sentiments that only emanate from this side of the house. The Senate has been the laughing stock of public administration for almost half a century. Only recently a member of the upper house moved a motion requesting the filling of some 21 or 22 existing vacancies. Today there are vacancies in the Senate representation from every province but two, and now 22 districts are not represented at all.
However, that is not the issue. I am not following exactly what the elder statesman in the other place moved the other day. He asked whether or not the Senate was dying. On another occasion he wondered if it were dead. In fact I think every senator is now wondering when it will die a natural death, as it will if these positions are not filled. Some time ago the Prime Minister said there were going to be new appointments, and as an almost modest political gesture he did suggest appointing those who were not blind admirers of his government. We have not heard very much of that suggestion since, because I noticed there were a lot of hungry people in his own party who did not seem to like that suggestion.
We are not arguing for the abolition of the Senate. As the leading senator mentioned in his motion, he is fearful of it being abolished instead of being reformed. We are quite aware of the fact that there are different things that could be done in order to reform it. We must have an amendment to the British North America Act, and unlike the House of Lords in the United Kingdom such an amendment must be approved by the house and by the Senate. The government could proceed to sound out the feeling of the Senate and try to amend the British North America Act to reform the Senate, as they long since promised. They could, on the other hand, proceed as they are doing and neglect to fill the vacancies. When one looks over the ages of the senators one sees that it is possible for the lord of the Liberal party to abolish the Senate by natural procedure.
But that is not the policy of the party as announced by those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, for at least the last 30 years. I can well recall that when I first entered the House of Commons, the late Mr. Mackenzie King campaigned in my riding. His former secretary laughs, and he should laugh at it. If the late right hon. gentleman were alive today he would laugh at it himself. He campaigned in North York and other places, and said he was going to reform the Senate. He

had wanted to reform it for some time, and he was going to reform it. How did he reform it? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) knows how he reformed it. It was the talk of the barber shops, garages, and other places in his constituency as well as mine. He reformed it by appointing more reformers to the Senate.


Walter Edward Harris: The very best way.


William Earl Rowe: Exactly. I shall proceed to show by his own words that it was the only way to do it. This was the attitude of the party that played with this like a cat would play with a mouse or like less amateur politicians would kick it around as a political football, so it would affect our whole constitutional form of government.
There was a difference in attitude as was set out by the different leaders. Different statements were made by former leaders of the party I have the honour to represent today and the leaders of whom the Minister of Finance nods approval. I might point out that in a debate in 1865 Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald pointed out that while he would like to have an image of the House of Lords in Great Britain, as then constituted, in order to appease certain elements across the country he would see that there were four different districts, with 24 senators from the maritimes, 24 from western Canada, 24 from Quebec and 24 from Ontario. Now there are 6 from Newfoundland, with the government still holding the power to put more reformers in by holding 8 more that they can name, if they wish.
I hesitate to read all that was said. However, I would point out that Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald said that it was most important to have a senate or an upper house, as did Sir Wilfrid Laurier on occasions. Sir John A. Macdonald said:
In order to protect local interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies, it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British North America is separated, should be represented in the Upper House on the principle of equality. There are three great sections, having different interests, in this proposed confederation. We have western Canada, an agricultural country far away from the sea, and having the largest population who have agricultural interests principally to guard. We have lower Canada, with other and separate interests, and especially with institutions and laws which she jealously guards against absorption by any larger, more numerous or stronger power. And we have the maritime provinces, having also different sectional interests of their own, having, from their position, classes and interest which we do not know in western Canada. Accordingly, in the Upper House-the controlling and regulating, but not the initiating branch (for we know that here as in England, to the lower house will practically belong the initiation of matters of great public interest), in the house which has the
Proposed Senate Reform sober second thought in legislation-it is provided that each of those great sections shall be represented equally by 24 members.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of certain proposals that have been made. It is not a matter today of whether we are going to have a ten-year term for senators. Nor is it a matter of whether we say they should retire at the age of 75 years. I am not sure that the Prime Minister even would agree with that. It is not a matter as to whether they should be elected by ballot. It is not a matter whether, as has been suggested, some should be elected and some appointed by the government. It is not a matter of whether they should be nominated by the provinces, as someone has suggested.
Mr. Speaker, over the last quarter century there have been many similar proposals. We hear people saying that the Senate should be more representative than it is today. We certainly do not believe there should be 22 vacancies in it. That certainly never was the intention under the British North America Act. Even the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
A second chamber is an absolutely needed safeguard for the smaller provinces against a possible invasion of their rights by the larger provinces.
There was very little criticism of or opposition to the early set-up. But you could see the beginning of the difference in attitude between those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, and those of us who sit to your left and represent the other old historic party. First we have what was said by Sir Oliver Mowat prior to the Liberal convention in 1893. These were his words:
The present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with the federal principle in our system of government, and is in other respects defective, as it makes the Senate independent of the people and uncontrolled by the public opinion of the country, and should be so amended as to bring it into harmony with the principles of popular government.
You will observe a distinct difference between that and the intention of the fathers of confederation, who intended just the opposite, I suggest. And at the Liberal party convention in Ottawa in 1893 it was moved:
We are agreed as to the necessity of a fundamental reformation of the Senate-if for any reason a Senate must be or should be retained. The Senate as now constituted is the weakest point in our constitution.
Another prominent Liberal of those days, Sir Richard Cartwright, also indicated that to have the Senate constituted as was intended originally, along non-political lines, was not satisfactory even to the party in that day. He said:
I think, sir, we all agree that the constitution of the Senate, as it at present exists, is a blot upon popular government and free institutions.

Proposed Senate Reform
I shall not go further, except to show how consistent the Liberal party has been along these lines in the last number of years. I say that as to responsibility for the disintegration, ineffectiveness and lack of popular appeal by the Senate in this country, most certainly no body is more to blame than the Liberal party that has been in office for the last 25 years, and has been making a joke of Senate reform.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Twenty years.


William Earl Rowe: Since long before the hon. member was here, back in those days when he was taking more interest in other things and did not notice what was going on in the party to which he belongs.
I could cite many instances. I have said in this House of Commons on different occasions what should be done. The late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and his party, were committed to the reform of the Senate. But now we find, as I say, that it is becoming a joke in administrative circles in Canada.
I know it was suggested from different parts of the house years ago that we should have an elected senate. It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who pointed out that it should be strengthened. Those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, have said that to have an elected senate would create two different houses and lead to confusion. Others have said that the Senate should be partly elected and partly appointed. But most certainly no one has suggested at any time from this side of the house that the Senate of Canada should simply swallow what is done in the House of Commons, that it should be absolutely in line with the popular party of the day and in support of the government.
I can well recall how back some years ago the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who was then prime minister, was disgusted with the Senate because on two or three occasions they had opposed certain legislation that had passed the House of Commons. That legislation was not readily approved in the other house. Hansard for 1924 will show where Mr. Mackenzie King said:
Hon. members will recall that at the close of last session, and at the close of the preceding session, bills which were passed by this house and which touched matters that are very vital to the electorate failed of enactment owing to the action of the Senate.
Then he continued:
This year we have instances of bills that have passed this house in three separate sessions of parliament, and which have been rejected each time by the second chamber.
Mr. Speaker, there never was a time in our history that this house needed a check more than it has in the last few years, when there


has been a clamouring to do those things that were popular, no matter what they were. There never was a time in our history when that was more needed. Our wise old forefathers must have foreseen that there would be those who would give anyone anything, for their votes. The late Mr. King and his party stated on different occasions as far back as the 1925 election, in which I took some part myself, what their position was with respect to the Senate. In one of his speeches he said:
Only a few days ago a number of senators were appointed. Every one has given me his pledged word he will be prepared, once a measure passes the commons, to give it his support. Subsequent senators will be appointed with that understanding, and as Providence takes away a few of the older members, you will have a Senate pledged to bring about the reforms for which the administration stands.
In other words these men were pledged. He made the statement on different occasions that the only way the Senate could be reformed would be from within. He was fully convinced of the necessity of bringing it to the attention of parliament. He said there were two great obstacles to this objective. One was the obstruction of the Senate and its influence on the party. He made the statement from many a platform that his party would bring reform into effect immediately.
The late Mr. King was in office following 1925, and surely there is not a member within sound of my voice who has any recollection of politics during those years who does not realize that one of the most important issues in that campaign-in fact for several years previously the late Mr. King had suggested that he would bring it up at an election time, except he did not think the people were ripe for it-was Senate reform. I heard him say in this house how important it was that it be brought up, and it was made an election issue.
I quote from the Globe and Mail of those days as further evidence of what I heard from various platforms. He went on to point out that we must have a Senate that had some respect for the popular opinion of the country, and he said:
Even more arbitrary has been the Senate's action in rejecting measures which have passed the House of Commons and been sent to the Senate a second and third time. If the Senate is to be made more responsive to the popular will, then the popular will with respect to the Senate must make itself known and felt.
Further he said:
To amend the constitution and the powers of the Senate, two steps are necessary. The Senate itself must be a party to the reform recommended, and the imperial parliament must act. Before the imperial parliament would enact the necessary

legislation by way of amendment to the British North America Act, it would expect on a matter of this kind an address of both houses of the Canadian parliament. It is reasonable to assume, that upon such an address from both houses it would not hesitate to act. There are two ways of bringing about accord between the two houses in the matter of an address to the imperial parliament: One, the indirect method of summoning a conference of representatives of all the provinces of the dominion and seeking at such a gathering to obtain unanimity of view with respect to the amendments of the constitution and powers of the Senate. The other, the appointment of senators prepared to accept Senate reform. An agreement reached at such a conference if introduced in the form of a resolution would scarcely fail to pass both houses.
He went on to point out that the only way it could be reformed would be from within, in these words:
Reform from within can be effected only by making certain of the presence in the Senate of a sufficient number of members who can be relied upon to support and carry through that chamber whatever measure of Senate reform may be sent from the commons as a part of government policy. In this great and good work Providence has been aiding the Liberal party. When we came into office the Tory majority was 26. At the close of the last session of parliament it was 22. Yesterday it was 23. Today, I am happy to say, it has been reduced to 15 through the appointment within the past 24 hours of eight senators, each of whom has expressed his intention of supporting whatever measure of Senate reform the present government may submit in furtherance of its policy to bring the constitution and powers of that body more into accord with the spirit of the times in which we live. In the course of a few days it will be reduced to 13 by the filling of two remaining vacancies. That is an unlucky number for the Tory majority that remains.
And so it was.
In Great Britain the method employed to secure the enactment in the House of Lords of measures which have passed the commons and been rejected by the Lords has been to create or threaten the creation of extra peers, pledged to give the commons the necessary support.
In as much as the government controls appointments to the Senate, on a question like reform of the Senate the government is more or less in a position to secure support for its measures once the number of its appointees is sufficient to give it a majority in that house. That is the only certain way. I think I can say of the senators who have been appointed by a Liberal administration, whether of Sir Wilfrid's administration or the present administration, that all are sufficiently Liberal to give their support to any reasonable measure of Senate reform which the present government may propose. I know I can say of those who have just been appointed that one and all have expressed their willingness to champion the cause of Senate reform, and I shall undertake to say that no further appointments will be made by the present government to the Senate except upon the distinct understanding that the appointee will give wholehearted advocacy and support to any measure of Senate reform the government, as a part of government policy, may ask both houses of parliament to adopt.
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know about these senators and whether they have
Proposed Senate Reform violated their trust. Have these elder statesmen in the other place made a solemn pledge to the Liberal party that they will do what they were asked to do so far as Senate reform is concerned? Have they all made solemn pledges? Some of them have indicated they have not. Some have made motions to have vacancies filled, but none has made a move to reform the Senate as it stands.
The late Prime Minister King was so adamant in this that he made it part of the policy of his party. Once they had a majority that was what they were supposed to do; but they have had a top-heavy, lopsided majority for some time and the reputation of the Senate has fallen because it has been played with for political purposes. The Senate was to be reformed. In every Liberal campaign we have had in the last quarter of a century it was said that some change was to be made in the Senate. It was always hinted how it was to be reformed.
The last hint given by the present Prime Minister was the most attractive of all. He was generous. He was going to name-I do not know that he said he was going to name any Tories-every stripe that would not conflict with his highly motivated policy. The late prime minister said he was anxious to see responsible government upheld to the utmost. He was the champion of responsible government. He should be here now. The late prime minister said:
But just because I am anxious that responsible government shall be upheld to the utmost, I have been careful to make sure of the ground before taking a decisive step. Had I gone to the country on this issue a year ago, as I am told I should have done, I am not convinced that its importance would have been appreciated as fully as it is today.
Again he said:
Of this at least I have certain knowledge, I would not have had the eight good men and true who were appointed yesterday, and who are pledged to Senate reform and the two more to be appointed and who will join their efforts to other appointees of the Liberal party in bringing about this all-important feature of Liberal policy. May I say that the government has decided without further delay to meet the issue of responsible government raised by the Senate, and I now ask the Liberal press of this country, as well as all who desire to see Liberal traditions and principles upheld, to join me in making Senate reform a certainty in the only way that is at all likely to accomplish that end.
As has been truly said, "A vote for a Liberal candidate is a vote to bring the Senate into line with the Liberal government and the House of
Commons."
Just imagine the difference between that statement and the statements made by some of the other statesmen. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is outstanding and glittering evidence of the difference between the party
5334	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform that sits to your right and the policy of this other old historic party, Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Mr. King said:
"A vote for a Liberal candidate is a vote to bring the Senate into line with the Liberal government and the House of Commons."
When the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald was inaugurating this policy he tried to make the Senate the safety valve for parliamentary institutions that it has been, Mr. Speaker, despite the last few years. It shall be again a great safety valve for our democratic way of life. I am proud of our parliamentary institutions, as we all are. We have more reason to be proud of them today than ever before because of what we see happening all over the world. Sir John A. Macdonald said:
There would be no use of an upper house if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the lower house. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower house. It must be an independent house having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you have observed the clean-cut distinction between those two statements. The late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald was not the only man who saw the benefit of the original purposes of this important part of our parliamentary institution. The late Right Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton, who could not be said to always have been in agreement with the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, or vice versa, said when debating this issue:
No nation should be under unchecked, singlechamber government. The democracy must rule, but it is expedient that, in critical cases, it should have an opportunity to think twice. According to my experience, the will of the people is very often better expressed after a check, and after a period of searching and critical discussion which generally arises from such a check, than it is in the first instance.
Then in 1926 and 1927 the prime minister of that day was asked several questions by Mr. Evans, then a member of the house. He was asked:
1.	What is the form or wording of the pledge, if any, taken from those who have been appointed senators during the last two years with a view to Senate reform?
2.	How many have thus been pledged?
The prime minister replied:
An assurance of support of such measure of Senate reform, in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, as may be introduced by the Liberal administration.
This assurance has been given by all who have accepted appointment to the Senate within the time mentioned.


That is from page 355 of Hansard for 192627. Then the prime minister was asked this question by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, as reported on page 2332 of Hansard of 1940:
I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the difficulty that has arisen, whether he will consider his long-promised reform of the Senate at the next session of parliament?
The answer was:
That is something X have been considering all my life.
When you think of all the things he did throughout his life; when you realize that the same tactics were used in connection with the reform of the Senate as in connection with party policy and fiscal and other matters, we realize that had it not been for radio and television they would have been able to go ahead and talk free trade in one part of the country and protection in the other, reform of the Senate in one part of the country and the protection of provincial rights in another.
I believe it is a matter of national concern that the Senate be not abolished. I believe that everyone who is familiar with the progressive history of our parliamentary institutions will agree that the Senate should be restored to the position it was intended to fill. We do not want it abolished; we do not want it disintegrated; we are not asking that certain appointments be made, but the fact is that they have not been as they were intended to be.
For over 30 years the party to your right have promised Senate reform. They have set out the reasons why they could not carry it out. Those reasons have disappeared, yet they still hesitate to move. Therefore we are not apologizing; I am not apologizing for the party for bringing this matter before the house at this late date in the session.
This matter has been kicked around for many years. Those who have read the history of this country know very well that no matter how strong any party might be in this country, it was never intended by those who designed the constitution of this country better than they knew that the Senate should develop into a rubber stamp for the Liberal party. It never was intended to be that. It never was intended that it should be disregarded as it has been, with about one-quarter of the seats not filled. It never was intended to be an institution to be filled with ward heelers, those who had supported the party financially and morally. It never was intended that the chief qualification for the Senate should be blind allegiance to any government. Our pioneer forefather statesmen intended the Senate to be a body of

men who were independent like those on our benches, to be more like judges than partisans. The fact is that it has turned out to be almost the opposite.
I realize that it is always a little difficult to discuss the actions of the other house. We have keen respect for our institutions, and we have keen respect for the incumbents. Many of them are men who have been successful in different walks of life. Many of them have been successful in parliamentary service. Some of them were hardly heard of before they came to the Senate, and others have hardly been heard since they came to the Senate. However, they were the choice of the government in those days; but I do submit that it was meant that their qualifications should be more than merely having been supporters of the government.
I have tried to emphasize that the party to which I belong has urged down through the years, not only in the days of the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, the late Sir Robert Borden and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and others, that more use should be made of the Senate.
I realize, as I said at the outset, that there has been no time in the history of this dominion when a safety valve such as the Senate was more important. There is not an experienced politician within sound of my voice who does not know that with all parties trying to achieve power, with a party with a top-heavy majority trying to stay in power, almost any suggestion by a municipal council, a mayor or reeve across Canada is being taken up, and if one cabinet minister is a little more conservative in these matters, then another cabinet minister will reach in and say, "That should be suggested." They will do anything for temporary popularity.
Therefore we need this safety valve so there will be time for reflection, so the all-powerful and all-intelligent public, individually and collectively, may have time to reflect. We need the Senate. It should not be made innocuous, but it has been neutralized by the actions of this government. It is being laughed at by the public. It has proved ineffective in administration, and the responsibility lies exactly on the doorstep of those who sit to your right, those who have promised and heralded Senate reform at election time but who excused themselves by saying they had not the power. Those excuses cannot be made at this time.
Therefore I feel it is highly proper that we should have our institutions as they were established, and that they should be carried out in the way intended. We have urged this upon the government. The government have 50433-337}
Proposed Senate Reform even ignored their own proposals. Therefore we ask them to acknowledge and recognize ours. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate so that all appropriate steps may be taken, including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen and their tenure of office so that the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system."


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) will allow me to point out to him that, as was the situation last year when a similar amendment was moved, there is on the order paper a bill respecting tenure of office which may still be reached. Therefore, if he were agreeable and if hon. members would give their consent, the words "and their tenure of office" could be deleted from the amendment. That certainly would not annul the effect of it.


William Earl Rowe: That is all right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, by consent, the amendment is modified so that the words "and their tenure of office" are deleted.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, because the position of this party and this movement with respect to the Senate is so well known, my remarks on this occasion will be brief.
While the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) has been speaking, I have been looking with some interest over a debate which took place on May 31, 1954. It was very similar to the one that seems to be in progress at the present time. I must assure Your Honour that what happens now will not parallel exactly what happened last time. In other words, we shall not try to move again the subamendment which Your Honour ruled out of order last year. However, perhaps I might be permitted to read the amendment which was moved on that occasion by my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), which was as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "respecting" and by substituting therefor the following words: "the steps to be taken to secure the abolition of the Senate".
In terms of fitting it into the amendment which is now before the house, that subamendment of May 31, 1954, would be as appropriate today as it was then. However, as reported at page 5259 of Hansard of last year, Your Honour suggested, after some discussion, that abolition was not exactly a
5336	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform method of reform. Your Honour thought that was rather drastic reform and that it should be the subject of another motion rather than of a subamendment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since to move this subamendment again would only result in Your Honour being consistent and giving the same ruling, we shall not move the subamendment, although by having read it I have indicated the position that we of the C.C.F. take with regard to the Senate, which is that it should be abolished.
I have been wondering too, Mr. Speaker, whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might be stealing that plank from the C.C.F. platform. He has not yet announced that he agrees with us that the Senate should be abolished, but he seems to be abolishing it just by allowing its membership to decrease. This failure to fill the vacancies, to which we take no exception, if continued for a period of time could result in the abolition of the Senate. It may be that once again the party on the other side of the house is stealing a plank from the C.C.F. platform.
Many of the things I might have said in support of our contention that the Senate should be abolished have, in fact, been said today by the acting leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). The critical remarks and comments he has made as to the position the Senate occupies in public opinion today are, we suggest, all reasons why the Senate might well be abolished.
We feel that Canadian democracy has grown up. We feel that the situation today is unlike the situation back in 1867, when our forefathers felt there should be some check on the elected representatives. We feel that the day has come when our parliament should be an entirely responsible body. When we say "responsible" we mean that it should be responsible to the people. We do not see how you can carry that idea of responsibility through to its logical conclusion when you have, with power equal to that of the elected house, a body which is not elected by the people at all.
The suggested reform which comes from some quarters to the effect that the Senate might be elected would just make for duplication, I suggest. On the other hand, if you found ways of strengthening it by changing the method of appointment or in other ways, you would simply continue as part of our parliamentary institution a body that is not responsible to the people of this country. We feel that in the final analysis this is not in keeping with the principles of democracy. That is the reason our C.C.F. movement


across the years has felt that the kind of reform most appropriate for the Senate would be its abolition.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I am going to suggest that if hon. members to the right want a reform, here is one specific reform they might advocate. I have here a copy of the Senate Hansard for last session. I refer to the session of 1953-54. Hon. members will note that it consists of one bound volume. I have as well a ruler in my hand, and I find that the thickness of this volume is 1J inches.


An hon. Member:: They don't have Stanley Knowles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This volume 1 \ inches thick is all that it took to record all that went on in the Senate chamber during the whole of last session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a moral to that tale.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Walter Edward Harris: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he seriously think that anybody listening to him does not know that those volumes contain words uttered by witnesses and not by the senators?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all aware of that fact. But these exhibits represent the time taken. Both of them are measures of time spent by the senators. In the one case, \\ inches represents the time spent in the Senate chamber, in terms of being recorded in print, and the other represents the time taken by senators both in speaking and in listening to witnesses who appeared before the Senate's committees on divorce.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, these booklets of divorce proceedings are printed for all of us and for all the members of the other place as well. When we are all here there are 265 of us and 102

of them. That makes 367 members of parliament. If you multiply the height of this pile of material, which is 16 inches, by 367 it comes to a pile 489 feet high. I understand the height of the peace tower is about 300 feet, so we have some picture of the extent to which this business of divorce is occupying the other house of the parliament of Canada. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons the Senate is regarded by the people of Canada in the light suggested by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe is that the government still leaves this business of divorce as the major chore for the other house.
As I have already indicated, we do not feel it is necessary to take a great deal of time on this question at this stage of our proceedings. As a matter of fact, when the issue was introduced by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe I procured my own file on Senate reform and Senate abolition and pulled out quite a number of quotations that have been placed on the record across the years. I am not going to offend against the rule respecting repetition, because the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has, one by one, given just about all the quotations I have in my file.
However, his point is well taken, namely that back in the early twenties the Liberal party made a major point of Senate reform. Mr. King was determined that the other house would be reformed, but as time went on it became more and more difficult for members of the opposition to get Mr. King to indicate when this reform was going to take place. In the meantime we feel, as I have already indicated, that democracy has grown up and that the time has come to have a fully responsible government and a fully responsible parliament in this country. Therefore, since we are in the position, in view of what happened last year, that we cannot move a subamendment stating the type of reform in which we believe, which is abolition, we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe to indicate our dissatisfaction with the institution of the Senate as it now stands and our feeling that something very drastic should be done about it.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Macleod.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the chamber when the amendment was introduced. I had other duties to perform. But since coming into the chamber I have read the amendment and I am convinced that we would be in favour of it
Proposed. Senate Reform. although, not having heard the speech introductory to the amendment, I do not know whether I would be in favour of the speech.
The amendment is subject to more than one interpretation. In general it calls for an inquiry into Senate reform. In the past this group has taken the position of being in favour of some Senate reform. Personally I have never quite brought myself to believe that the Senate should be abolished, because in my opinion it can perform a very useful function.
If my understanding of its function is correct I would suggest that from the constitutional point of view senators, appointed as they are by the governor in council, represent in a sense Her Majesty, and one of their prime functions constitutionally is to guard the rights of sovereign bodies. One of their functions is to protect and guard the rights of the legislatures of the provinces. To me that is a very important function, perhaps the most important constitutional function of the Senate, and I am convinced that the making of appointments in the way it has been done in the past, which has very often been described as appointments of good party supporters, is inclined to place lesser emphasis upon the prime function of the Senate and greater emphasis on protection by them of the government and the legislation the government introduces.
I am not going to say at the moment what type of reform might be beneficial. A number of suggestions have been made. It has been suggested before that members of the Senate should be elected by the people, as is done in the United States. That may be a very admirable procedure. Another suggestion is that the provinces, which are sovereign in their own right, should appoint a certain number of senators. Perhaps there could be a combination of the two, so many elected and so many appointed, or there could be a combination of two other methods. Perhaps the federal government could appoint some and the provinces could appoint some. All these suggestions could be made.
I appreciate that part of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which I heard having to do with the actual work of the Senate. If an inquiry were instituted, that is a matter that could be investigated. How can they become more effective?
There is another very important point that strikes me. What is the attitude of the people of Canada toward the upper house? At the present time I am inclined to believe that the people of Canada are beginning to depreciate the value of our Senate to some extent. If there is one thing that is needed in any

Proposed Senate Reform parliamentary institution it is the confidence of the people, and if their confidence is depreciating to any extent then the matter should be looked into.
I know it is the consensus among a large proportion of the people of Canada that the Senate is of little value. I believe it can be made of some value. If it is not going to be made of some value, then of course the attitude that the Senate should be abolished will grow.
We may as well meet that situation, because it will have to be met sooner or later. As my colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has whispered in my ear, if it is a dying party let us give it a decent burial, but if it is a body that should be made useful let us revive it and make it a healthy and functioning body in which the people of Canada will have confidence and of which they will be proud. That to me is a very important thing.
I notice the amendment reads in part as follows:
The government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate . . .
What is intended by that I do not know. It is broad enough to involve an inquiry by the government. It is broad enough to involve even a joint parliamentary committee or it is broad enough to bring into existence a royal commission. I do not know that I am particularly in favour of that, but it is broad enough in scope to bring before the government the necessity of making some very extensive inquiry into the reform of the Senate in order that the Senate may be strong, and a body in which the Canadian people could have a good deal of confidence. Because of that, this group will support the amendment.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: My first reaction to this particular motion is that perhaps it has been introduced a little late in the session. Nevertheless I feel that members of all parties will agree that there is merit in the Conservative suggestion. Certainly throughout Canada there is a distinct feeling that Senate reform is needed. I suppose that for almost 80 years Senate reform has been talked about in this house. Yet, so far as I know, there has not been one single major Senate reform measure introduced since confederation. The Senate today is pretty well the same as it was back in 1867.
At this moment, as other members have mentioned, it looks like the Senate is dying out of sheer neglect. I believe one hon. member pointed out that there are now 22 vacancies. Those vacancies exist despite the fact
[Mr. Hansell.l

it is the constitutional right of every province to have its proper share of members in the Senate. Many people throughout Canada are beginning to wonder if it is the deliberate intention of the government to let the Senate die.
I am not going to take the time of the house to go into the weaknesses of the Senate. They can be summed up very briefly. Members are appointed rather than elected; appointments appear to have been made as a reward for past political services instead of any particular ability. There are some parties in Canada, such as the C.C.F., Social Credit, Union Na-tionale, who have no representation at all in the Senate. Then there is the fact that there is no age limit. People who would be very useful in the Senate are kept out, and others who have outlived their usefulness are kept in the red chamber.
Moreover, hon. members will recall that some provinces are not fairly represented according to population. For instance, citizens in my province always find it strange that Saskatchewan should only have six senators with a population of almost 900,000, while New Brunswick with a population of slightly over 500,000 has ten senators.
Originally, if I remember my history, the Senate was set up for two main reasons. In the first place it was to be the chamber of second thought and sober consideration. In the second place it was believed to be a safeguard for the provinces, a safeguard for minority rights and particularly, I think perhaps, of the French-Canadian minority.
I believe history has proved that this safeguard is not needed. The French-Canadian population in Canada have their interests safeguarded (a) by the constitution; (b) by the courts; (c) by their federal members here in parliament; (d) by their cabinet ministers; (e) by the very way their population is growing. I do not believe any government, no matter of what party, would dare ignore the rights of the French-speaking minority today. I feel, therefore, that the original need of the Senate probably is no longer valid. For that reason I should like to see the Senate abolished. But if it is going to be continued I think we should be realistic. I think we should inaugurate reforms which will make the Senate an effective instrument and one which will have the respect of the Canadian people.
Now, what reforms should be adopted? Every member has his own ideas. Certainly there should be, as I mentioned a moment ago, an age limit. I like a scheme which would allow the provinces to appoint perhaps one-third of the members. I should like to see those members appointed for only four or

five years. This would ensure that all shades of political opinion in Canada would be represented. It would ensure, in the second place, that these short-term senators would do their work diligently so they might be reappointed.
Then the government should take steps to ensure that there is an opposition in the Senate. I should like to see members of other political parties appointed when the Prime Minister fills these 22 vacancies.
At the moment there is no representative of the trade unions in the Senate. I would suggest that Mr. Percy Bengough might be an ideal appointment for the Prime Minister to make when the time comes. I should like perhaps to see Mr. Graham Towers, the former head of the Bank of Canada, put in the Senate. I believe he would be a very useful member. I should like to see Mr. John Bracken, the former leader of the Conservatives, in the Senate. I think he could make a valuable contribution. I say again - that I believe the Senate should be abolished. But if it is not abolished, then let us reform it in such a way that it can be of practical use to the Canadian people.
I support this motion which has been moved by the Conservative group today. I know that not much can be done at this session. However, I hope that at the next session the house leader or the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to setting up a joint committee of both houses to go into this whole problem of Senate reform.


Howard Charles Green: I am somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, that as yet no member of the government party has indicated any intention of taking part in this debate. I believe it is of such importance that the Prime Minister himself should tell the house and the country what are his views with regard to this problem of the Canadian Senate. I would point out to hon. members that this resolution urges that the government give consideration to initiating the necessary consultations and inquiries respecting reform of the Senate. Such action can only come from the government. If anything is to be done at all it will have to be initiated by those who sit to your right.


Mr. Winch:: And at this session.


Howard Charles Green: It should have been done long igo. I would point out also that the amendment refers to consultations and inquiries. I believe it would be wise to have a consultation on this problem with the various provinces before a solution is reached. Certainly some action of that kind will be required.
This resolution cites various subjects into which inquiry should be made. For example, mention was made in the original motion of
Proposed Senate Reform the tenure of office and the method of choosing appointees. These two subjects are not, of course, exclusive. There are several other principles having to do with Senate reform which should be included for consideration.
Furthermore, the resolution points out very clearly the objective of these consultations and inquiries, namely so the Senate may discharge its constitutional functions. 1 believe there is agreement in this chamber on the main functions of the Senate, namely that it should be a reviewing body, able to carry on in much the same way as a high court; to review legislation in a judicial frame of mind; and secondly, to protect minorities. It is perfectly obvious that was one of the main reasons for having a senate in Canada. It was felt that protection should be given to the maritimes when they came into confederation, and also to the province of Quebec. This was one of the original purposes of the fathers of confederation in providing for a senate. So much for the resolution, Mr. Speaker.
I go on to state that I believe there is need for action quickly if the Senate is to be preserved at all. If this question is allowed to drift indefinitely as it has in recent years, and if public opinion against the Senate increases steadily-certainly that is the case in British Columbia, and I have no doubt it is true in most of the other provinces-then surely something should be done about it. The Senate has never been lowpr in public esteem than it is at the present time.
The very mention of the Senate from a public platform brings smiles. We had that identical reaction here today when the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe indicated that he proposed to speak about Senate reform. When he said that, members in all parts of the chamber laughed, and I am afraid that merely reflected the thinking of Canadians from coast to coast. Let us not fool ourselves; the Senate no longer commands serious attention in the country. The fact is that it has been allowed to fall into decay.
That brings us to the question of where we should place the blame for the present low position of the Senate. I do not believe I can be contradicted successfully when I say that the blame for that condition rests squarely on two Liberal prime ministers of Canada, the first of whom was Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and the second the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Appointments to the Senate are in their discretion. They and they alone are responsible for the appointments made since 1921, with the exception of that period between 1930 and 1935, at which time Right Hon. Mr. Bennett was prime minister of Canada.
5340	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform
What was the attitude of Mr. King toward the Senate? I believe it can be accurately described as more or less hypocritical. When he first became prime minister he was faced with a hostile Senate. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has read from newspaper reports and from statements by Mr. King which indicate that he was annoyed about the fact that certain of his legislation was overruled by the Senate in which, at that time, the Liberal party did not have a majority. Mr. King used Senate reform as a plank with which to win elections both, I presume, in 1925 and again in 1926.
The hon. member has read statements which verify what we all know to be the truth, that in making appointments to the Senate Mr. King extracted a pledge from the appointees that they would do what he wished them to do with regard to reform of the Senate. The trouble, of course, was that once he got a majority in the Senate he no longer wanted to reform it. Therefore his pledgees or appointees, or whatever you wish to call them, were not called upon to put through any Liberal policy of Senate reform, because there was no such policy.
I thought the answer by Mr. King to questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in 1948 was very significant. That answer is found at page 853 of Hansard for that year. Mr. King did not choose to answer those questions in writing. He made a verbal reply and said in part:
His question relates to so-called pledges or undertakings given by certain members of the Liberal party at the time of their appointment to the Senate that they would, if the question of Senate reform came up, support in the Senate such legislation in that particular as the government of the day might wish to have enacted.
Then he went on to explain the reason he had obtained these pledges, and said:
It was that kind of thing which was in my mind when I spoke with different gentlemen before they were formally appointed to the Senate and received their assurance that, in situations of the kind, they would support legislation for Senate reform that might come to the Senate from this house.
Then he went on:
There was nothing in the nature of a written pledge. There was no pledge made to the government, as a government. It was an undertaking that was given to myself, as the one who was responsible for nominating members to the Senate. How many there were from whom I received that assurance. I cannot say at the present time. Nor am I in a position to say just when I ceased to raise that question. It did not become as important later on, when we had a majority in the Senate, and were in a position to see that permanent legislation originating in this house was not defeated because of action on the part of a hostile opposition in the upper chamber.
So I repeat that I believe the attitude of the late Mr. King, with regard to Senate


reform, was really only one of hypocrisy. Like the present Prime Minister, Mr. King kept quite a few vacancies all the time. I always believed he used them as a disciplinary measure. If there were eight vacancies in the Senate, there were at least ten Liberal aspirants for each of them. And while those vacancies remained not one of those ten would even draw a deep breath if he thought that would displease Mr. King. And it was a very-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that what happened in the first half of the thirties? Ask the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know.


William Earl Rowe: It never bothered me.


Howard Charles Green: There may have been a similar situation then, under the Conservative government, before I got here. I am speaking of what I have seen.


Walter Edward Harris: You do not really believe that of any prime minister.


Howard Charles Green: I do believe that of Mr. King, or I would not say it. Mr. King was a great political strategist, and he used vacancies in the Senate as one means of preserving discipline in the Liberal party.
The attitude of the present Prime Minister is different. I think his attitude to the Senate is one of utter indifference, and of hopelessness. He has more vacancies now, I believe -and a member of the government can correct me if I am wrong-than there have ever been since confederation, with an effect on public opinion which is disastrous so far as the Senate is concerned. If that is all the value the Prime Minister of this country places upon the Senate, why should any Canadian place more value upon it? Certainly it shows how little importance the Prime Minister places upon the other house.


William Earl Rowe: He will get no one to take the vacancies, soon.


Howard Charles Green: He showed very clearly his attitude toward the Senate last year during the discussion on the bill to increase salaries. I am referring to page 1639 of Hansard for February 1. During that debate several members brought up the question of Senate reform. They did not see why the senators should get the same increase as members of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister indicated quite tactfully that he did not see any reason either. He went on to say that if the members of the other house saw fit to amend that bill so they did not get as large an increase as the members of parliament, nobody here would feel very badly. But of course the senators did not rise to that suggestion very

quickly. They passed the bill through without any amendment in about half an hour, or certainly in less than an hour, and that was their answer to such a suggestion.


Mr. Maclnnis:: They were protecting the rights of the minorities.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, perhaps that was one instance where they were protecting the rights of the minorities as they saw those rights, but here is the quotation that indicates the present Prime Minister's attitude toward the Senate. He approached the question on the basis of the constitution and said:
I must confess I have never felt that it was realistic to give any serious study or thought to the probability of modifying it. In order to modify it there would have to be also the concurrence of the members of the other house.
He was referring to the constitution as it related to the Senate. He went on:
Since I have been in Ottawa I have found that there were plenty of problems that it was realistic to study and consider, because I might have some responsibility in connection with forming some opinions as to the solutions they should receive.
As a matter of fact the Prime Minister has a lot of responsibility in this question of Senate reform, though he does not seem to recognize it. He went on:
I must confess I have never felt I was going to have in my day the responsibility of having to come to a conclusion about substantial modification as to the character of our constitution.
He should not have taken on the position of Prime Minister of Canada if he was not prepared to face this Senate problem, just as he had to face other problems. He went on:
I have heard certain modifications suggested about the way in which appointments on summonses to the other house might be made. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have never heard one that did not seem to me to bristle with more obstacles than promises of advantage to the Canadian public.
That shows utter hopelessness with regard to reform of the Senate. I ask this question. Is the Prime Minister letting the Senate die out? Is he letting it fade away? Obviously he has not as yet shown any indication that he has given this problem any serious thought. If the statement he made on February 1 of last year reflects his attitude at the present time, there is not very much likelihood of reform of the Canadian Senate while the present Prime Minister holds his exalted position.
I do not blame the senators for the present position of the Senate. They are in reduced numbers. How can they possibly function properly when there are 22 vacancies, and no attempt whatever to fill them? It is recognized that appointments are for party service. Why should we try to camouflage the facts?
Proposed Senate Reform That is recognized here in the house today, and it is recognized in Canada from coast to coast. Twenty-eight or 29 of the present senators have been in the House of Commons as Liberal members since I came here in 1935. That is over one-third of the present Senate. I am not quarrelling with the fact that they are in the Senate. They deserve to be there just as much as anybody else who is there, but nearly everyone in the Senate has been either a member of this house, or in the provincial legislatures, or a defeated Liberal candidate, or has had some connection with active Liberal party organization.


Walter Edward Harris: Or a defeated Conservative candidate.


Howard Charles Green: I am not saying that the appointments made under Conservative prime ministers were always the correct ones. I am simply referring to the position of the Senate as we know it to be today, in 1955.
Furthermore, the Senate is given little important work to do. That of course is the fault of the government exclusively. Take legislation. During the present session we had a bill respecting the Canadian National Railways. It was a very important bill, bringing all the legislation having to do with the national railways together in one statute. That bill could very well have been introduced in the Senate. It was involved. It meant checking several dozen statutes, and the Senate could have done a thoroughly efficient job on that particular bill. Instead, it was introduced in the house when we were in a rush. Members of the house were very busy; and while we did the best job we could, this is one case where a bill could have been introduced in the Senate.
The same is true of the bill on the order paper now to amend the Transport Act, which has to do with agreed charges. It could have been initiated in the Senate, where again they could have given it more careful study than we can possibly do this week. It comes up in committee tomorrow. They could have called witnesses and made a thorough study of the bill.
This failure of the government to give the Senate very much real responsibility for initiating legislation has caused the more aggressive Senators to make their own business. I need only refer to Senator Crerar and his committee on finance, which has done a wonderful job for more than one year, and the committee under Senator Reid dealing with the traffic in narcotic drugs in Canada. These were cases where those particular senators made work for themselves and in so doing rendered a service to the people of the country.
5342	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform
I should like to point out that senators themselves during this session have debated this question of the failure to fill vacancies. Many of them have deprecated the fact that vacancies have continued for such a long period. The sum and substance of this part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is that the Senate has not been given a chance by the government. It is no wonder the Senate has ceased to command the serious attention of the country.
1 do suggest that some steps which might be taken to investigate this problem include first of all, as mentioned in the amendment, the method of appointment. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) suggested that men and women who are leaders in certain fields in Canada should be appointed to the Senate. I had intended to refer to men who are leaders in the labour field, in organized agricultural activities, in the universities of Canada and in the field of journalism, to mention only a few of the groups from which representatives should be appointed who would give great service to Canada in the Senate.
Then I believe this question of having senators appointed by the provincial governments is worthy of consideration. One of the main functions of the Senate is to protect the provinces, and surely it would help if a certain percentage of the senators were appointed by the provincial governments. Then on the tenure of office, to me the present provision has always seemed one of the indications that the fathers of confederation were only human. They were not perfect. When they arranged for tenure of office in the Senate they slipped up pretty badly. This very fact that a person is appointed for life means, because of the frailties of human nature, that a certain percentage of the members of the Senate can never function physically because they are too old. They are appointed for life and when they become ill and unable to carry on, they still occupy Senate seats. The result is that it is impossible to have the Senate function on the basis of all members being physically able to carry on.
Suggestions have been made that the appointments should be for a period of years, and ten years has been suggested. There would then be reappointments, and there has also been the further suggestion of compulsory retirement. Many years ago a leading public man suggested retirement at 80 years of age. I would not suggest that age today, but these are questions which we believe should be considered.
Consideration should also be given to making the Senate an elective body. I realize the reason the fathers of confederation made


it an appointed body was that they were thinking largely of British precedent, where they had lords in the House of Lords. We do not have any lords in this country, except that sometimes cabinet ministers think they are pretty near to being lords. The system here is different, and I believe a lot can be said for the elective system. Certainly there should be an investigation into that possibility. If the members of the Senate were elected they would fill a far more important place in the public life of the country than they do at the present time.
My final suggestion is that consideration should be given to finding ways and means of bringing about in the Senate more concern for the ordinary Canadian. I do not believe the ordinary Canadian has much chance under the present Senate set-up. Things have reached the stage under present conditions where the people from coast to coast who keep this country going, the men and women who are carrying the responsibilities of the country and without whom there would be no Canada, find it hard to get their problems before the Senate for consideration. In my opinion that is one of the great drawbacks to the present Senate set-up.
Above all there should be a recognition that there is a Senate problem and that something should be done about it. It looks as though the government is prepared just to sit out this debate and then vote down the amendment without attempting to justify the present position. Surely no one here would say that the present situation in the Senate is satisfactory. Other commonwealth countries which have been faced with this condition have taken steps to bring about changes and make their upper houses more in line with reality.
Since I came here in 1935 I have seen the Senate decline steadily, more particularly in recent years. When I came here first, senators prided themselves on their non-partisanship, and I am referring now to senators representing both parties. I ran into that on more than one occasion, but now there is nothing left about which they can pride themselves. Certainly there is very little political independence left in the other house.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to use as great care as possible in referring to the other house. I have been worried since this debate was initiated because of what has been said, which might be taken as rather offensive as far as the other place is concerned. Under our standing order 41 the practice has always been to keep the debate within bounds. Although the subject of this debate is the reform of the Senate, I would

hope that hon. members will be most careful as to the expressions they use.


Howard Charles Green: If you wish I shall withdraw that remark. In conclusion may I say that the solution for this problem can come only from the Prime Minister. No one else can give a lead in facing up to and settling this problem. He has the greatest majority that any Prime Minister of Canada has ever had, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. It is about time that he did something about this problem.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as we all know the Senate is supposed to fulfil certain definite functions. It was originally conceived as a body of outstanding, knowledgeable and public-spirited Canadians who were to gather together and deliberate on the measures passed by this House of Commons. I think we would all agree that many of the members of the present Senate are men who have served their country in the finest way possible, as senior statesmen, and have made a great contribution to the legislation of this country. Their advice has been widely sought, and they have brought outstanding ability to bear on the deliberations of our affairs.
However, I think it is highly unfortunate that right from the beginning the Senate has been appointed by the government of the day. For that reason, irrespective of what party happened to form the government, the Senate became largely a lush pasture for the supporters of the party which happened to be in power at that time. Many senators today, I believe, have been appointed-and this is no change from the past-because they were quite candidly faithful party members whom the government believed it should reward for some reason or other; or were members of the House of Commons whom the party in power found impossible to regulate here in this chamber, and so they were moved upstairs.
Latterly, because we have had one party in power in this country for the past 20 years, the Senate really has become a retirement haven for faithful Liberal party workers or members, instead of being what it was originally intended to be, namely a gathering of the best minds in the country to discuss and instigate legislation without being subject to the influences and pressures which are brought to bear upon members of
Proposed Senate Reform the House of Commons by those who send us here, and in that way be able to give clear judgment on the issues brought before them.
I think we would all agree, and I know it is the feeling of the people of the country, that because of the particular set-up of the Senate at the present time, with all but seven members coming from one party, the Senate today is no more nor less than a rubber stamp for the government.
In days gone by the Senate was represented on a fairly even basis, with the membership divided between the two old parties; but now, as I say, all but seven come from one party. I think we would all agree, and I feel sure that the government does so, that this is not a good thing for any legislative body. The Prime Minister today has the opportunity to make this a body of legislators which can regain the confidence of the people of Canada and restore the Senate to its real place and its real authority. Senators do not need to have political affiliations, but they should have great and wide experience and ideas which they can bring to bear on the discussions in which they take part.
As has been suggested by other members who have spoken in the debate today, I believe we should have many more outstanding representatives from various fields of endeavour in this country. To mention six fields only, I feel the Senate should have outstanding representatives from the fields of industrial management, labour, agriculture, education, science and culture. If appointments were made from those ranks in the future, I believe the Senate would be immeasurably strengthened. In fact I believe appointments of that kind must be made in future or the demand by the people of Canada for the abolition of the Senate will eventually become stronger than any government can withstand and abolition would take place.
I believe it would be a sorry state of affairs to have that happen. I think a group of men and women who are not obliged to face the electorate every four or five years, as do the elected representatives in the House of Commons, could view legislation in a much more impartial manner because they would be unswayed by the problems which were facing the people who sent them here, and could form more objective judgments on the problems that our country is facing today.
Such a group would have the time in which to really contemplate the issues of the day. They would have no axes to grind. They could bring fresh viewpoints to bear and

Proposed Senate Reform could introduce amendments to our legislation which I think would be very constructive indeed.
I believe that was the true function for which the Senate was originally intended and the real reason it is part of our Canadian constitution. I think we should make our Senate one composed of members who can fulfil this function of objective deliberation.
If that function is carried out, I believe the role of the Senate can be restored to that which was originally intended. As has been said today, the Prime Minister has a wonderful opportunity to bring the Senate back to life and to it restore the esteem to which I believe it is entitled. Today there are 18 vacancies. The Prime Minister I know will agree that-


Mr. Huffman:: There are 22 vacancies.


George Harris Hees: Twenty-two?


Edward Blake Huffman: Yes; you are out of date.


George Harris Hees: That shows how quickly these things move along. Perhaps the figure will be 23 tomorrow and 24 the next day. That is all the more reason for taking this action. I believe the Prime Minister would agree that to appoint 22 more members of the Liberal party to the Senate, persons who are Liberal supporters-although that has been the practice followed by both parties in the past-would simply make the Senate even more ridiculous, as far as being an impartial body is concerned, than people already consider it to be.
I feel the Prime Minister has a wonderful opportunity to choose outstanding representatives in the fields I have mentioned, namely those of industrial management, agriculture, labour, education, science and culture. I believe those people could bring tremendous knowledge to bear on the discussions in the Senate, and could restore it to its proper place. As further vacancies occurred more men and more women of this calibre could be added, and in that way I think the legislative procedures of parliament would be immeasurably improved.
I know the Prime Minister does not have an easy choice in this matter. I really feel that he agrees with what I have said. These are not new ideas; they are old ones. I really feel that in what I have said he agrees with me. I also sympathize with him because of the problem he is up against. I know and he knows that as soon as he announced a policy of this kind the telephones would be ringing, the wires would be clogged and the mails would be jammed with violent protests from thousands of faithful

Liberal party members, all of whom think they are in line for one of these 22 vacancies.
I know the problems the Prime Minister would face, but I think he is a big enough man to face them. I hope he will do so, because it is the only chance we have of restoring the Senate to the position of respect to which it is entitled in the minds of the Canadian people. If something of that kind is not done I think the demand of the people will be that the Senate be abolished, because I believe they will feel that it is ridiculous to pay out large sums of money to operate the Senate if the Senate obviously is not able to pass impartial judgment on the legislation passed by this house, and for that reason has no real function in our parliament today.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few brief words. I think I can consistently make a few corrections, because I am not looking for an appointment to the Senate. Personally I do not think the hon. member who introduced this question and those who have spoken on it are seeking reform now, because they know perfectly well that if they had wanted reform they would have brought up the question at the beginning of the session, not now when it is impossible to introduce legislation. Therefore I think they are wide of the mark.


William Earl Rowe: We brought it up in 1950.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Second, a number of hon. members of the opposition think the Senate is at a low ebb. At supper time I heard somebody say, "Hurrah for the Senate". I do not think the Senate has ever been better than it is at the present time. It is all right to hit at somebody because you think it is popular to hit at them, but even the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said that the former member for New Westminster, Senator Reid, has done work that has been highly commended. Never since I came here has the Senate had so much front page publicity. Some members have said there should be an age limit. Why have an age limit in the Senate when there is no age limit here?


An hon. Member:: Because your constituents can decide.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am not 75. When you tell me I cannot be a member of the House of Commons, tell the citizens of Fort William and they will talk to you. It is all right talking to people who are far away and cannot reply. I think the Senate have done a fine job.
The Senate occupies the position of a court. I know some of its members who were once

members of the House of Commons. When they were here they were just as efficient as anybody in the house, and they have not changed a bit. I have listened to them a few times when there were some dry speeches going on here. I slipped over there to hear something excellent, and I did. It is all right to blame the people on the other side of the house, but I am convinced that today the Senate is doing a better job than it has ever done since I came here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker; that is all I have to say.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the policy of my party with respect to the Senate is that it should be abolished and of course I am in favour of that policy, though I must admit I never could get very enthusiastic about it because I could never see clearly how we would set about to abolish the Senate. I felt that if we formed the government the first thing we would have to do would be to get somebody in the Senate to represent us there, even at the opening of parliament, and once having embarked on that course we probably might consider changing our policy of abolition.
It is rather strange that at this time we should hear so much talk about restoring the Senate to its former place in the government of the country. If the Senate has fallen from its former place of usefulness in the governmental set-up of the nation, surely there must be some reason for that. I do not think the reason can be that the present Prime Minister is not filling the vacancies fast enough. I imagine if the Prime Minister felt he needed to have more representatives in the Senate he would fill the vacancies very quickly.
As for myself, I do not think it would make a particle of difference to the other place, to this house or to the country at large if 22 new members were appointed to the Senate. You cannot get anything more from the Senate than you are getting from it now. It has become the fifth wheel on the governmental machine, and in my opinion it is really no use to try to restore that wheel to usefulness by attaching some sort of power to it, putting a new tire on it or any of the other things that one does with a wheel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Power steering.


Angus MacInnis: What would the Senate do that is not already being done by this chamber, a chamber elected by the people of Canada to do the things the people of Canada want done? It has been said that the Senate should be made more useful and given more
Proposed Senate Reform power, but remember that the Senate in its present form has the same powers as this chamber except in one small particular. It has the power to veto what has been done here by those who were democratically elected to govern the country.


An hon. Member:: Oh, I don't care what you say, Angus.


Angus MacInnis: There goes one man who cannot stand to hear the truth. In my opinion a non-elected Senate that has the power of veto over an elected chamber is the negation of democracy. Not only is that so, but in all countries today where they have the parliamentary system the tendency is toward a one-chamber parliament. In New Zealand the Senate was abolished a few years ago. Who abolished it? The Conservatives, when they came into office. The second chamber in the United Kingdom, the mother of parliaments, has been brought to a position where it is practically absolutely useless as a legislative body.
Have we, the elected members of the House of Commons, so little faith in our own capacity to deal with matters affecting Canada that come before us that we must have them reviewed by a non-elected body of men who can say to us, "Go and play marbles; we know what the people want and you do not".
It is said that the function of the Senate when Canada became a nation was to protect the interests of minorities. I never saw it in print, but I am told that Sir John A. Macdonald said that was the function of the Senate, to protect the interests of the rich who were always in the minority.


William Earl Rowe: He did not put it that way.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether he said it better or worse than that.


William Earl Rowe: He said he would protect minorities, and as the rich were often in the minority they might as well be protected too.


Angus MacInnis: My informant is just as good as the one I am hearing now.


William Earl Rowe: Yours has the new socialist look.


Angus MacInnis: What Sir John A. Macdonald said was that its function was to protect minorities, and as the rich were always in the minority its function was to protect the rich. It has done that pretty well.
I appreciate that the Prime Minister has a problem. His predecessor had a problem, but I think for his predecessor the problem was easier than it is for the present Prime
5346	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform Minister. I do not like to speak disrespectfully of one who has departed, but I think the former prime minister was more of a cynic than the present one. He felt he had reformed the Senate sufficiently when he had a majority of Liberals there. He never made any further attempt to reform it after that. As a matter of fact, I believe he gave up asking questions of those who were being appointed when he was getting to the position where, in the natural order of things, he could have a majority in the Senate without making any promises or accepting any.
I do not care for many of the proposals that have been made here regarding the Senate. If we are going to have a Senate in a democratic country I believe that Senate should be elected. As I said before I am not afraid to discuss any problem, and I think I can discuss any subject objectively. There is a feeling that we discuss problems and take action on problems because we are elected members, which we would not do if we did not have to seek election. Surely if there is anyone in that position in this house he should not be here. A person who cannot face the electorate and tell them, "I favour this because I think it is for the benefit of Canada", or "I do not favour that because I do not think it is for the benefit of Canada", has no right to be here. I am not going to advocate something because some few people think we ought to have it and I cannot find it in my heart to say no.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre had a proposal for reforming the Senate by appointing a labour man to it. Well, the Senate will not be reformed by appointing one labour man to it: that is not what I would call labour representation in the Senate. In order to give labour the representation it ought to have in the Senate it should have members in the Senate approximately equal to labour's voting strength in the country. Labour will not be represented by the appointment of one old man who has retired from other fields of endeavour in the labour movement. We want young men in the Senate if the Senate is going to be useful.
I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) shakes his head. Perhaps he does not want young men in the Senate. Perhaps the government does not want young men in the Senate. But the people of this country want young men in the Senate if they want a Senate that is going to be of any use.
We fill the other place with old gentlemen who have retired or are about to retire from whatever useful work they were doing. As a matter of fact they were retired from the world. Then we expect these old gentlemen to
[Mr. Maclnnis.j

give a 1955 or 1956 expression of opinion on the problems that affect Canada. What utter nonsense! They cannot think in terms of 1955 or 1956; they think in terms of the years of their activity. That is not the kind of Senate I want.
Then again, I do not think it would be desirable to have the provinces appoint certain members to the other place. I believe it would make for all kinds of trouble. We come here to this parliament to represent Canada, not Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and so on. I said we would get into all kinds of trouble. We will vote for this amendment. Because the Senate is a problem child so far as Canada is concerned I suppose something has to be done with it. At the moment it is fairly harmless, and it is a good divorce court.
I think it would be desirable to discuss what we should do with the Senate, or what place it ought to hold in the government of Canada. For that reason we believe, as has already been stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, this amendment is in order and it would bring about that result. It is a question worthy of discussion, but let us think of it objectively. Sometime we may have to abolish it, but I think one of the great difficulties in the way of abolishing the Canadian Senate is that it cannot be abolished without its own consent.
I am not a constitutional expert or anything like that, but I find now that we have to go to the imperial parliament for certain amendments to the British North America Act. There are certain amendments with which we have power to deal ourselves, but I doubt very much if this chamber, on its own resolution, could get the imperial parliament to abolish the Senate. I think we would very likely have to have the consent of both houses of parliament.
After what has been said, I thought I had better say these few words in regard to the other place, whether or not you agree with them.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to say that in participating in the debate hon. members should not indulge in expressions which might imply some reflection upon members of the other house. I refer to Bourinot's fourth edition, page 360:
In the House of Commons a member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the house itself as a political institution, or as a branch of the government or upon the other house; or to impute to any member or members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case; or to use any profane or indecent language, such as is unfit for the house to hear or for any member to utter; or to question the acknowledged and undoubted powers of the house

in a matter of privilege; or to reflect upon, argue against or in any manner call in question, the past acts and proceedings of the house-
I would ask hon. members, while they are discussing reform of the Senate, to be very careful as to the expressions they use with respect to the other house.


John George Diefenbaker: This amendment deals with a matter that I feel is of continuing interest and has been debated over the years. Invariably during the course of those debates on this subject strong expressions have been used regarding the Senate and the membership of the Senate.
I do not intend to indulge in that type of discussion. But I would point out to you, sir, that no one ever spoke in stronger and more uncontrolled language regarding the Senate than did the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. I should like on this occasion to make one or two suggestions, particularly because I believe that this is a subject of inherent interest to the people of Canada and to the preservation of democracy under our system of government.
It is hard to understand why one of the co-equal partners in the government of this country should have been treated, as it has been in the last several years, with an almost undisguised contempt by the government of Canada. Either the Senate performs the functions and responsibilities envisaged by the fathers of confederation, or it is a useless institution. I am one of those who believe the Senate is necessary to the constitutional preservation of the rights of minorities in this country. That was its original concept; that was the idea of the fathers of confederation; that was the basis upon which the several provinces which entered confederation accepted it. Without that basis those provinces would not have entered.
It is interesting to study the general concept lying behind the necessity for a second chamber. Going back to the days prior to the rebellion of 1837 one finds that one of the major reasons for that civil war was the fact that there was a legislative council not responsible in any way to the people but, under the colonial system then prevailing, almost all-powerful in its relationship to the elected chamber. And it is interesting to trace what happened following the rebellion of 1837. Under the act of union provision was made for a legislative council and for an assembly, the legislative council to be appointed by the governor. Under that system every councillor was appointed for life. Upper and Lower Canada had an equal number of members. The total had no maximum, but the minimum was fixed at 20.
Proposed Senate Reform
Complaints arose that an appointed legislative council was not in keeping with responsible government, so in 1854, by a statute of the legislature of Canada, power was given to elect the members of the legislative council. In 1856 the government of the day brought in the legislation making provision for the elected or appointed legislative council, as the case might be, with 24 representatives from Upper Canada and 24 from Lower Canada. The term in the case of those elected was eight years, with one-quarter retiring every two years.
When the conference took place at Charlottetown, and the later one at Quebec, on the basis of the experience the representatives of the people had had in connection with an elected upper chamber they were agreed on one thing. That was that the upper chamber was necessary to preserve the rights of minorities, and that it could not be an elected body, for otherwise it would ultimately become the all-powerful legislative body.
Facing this problem today we agree on one thing. That is, whether we believe confederation was a pact or that the statute of confederation was a statute, the basis of confederation, or the reason certain of the provinces gave up their rights, was on the sure foundation that there would be two chambers in this country, one appointed and the other elected.
While it is interesting to speculate as to whether or not the Senate could be abolished by an amendment passed by the House of Commons and the Senate

 and I believe it could, without any resort to Westminster, provided there was in fact a majority in the Senate desirous of achieving the execution of that body-it is my personal belief that it would be the derogation of one of the major constitutional foundations upon which confederation was built. Therefore I do not go with those who believe we should end the Senate, but I do believe that the responsibility facing people today, and in particular facing this parliament, is that it should do its part- if I may use a phrase of Dr. R. A. MacKay -not to end but to mend the Senate.
When I hear some hon. gentlemen say the Senate has not discharged any of its responsibilities, again I do not belong to that school. On occasions over the years it has been a block to legislation passed in the House of Commons. But, with the perspective of history, as one looks back with an appreciation of events as he reviews the past, it becomes clear that on a number of occasions the Senate has been right in the action it has taken. When I hear some criticizing the Senate because of the manner in which it
5348	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform discharges its responsibilities with respect to divorce, I must say that personally I am among those who believe that the attention given by the Senate and its committee to divorce proceedings coming before them is such that the cases receive as fair, as considerate and as deliberative consideration as is given by the courts of law.
I have never dealt with this divorce question before. In the 15 years I have been in the House of Commons I have heard the Senate condemned and maligned for its failure properly to examine the divorce cases coming before it. Making due allowance for the frailties of human nature, and the errors made as well in the courts of law, I feel the Senate does in fact discharge its responsibilities in connection with divorce in a manner that assures, in large measure, a degree of just conclusions at least equal to that which can be expected in the courts of law.
Having said that, however, I do believe the attitude taken by the Prime Minister toward the Senate in the last few years is difficult to understand. After all, it is his prerogative and privilege to make appointments to the Senate. The general concept of confederation was that these appointments were his. And while in the experience of history the minister or ministers from any province could have consideration given to their views, the fact remains that under the general plan of confederation these appointments were indeed the responsibility of the prime minister.
The reason given for this at the time of the discussions in Charlottetown and Quebec was in fact this, that the prime minister would endeavour in the appointments made to assure the maintenance of the highest degree of legislative responsibility and competence in that body.
I cannot understand, and certainly the people of Canada have difficulty understanding, why a body composed of such responsible and able people as the Senate should be placed in the position that it functions with only partial representation. It might be said that we are saving money by not making these appointments. If that be so, Mr. Speaker, we could save a great deal more by abolishing the institution altogether. But as long as the Senate exists there can be no justification for delays in appointments of the duration that has been the case in recent years.
There are 22 vacancies. Five have existed for two years, three for four years, five for five years and one for six years. Either the Prime Minister has some faith in this institution and intends to wait until a sufficient number die so he may be able to put an
TMr. Diefenbaker.]

even greater majority in the Senate and thereby reform it; or, on the other hand, it reveals an undisguised contempt for an institution which I believe is deserving of better consideration from the government of the day.
I believe the Senate is necessary. I do not know what are the Prime Minister's views on the British North America Act, whether he regards it as a pact as did one or two of the fathers of confederation and as did the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, who on more than one occasion in this house definitely stated that in his opinion it was a pact. He referred to it as such on March 9, 1927. He said, "It is indeed a pact." I notice that Dr. MacKay in his book "The Unreformed Senate of Canada" takes the stand that morally it is a compact among the provinces of Canada. Whether it is that or not, it was an agreement, and the Senate was a necessary and requisite part of that agreement.
That being so, I believe it should be the earnest endeavour of the government of the day to ensure that the Senate shall have its membership filled within a reasonable time, instead of placing the Senate in the position where it is in the nature of hope deferred, or the dangling of a carrot before the eyes of those within the Liberal party who hope that time will ultimately assure their elevation to that body.
Where are the reform promises of the old days? Will the Prime Minister tell the house what happened to all those carefully drawn agreements during the 1920's? The late Mr. King went to the country twice on a policy of reform of the Senate. He contended that the means whereby that reform would be effected would be through the instrumentality of the executioners appointed by him to the Senate.
Mention was made this afternoon by my hon. friend the Acting Leader of the Opposition that in 1927 John Evans, then the member for Rosetown, asked Mr. King this question, as reported at page 355 of Hansard:
What is the form or wording of the pledge, if any, taken from those who have been appointed senators during the last two years with a view to Senate reform? How many have been thus pledged?
Mr. King answered:
An assurance of support of such measure of Senate reform, in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, as may be introduced by the Liberal administration.
This assurance has been given by all who have accepted appointment to the Senate within the time mentioned.
I have not gone to the trouble to ascertain how many went into the Senate on the basis

of this plan. The Prime Minister should be able to tell the house and the country whether a similar plan is in existence today, and whether in the appointments that have been made since he became Prime Minister of this country an undertaking was secured.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I can tell the hon. gentleman at once that I have never made any condition whatsoever with any gentleman whom I recommended to the governor for appointment to the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the ladies?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I never asked any persons whose names I submitted for summons to the Senate to make any commitment whatsoever as to how they would discharge their responsibilities in their legislative capacity.


John George Diefenbaker: That clarifies the issue. I am surprised to see some of my hon. friends applauding that statement for at one time some of them were applauding the late Mr. King when he mentioned this pledge, this assurance. It surprises me to learn that in recent days the point of view has changed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if the late Mackenzie King could hear what has taken place here this evening or even be communicated with in this regard I am sure he would feel deeply shocked at the departure from those principles for which the Liberal party stood for so long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think he would.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not going to bring my hon. friend into it, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in a peculiarly good position to tell us, both on past and present knowledge, when it was that Mr. Mackenzie-King departed from that great and abiding principle, the assurance from all the appointees to the Senate that whenever they achieved a majority they would indeed reform themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to tell the hon. gentleman. Mr. King did say to me on one occasion that all public men sometimes had to change their minds.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that is a reasonable statement coming from the gentleman who has established a reputation in that regard unequalled in this country. It is a strange thing, though, that Mr. King should have changed his mind after having been successful in two elections on the basis of a promise that apparently was never intended to be carried into effect.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, it is helpful that the house has in its ranks one who was so close to the late right hon. gentleman, and
Proposed Senate Reform who is able to tell us at first hand exactly what ideas passed through the mind of Mr. King, and why it was he changed his mind so definitely after a promise had been made that had been singularly successful in winning elections. These are things on which the minister should be able to enlighten the house during the course of this debate.
I ask him, when he speaks, to tell the house when, if ever, Mr. King changed his mind regarding this great subject of Senate reform. When did he finally determine he had been wrong? When was it that this change of attitude took place? Because in 1925 and in 1926 reform of the Senate was of the essence of the platform upon which Mr. King and those associated with him sought power in this country.
Having said that, I should like to mention some alternative suggestions that have been made as to how the Senate could be reformed. I do not have in mind recommending the appointment of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Senate, but he certainly could bring light to the Senate regarding the whole problem if he were to be appointed there.
Different suggestions for the reform of the Senate have been made over the years. First, there has been the suggestion of an elective senate, but that generally is unacceptable. The experience of the United States has been that with a senate elected for a longer period than the House of Representatives, the Senate has become an all-powerful institution. It was never intended by the fathers of confederation that our parliamentary system should be different in principle from the British; therefore an elective senate seems to be out of the question.
The matter was dealt with at considerable length in 1923 by the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding. Mr. Fielding had the advantage of being acquainted with many of the fathers of confederation. In addition he had had long experience as premier of the province of Nova Scotia, and as a minister in the federal cabinet. His contention was that the constitution of the Senate was not satisfactory. That was his considered opinion as given to the house on March 31, 1923, beginning at page 1375 of Hansard. He did not believe it should be abolished, but felt that it should be a brake and not a block on the House of Commons. He suggested that the tenures of the senators then in office should not be disturbed, and felt that there should be a recognition of provincial rights by having certain appointments made after consultation with the provincial governments. He was opposed to an elective senate, and he concluded by saying that the surest means of
5350	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform making the Senate an effective legislative body was to have the appointments for ten years with provision for reappointment for a further period of ten years.
These views of Mr. Fielding, representing as they do the essence of his experience, indicate some of the problems that could and should be considered by the government of the day, and would be considered if effect were given to this amendment.
All of us represent the opinions, reasonable and authoritative as they are, of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis). But I was rather surprised to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) applauded the hon. member when he stated there was no justification for a second chamber with power and authority to veto the acts of the representatives of the people. The Minister of Finance applauded that statement. If his applause meant his concurrence, then there is every indication that there is need to reform the Senate. Personally I disagree with that viewpoint. I think for the House of Commons or for parliament to take the stand that there should be a senate but that the senate should have no power to act on sober second thought would be a denial of the principles and basis of confederation.


Harold Edward Winch: Of veto?


John George Diefenbaker: Veto? It is not in reality a veto. What the hon. member is talking about is not a veto. The Senate may defeat legislation; but there is no senate today, following the experience during the days of Lloyd George in the historic House of Lords debates of 1910 and 1911, that would continue to turn down legislation passed by the House of Commons should the House of Commons be dissolved and the people return the government that introduced the legislation that had been turned down at an earlier session.


Walter Edward Harris: Is not that just another way of saying what was said over there?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. There is no case I know of wherein legislation has been turned down repeatedly, or turned down following an election where the government had gone to the country and asked for a mandate from the people. The only veto power is that provided for under the constitution. I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is his considered opinion that some change should be made in this regard, and that the Senate should not have the power of giving reconsideration to hasty and ill-digested legislation passed by the House of Commons.
These are but some of the problems immediately suggesting themselves. For these reasons I believe the country as a whole


would support the government giving consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate so that all appropriate steps may be taken to ensure that the Senate may effectively discharge its constitutional functions as an integral part of our parliamentary system.
Having regard to the events of the last few years, during which the Senate has been deliberately sidetracked and allowed to operate with three wheels rather than the four provided for under the constitution, I feel that the Canadian people have the right to ask the Prime Minister to place before the house and the country the reasons vacancies have been allowed to continue in the other body. As I said a moment ago, there have been one for six years, five for five years, three for four years and five for two years. Either the Senate has a function to perform and the government wants to see that function performed, or the purpose of allowing these vacancies to continue is to provide that when a sufficient number of vacancies exists, action will be taken similar to that taken by Prime Minister Holland in New Zealand, when appointments were made of a body of appointed, self-dedicated executioners who themselves voted their legislative council out of existence.
Someone may say that the reform of the Senate is a theoretical matter. There is nothing very theoretical in asking that the institutions of our democracy be made effective. How can any institution be effective if its membership is allowed to remain one-quarter unfilled? What kind of House of Commons would we have if vacancies were allowed to remain unfilled for one, two, three or four years? After all, the Senate has an equal responsibility with the House of Commons in the passing of legislation. It is Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Senate and the House of Commons; that is the way we are constituted to legislate for this country. The Senate is over there sitting between times emasculated in its membership, with no power to improve its position and having but one recourse, appointments by the Prime Minister to fill the vacancies.
The Prime Minister having now assured the house and the country that those who are appointed to the Senate go there without any strings attached, I suggest that he now let us in on the secret as to why these vacancies have been allowed to continue so long, and possibly even restore some degree of hope to some of my hon. friends opposite who have been waiting for a long time in the expectant hope of being elevated to that body.

I suggest that the Prime Minister should tell the house and the country how anyone can expect a senate to be effective and efficient and properly to discharge its democratic duty with three-quarters of its membership there and one-quarter unappointed, some for several years and many for two and three years.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, the question of Senate reform is not a new subject in this house. Even in the few years I have been here I have heard it discussed on numerous occasions. I have never expressed an opinion on the matter myself, but I have a few thoughts that I should like to present today.
First of all, a great deal of discussion has centred around the question of whether there should be a senate as such and whether, if it is to be reformed, it should be an elected rather than an appointed body. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway proposed what in my opinion was a serious and thought-provoking question, when he stated that a constitutional difficulty would be involved in asking this chamber to pass legislation abolishing another part of this parliament which eventually would have to pass through the other place. In effect it would be asking the Senate to pass a bill to abolish themselves. One can foresee some difficulty there.
I think the real difficulty lies in the fact that any major move to reform or to abolish any part of this parliament would involve the Canadian constitution. Since it does that it actually involves more than the members of this house or the members of the other place. It involves all the people of Canada.
In most democratic countries the method that has been used to bring about a major change in a constitution has been what is known as the constituent assembly, which is chosen for that specific purpose and, having fulfilled that purpose, is disbanded and is no more. There may be some practical difficulties in doing that in our own country. Perhaps the closest thing that could be found in Canada is the dominion-provincial conference, which is held now and then in order to iron out the difficulties that may arise as between the jurisdiction of the provinces and that of the federal government; but I believe perhaps the best method of all would be to test public opinion on this question, because even at a dominion-provincial conference I think it could be argued by both the federal and the provincial representatives that neither had a clear mandate from the people they represent to bring about a major change in the Canadian constitution on this point.
Proposed Senate Reform Perhaps as a way of testing public opinion directly and specifically on that question a plebiscite might prove to be the best method. If such a plebiscite were arranged for, I suggest that it would at the same time do away with the difficulty of having to ask the other place to pass legislation to which they may at the present time be opposed; because, before such a plebiscite could be held, legislation would have to be passed both in this chamber and in the other chamber to provide for the plebiscite. If such legislation received the approval of both houses, then if not legally at least morally, both houses would be bound to accept the verdict of the plebiscite.
In holding a plebiscite there is always the question of what should be submitted to the public. I would suggest that three questions could be asked. The first perhaps could be this: Are you in favour of the abolition of the Senate? The second could be: If not, are you in favour of an elected senate rather than an appointed one, the elections to be held on a provincial basis, with so many for each province to be elected? And the third, of course, would be the obvious one: If you are not in favour of the first two, are you in favour of leaving the Senate as it is?
I believe if they were given a specific opportunity to express themselves on that question, we would be given a clear indication of what the people of Canada really think about this extremely important question; and it is important because, as I said, it involves the constitution of Canada. That is my suggestion as to how it could be carried out.
Of course if this motion which is now before us were carried I would imagine that, under even the terms of this amendment, the government could proceed to make plans for the very thing I have suggested. But I have been around this place long enough to realize that the chances of this amendment carrying are rather slim, to say the least, and that after it has been disposed of we shall likely still be faced with the status quo and still have the same situation as before. That being so, and the chances being that we shall still have a senate constituted in much the same way it is now constituted, for some considerable period of time, I should like to make a few suggestions as to appointments to the Senate.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in his address today referred to the fact that one of the functions of the Senate is, as he stated, to protect minority rights. I should like to put it in a slightly different way. I do not particularly like the term "protect minority rights", because it almost indicates that those minority rights are under

Proposed Senate Reform attack and need protection. I state this as my considered opinion. I doubt whether there is any democratic country in the world in which minority rights are less under attack than they are in our own country. It is not so much a matter of protecting minority rights as it is a matter of doing the democratic thing, and that is to see that all so-called minorities are represented to the greatest extent possible in the Senate chamber.
I say "so-called minorities" because, as a matter of fact, in Canada we are in a rather curious position in that all people, with respect to their ethnic origins, are in a minority; and at the same time we are all in a majority. That statement may sound rather Irish, but it is a fact. If we look at the latest vital statistics, for 1951, according to the Canada Year Book we find that out of a total at that time of about 14 million people there were roughly, just in round numbers,
6.700.000	of British origin and 4,300,000 of French origin; then there were 619,000 of German origin, 395,000 of Ukrainian origin,
264.000	of Netherlands origin, 219,000 of Polish origin, 189,000 of Jewish origin, 152,000 of Italian origin and 119,000 of Norwegian origin.
I have taken only those groups in which there were over 100,000. There were many more categories that could be named. When one adds those figures and takes off a few percentages, one finds that no ethnic group in Canada at the present time is an absolute majority. As a matter of fact, every ethnic group in Canada is a minority, but from another point of view we are all in the majority. We sometimes talk about minority rights, language rights, religious rights and so on, as if only the minority concerned had the right to speak the particular language or follow the particular faith. As a matter of fact there is no restriction upon anyone in Canada speaking any language or practising any religious faith he desires. From that point of view we are all in the majority, because we are free to exercise the minority rights that all the minorities themselves can practise.
Then there is one very important group, though not a particularly large one, which I have not yet mentioned. I refer to our Indian and Eskimo population of 165,000. I have put these statistics on the record for this reason. As I have stated, it is not a question of protecting minority rights because they are certainly not under attack by anyone in Canada, but I believe it is desirable in a democratic system to have our governmental bodies represent, as far as possible, a true cross-section of the people who are governed.


There are two kinds of government positions. One kind is an elected position such as members of the House of Commons and of provincial legislatures occupy. So far as elected positions are concerned, it is up to the people themselves through their own efforts, ingenuity, activity and energy to see to it that they have the kind of representation they desire. There is nothing either this parliament or the government of Canada can dc* about that. It is purely a matter of the public looking after their own interests.
But appointed positions are in a different category, because they are taken out of the hands of the general public, who have no say as to who should be appointed to various positions. That is the prerogative and responsibility of the government. It so happens that one of these responsibilities is that of appointments to the Senate. I therefore suggest that if we are going to make an effort to see that all minorities are represented in so far as it is physically practical and possible to do so, a little attention should be paid the fact that more than 20 per cent of the people of Canada are of neither British nor French origin.
I mention this as a statistical fact and as a reminder that when we talk about minorities we are talking about a great variety of people in Canada, and it might be desirable to take into consideration the fact that at the present time this group of over 20 per cent of our population are not, so far as I know, represented in the Senate. I suggest that when the government are making appointments to the Senate they should look around for suitable, qualified persons who could be considered as representative of that sector of the Canadian population.
I am not aware how many of these various ethnic groups have made representations. I know one particular group has brought this matter to the attention of the government, and no doubt others have also done so. I hope their representations are being given serious consideration, and that some action will follow in the near future.
I want to say a particular word about one group who in my opinion have a special claim to representation. I refer to the Indian and Eskimo population of 165,000. So far as the Indian population are concerned, their status has changed to some extent in recent years due to the fact that in all the provinces of Canada they have been given the right of franchise in provincial elections with no strings attached whatever. They have also been allowed to vote in federal elections, with the stipulation that they must sign a waiver so far as income tax is concerned. In other words they are coming closer and closer to

enjoying the full privileges and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
There are good reasons why it is going to be difficult for some time yet for these people to become sufficiently organized to have representation in this house. One difficulty is the way in which they live and the regions in which they live. I think a very good case can be made why the Indian population should have a representative in the Senate to look after their widespread and often complicated interests. If any group has a claim to prior rights, certainly they are among those who have such a claim.
In placing these considerations before the house I want to make it quite clear that in naming these various ethnic groups I am not picking or choosing, and am not making a plea for any particular group. But I believe it is only fair and reasonable that when we speak of having minority representation in the Senate-not particularly in the interests of protecting minority rights because, as I said, they are not under attack-we should see to it that the voice of these people is heard along with that of other Canadians. In my opinion the appointment of one or more senators to represent that 20 per cent or more of our population would constitute an important reform and a step forward.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I would not venture to ask the house to listen to me at this time of night on this subject if it were not that I believe it is a very important subject which is in danger of losing its importance in the eyes of the people. If there ever was a case of the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt it seems to me it has come to be very nearly true with regard to debates on the Senate.
Of course, to begin with they are not debates. Apparently the only contribution we are to have from the other side is from the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), and his speech seemed to me more like a hallelujah chorus than a contribution to a debate. I feel that the matter is treated as so many things are treated nowadays, with something verging on contempt. I do not like to use that word, but we saw that attitude the other day when we made the best arguments we could with regard to reviewing government methods of carrying on their business, and there was no reply at all.
I believe the question of the Senate is of great importance. I believe that the wise men who set it up knew what they were doing. I have done some work on the matter myself, and I think I have learned something. Although I am afraid it will be dull for those who are here, I propose to put on
Proposed Senate Reform the record some of the sayings of the wise and able men who thought this thing through, so that even if no one in this chamber has much interest in the matter these sayings will be on the record for the benefit of others who may possibly be interested. That is my excuse for asking the house to listen to me for some time, and I make no apology for it.
As I say, I think this is a matter of great importance which is being treated as if it were of little importance. Nobody suggests that this world is so easy and free from trouble that we are going to have no difficult problems in government. As a matter of fact the government have set up a royal commission for the purpose of assisting them in solving their problems, and I feel we should be reviewing our own institutions, our own organization, our own system of government and seeking in every way to improve it. I believe our treatment of the Senate stands out and is a sore spot.
I am not going to say a word disrespectful of the Senate. There are able men there, both older and younger. There are very able young men and there are men of ripe experience whose judgment is useful to us now. I shall content myself as far as that is concerned by referring to what the hon. member for Prince Albert has already said with respect to the disregard with which the Senate is treated. I would say one does not need to prove that there is a Senate problem. You do not need to prove it is a fine day when the sun is shining. You do not need to prove there is a problem when you hear it discussed whenever the Senate is mentioned. I shall just read a sentence from Professor MacKay's book, at page 206. His book has already been mentioned, "The Unreformed Senate of Canada". He says this:
Probably on no other public question in Canada has there been such unanimity of opinion as on that of the necessity for Senate reform.
Now, does that arise without any reason for it whatever? Of course it does not. As I said a moment ago, I propose to put on the record some of the wise and weighty sayings of the past, hoping that my words may find some target; if not here, they may find a target elsewhere. It is our manifest duty as servants of the public to try to carry this question to the bar of public opinion, and that is what I am trying to do. I repeat, I do not hope to make an impression on the government. They are not much inclined to take part in debate and are more likely to reply by saying "Didn't we win the last election?" They did win the last election in a big way, but if the result of that is that we are drifting into
5354	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform a situation where the House of Commons is no longer to be a debating institution, and where the government just waits until we are through and then votes, all I can say is that a House of Commons of that kind will not maintain a healthy existence for very long.
Reference has been made to the former prime minister and his attitude on the matter.
I propose to say very little about that. As a matter of fact there is at least this to be said. He showed some sense of humour about the matter. I never thought a sense of humour was his distinguishing quality, but he did say two things which struck me as rather humorous. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar some years ago asked him what consideration he was giving to this question, and as I recall it he said he had been considering it all his life. On another occasion in answer to a question by the late Miss Mac-phail, who was cross-examining him about improving the Senate, he said he was improving it; as fast as Conservatives died he was appointing Liberals in their place. I give him credit for that as a somewhat humorous remark.
His attitude otherwise on that matter we have had described tonight already. I say no more about it. The attitude of the present Prime Minister is something I am utterly unable to understand. I am sorry he is not here to hear what I am saying. I have not the exact words, but my understanding is that on a certain occasion within the last few months he said there were more important things to do, or words to that effect, than bother about the Senate. The impression left in my mind was that, in effect he said the public of Canada should not bother him about that matter because it was not of sufficient importance. If anyone wishes to correct my impression I would be glad to be corrected right now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is what the Prime Minister said. I am relying on my memory of what was said earlier. I believe he said he had not yet seen any scheme of reform that would be better than the status quo. That is what I would call a rather good Conservative position.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall pursue this matter, because I feel the minister has softened up the Prime Minister's remark a great deal. However, accepting it as he said it, then I am thrown back on a cynical interpretation which I do not want to accept; that is, that the remark seems to imply no desire to change a situation which contains so many useful plums. I hope that is not so; I do not want to think it is so.
All I can say is that if the Prime Minister believes the present situation of the Senate 

is satisfactory, I would think he is in a very small minority. I shall have occasion to say later that I do not believe either the Prime Minister or anyone in this house has reached such a stage of ineptitude that he feels when there is a problem to be solved we have to sit down and say nothing can be done about it. I feel that is not an attitude the Prime Minister would wish to put before us.
Now I wish to read certain quotations which I am taking from Professor MacKay's book. I feel it is desirable, first of all, that we try to take a square look at ourselves in this chamber, and second I think it is desirable that the public should have brought to their attention the views which have been held by people of experience who are entitled to have opinions on this matter. I propose to read first of all an extract from page 197, a quotation from Lord Bryce. I wish to stress the fact that Lord Bryce was, for several parliaments, a member of the British parliament before he became an ambassador. We all remember the extraordinary skill and discernment with which he wrote about the United States constitution, teaching them things they had never known before about their own affairs. I read his words, therefore, with great respect and I pass them on in the same way. Professor MacKay said:
A no less enthusiastic supporter of popular government than Lord Bryce was led to admit, at the close of a life of study and observation of representative institutions, that there were serious weaknesses apparently inherent in representative government. His conclusions were as follows:
"Legislatures contain too little of the stores of knowledge, wisdom, and experience which each country possesses.
"Legislatures are liable to fall under the control of one political party disposed to press through, in a hasty or tyrannical spirit, measures conceived in the interests of that party or of a particular class in the community, often without allowing sufficient time for full debate, sometimes even by means of an organization of the ruling majority which binds all its members to support whatever measures have been adopted by the larger part of that majority. Where this happens it is not the legislature as a whole that governs, but a majority of a majority which may frequently be a minority of the whole body . . .
I would think any man in this house would realize that we know of a legislature not very far away of which that is true. Further he says:
"It has begun to be perceived that the existing legislative machinery of most countries does not sufficiently provide for the study of economic and social problems in a directly practical spirit by those on whom the duty falls of passing into law measures dealing with them, because legislatures incessantly occupied with party strife and with the supervision of the executive in its daily work of administration have not the time, even if a sufficient number of their members have the capacity, for such investigation."
He goes on to speak in the same way. I want next to quote briefly from Sir John

Macdonald, then from George Brown and then from Cartier. From Macdonald I wish to quote this, taking it from page 37 of Mac-Kay's book. He is reporting on the Quebec conference, and I read first of all MacKay's comment:
The Question shifted, therefore, to the construction of the upper house. The importance of this question in the minds of the statesmen at Quebec may be gleaned from the fact that practically the whole of six days out of a total of 14 spent in discussing the details of the scheme were given over to the problem of constituting the second chamber. Here, as at Philadelphia, the particularism and the fears of the smaller provinces lay at the basis of the difficulties.
Here are Macdonald's words:
Now as to the constitution of the legislature we should have two chambers, an upper and a lower house. In the upper house equality in numbers should be the basis, in the lower house population should be the basis.
Then later on George Brown said, speaking of the upper house, that it was the key to federation, the very essence of the compact. He said:
Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the lower house, on the express condition that they could have equality in the upper house. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.
Now I wish to quote from page 49 of this book, from Cartier:
The weak point in democratic institutions is the leaving of all power in the hands of the popular element. The history of the past proves this to be an evil. In order that institutions may be stable and work harmoniously there must be a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element.
I suppose if he had expanded that he would have made it clear that what he was talking about was the democratic element in headlong action and without any brake of any kind. Macdonald at the same time said:
There would be no use of an upper house if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the lower house. It would be no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower house. It must be an independent house, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body.
In view of all the good work we admit the Senate has done I would like to ask why it has become, as one so often hears in conversation, a kind of butt. It never should have become a butt. I am not going to enlarge on its disabilities, which have been mentioned, but I will say that I think one of the reasons it has fallen from its high estate has been the attitude of the last prime minister and the present one. Their
Proposed Senate Reform views come to be known, and their views naturally affect the views of those who are about them. As a result, if those who are closest to the Senate adopt that attitude, then it is easy for it to spread.
I wish now to spend a few moments coming back to what I think was the last great period of the Senate, that between 1930 and 1935, when it was led by two distinguished men, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and Senator Dandurand. I wish to quote from both of them but particularly from Senator Dandurand, to show some of the achievements of the Senate at that time, and the attitude of these men who were its leaders. This will give some indication of how very valuable the Senate has been and could be again. I think I have remarked in the house before that a friend of mine, who spent a good deal of time in Ottawa at that time, was tremendously impressed by the Senate. Indeed he said he was in favour of a singlechamber government, and would abolish the House of Commons. But, speaking seriously, I wish to quote now from Senator Dandurand.


Mr, Pickersgill:: What were the dates the hon. member just gave?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Between 1930 and 1935.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think both those gentlemen led the Senate until about 1940 or 1941.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps it would have been more accurate if I had said that. However, I thought of those dates because the speeches I am about to read were delivered in 1932. I am ready to accept the hon. member's correction. I did not know whether Senator Dandurand had been there as late as 1940, and that was the reason I gave the dates I did.


William Earl Rowe: The attitude of the House of Commons was different after that; that is, between 1935 and 1940.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I quote now the words of Senator Dandurand as they appear at page 7 of the debates of the Senate, in the session of 1932. Right Hon. Mr. Meighen had just joined the Senate and Senator Dandurand, in greeting him, said:
My right hon. friend will quickly observe there is really no opposition here; there is no standing opposition to government measures.
Bear in mind that he was leader of the opposition in the Senate.
In other words, we are collaborators in the work of the Senate, and we are that by reason of the fact that we are appointed for life, are independent of the electors, and have not to consider any constituency as a special unit from which we hold a mandate. Unlike the members in another place, we do not address the electors; we are content to address ourselves to the question-which is

Proposed Senate Reform
much the briefer way. Long speeches, such as may protract the debate in the popular house, are not made here.
Later on, speaking of one or two of the achievements of the Senate, he said:
To enumerate some of the measures that have passed under review in the Senate, I would mention the Railway Act, the Insurance Act, the Companies Act, the Bankruptcy Act and the Bank Act. I remember the revision of the Railway Act. The bill remained in our committee for weeks, and when it was returned to the House of Commons it contained seventy-two amendments. The Minister of Railways and the Minister of Justice, after thoroughly examining those amendments, accepted sixty-eight of them, and at a conference between the two houses as to retaining the others, my hon. friend from De Salaberry (Hon. Mr. Beique) was able to show the delegation from the other chamber that our amendments were proper ones and they were incorporated in the act.
Later he referred to the Insurance Act and the contribution made in that connection by the Senate.
Then I should like to read from the speech delivered on the same day by Mr. Meighen in which he said:
The honourable senator from De Lorimier (Mr. Dandurand) has dealt concisely, but in a way which to me has been illuminating, with the nature and function of this chamber as distinguished from the other, from which many of us have come. I take no exception at all to the distinction which he draws. I hope that the atmosphere of the other chamber does not too closely pursue us, and I promise honourable gentlemen opposite that I will make an honest effort to escape from that atmosphere and to acquire, even more than in the past, the habit of addressing myself to the question instead of to the public at large. Indeed, I thank the hon. member from De Lorimier for giving me tonight for the first time an explanation of the unfortunate fact that my public life to date has not been an unbroken and unqualified success.


An hon. Member:: What year was that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 1932. He continued:
It occurred to me as he spoke that in the other chamber I had been addicted too much to the practice of addressing myself to the question instead of to the public, and that the palm of victory finally went to those who addressed themselves to the public instead of to the issue.
I have read this, as I said, because I wish to put on record some indication of the standing the Senate had at that time. I can only hope, as I say, that my words may reach a target; and if I can make a contribution, even a small one, to an understanding and appreciation of the true seriousness of this situation I shall be perfectly content to have wearied the house, as I am doing.
As I have said, we see a very disappointing attitude in the House of Commons. In my view the Prime Minister is not taking the matter seriously, and has not given us the lead we should have. And when the Prime Minister does not give the lead it is hard for others to follow. I was amazed the other day when the Prime Minister spoke about there being a good many debates he did not like,

including the one we were prosecuting at that time. I could not help thinking that it was a strange thing to have a leader in a democratic assembly who did not like debating, because I have always believed that debating was the lifeblood of a democratic assembly; and that if it ceased, or became flat and ineffective, any democratic assembly would wither away.


James Sinclair: He did not like the whole level of debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, it is hard to have a debate when it is all on one side. It would be better if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) would take part in it. But this business of punching a rubber ball becomes tiresome at times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You could always stop.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to suggest methods of reforming the Senate, because I think it would be a waste of time to start talking about those methods of reform until we have made up our minds that we want to do it, and that has not happened yet. I am addressing myself entirely to the idea of doing whatever minute part is in my power to spread the idea that what we need is a new attitude from the Prime Minister down.
Of course we could have a Senate in which we would have representatives who, as time went on, would command the ultimate respect of the public. There would be representatives first of politics, of course, because the Senate will always need people who are trained in politics. Then, second, there should be representatives trained in labour matters. Then, third-and some sceptics may question this- there should be representatives trained in the legal profession, others trained in engineering and in finance; all kinds of professions.
I am not going to suggest at the moment how they should be chosen. But I say again that if there were a will to do it, a way could be found quite easily. Or, to use the old music hall catch phrase, if there's a will there are three ways. It would not be difficult if it were desired. The plain fact is that it is not desired at the moment; it is not felt that it is worth while making an effort.
I think I shall forgo some further remarks I intended to make, Mr. Speaker. I want to repeat myself to this extent. I greatly regret that this question is not taken seriously by the government. We are entitled to make that remark when they refuse to take part in the debate. We had one interesting comment tonight by the Prime Minister, who cleared our minds on one point; but I maintain again that this is an important matter. I maintain that it is an entire dereliction of duty when the government refuse to take part in a

debate on this subject. I can only hope that as time goes on we may possibly be able to carry this to the court of public opinion. We have had some small success in doing that in another debate, perhaps more than we could have hoped, and I hope that in this matter, too, we shall continue to debate it again, again and again until the government are forced to recognize that it is an important matter which cannot be shrugged off, but which demands the best attention they can give it.
They have appointed a royal commission to advise them on economic matters. Why is it that a matter of this kind, which perhaps is even more important or just as important, is left disregarded, and in the meantime becomes almost a mockery to the public so that this honourable and serious institution is degraded in public opinion in a way which is utterly unfair to them and injurious to the public welfare?
(Translation) :


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring my modest contribution to this debate, the purpose of which is to ask the government to implement a long overdue Senate reform.
First of all, let me congratulate the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) for his timely remarks, as well as all those who made suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate, where 22 seats are vacant-some have been unoccupied for five years-can surely not efficiently fulfil the task assigned to it. Since there are now only seven members of the political party to which I belong, the Senate is made up almost exclusively of members of the same party, and can no longer be considered a democratic institution.
Those vacancies should be filled with the least possible delay in order to restore to the Senate the prestige it had acquired in the past, but which has greatly decreased and even tends to disappear completely.
The public is inclined to believe that all the hon. senators have to do is to deal with the applications for divorce, which come up each year and are nearly all granted.
I refuse to believe that no more serious and practical work can be found for our senators to do than to give assent to the disruption of families and to approve shameful concubinage.
That should not be the function of the hon. members of the Senate. How can they do much more than study 400 divorce bills in a session,-a number which includes only the applications for divorce from the prov-
Proposed Senate Reform inces of Quebec and Newfoundland,-considering the small number of sitting days and the shortness of each sitting?
More importance should be attached to the Senate, which, by the way, occupies half of this building.
It is not the first time that Senate reform has come up for debate in this house.
The opposition has demanded such a reform more than once in the days of the late Mr. Mackenzie King, but Mr. King was not interested. He was only interested in appointing his own creatures after making especially sure that all would approve legislation submitted to them after its approval by this house.
I will only take a few minutes to reiterate a suggestion which I have already made at a meeting held in my constituency on October 14, 1954.
While advocating Senate reform, on that occasion, I suggested that the provinces ought to have a say in the appointment of senators. This, to my mind, would be far more in line with the intentions of the fathers of confederation, all due account being taken, of course, of de facto changes introduced in the meantime.
The fate and future of the provinces being at stake, because of the ever-spreading centralization of the federal government, it is more than ever expedient, if we sincerely want provincial governments to survive, to give to the so-called Senate the character of defender of the threatened rights of the provinces, by allowing the provinces to appoint a large proportion of its members.
The province of Quebec includes nearly a third of the population of Canada and the few senators representing that largest minority group of the country do not reflect the public opinion of that province, especially as their past political allegiance is far too much in agreement with that of the government which has held power now for over 20 years.
They are therefore not in a position to reflect the opinions of the people of Quebec, since they are opposed to those opinions, as represented by the present provincial government elected by the people, and even fight those opinions.
Once again, I make a claim for the respect due to the province of Quebec. It would be paying due respect to that province to allow it to appoint to the Senate men in whom it has complete faith, who would speak on behalf of its people but above all would be the champions of their most sacred rights.
If the party now in office does not want the Senate to lose its character of a federal body, it is only fair that it should add to the sena-
5358	HOUSE OF
Proposed Senate Reform, tors appointed by it a certain number of other people who would be appointed by the provincial governments and, when opportunity affords, could make their voices heard.
Filling the Senate vacancies according to the importance of the two majority groups of population in this country and having regard to the rights of the provinces is the bounden duty of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) himself. I urge him therefore to discharge that duty as soon as possible in order to restore the standard of prestige to which the Senate is rightfully entitled.
I also urge the Prime Minister, in the name of millions of Canadian workers to whom we owe our economic development, to appoint at least one of them to that important post.
Such an appointment would be a tribute to the worker, to his character, to his ability as well as to the large contribution he makes daily to the development of our country.
I know that such a request has been made many times in the past andi, representing as I do a county practically all made up of workers, I venture to speak in the name of these worthy workers in order that they may be represented in the Canadian Senate by at least one of their own.
As I was saying a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the question of Senate reform is raised in this parliament. The question has been broached a great many times not only here but everywhere in Canada. Should we not follow for once the example given by various other commonwealth countries which have adopted various reforms with respect to their upper chamber? The new Prime Minister of England, Sir Anthony Eden, has recognized, since he came to power, that it is necessary to proceed with a reform of the House of Lords-the equivalent of the Canadian Senate-and a committee has already been established and given the task of studying the possibility of applying the appropriate reforms.
New Zealand, another great commonwealth country, has definitely decided for the abolition of the Senate. In Australia, a reform was necessary and it was brought about.
I therefore say it is time we should follow the example of other countries as important as ours, that we should follow the example even of the mother country, so that the Canadian Senate may undergo the necessary reform.
We never had in Canada a more inefficient upper house; there is none like it in the whole world.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is going a little too far, when he contends that the upper house is the most inefficient in the world. According to the practice and standing order number 41, we must not here in this house attack either individually or as a whole the members of the upper house. And, even if several perhaps derogatory expressions have been allowed, I believe, however, that the hon. member might better keep within reasonable bounds.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, maybe it was a slip of the tongue, because nothing was further from my mind-


Mr. Habel:: A calculated one.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -and I had no intention to attack the hon. members of the Senate. I only want to say, as I said before, that the Canadian upper house cannot be effective in view of the fact that, first of all, the long-expected reform did not take place, and also, more particularly, because the Senate is lacking 22 members.
Mr. Speaker, if you do not have any objections, and as it is now ten o'clock, I shall move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No. There are two more minutes. Go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member has not the unanimous consent of the house at this time to have it called six o'clock.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to prove some of my contentions, and to show the extent to which that honourable house could be more effective, if a reform were granted by the government in power, I would like to tell the house about an editorial published in the Montreal Gazette of February 3, 1954, from which I shall quote.
It will take about five minutes, Mr. Speaker. (Text):
It is entitled "The Forsaken Garden". Somebody has called it ten o'clock.
(Translation) :
I move the adjournment of the debate. (Text):
On motion of Mr. Dufresne the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take any third readings there may be; then the Defence Production Act; then resume this debate, and if supply is reached take the departments of justice, veterans affairs and trade and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 28, 1955