1955-06-15

Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday in my absence the hon. Leader of the Opposition complained to the Prime Minister about an unnamed' official of my department who, he alleged, had issued a statement to the press with respect to a matter about which he, the Leader of the Opposition, was deeply concerned. I have the relevant quotations here, which I should like to read. He referred on page 4749 of Hansard to "a statement issued yesterday by an official of the Department of National Defence", and again, dealing with certain material that appeared in the press, he said, "This was issued in the form of a statement handed to the press".
Later, on page 4750 of Hansard, he said referring again to certain material appearing in the press:
I understand that it is not in nearly as complete detail as the statement which was actually handed out.
Then he concludes on page 4750 of Hansard by asking a question as to "who the official is that issued this statement to the press and under whose authority".
First I should like to assure him that I did not either authorize or issue any such statement. I have consistently remained silent about the matter he has been discussing almost every day, until the department's estimates are being dealt with, when I understand he wants to raise the matter. I have made inquiries of each of my responsible officials, and each of them assures me that no such statement was issued, no such statement was authorized, and no such statement was prepared or even contemplated.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this matter cannot be brushed off by a casual and evasive statement of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ralph Osborne Campney: What does the hon. member think is casual or evasive about it?


George Alexander Drew: It was very evasive because an attempt was made to create the impression
that this was not a statement. It was a statement, and whether it was verbal or written is unimportant. I think the minister is well aware that the Canadian Press did reproduce parts of that statement in direct quotes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question? Am I not to have my word accepted by the Leader of the Opposition?


George Alexander Drew: Surely we have not yet reached the time when it is not possible to make any comment on a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might all consider whether, whenever matters of this kind are to be raised, it would not be preferable that they be raised at the proper time and that we do not use the vehicle of questions of privilege, because by so doing a difficulty is created. There is nothing before the chair. A great deal of what is being said is a matter for argument, and that is something that should be debated at the proper time.
The minister has felt that he was justified in stating his position because he was not in the house yesterday when the matter was raised. To say that the statement of the minister is an evasive one is perhaps an expression which is too strong. The statement of the minister must be accepted as it is given, and no motives should be imputed. He has made a statement and it should be accepted. If any further arguments are to be made as to whether or not it was a statement, whether it was in one form or another, I think we fall into the realm of debate. At this moment, when there is nothing before the chair, I do not think we should carry on a debate under the pretext of a question of privilege. If there is to be a debate at this moment with respect to this matter, it would not be fair on the part of the chair to allow just the Leader of the Opposition and the minister to take part in this particular affair and not to let other members do so. I think we ought to reserve any argument on this point until the proper opportunity is afforded so that everybody can take part in the debate.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in what Your Honour has just said I submit that there is more than a question arising out of the discussion which has taken place between the minister and myself. Every day, or nearly

National Defence-Appointments every day, statements are made by ministers on a question of privilege, and the house has come to accept this practice and welcomes it.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition just at the moment when he says that ministers every day make statements on questions of privilege. This is not so. I know the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to these statements, and with all due deference may I say that his understanding of the situation is not the right one. He is under the impression that ministers make statements by unanimous consent. They do it by practice, and that practice has been established for so long that today it may be regarded as a right.
I remember the argument raised by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to this point when he contended that he should have the right to comment on these statements. He claimed at the time that these statements made by ministers were being made by unanimous consent. But this is not so. If he wishes me to do so, I will deal with the matter on another occasion. I have not my notes with me at the moment. I have studied the matter carefully and I have a prepared statement which would elucidate the point satisfactorily. Let us therefore take this point as being one on which we all understand each other. When ministers rise to make statements on the orders of the day, on the calling of motions under routine proceedings, they do not do so by way of a question of privilege. They do so because it is a very old practice for ministers to make these statements, and they do it now as a matter of right.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since this matter has been raised and since these statements do become a matter of record, I would point out that the practice to which Your Honour has referred is an old practice which was followed at Westminster before there was a Canadian parliament and in our parliament ever since. Regardless of who the individual may be, an opportunity for the leader of the opposition to comment on such statements has been accepted. If it were not so, then any statement could be made without challenge. I simply point out that in reporting a statement of this kind the Canadian Press-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -certainly did not make up the statement. They are a reliable organization and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -they gave part of the statement in quotation marks. Therefore I am certain it was made.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to add a word of comment because of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that at Westminister as well as here the leader of the opposition has had the right to make some comment upon a statement. The practice has been that members may ask questions for purposes of clarification. That has always been the practice, and by a ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald two or three years ago he extended what I claim to be an exclusive privilege to the three party leaders of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will recall that at the first session-


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, yes; see debates, June 4, 1951, volume 4, p. 3663; November 25, 1953, p. 329; December 8, 1953, pp. 692-693; February 1, 1954, pp. 1627-1630. At the first session that I was Speaker I indicated that this privilege should be extended to one spokesman per party instead of the three leaders because we know that in certain matters it is not necessarily the leader who may act as spokesman. It is usually a member who takes a particular interest in debate pertaining to such matters. I indicated at the time, on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), that was a ruling which I thought could not give satisfaction because I think no member of the house should have a privilege which is not shared by all others, and that if one member may comment then all members may comment. The practice before was that all members could ask questions for purposes of clarification; see debates, volume 1, March 25, 1920, pp. 707-9; volume 1, March 19, 1924, p. 481; volume 4, June 1, 1926, p. 3922; volume 4, January 21, 1941-2, p. 4475; volume 2, May 20, 1946, pp. 1669-71; volume 1, December 19, 1947, p. 492; also May's fourteenth edition, p. 352, and Beauchesne's third edition, citation 297. In order to restore that practice what I have done is to allow the Leader of the Opposition and others to make comments but also to allow any hon. member to ask questions for purposes of clarification.


Mr. Pouliot:: Equal rights for all.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I should like to make a short announcement about two agreements concerning atomic energy which have been

signed this morning in Washington between the Canadian and United States governments. The first of these agreements provides for co-operation in the civil uses of atomic energy. The second agreement provides for co-operation regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes.
Collaboration between Canada and the United States in atomic energy matters has, of course, been in effect since the commencement of the research and development programs in the two countries during the second world war. The revision of the United States atomic energy act in 1954 has made it possible to extend substantially the areas of such co-operation, and the two agreements to which I have just referred are designed to take advantage of this fact. I am confident that the co-operation made possible by these agreements will be to the mutual advantage of both the United States and Canada, and that this extension of our long-standing partnership will make a material contribution to the application of atomic energy both for constructive purposes, and for the protection of the free world.
The texts of the agreements will be made public in Canada by tabling in parliament within a day or two, on a date to be mutually agreed upon by the two governments.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In the absence of the Minister
of Justice, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Conrad Hilton chain is now operating under a contract with the publicly-owned hotel which is in process of construction in Montreal-in the absence of the minister the Prime Minister may prefer to take this as notice-has consideration been given to the effect under the Combines Investigation Act of the agreement made between the Canadian National Railways and the Conrad Hilton chain from the point of view of the restrictive practices outlined in that agreement?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: As indicated by the Leader of the Opposition, I shall have to take that as notice and have inquiries made.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIALIST TO THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to the appointment of data and fact-finding specialists, Mr. Speaker, which was approved yesterday, may I suggest that one of them should be assigned to the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Dufresne:: That will never get you to
the Senate.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: On Monday the hon.
member for Burnaby-Coquitlam referred to an advertisement in the Montreal Gazette by the Czech legation about an amnesty proclaimed in Czechoslovakia. The Czech legation is free, following normal advertising practice, to distribute information about the terms of this amnesty by means of a press release or by advertisement in a newspaper. In this case it was done without the knowledge or of course without the approval of the Canadian government. As I mentioned at that time, Mr. Speaker, in my preliminary reply to this question, the advertisement is addressed to Czechoslovak citizens and therefore cannot, as such, be considered officially as improper as it would undoubtedly be if it were addressed or directed to Canadian citizens of Czechoslovak origin or former nationality.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that any Czechs or Slovaks in Canada who have escaped from Czechoslovakia since the communist coup in 1948, and who may see this advertisement, will not be misled by it and will examine carefully what this amnesty does and does not promise before deciding to return. There is no amnesty at all for political prisoners and the amnesty afforded to those who merely left the country illegally is both limited and ambiguously worded. Furthermore, anybody who returned to Czechoslovakia on the strength of this amnesty and did not like what he found out there about its application would doubtless find it very difficult-to say the least-to leave again.


Mr. Regier:: May I ask a supplementary
question? Has the minister noticed in that advertisement what was a very thinly disguised charge that Canada had used false propaganda to lure these people out of Czechoslovakia in the first place? If so, is he

Canadian National Railways planning representations that this charge against Canada of falsely obtaining immigrants be withdrawn?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the advertisement bears that interpretation, but I will have another look at it from that point of view, and if that is a reasonable interpretation, then of course we would make representations to the legation in question.



MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 258, to amend the Municipal Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: May I inform hon. members that this bill was considered by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It has been reported, with amendments. Those amendments may be found at pages 673 and 674 of Votes and Proceedings for Monday, June 6.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Minister of
Transport whether he is making a statement at this stage.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Chairman, I did not really think that any useful purpose would be served by my making a statement with regard to the bill. It was very fully considered at the resolution stage, and again on second reading. The standing committee devoted no less than five sittings to the study of these provisions. I doubt if at this stage I could add anything useful to what has already been said. It seems to me the subject matter has been very fully discussed, and I think I would merely be delaying the work of the committee if I were now to make a further statement on the subject.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why the minister should make a statement, and that is that members of the house generally were not present at the meetings of the committee. It is not suggested that


at any time discussions before a committee answer the need for explanation in the house.
I would point out that at the time this bill was before the house on an earlier occasion there were certain clauses that had very important applications, in the minds of some hon. members. Those were discussed in committee. I am well aware, from reports that have come from that committee, that there was one clause in particular in regard to which the minister gave a very clear and explicit undertaking. I am referring to clause 27.
It has been customary, at the time when a bill first comes before the committee where amendments are being made that are in response to earlier discussion, to explain what amendments the minister proposes to deal with, so that there may be a discussion, not merely for the purpose of extending debate at the outset but for the purpose of making it possible to consider any alternative amendments that might be desirable when that section is actually called.
For that reason I would have hoped that, at least in regard to clause 27, the minister would have indicated what he is prepared to do, and why, in view of the explicit undertaking he gave when the matter was under discussion on second reading, he had decided to limit the amendments to those now included in our copies of the bill. I should like to be sure first that the amendment he proposes to make in this house sitting as a committee of the whole is in accordance with the inserts that we have. And second, why he is only prepared to go that far in making an amendment. I would point out that this has been the practice, and that there have been many occasions when ministers, upon the discussion at this stage, have become convinced that it would be desirable to follow another course and have been advised on drafting an alternative amendment, and that has saved time when we reached the appropriate section.


George Carlyle Marler: Because in my earlier parliamentary experience I have found it necessary to confine myself to the section under consideration, I hesitated to talk on clause 1 about matters which concern later clauses of the bill.
There was certainly no intention on my part not to follow the traditional practice of the house. I had thought, Mr. Chairman, that when we came to clause 18 I might then suggest that the committee should consider at that time both clauses 18 and 27, which refer to the question just raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I had thought quite candidly that if I were to deal with the subject when we came to these particular clauses it would avoid having in effect two debates on the same subject.

In essence, Mr. Chairman, the amendments which I propose to ask one of my colleagues to suggest are embodied in Votes and Proceedings of June 6. Hon. members have probably seen them. If the Leader of the Opposition feels it would contribute to the discussion if I were to make some statement concerning these two clauses now I would be very happy to accommodate him; but really, Mr. Chairman, I had thought that a more appropriate time would be when we reach clause 18.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would refer particularly to a discussion which took place as reported at page 4076 of Hansard of May 24. This will explain why I should think it would be appropriate if the minister would indicate why the amendment to clause 27 that is being proposed is in fact being proposed at this time. As reported at page 4076 of Hansard, I said this to the minister:
The minister has said "it is intended". I would point out that it is not a matter of what is intended: it is what the act says. I have asked a fair question. Does the minister propose to introduce an amendment which will specifically declare that the Canadian National Railway Company in operating such services as are covered by section 27 will be subject to provincial regulations, licensing and toll rates?
The answer of the minister, as reported at page 4077, was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was already perfectly clear from what I have said, but if the Leader of the Opposition does not feel my answer was sufficiently categorical I wish to say it is my intention definitely to propose an amendment in that sense. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is satisfied that this is the kind of categorical answer he would like to have.
In spite of that categorical statement, Mr. Chairman, the amendment contains no such provision. I should think, therefore, that at this point the minister might well explain to us why he has withdrawn from that position and why the amendment, which falls far short of that, is in fact to be given consideration.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, it is just
because I made that very categorical statement in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that I have given a great deal of attention to carrying out the undertaking which I gave to the house. While the Leader of the Opposition may not agree that that undertaking is being discharged, because after all I fully realize that legal texts do sometimes lend themselves to discussion, and sometimes lend themselves to more interpretations than one, I am firmly convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the two amendments-the hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred to only one-referring specifically to clauses 18 and 27 have the effect of carrying out in every detail the undertaking, if I may call it that, 50433-304J
Canadian National Railways that I gave to the house on May 24 when the bill was discussed. I still feel, after this preliminary exchange of comments with regard to the matter, that the subject can best, be discussed when we come to clause 18. Perhaps, if it is then agreeable to the committee, clauses 18 and 27 could be considered at that time because of the very close link between them.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. Following the long-established practice that on the first item it is appropriate to indicate suggested changes that should be considered by the government for possible further amendments,. I propose to indicate that the government, should now give consideration to the further-amendment, certainly of clause 27, and possibly clause 18 to such extent as may be necessary to make it conform with clause 27. I do that because, if the minister accepted the arguments that we make, he could then give the appropriate instructions for the drafting, and when we come to those clauses we would be ready to deal with them and save the amount of time that would otherwise be involved.
In the discussion that took place at the time that this act was before us, it was pointed out that there was a general desire on the-part of those who spoke in regard to clause 27 and also clause 18 that the Canadian National Railways should have such authority and such powers as were desirable for the operation as; a railway so that we may at the very outset anticipate any possible suggestion that there was any opposition to the general purposes of this act in so far as consolidation of the existing legislation is concerned. I should like to say now that we strongly favour the consolidation of this act, and by that consolidation the simplification of a number of statutory provisions affecting the Canadian. National Railways.
We have pointed out, however, why clause-27, with the influence upon it of clause 18,. should not stand in its present form and, in fact, why it is not necessary at all. Just to indicate some of the difficulties that we have in regard to some of these matters I would point out that, when I read the powers conferred upon the operating transport company of the Canadian National Railways, that is Canadian National Transportation, Limited, one of the explanations given was that it was desirable to have these general powers so that the name of the Canadian National Railways could be on the trucks and. other motor vehicles they were operating:. I would point out that we do not need any-amendment to this act for that purpose. As a matter of curiosity, I walked down to the station and to the freight area behind, and I

Canadian National Railways find that, under the act as it now stands, vehicles operated by the transportation company of the Canadian National Railways have on them "Canadian National Railways" and not "Canadian National Transportation, Limited". Therefore there is no need to include this amendment for any purpose of that kind.
Having regard to the extremely wide powers conferred upon Canadian National Transportation, Limited, which is the company now operating trucks and buses and other motor vehicles, and having regard to the fact that those powers are similar to the powers exercised by the Canadian Pacific Railway under its corresponding act, I submit that we have not had placed before us a single reason of any kind why clause 27 should be included in this act. As against that, there has been the representation of competent lawyers before the committee expressing the opinion that the inclusion of clause 27 takes the operation of truck and bus services by the Canadian National Railways outside of the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
Mr. Chairman, again so that there may be no confusion in the argument, we are not called upon to debate here the question of the wisdom of placing transportation of this kind under provincial jurisdiction. It was the federal government which made that decision last year and came before us to seek the support of this house for the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. It will be recalled that after the privy council, following long years of litigation, had declared that interprovincial transportation of this kind was under the authority of the federal government, for reasons which may be best known to themselves the federal government decided not to exercise that power conferred upon them by the legal interpretation of our constitution but asked the provinces to take over the supervision and control of motor vehicle transportation.


George Carlyle Marler: Authorized them to take it over.


George Alexander Drew: They invited them to take it over. They did not just passively authorize them to take it over. The privy council, following extended arguments by the federal government, had given a decision that the federal government had authority over this type of transport. Instead of exercising that authority conferred upon them by the judgment after long years of litigation, the federal government then invited the provincial representatives to come here to Ottawa, proposed to them that they should take over this supervision and indicated that for the purpose of placing transportation of this kind under the

provincial authorities a Motor Vehicle Transport Act would be passed by this parliament, so that the effect of the privy council decision which this government had sought would be overcome by such legislation. The provincial governments, which had been fighting in the courts for that right, very naturally accepted the proposal of the federal government.
Therefore we are not dealing with the wisdom or otherwise at this stage of that decision. That was the decision of this government. They fought for the right to control it, and then, having got the right they asked the provinces to take it over. We as members of parliament were asked to support legislation which would implement that proposal. That legislation is now on the books. Until such time as this government comes back to the house and says, "That was a mistake; we should have exercised our powers under the privy council judgment and we should control transportation of this kind", then we as a parliament are bound to respect the position taken in relation to the provinces when this was under discussion last year.
With regard to the clause now before us, clause 27, in its legal effect, I concede that there are always possible arguments about the interpretation of statutes. Nevertheless I do submit, and in making that submission I am supported by a number of arguments that have been made outside this house by lawyers with wide constitutional experience, that the effect of clause 27 is to take the operation of motor vehicles by the Canadian National Railways outside of the authority of the provincial governments and thus create the very kind of confusion which the Motor Vehicle Transport Act intended to remove. This clause will create confusion as to what authority there is over motor vehicle transport.
If the Canadian National Railways can operate buses and trucks outside of provincial authority then most certainly those operating the same type of vehicles will seek the same right and will feel a sense of injustice if they do not have that right because of the position taken by this government last year.
Last year before they called the provinces here and made the proposal to them, they would have had a perfect right to say that the privy council has conferred the responsibility upon them and not only the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway but every other interprovincial bus operation or truck operation is going to be under federal authority. They decided, however, against that. They placed the control under the provinces. They will create endless confusion if by the effect of section 27 they give to one truck operation or one bus operation a right with regard to interprovincial

operation which is not conferred by statute and in fact is denied by statute to other similar operations.


George Carlyle Marler: Does my hon. friend mean "intra" or "inter"?


George Alexander Drew: I mean "inter"; if I used the word "intraprovincial" I had intended at that point to use the word "interprovincial". I shall come to the use of the word "intraprovincial" because the fact is that the cases make it quite clear that under section 27 even intraprovincial operation of buses and trucks by the Canadian National Railways would not be under provincial authority. That is something that should be borne in mind by the hon. members who were called upon last year to support the Motor Vehicle Transport Act at the request of this government following the conference with the provincial representatives. I know this argument has already been placed before the government but nevertheless I think hon. members should know-and particularly those members who were not on the committee-that there have been decisions that transportation entirely within the bounds of a province is outside of provincial authority if it is part of a national transportation system. A case already referred to is the case of Luscar Collieries v. McDonald, (1927) Appeal Cases, at page 925.


George Carlyle Marler: That was the case of a rail line.


George Alexander Drew: Of course it was the case of a rail line. But the question of transportation makes no difference. If this is brought under the operation of the Canadian National Railways by section 27, it is all transportation and, being transportation, will be under the general application of the law to the Canadian National Railways. I ask not only those trained in the law but those who can read the statutes-and every hon. member can read them easily-to recognize that it is not just rail lines; it is the transportation system afforded by the Canadian National Railways that is outside of the authority of provincial governments if this authority is granted.
I would point out that in the case of Luscar Collieries v. McDonald, to which I have already referred, it was a rail line that was under consideration. It was operated wholly within the boundaries of Alberta. As a matter of fact, it was actually constructed under provincial legislation-that is, under Alberta legislation-but it was operated by the Canadian National Railways. It was therefore held by the privy council that, being part of the Canadian National Railways transportation system, it fell within the authority of the federal government and not under provincial jurisdiction. I submit that this
Canadian National Railways will be the effect of section 27 on bus operations. If the federal government stands by the position it took last year that truck and bus operations should be under the provincial authority, it has no right to ask us now to pass section 27 and carry any bus or truck operations outside of the application of the act that we were called upon to pass.
Subsection 10 (a) of section 92 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province:
Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is not anyone in this committee, including the Minister of Transport, who will argue that this was not intended to include all transportation operated by a national system such as the Canadian National Railways. On the basis of section 92, subsection 10 (a) of the British North America Act and upon the basis of the decisions of our courts, I submit that there could be little valid argument that section 27, as it is proposed that it should now be enacted, would carry the operation of those buses and trucks and other motor vehicles operated by the Canadian National Railways under section 27 outside of the supervision of the provincial authorities and outside of the application of provincial laws. I submit that would be a repudiation not only by the government but by this parliament of the effect of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act and all arrangements that were made with the provinces last year preliminary to the operation of this act.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, having placed these views before the committee I once again urge upon the minister, consistent with the undertaking he gave in the house while this bill was before us for second reading, that he should abandon section 27 entirely. He has apparently found that he cannot amend it so as to carry out the undertaking that he gave. Let him therefore abandon the section. So long as those operations are as have been indicated to us, there is not a single operation of motor vehicles by the Canadian National Railways that cannot be carried out by Canadian National Transportation, Limited, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways incorporated under the company law of Canada. If the limitations are as the minister has said, then section 27 is not needed. If there is some purpose or some intention outside of what has been said, then we should not even be discussing section 27 because we are not being told the story. I strongly suspect that the minister is being sold a bill of goods by somebody

Canadian National Railways else. I strongly suspect that he is being urged to have an amendment of this kind by someone outside of government responsibility, and that we have not yet been told what the real purpose is for which section 27 is placed before us.
I repeat again that if there is no further intention than what has been indicated to us, the powers conferred upon the Canadian National subsidiary that is known as Canadian National Transportation, Limited are wide enough. Until the government changes its stand in relation to the provincial supervision of operations of this kind, I submit that we should not be asked to pass section 27 in its present form, or in any form at all, unless effective limitations can be placed upon it.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say immediately that, in connection with section 27, there is no other intention than that which I have already expressed to the House of Commons. I should also like to say that I do not believe the persons in Canadian National Railways with whom I have been associated in connection with this bill are the kind of people who would endeavour to sell the Minister of Transport a bill of goods in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has just suggested.


George Alexander Drew: Page the hon. member for Temiscouata.


George Carlyle Marler: Did the Leader of the Opposition say something?


Mr. Rowe:: He said, "Page the hon. member for Temiscouata".


George Carlyle Marler: 
Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question of the minister?


George Carlyle Marler: Perhaps the hon. member will let me finish, and then he might ask his question afterwards. Then, they may fall within subsection (b), and what does (b) say?
(b)	Lines of steam ships between the province and any British or foreign country.
Quite obviously, that has no application.
(c)	Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
Well, Mr. Chairman, when you read subsection (c) you begin to ask yourself whether transportation works might fall within the four corners of paragraph (c) of section 92, subsection 10. I think first of all there may be a good argument that the works must be physical works. I think when one reads the exceptions in (a), (b) and (c), one finds there that in each case there does seem to be something physical about it. Personally, I do not believe a great deal of importance should be attached to that argument, but it does seem to me that in the face of the express terms of clause 18, which says that operations carried out under clause 27, which are the very trucking operations of which I am speaking, are not works for the general advantage of Canada, and therefore it seems to me the argument that was raised before the committee and which seems to have commended itself to the Leader of the Opposition, that merely because of the fact that these are operated in conjunction with the railway system makes them works for the general advantage of Canada, does not stand up to analysis. There is the clear and express intention of parliament that they should not be considered works for the general advantage of Canada and they are expressly excluded by the third subsection of clause 18.
I come back to the argument that, because of the provisions of section 92, subsection 10, of the British North America Act, which gives to the provinces jurisdiction over local works

Canadian National Railways and undertakings, to the extent the operations carried out under clause 27 are wholly intraprovincial, wholly carried out within the limits of the province, they fall definitely under the jurisdiction of the province so far as they are carried out within the province.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the question comes up, what about operations which are carried out interprovincially, between a point in one province and a point in another province? It seems to me on that point the matter is also equally clear. There is the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, and after reading its terms I cannot see how they can fail to apply to operations carried out under the authority of clause 27. It seems to me that an operation carried out by Canadian National Railways between one province and another is clearly an interprovincial undertaking, and is clearly the kind of undertaking which parliament said at the last session would he subject to the terms of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. It seems to me, therefore, that we come down to this. If the operations carried out by the railway under clause 27 are carried out within a province, then those operations are provincial and are within the meaning of section 92, subsection 10, of the British North America Act and are within the legislative jurisdiction of the province in which they are carried out. To the extent that they are not intraprovincial but on the contrary interprovincial, then I believe they are fully covered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, of which the Leader of the Opposition spoke this morning. As hon. members will recall, that act enables the governments of those provinces which wish to have the act proclaimed to exercise over interprovincial motor traffic the same kind of authority as they exercise over intraprovincial traffic.
As I said before the committee, I approached the question of the drafting of clauses 18 and 27 with a great deal of interest, particularly in view of the categoric statement I had made in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to have found some simple language which would, in effect, have reproduced in this statute what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, namely that the operations under clause 27 would be subject to the jurisdiction of the province or something along those lines. But when I came to consider the difficulties that gave rise to, not only with respect to clause 27, but with respect to other clauses of the bill, it seemed to me that that simple though direct method of amendment to the sections in question would have to be rejected. I believe if you stop to consider clause 27 for a moment you will realize that,

whatever operations are carried out under that section, they will be subject to a number of laws.
Surely, we have to admit that the drivers of the trucks operating under clause 27 are going to be subject to the provisions of the Criminal Code. Surely, we are going to have to admit that the operators of these trucks likewise must respect municipal bylaws concerning parking and speed on city streets. Surely, we must also recognize that they must respect provincial legislation with regard to speed on the highways and the paying of licences. It seemed to me when I came to consider clause 27 that there were operations which were going to be subject to laws at all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. If one singled out clause 27 as being the place where one said expressly that the powers granted Canadian National Railways under that clause were to be carried out subject to the rights or jurisdiction of the provinces, surely there was immediately an implication that applied to a large number of the other clauses of the bill and that they likewise would have to be exercised subject to the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, after considering that difficulty it seemed to me that we would have to come back to rely on two important points. First of all we would have to rely on the fact that clause 27 of the bill makes it abundantly clear that what we are giving the Canadian National Railways is not a right in the sense of a franchise but we are giving them a corporate power to do certain things, namely to buy, sell, lease or operate motor vehicles of all kinds for the carriage of traffic. There is a restriction, however, that it must be in conjunction with or in substitution for rail service under their management and control.
Second, Mr. Chairman, we must surely attach some importance to the express exclusion in clause 18 of what is done under clause 27 as being a work for the general advantage of Canada. Is there a lawyer in the committee who believes that the mere fact of the attachment-if I may use that expression-to the national system of some small bus line replacing a railway line that has been abandoned by the railway is going to be held by the courts to be a work for the general advantage of Canada in the face of the express exclusion contained in clause 18? Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is straining the normal use of the English language to the breaking point.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have taken so long in replying to the Leader of the Opposition; but it does seem to me that with

the language of clause 27 restricted so as to eliminate reference to highways and reference to the right to charge tolls, and the fact that clause 7 constitutes a grant of power and not the granting of a franchise, and considering further that there is this express exclusion of works done under section 27 from the declaration of works for the general advantage of Canada, no one can contend reasonably that the operations carried out under clause 27 will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the provinces either under the constitution or under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, when the minister says that no one can contend, he knows perfectly well that there are very competent and responsible counsel who have contended outside this house that that is the exact effect of clause 27. And I most certainly do contend in this house that it is the effect of it.
1 can only place before the minister certain observations in the hope that, just as he did pay attention to arguments that were made earlier, he still may consider arguments that have been made. I submit section 18 is not exclusive in the sense of carrying the application of section 27 outside of section 92(10)(a) of the British North America Act. 1 come back to that.
That section of the British North America Act was passed of course before there were motor vehicles, but it is perfectly clear what was intended. Section 92(10)(a) provides that-
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province:
-shall come within the authority of the federal government. It was perfectly clear that this was a general and inclusive application of transportation operated as a national system.


George Carlyle Marler: That is interprovincial, though, is it not?


George Alexander Drew: I will deal with that question. But then the minister has said, "Does anyone think that a limited operation or a small operation in a province could become subject to the general application of this act, and become part of the national system to the extent of bringing it within the meaning of section 92(10)(a)?" I would point out to him that that was the very argument made in the Luscar case to which I have already referred.
It was argued there that this was a railway operating over a very limited area in a province and under a provincial charter, 50433-305
Canadian National Railways and consequently must be subject to provincial law. The privy council found otherwise. The privy council found that, as it was operated as a transportation system, as part of the general system of the Canadian National Railways, therefore it was under federal authority.
Now the minister has referred to what is intraprovincial. I submit that under the Luscar case even intraprovincial traffic would come under the general application of section 92(10)(a). But also there is not one word-


George Carlyle Marler: Surely not intraprovincial.


George Alexander Drew: There is not one word in section 27 that suggests that only intraprovincial is contemplated.


George Carlyle Marler: It is not either.


George Alexander Drew: There is not one word. It leaves it quite open to operate interprovincial services; and if it is to operate interprovincially then it is not even necessary to bring yourself within the application of the Luscar case. You bring yourself within the general application of section 92(10)(a) of the British North America Act.
Again I do urge the minister to ask himself what single authority, what single operation could be carried out by the Canadian National Railways of the type, form and kind already being carried out by Canadian National Transportation, Limited, a subsidiary company of the Canadian National Railways set up for that purpose-I urge the minister to ask himself what single operation calls for this amendment.
Perhaps there is an answer; but whatever the answer to that question is, I still do submit that section 27 clearly brings the operation within the general application of the act, and the general application of the British North America Act as well, and that the effect of section 18 is merely to state that the operation under section 27 need not be declared.


George Carlyle Marler: Are not.


George Alexander Drew: Are not declared by this to be works for the general benefit of Canada.
I place this before the minister because I hope he will still reconsider it. I submit that the law is that it does not need to be declared. Because, being part of the Canadian National Railways, it comes under the general application of the act.
Then when the minister says, "Does anyone suggest that these vehicles would not be under provincial laws in respect of speed limits, and so on", I say, Yes, I do. That is one of the dangers of section 27, because

Canadian National Railways many of us recall that there was a time when rail lines went down city streets. I can remember certain villages and even towns and, yes, cities in Ontario where rail lines put in there in the early days go right down the streets, operating within the general movement of ordinary traffic.
Those are not covered by any municipal or provincial speed laws. They are covered by the speed laws set out in section 428 of the Railway Act. That is the only place where there is anything that does cover that. Municipalities have no authority over their operation. It is part of transportation operations.
I do urge the minister to consider that, by section 27, the operation of buses or trucks becomes part of the transportation system as contemplated by section 92(10) (a) of the British North America Act. The moment they do that, they then are under the law applying to that transportation system, and are carried out of the jurisdiction of the provinces, as was indicated by the Motor Vehicle Transport Act which was passed by the house last year at the request of the government.
I submit this, with all earnestness-and I ask the minister to recall this when he raises the question: Does any lawyer or any other member of the house, those with extensive training in matters of this kind, dispute this? Indeed, they have stated emphatically that it is a fact. I am not accepting their arguments simply because they happen to be the arguments concerning one type of transportation or another. I repeat what I said before, that the Canadian National Railways belong to all of us. It is important for every member to do what is necessary and desirable for the Canadian National Railways, and those working for them. We are mainly responsible for the general operation of that system.
What I am saying is that if the effect of section 27 is what it is stated to be by competent lawyers who have appeared in regard to this matter, if it is what I feel must be the case, if you follow the general rule where it was obviously intended by the law to include the whole system, and that these new types of transportation adopted by the transportation system are now included in the general application-then the moment you do that I do not see how it is possible to argue that section 18 has any application. It does not need to be declared a public work. It is part of the transportation system contemplated by section 92(10) (a) of the British North America Act. Immediately it is carried outside the operation of any provincial law.

I suggest the minister would be well advised over the lunch hour, before section 27 becomes law, to consider once again what the effect is; and to consider not only the effect of this from the point of view of creating confusion in our trucking and bus systems, which we sought to avoid by the adoption of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act last year, but also the moral obligation of the government to give representatives of the provincial governments opportunity to come here to state what their opinion is, if there is any uncertainty about this in the arguments made before the committee. In fact there is uncertainty, whatever the view of the minister may be. After all, he has his opinion and I have mine. But since obviously there are sincerely held opinions of a different nature in regard to this, then I suggest there is a moral obligation on the government, before adopting clause 27, to call in the representatives of the provinces and discuss with them the effect of this and ask them, with the advantage of their legal advisers as well, to state whether, in their opinion, this does or does not carry its operation outside of the application of provincial laws.
Surely, that is their obligation, since last year they brought the provinces here before passing the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, before this house. Do not let it be suggested that this would make it impossible to deal with the legislation this session. I am sure the provinces would send their representatives right away. They came very quickly last year when the Motor Vehicle Transport Act was under consideration. Let them come here. They have competent legal advisers highly qualified in the field of constitutional law. Let us be sure whether it is not the opinion they hold. In fact the minister knows perfectly well that some of the provincial authorities do hold exactly the view that I am now expressing, and for that reason, in addition to the consideration given to this clause, I urge him to suspend the discussion of clause 27 and to communicate with the provinces today to see whether he cannot have a meeting immediately with representatives of the legal branches of those departments directly concerned with the application of laws of this kind.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister one question with regard to the statement he made a few moments ago. Is he taking the position that the new clause 18 of the bill has no effect whatever on a local work or undertaking which comes under section 92 (10) (a) of the British North America Act? I can quite understand that the new clause 18 would have an effect on a local work

or undertaking which came under section 92 (10) (c) because in paragraph (c) there is the express reference to a declaration having been made. There is no such provision in regard to section 92 (10) (a). No declaration whatever is required to make it applicable. As I read the proposed amendment to clause 18 I find it is based entirely on a declaration being made. It reads:
The railway or other transportation works in Canada of the national company and of every company mentioned or referred to in part I or part II of the first schedule and of every company formed by any consolidation or amalgamation of any two or more such companies are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
Subclause 2 reads:
The companies incorporated by subsection (2) of section 7 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act are hereby continued and such companies are in respect of all their affairs subject to this act.
Of course, that is not important for the purpose of my argument. Subsection 3 reads:
For the purposes of this section, the expression "railway or other transportation works" does not include any works operated under the authority of section 27.
But that subsection specifically refers to works that are declared for the general advantage of Canada. Is the minister claiming that this new clause 18 has no effect whatever on a local work or undertaking under section 92 (10) (a), as distinct from (10) (c), of the British North America Act?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that subparagraph 3 has a very important effect. Considering section 92(10), I think the hon. member will agree that subparagraphs (a) and (c) are the pertinent ones, and that subparagraph (b) is not material to the discussion at the moment. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the Canadian National carries out operations under clause 27 between two provinces-and of course subparagraph (a) applies to interprovincial operations-then I believe that these, being interprovincial operations, are subject to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. So far as operations carried out wholly within a province are concerned, in order that they may not be deemed to be works for the general advantage of Canada, though they are being carried out in conjunction with a work that has been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, clause 27 makes it perfectly clear that parliament is not asserting that they are works for the general advantage of Canada, but on the contrary that they are not works for the general advantage of Canada, and therefore that the operations carried out within a province will be subject to provincial jurisdiction.
Canadian National Railways This might be an appropriate time to read to the committee the opinion which was expressed in the standing committee by Mr. Driedger, an assistant deputy minister of the Department of Justice. Here is what he said at page 300 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines:
Now, when we come back to 27 and assume that some of those operations are under provincial jurisdiction and some under federal jurisdiction we get this result, that in so far as the operations are subject to provincial jurisdiction they are subject to provincial law and in so far as they are subject to federal jurisdiction they are subject to federal law and that federal law is the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which has provided the-same kind of a licensing system under the same conditions as exist under provincial law. So that parliament has in fact, if you like, by the Motor Vehicle Transport Act subjected carriers under parliament's jurisdiction to provincial law. That is the effect of it and if you combine the two, a provincial law plus a federal law you have in the result a provincial law applying to all the operations under clause 27.
I realize, just as I think the Leader of the Opposition does, that legal texts are open to interpretations. I merely cite the opinion of Mr. Driedger, whose opinion I think is worthy of a good deal of consideration and weight.


Howard Charles Green: We also had the argument advanced before the committee that section 92(10)(a), referred to a whole line of railways. When it mentioned crossing boundaries it meant the case, for example, where the Canadian Pacific Railway has a system across provincial boundaries; not whether they happened to have a line from Toronto to Hamilton, which would be within one province. It was suggested to us that this section of the British North America Act could be interpreted as meaning that that line from Toronto' to Hamilton, if it was part of the Canadian Pacific Railway system, and that system, as distinguished from the particular line from Toronto to Hamilton, crossed an interprovincial boundary, then section 92(10)(a) automatically came into effect and gave the dominion the sole jurisdiction over that line from Toronto to Hamilton, even though it was within the boundaries of one province, for the reason that it was part of a system that went beyond provincial boundaries. The minister will remember that argument was advanced by Mr. Coyne.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I recall that.


Howard Charles Green: And I said that, in reading 92(10) (a) of the British North America Act, one can very reasonably reach the opinion held by Mr. Coyne-


George Carlyle Marler: I find that difficult to do.

Canadian National Railways


Howard Charles Green: Of course, the minister was much more likely to agree with the opinion given him by the department that drew this bill. They having drawn the bill, there is no reason why they would not try to stand behind it. The minister has quoted an opinion given presumably by an official in the Department of Justice who had something to do with the drawing of the bill. On the other hand there was this contrary opinion expressed by Mr. Coyne, who I believe is an expert on constitutional law.


An hon. Member:: He was the only one.


Howard Charles Green: Section 92(10) (a) reads as follows:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province:
That, I suggest, can properly be interpreted as meaning the Canadian Pacific Railway system or the Canadian National Railways system or any other railway system which does cross provincial boundaries. If that interpretation is correct, then it follows that the Canadian National Railways, being given power under clause 27 to operate bus lines, would have the power to operate those bus lines without worrying at all about provincial law. I have illustrated the opposite type of thinking from the type which the minister has been following in connection with this particular clause. That is one of the reasons why there is concern about clause 27.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, just one last word as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that, whether an operation physically is carried out wholly within a province or whether it is carried out interprovincially because it crosses from one province into another, whether it falls within the interpretation which Mr. Coyne wished to give to subparagraph (a) of 92(10), whether it is interprovincial in fact or interprovincial by interpretation, I do not see how one can get away from the express provisions of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which gives to those provinces that wish to exercise them the powers that the Motor Vehicle Transport Act gives with respect to interprovincial transportation falling within the jurisdiction of parliament and coming within the very broad definition to be found in that bill.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is forced into the position of relying on the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, then this result follows. The line from Toronto to Hamilton, which I used as an illustration a few moments ago, is wholly within the province of Ontario, and therefore does not come under this dominion statute which was passed last year.


George Carlyle Marler: Then it cannot be interprovincial.


Howard Charles Green: It is not an extraprovincial line under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. Then the minister seems to fall between two stools. These arguments were advanced in good faith in the committee and are worthy of very serious consideration. Perhaps the minister could have clause 27 reviewed further to see whether it is absolutely necessary.


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra seems to find it difficult to know just where his operations between Toronto and Hamilton are going to fall. At one moment they are wholly provincial, in which event obviously the Motor Vehicle Transport Act does not apply, but surely the provincial legislation applies; at another they are interprovincial by some stretch of interpretation, in which event they come under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, and I take it that the province of Ontario can under that act exercise jurisdiction over those operations if they are in fact interprovincial. I would personally doubt very much if they would be interprovincial merely because they are operated in connection with a national system. I realize that brings us back to the argument of Mr. Coyne. I respect his opinion, even though I do not share it. Mr. Coyne in substance said it was impossible for parliament to do anything along these lines and that there was no way whatever by which one could give to the parent company powers such as are embodied in clause 27 and enable the provinces to exercise jurisdiction over it. It seemed to me, with a great deal of respect for Mr. Coyne's longer experience than mine, that that was not an opinion which would find ready acceptance very generally.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to extend this, because the views have been placed before the minister, and the most we can do is try to urge him to have this reconsidered. But I do not want to let the statement pass that it is obvious that the Toronto-Hamilton line would not be included in the national system in such a way as to avoid the application of provincial laws. I have contended quite the opposite, and I hold the view very strongly that, if an operation of that kind becomes within the effect of clause 27 a part of the general system of the Canadian National Railways as a transport system, then the Luscar case does apply. Even if it is entirely within a boundary it becomes a part of the national transport system and is outside the effect of the provincial system. I still urge the minister, in view of the arguments that have been made, to give further consideration to this; and I urge most strongly

that even the fact that there is difference of opinion suggests the advisability of bringing quickly into consultation the provincial authorities who it was thought appropriate should be called here before enacting the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. In that way he would have the advantage of the experience of their legal officers, who are dealing with this all the time.
I am the first to concede that the most earnestly held view as to the correctness of a statute does not for a moment mean that that view is necessarily correct. The view the minister holds may be right; the view I hold may be right. We would not have had such a long series of cases before the privy council trying to determine who had authority over motor vehicle transport if it were not a fact that people highly trained in the law can hold entirely different views. Legal draftsmen and legal experts representing the federal authorities and representing the provincial authorities held these two diametrically opposed views before the courts, the judges held different views, and it was only last year that the privy council finally reached a decision in regard to this matter. Certainly there can be differences. I submit that the very fact that there are earnest differences does suggest he advisability of bringing the provinces into consultation and having the advantage of the expressions of opinion of their legal officials who are looking at this always from a constitutional point of view, before putting this finally on the statute books.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Mr. Knowles:: I should like to say a few words on clause 2. I do so because I find in clause 2 reference to the property owned by the Canadian National Railways. What I shall say shall be very brief.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask the hon. member where he finds that regarding property?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 2 (b) (ii).


George Carlyle Marler: It is "Canadian Government Railways" in my copy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; I shall wait for another section.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Board of directors.
Mr. Nowlan:: Clause 6 is the clause which says that the direction and control of the national company and its undertakings are vested in a board of directors and then says that there shall be seven members of the board. I was wondering whether the minister
Canadian National Railways could tell the committee on what basis the directors are selected. I realize that we have great regional differences in this country, and differences of various kinds. Here we have the limitation to seven members, so far as the board is concerned. I was wondering whether there was any principle or rule that was followed with respect to the selection of these directors, particularly in so far as the geographical portions of Canada are concerned. For instance, is there at the moment any director from the maritime region on the board of directors of the Canadian government railway? I know that from time to time there have been appointees from there. I realize that, with just seven members, it is impossible to have provincial representation but I should think there should be some regional basis of appointment to the board, having in mind always business experience and other professional requirements that would be desirable in an appointee. I should like to have some comment from the minister.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think there is any rule concerning the basis of selection of directors of the Canadian National Railways. As my hon. friend has rather implied in his own remarks, I think the limitation of the number to seven quite clearly implies that there has never been what might be regarded as a regional distribution of directorships, although I think that geographic considerations have been taken into account in the past in the appointments that have been made. My recollection is that Mr. Brenan who is at present one of the directors comes from the maritime provinces. I think he comes from New Brunswick, if I am correctly informed.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman, there was considerable discussion in connection with the number of directors. I think the hon. member for Temiscouata put us fairly straight when he said that no matter how many directors there are, it does not make much difference or make any change in the actual direction of the company.
When this section was brought before us in the standing committee I raised an issue in connection with one further point in so far as the board of directors of this company is concerned. I believe this is the largest crown corporation in Canada. It holds a unique place in the business life of this country. I believe the number of its employees passes the hundred-thousand mark. To a great extent we can consider that every citizen of this country is a shareholder in this railway. Since we have had, in connection with the fairly recent agreement with the Hilton hotels organization, an indication that certain aspects of the affairs of this great

Canadian National Railways corporation may, in fact, have already passed out of the control of this company, I think we should seriously consider the necessity for ensuring that its board of directors consist of Canadian citizens. In this section there is no restriction in that respect. As reported at page 232 of the minutes and proceedings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines I asked this question:
Q. Is there any legislation of which the chairman or the minister is aware which would restrict the appointment of directors of this company to Canadian citizens?-A. Not that I know of.
Q. Is there any objection on the part of Mr. MacMillan,-
As an observation I may say that he is vice-president of the company.
-or those representing the company, to a restriction of that type?
I am admitting that there were certain additional questions included in the following lines and that there were additional parts to Mr. MacMillian's answer, but one part struck me forcibly when he said this:
We have extensive international interests and I rather think it is probably below the dignity of this country to make a prohibition of this kind.
I sincerely ask if it is below the dignity of this country to ensure direction of this largest crown corporation by citizens of this country. Surely it was much more below the dignity of this country to hand over control [DOT]of the largest hotel in the British commonwealth of nations to interests other than interests in this country. For a man like Conrad Hilton who has manifold interests in all parts of the world and who, I am sure, is on the board of directors of various corporations in various foreign countries, it would seem to be a logical step for him to be a director of the Canadian National Railways if we are going to hand over to him the control of any substantial part of that company. I think it is our duty to ensure that no actions of that type are possible. I should therefore like to move, Mr. Chairman, seconded by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace:
That section 6 be amended by adding the following words at the end of subsection 2 thereof "each of whom shall be a Canadian citizen".
T4r. Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I always listen with interest to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and who is a promising young Canadian. I am sure that he will attain success inasmuch as he is careful in his utterances.
This section refers to the appointment of directors of the Canadian National Railways. In his amendment he asks for something that already exists.
I was not a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines when .the question was put to Mr. MacMillan about

the obligation of the government to appoint Canadians as directors of the railway, but it is obvious that the matter was taken for granted, and at the present time all the directors of the railway are Canadians.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They might not always be.


Jean-François Pouliot: They might not always be if the Tories ever came to office. I remember distinctly, and I have it in my flies, a report by Lord Macmillan who has never been a Canadian and who was selected by the political ancestor of the hon. member for York West, Lord Bennett, to carry on an investigation of the railways. I was fortunate to have two copies of the report and I gave one to the Minister of Transport when he was sworn in. It was a souvenir of the Tory government. How often do we hear the political legatee of Lord Bennett speaking of him in terms of great praise. Sometimes he may be right, sometimes he may be wrong. Canada is not a mature enough country to consider history objectively. There is too much sentiment.
But I will warn my young friend from York West to be very careful about his suggestions to the Liberal party. Before making them he should look at the record of his own Tory party. When Mr. Bennett left Canada to live in England he probably went there to discuss Lord Macmillan's report and see if there would not be something interesting in it for future generations, including that of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely.


John Horne Blackmore: I was not able to hear what it was that Lord Macmillan was appointed to investigate. Was it radio? I could not hear what the hon. member said.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh no, it was the amalgamation of the railways which was advocated in the Senate by no less a gentleman than the other ancestor of the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and his great political uncle, Senator Beaubien. The propaganda was so intense that Meighen's and Beaubien's speeches were even sent to Liberal members. I know because 1 got copies of them. I remember also that from 1930-


Mr. Nickle:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me finish my sentence. I will permit it immediately after I have finished my sentence. I remember distinctly that it was the intention of the Bennett government to merge the telegraph and

express companies of both railways. I was the one who warned the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. He opposed it and it was not done. Now I am ready for the question, provided I understand what the hon. gentleman says.


Carl Olof Nickle: I really have two questions. First of all, was Lord Macmillan ever recommended by Lord Bennett or anyone else as a director of the Canadian National Railways? Second, what have the last several comments of the hon. member about the amalgamation of telegraph companies and so forth got to do with the simple proposition whether all directors of the Canadian National Railways should be Canadian citizens?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Wait a minute.


An hon. Member:: It was not for you.


Jean-François Pouliot: With regard to the first question, Lord Macmillan was not a Canadian, and that is precisely the reason why he was chosen by Lord Bennett to make a report on the railways. Among the millions of Canadians there were thousands of experts on railway matters but Lord Bennett could not find anyone to compare with that Englishman in knowledge, efficiency and general ability. This is the preface to my answer. Now, Lord Bennett did more than appoint an Englishman as president of the railway. He appointed him to decide how, in his view, directors should be appointed. But all that was changed by the Liberals. They chose Sir Henry Thornton, who was crucified by the Bennett government. He was not an Englishman. He was an American who had given good service in England, but if he was unsuccessful it was precisely because not enough control was exercised over him and because he was given too much leeway.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about Mr. Gordon now?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is coming to the same conclusion as I have. It is that the directors and parliament should exercise control over the railway and whoever is in charge of it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is the best part of your speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. member to keep quiet for a minute and listen to the argument? He may learn a lot for his own benefit. This is history.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: One at a time, please, and I am ready for all.
Canadian National Railways


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is noticeable is that the political ancestor of the hon. member for Calgary South gave the cold shoulder to all Canadians and picked a smart Englishman to draft a report on reform of the railways. That reform was preliminary to the amalgamation of the railways which was in his mind as it was in the mind of Arthur Meighen and all the Tories at that time.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will continue at 2.30.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
On clause 6-Board of directors.


William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose at one o'clock we had been considering clause 6 and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for York West. The hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was speaking to the amendment, and I should like to make a correction. So many English gentlemen were appointed to commissions under the Bennett regime that I sometimes make an error with respect to their names. The Macmillan report was with regard to the establishment of the Bank of Canada and the big man on the other report was Lord Ashfield. The chairman of the commission was Chief Justice Duff. I want to say that at the outset, in order to make the necessary correction.
With regard to the amendment sponsored by the hon. member for York West, he says that only Canadians shall be appointed as directors of the railway; in fact, all those who are presently directors of the Canadian National Railways are Canadians. However, he said that it was important for the future to have a provision to that effect on the statute books. I have to ask him a question, and I should like very much to be answered. What does he mean by "a Canadian"? Does he mean one who was born in this country and has left this country to live outside of it without keeping his Canadian nationality? What does he mean by it? I ask the hon. member for York West what he does mean by "Canadian" as mentioned in the amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Canadian citizen; don't you know what that is?


John Borden Hamilton: I think the term "Canadian citizen" is quite clear. I am sure it includes anyone born in this country or anyone naturalized.

Canadian National Railways


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, but if he has read the citizenship act, he must have seen that British subject and Canadian citizen are synonymous. My hon. friend is as much a British subject as he is a Canadian citizen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member not admit that according to the citizenship act every Canadian citizen is a British subject, but not every British subject is necessarily a Canadian citizen.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend will agree that he is a British subject and as such a Canadian citizen, unless he renounces being a British subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am both, but any British subject who comes here does not forthwith become a Canadian citizen. He has to become a Canadian citizen later according to due process of law.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but they have equal rights. I will give my definition of a Canadian citizen to the hon. gentleman and to the committee. It is not necessarily one who was born in this country-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is what he just said, or naturalized.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does he say that those who were not born in this country cannot be good Canadian citizens?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He never said anything of the kind.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to proceed logically.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not know the hon. member for Quebec somewhere-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Quebec West.


Jean-François Pouliot: -was the interpreter of the hon. member for York West.


Carl Olof Nickle: C. D. qualifies.


Jean-François Pouliot: In this country there are the Canadian born and there are those who have adopted Canada as their country although they were not born in this country.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: They are not as good, according to the minister.


John Borden Hamilton: There are two kinds, first and second class.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if the hon. member for York West says that those who were not born in this country are not as good as those who were born in this country.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You had better ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking the hon. member.


John Borden Hamilton: I am quite sure, Mr. Chairman, it is on the record in Hansard over and over again that this party distinguishes in no way between those who are born in this country and those who became naturalized Canadians after coming to it.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I had succeeded-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Before we are
launched on a debate on Canadian citizenship I think I should draw the attention of the committee to the fact that we are, after all, considering a clause in a Canadian National Railways bill and the phrase in the amendment moved by the hon. member for York West is capable of legal definition.


Jean-François Pouliot: My contention is, sir, that we cannot vote on the amendment unless we know the intent of the lawmaker, who in this case is the sponsor of the amendment. He says we want Canadians and I have no objection to Canadians who have made Canada their adopted country, providing they are body and soul citizens of Canada. They may become citizens of Canada, and my understanding of a true Canadian is one who puts Canada before any other country in his own mind and in his actions. There are, therefore, some good people who live in Canada who were not born here but who are a credit and an asset to Canada. They are very good citizens.
Now, sir, that the hon. member for York West has proved to the committee, at my request, that he is more broad-minded than I expected him to be at first, we will proceed with the discussion of the section. This is a very important clause of the bill because it states that the directors appointed by the government will be the board that will be responsible for what the railway will do. At the outset of my remarks I mentioned that the intention of the Conservative party was to amalgamate the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. The first step in that move was the idea of pool trains. If there are some hon. members who are interested in knowing about the establishment of pool trains they can read the statement made by the then minister of railways and canals, Dr. Manion, on March 8, 1934, at pages 1275 and 1276 of Hansard.
The Liberals stand strongly opposed to the amalgamation of the railways. I was educated that way, and that is why I opposed all the claims for the amalgamation of the express and telegraph companies, which was to be the first step toward the complete amalgamation of the railways.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This has nothing to do with the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I would refer hon. members-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You are out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -to the speech that was made by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen respecting the unified management of the railways, which speech was delivered in the Senate of Canada on Thursday, May 25, 1939. I will read also the end of the statement, which was also published by the king's printer, about the amalgamation of the railways. This was sent to me with that speech by Mr. Meighen of May 25, 1939.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. I certainly do not wish-indeed I would not even try-to stop the hon. member from making this speech at some appropriate time. But in view of standing order 58(2) which says that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration, I would ask the hon. member what relevancy there is between what he is saying and a clause having to do with the establishing of the board of directors. My hon. friend will understand that in what I am saying I am not trying to prevent him from making this speech at some appropriate time. I could not do that, anyway. But would it not be better if he made his speech on some clause where it would be relevant?


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. member for his gracious interruption, and regret that he did not ask me a question rather than rise on a point of order. Had he done so I could have explained to him, and I am sure he would easily have understood-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about a ruling? He has been out of order since the beginning.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking to the point of order, and I shall continue speaking when I cease to hear strange noises across the aisle. Mr. Chairman, it is the easiest thing to understand; it is just as clear as spring water. Here we are discussing the clause in a bill concerning the appointment of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. I am referring to what has been said by Conservative leaders about the amalgamation of the railways. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre-and if he is patient I shall satisfy him in full-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It may be as clear as spring water, but I do not see it up to this point.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Winnipeg South may be a mind reader, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not.
Canadian National Railways Therefore I have to explain to him. I wish to speak to members face to face so that they will not misunderstand my explanation.


An hon. Member:: Are you still on the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, on the point of order, and I am speaking strictly to it. Clause 6 in the bill refers to the appointment of directors of the Canadian National Railways. It refers to their numbers, and why they are appointed.
It is precisely because the railways have not been amalgamated that this provision is necessary. If, following the policy of the Tory party, the railways had been amalgamated, then we would not have this clause to discuss today. This just shows how wise was the policy of the Liberal government of that day which prevented the amalgamation; and it is because of that we now have this clause for discussion.


William Earl Rowe: It never was their policy.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is just as clear as spring water. And of course if the views of Senator Haig and Arthur Meighen, who is no longer a senator, and the late Mr. Beaubien, and others, had prevailed, there would be no directors needed for the Canadian National Railways, because the Canadian National Railways would be run by the C.P.R., or by friends of the C.P.R., as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well.
I challenge the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to say to his constituents that he is in favour of the amalgamation of the railways.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before you give your ruling, may I put it clearly on the record that amalgamation is not the issue. The only point is as to the propriety of the hon. member's speech at this time.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised a point of order, and I heard the reply of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I understood the hon. member for Temiscouata to say, when he began this portion of his remarks, that he intended to deal with unified management of the Canadian National Railways. I understood that on that ground his remarks would be in order.
However, as he proceeded I must confess that I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he points out that the remarks became more of the nature of those concerning amalgamation than of the management and board of directors of the railway. That, of course, is the subject we must discuss under this clause.
4830	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
Therefore I must rule that, while a discussion about amalgamation might be in order at some other time, under standing order 58(2) it is not strictly relevant to the clause before the committee. Therefore I must ask the hon. member to deal with the subject matter of the clause, namely the board of directors of the railway company, and more particularly at this time with the amendment moved by the hon. member for York West.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He is lost somewhere in Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not insist upon the point that I have made perfectly clear, and will submit to the ruling of the Chair in connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I will leave it to him to meditate upon, and to discuss with his constituents.
I wonder if the committee would be interested in knowing the last suggestion in the report drafted at the request of the Bennett government and published by the printer to His Most Excellent Majesty, the King. It is about the powers of the directors, what they can do with respect to transportation. There is not only the provision concerning their appointment, but also their duties may be explained in the regulations as well as in the law. But if we look at the report of the royal commission to inquire into railways and transportation in Canada in 1931-32, at pages 55 and 56 we find this:
It is essential that the country should have the free and unhampered use of the cheapest forms of transport and therefore no restrictions which would unfairly prejudice the road user should be imposed. The railways themselves should be empowered to provide and operate services of road vehicles, subject to whatever restrictions are imposed upon other road transport operators. On the other hand, in our opinion, in Canada, where of necessity freight must be conveyed in large quantities over long distances at all times of the year, railway transportation is essential to the economic welfare of the country. Because they are essential and because the railway freight rate structure implies conditions approximating to a quasi-monopoly, the railways require, if they are to continue to operate efficiently, a measure of protection from long distance road competition and an equalization of the conditions under which short distance traffic is carried.
I have no more -to say about it, sir. In the report drafted under Mr. Bennett's eye and according to his instructions it was recommended that the railways should have the opportunity to provide for transportation by bus, and that is what I have just read. I am sure the leader as well as the members of the Conservative opposition will be thankful to me for having removed the dust that was on that report, and they will digest what I have just read, and it will be profitable to [The Chairman.]

them, and the Leader of the Opposition will not insist any more, as he did this morning, on objecting to clause 27.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. The clause which we are discussing of course has its origin in the Canadian National Railways Act, which was adopted in 1919 when the Conservatives were in power. I noticed that in that statute there was no requirement that the directors should be either British subjects or Canadian citizens. That of course is understandable. But the fact has been that since the number of directors has been seven, and in fact, I think, from the very inception of the organization of the board of directors, the only member of the board who has not been a Canadian was Sir Henry Thornton himself, who was of course a British subject.
So far as I can see, there is no particular objection to the amendment proposed. It is in conformity with the practice that has been followed. There is no doubt whatever that we shall be able to find in Canada persons who are capable of serving the Canadian National Railways as directors. I do not believe the situation is altered by the amendment. Perhaps it would have been desirable to have left the section as it is, but in view of the experience that we have had with this statute I do not see any objection. So far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to accept it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 7-President.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as a result of the carrying of the amendment to clause 6, to give effective meaning to it, it will be necessary to make a change in clause 7. Subclause 1 of this clause reads as follows:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the directors shall appoint a president of the nationa! company, who may be the chairman of the board of directors or a person other than one of the directors; the president holds office during the pleasure of the directors.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this clause, which permits the appointment of a president from other than among the board of directors, is one for which it would be very difficult to find precedent in Canadian corporation law. I think I am safe in saying that the provisions of the federal Companies Act, and certainly the provisions of the companies act of Ontario, provide that the office of president becomes a mandatory office from among the board of directors. I might read from the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and

telegraph lines at page 233 a question asked of Mr. MacMillan, vice-president of the railway, in connection with this clause:
In connection with that clause, is that not an unusual arrangement that the president of the company need not be a director of the company? That is surely not in keeping with federal legislation or with provincial legislation.-A. That may be, but of course you have to read this in the light of the other clauses. The president is determined by statute to be the chief executive officer of the company. Obviously it would be impossible for the board of directors to operate effectively without the president being there.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the argument in favour of making the appointment of the president mandatory from among the board of directors is contained in the answer given us by the vice-president himself. We would arrive at a ridiculous situation if the chief executive officer, the man charged with carrying out the instructions of the board of directors, were a man who could be sitting outside its deliberations, and not have the present benefit of the discussions, or if the board of directors could not have the benefit of his advice in connection with the company operations.
In passing, I might have asked for even more. I do not think there is any doubt about the loyalty of the employees to the president of the company, but I do believe that as far as the employees of the railways are concerned they are most hopeful that ensuing presidents of this company can be called from the ranks of the organization itself, and that they look forward in years to come to an opportunity for those who start at the bottom in the ranks of the company to rise to the highest office of the company. I would therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview:
That section 7 be amended by deleting subsection 1 thereof and substituting the following:
(1) subject to the approval of the governor in council, the directors shall appoint one of their number to be president of the national company who may be the chairman of the board of directors; the president holds office during the pleasure of the directors.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I am rather disappointed that the amendment does not deal with the latter matter raised by the previous speaker, the question of the presidency of the C.N.R. I have felt for some time that it was more or less an affront to many experienced, loyal, senior officers of the C.N.R. that, when the recent appointment was made to the presidency of the Canadian National Railways, the railroad people should have been ignored. I feel that as a matter of policy the government should follow the procedure of recommending that the president of the C.N.R. should be selected from among the senior officials of the company. The
Canadian National Railways recent appointment of Mr. Crump as president of the Canadian Pacific Railway struck a responsive chord, because it was possible to point to Mr. Crump's background as having started as a machinist with the railroad company, eventually becoming president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Therefore I feel that, as a matter of policy, unless there were extremely extenuating circumstances, the president of the Canadian National Railways should be selected from among the senior officers of the company.
The previous speaker referred to this matter, but I am rather disappointed that in his amendment he did not see fit to include some provision that future appointments of presidents of the Canadian National Railways should be made among those who have had the experience and given service over the years to the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Philpott:: It seems to me that the clause as worded before the amendment is much more in the national interest. The very purpose of putting in these possible exceptions and these flexibilities is to take care, not of the ordinary situation that arises time after time, but of the extraordinary situation that may arise on certain occasions. The hon. member for Regina City says that the promotion should be from the ranks except in extraordinary circumstances. That is why the clause is drawn as it is drawn. Of course, there could be promotion from the ranks whenever there is a fit person in the ranks to take the job.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Are you suggesting there is no fit person in the Canadian National Railways?


Elmore Philpott: There may be extraordinary times when there is no fit person in the ranks as competent as somebody outside the ranks. What we are dealing with here is not just the morale of the men in this great railway, important as that is; we are dealing with the most important national property, the most important publicly owned service under the control of the Dominion of Canada. It would be a very backward step if we tied our own hands in advance by putting in a restrictive amendment.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to second the motion of the hon. member for York West because what he says makes complete sense. To have a president elected who is not a member of the board of directors is simply not in keeping with modern corporate practice, and the Canadian National Railways is a corporation. As he said, it is ridiculous to think of circumstances where the president would not be a member of the board of directors and not be privileged to sit in on their deliberations and give his point of view.

Canadian National Railways
That is the sum total of this amendment, which I believe the hon. member for Vancouver South has misunderstood completely. What he said in addition to that makes just as little sense as what the hon. member for York West said makes good sense. The hon. member for Vancouver South has intimated that there might be occasions on which it would be impossible for employees of the Canadian National Railways to be of sufficiently high calibre to be president of that railway. That of course is simply ridiculous. To think that a railway as fine as this, one which has given the service to the country which it has and which is run by personnel of very fine calibre, cannot produce its own president now or at any time is simply ridiculous, and it is a slur on the character and ability of the members of the staff of the Canadian National Railways. There is no doubt whatsoever that, just as the C.P.R. can produce its own president from its own ranks who can run that railway in a first-class fashion, the Canadian National Railways can do exactly the same thing.
I join with the hon. member for York West and all members of the Conservative party in asking that in future everything possible be done to produce a president from the ranks of the Canadian National Railways, where they have men of great ability and completely capable of handling this important job, instead of finding it necessary to bring in somebody from the outside, which I believe is a slur on the great ability of the men who operate that fine railway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City, I feel it would be desirable that the president of the Canadian National Railways be a man from the ranks of the staff and employees of that institution. The hon. member for Broadview, who has just spoken, expressed the same view, but I suggest that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York West, while it may be designed to have that effect, limits the choice of persons who might become president to those who are already members of the board of directors. It is useless to talk about your support of the principle that men should be drawn from the ranks when you exclude all the ranks except the seven men who happen to be members of the board.
Remember that the members of the board are appointed by governor in council. I support the principle stated by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City, that it should be possible for a man to come up from the ranks and on the basis of his ability and the support of his fellow workers to rise as high as the presidency of the company. Because I 	,'11 I

do not want the selection to be limited to the seven members on the board, because I want the selection to be possible from the ranks generally, I shall have to vote against the amendment in its present form.


Mr. Thomas:: The members of this group have on a number of occasions during the last few years protested quite strongly against selecting the president of the nationally-owned railroad from outside the organization. I should like to add my word to those already uttered by the other hon. members that this practice of selecting the president from outside the railroad should be stopped. I would willingly support anything which would ensure that hereafter the president would be selected from the employees of the road, those who have grown up with the railroad and worked their way up from the bottom; but I am afraid that this amendment does not do that. All it does is restrict the selection of the president to a group of seven men. Those restrictions should not be there. If anything can be drafted to ensure that we are going to get railroaders full of railroad knowledge in the position of president of the Canadian National Railways, I can go along 100 per cent with it, but I am not too sure that this amendment will do that. I do not propose to support it.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman,
I might add a word of explanation, because I believe there is a misunderstanding in so far as the remarks of the two previous speakers are concerned, and in connection with the remarks especially of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
This amendment does not in any way prevent the appointment as president of the Canadian National Railways of anyone within the organization. It is simple corporate practice that if the government should decide that an employee should be the president-and there is one on the board now; I understand he is a railway engineer and has been on the board for some time-they can easily appoint the man of their choice to the board and from that board he can be appointed or elected president. In any corporate set-up it is the usual course for people moving up through the ranks eventually to become elected to the board of directors or even to be elected to the board of directors for the purpose of being elected president of a corporation. I would submit that there is no restriction whatsoever on having an employee moved up to the office of president of the Canadian National Railways.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I note that section 6 provides that the board of directors of the national company shall consist of seven directors and that each director shall be appointed by the

governor in council for a term not exceeding three years, but a director may at any time be removed for cause. The previous speaker suggested that if it is decided to appoint an employee as president of the company, it is simply a matter of putting that employee on the board of directors. I am suggesting that you might find a situation in which the board of directors has been appointed for a period of three years, and the question arises as to how you are going to get rid of one of the directors in order to make way for the employee, if the term has not expired and he is not removed for cause. I am suggesting that this amendment is not necessary in that it would be quite a simple matter for the directors to appoint an employee of the company as president of the railway company. Irrespective of the fact that it might not be good corporation law, as my legal friends point out, I still feel that this amendment may be a bar or may cause a little bit of difficulty in the appointment of an employee of the company to the post of president of the Canadian National Railways.


George Carlyle Marler: As the bill is drafted, the president of the company may be chosen either from the board of directors or outside of the board of directors. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for York West has no other effect than to limit the choice of president to someone who is a member of the board of directors. I think several hon. members have invoked arguments which show how unwise it would be to adopt the amendment and I do not need to go back over those arguments. As between the choice either of making the selection of the president from the group constituted by the board of directors or of having no restriction whatsoever, it seems to me that it is perfectly clear that freedom is much to be preferred to the narrow course which is suggested by the amendment.


Carl Olof Nickle: The minister and two or three other hon. members have made the point that this amendment would have a seriously limiting effect upon the ability of the railway to pick a president other than from among the existing board of directors. Let me say this. If the president of the Canadian National Railways is going to be replaced, we are going to have a resignation from the board of directors by the existing president, automatically creating a new vacancy on the board of directors. Should the president of the railway move up to the post of chairman of the board of directors, we automatically create another vacancy on the board of directors, namely chairman of that board. In other words, I see no possible way in which
Canadian National Railways this amendment limits the ability of the railway company or of this government with regard to selecting any man of their choice anywhere within the ranks of the Canadian National Railways, inside or outside of the existing board of directors, for the top or executive post in that company. For that reason I support the amendment.


Mr. Fulton:: There is another feature which the minister, of course, has overlooked in indicating his opposition to the motion. As the section now stands, not only does it permit that freedom of choice which the minister indicated but it also has the effect that even after his appointment the president need not be a director.


George Carlyle Marler: That is so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is one of the features which the amendment is designed to correct. It is our feeling that the president, the chief executive officer of this railway, should not be in a position where he may not be a member of the board of directors. We feel that the president should be a director. If this amendment carries, it will accomplish that purpose. That is the first desirable purpose of the amendment.
I simply wish to re-echo what has been explained by the hon. member for York West, namely that the amendment accomplishes that purpose without in any way limiting the area from which the president may be chosen. We feel that that area should be within the ranks of the company itself. In the amendment there is nothing which would prevent that result if the simple routine outlined by the hon. member for York West- and it is done every day in corporate practice-were to be followed. The amendment has the desirable feature of ensuring that the president shall also be a member of the board of directors, which relationship it is desirable to achieve, without in any way making it difficult to choose a president from within the ranks of the company at the present time.


Mr. Gillis:: I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this proposed amendment is rather restrictive. I do not think that you can consider the Canadian National Railways in the same light as that in which you consider the average corporation. All of the people of Canada are shareholders in the C.N.R. There is not any doubt about the fact that you are limiting the selection of president of the Canadian National Railways to the members of the board of directors. That is what your amendment says.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.

Canadian National Railways


Clarence Gillis: As the section is now, the matter is wide open. You can pick anyone who is employed on the C.N.R.


William Earl Rowe: Or anyone not employed on the C.N.R.


Clarence Gillis: Or anyone not employed on the C.N.R. But do not forget the point I made a moment ago, namely that the shareholders of this railroad are the people of Canada. That is the difference between the Canadian National Railways and a closed corporation where two or three people hold all the shares and wield all the powers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought you said a moment ago that you wanted the president to come up from the ranks.


Clarence Gillis: I want the Canadian National Railways president to be the best person who can be found in this country. I think the section as it is provides for that. The arguments made by two or three hon. members who are supporting this amendment are absolutely good arguments but the amendment prevents effect being given to the principles they enunciated.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: We explained it.


Clarence Gillis: You cannot explain it at all, any more than you can explain to me your attitude on the estimates committee when you did not want the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sitting in as a member of the committee discussing the estimates. That was a complete reversal of what you are now advocating. If you would only get a straight line somewhere, we might be able to follow you. The point made by the hon. member for Kamloops a moment ago, namely that the president of the railway should be a member of the board of directors, is something about which I am not so sure.


George Harris Hees: After he is appointed.


Clarence Gillis: I am not so sure about that. There are seven directors sitting there and having certain responsibilities. Whether he should be there as president wielding a big stick is a doubtful proposition.


Mr. Macdonnell:: You might as well say
the Prime Minister should not be a member of the House of Commons.


Clarence Gillis: However, I have no intention
of voting for an amendment limiting the selection of the president of Canadian National Railways to the seven men who may be appointed as directors. Whatever you


meant I do not know, but that is exactly what the amendment proposes and we will vote against it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I think it is
about time we got this thing straight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Let us look at it. You need a new president because the old president either dies or retires, and so you have a vacancy on the board of directors. You pick some man not on the board of directors and he fills the vacancy created by the removal of the present president. This does not restrict in any way the choice of any man in the Canadian National Railways system as president. He simply moves up to the board of directors when he is appointed president. Nothing could be simpler than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since we are trying to get
this thing straight, may I point out the lack of logic in the argument my friends to the right are using. They say that the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the president will come from the ranks of the C.N.R.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. When we
point out that their amendment would limit the choice of president to the seven members of the board of directors they reply that-


George Harris Hees: After he is appointed he will
be a member of the board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that is not true because
the government can appoint to the board of directors the person they want to make president. In other words, by their own argument the government can go completely outside the organization of the C.N.R. and appoint somebody else to the board of directors to become president, thus defeating the supposed purpose of the amendment.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Chairman, I think it is
about time we got this thing straight. I should like to direct my remarks to the minister. The board of any corporation, whether it be the C.N.R. or a private company, consists of the chief executive officers in addition to the other members of the board. The proper functioning of the corporation is facilitated by the fact that the chief executive officers and the other members of the board of directors work together. Somebody made the remark a moment ago that perhaps the Prime Minister should not be a member of the House of Commons or a member of the federal cabinet. Let us take a situation where the Prime Minister was not a member of the board of directors of Canada, which

is the federal parliament or the federal cabinet. He would come into the picture after decisions had been reached. He could not attend sessions and he could not vote. He would have to transmit his views as leader of the government to the members of his cabinet or members of parliament by indirect means. The result would be one gosh-awful
mess.	In the case of a railway company, is it conceivable that a railway company such as the C.N.R. can operate efficiently unless the chief executive officer works fully with and is a member of the governing board of directors of the corporation?
As clause 7 now stands, the president of the railway company can be a member of the board of directors but there is no necessity that he should be. Our amendment simply stipulates that the president shall be a member of the board of directors in the same way that the present law of Canada stipulates that the prime minister shall be a member of the cabinet. We are merely trying to make clear the practice that is normal in the case of Canadian National Railways, every government of this country and every corporation.
Amendment (Mr. Hamilton, York West) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 89.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment
lost.	Shall clause 7 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 18-Works for the general advantage of Canada.
Howard Charles Green: Could we have a statement from the minister on the amendment to clause 18?


George Carlyle Marler: I doubt very much if I can add anything to what I said this morning on clause 18 except that after having very carefully considered the remarks made in the general discussion this morning respecting this clause I have come to the conclusion that I cannot make any additional amendment that is going to be an improvement on the amendment now before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
On clause 21-Use of Canadian ports.
George Clyde Nowlan: I understand this clause was amended by the standing committee and that the words "and procure" have been reinserted in clause 21 of the bill. I am very glad that the minister agreed to this amendment. These words were originally included in the old section. They were dropped in the draft bill brought before the committee,
Canadian National Railways and they have now been reinserted so that the section will read "direct, provide and procure". At the meetings of the standing committee the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I asked for information as to the way in which this section had been implemented in the past. I have now received a letter from Mr. MacMillan, vicepresident and general counsel of the C.N.R., outlining the co-operation which he says the Canadian National has extended toward other organizations in soliciting the passage of freight through maritime ports. Although he referred specifically to the Atlantic ports I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was also thinking of Pacific ports when we raised this question.
I hope the reinsertion of this word "procure" will have the desired effect. As I said in the committee, I think it implies some moral responsibility not only for the officers but the railway company itself to see that traffic is actually solicited or procured. In his letter Mr. MacMillan states that the Canadian National has made competitive rates for Atlantic ports, even as against shorter hauls to United States Atlantic ports. I am sure that will be of some interest to the people in the east who have worried greatly during the past few years because of the great drop in freight moving over the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which freight has been going to United States Atlantic ports rather than Canadian ports.
I feel with this word back in we are imposing a responsibility not only on the officers of the railway but I suggest even more on the railway company itself, to see that it takes whatever steps may be necessary to set up a schedule of freight rates so we can not only direct and order but can procure Canadian goods manufactured here-though sometimes they may originate in the United States-for movement through Atlantic ports. Our whole national policy must be so designed that these goods will move through Atlantic ports when they are being exported from this country.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
On clause 23-Pooling of lines.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to make a few comments on clause 23 of the bill. This clause provides for the making of pooling arrangements, and various other arrangements of that type. I presume, for example, it would cover an agreement such as has been made for the operation of the railway from Edmonton to Dawson Creek, which I believe is a joint operation of the Canadian National and

Canadian National Railways Canadian Pacific railways. I point out that in this clause there is no provision for Canadian National employees who are thrown out of work by reason of agreements of one kind or another with another railway company.
We have had an actual example of that this year on the west coast. The Canadian National Railways made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the joint operation of the regular ship service from Vancouver to Prince Rupert. Under the terms of the agreement a Canadian Pacific ship is to be used and the crew is to be entirely a Canadian Pacific crew. Now, I believe that arrangement was unfair to Canadian National personnel.
Hon. members will recall that when the railway to Prince Rupert was originally constructed it was part of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Prince Rupert was to be their Pacific ocean port, and of course was to be in competition with the port of Vancouver.
Shortly after the completion of that line into Prince Rupert, the Grand Trunk Pacific put on a boat service from Prince Rupert to Vancouver. This service has been maintained ever since. I am not sure of the corporate name under which it was operated at first, but in any event it was part of the Grand Trunk system. In recent years the Canadian National Railways, which has this line into Prince Rupert and also a line running into Vancouver, had this boat service connecting the two railway lines. I point out that many, many years ago the Grand Trunk Railway Company was given the power to operate shipping lines. I refer to chapter 58 of the statutes of 1888, section 12, which reads as follows:
The company may own or hire and run steamships for carrying freight and passengers to and from any port with which their lines of railway connect, to and from any port in Great Britain or Ireland.
Obviously it made sense for the Grand Trunk to operate a ship service connecting their railway terminals. In effect that is what has been done on the west coast for many years.
In my time Prince Rupert has always been regarded as a Canadian National port. This company has had a regular boat service and very fine C.N.R. crews experienced on that coast for all these years. It is a very difficult coast. There are no finer seamen on it than the men who have been working for the C.N.R. As hon. members know, in recent years that part of British Columbia has been opening up very rapidly. There is the aluminum smelter at Kitimat where eventually there is to be a city of 25,000 or 30,000 people. Prince Rupert itself has been going ahead

very rapidly. There is to be a huge smelter farther up the coast on the Taku river, established by the Frobisher people. There is also talk of huge power developments on the Stikine river. The whole of that part of Canada is opening up. This was certainly considered, though not exclusively, as Canadian National territory.
Just when this part of the country is developing, the Canadian National goes out of the regular steamship service and makes an agreement with the Canadian Pacific under which the C.P.R. ship is to be regularly used in service, and the C.N.R. will only have a ship for cruises in the summer. The result has been that men who held very responsible posts on C.N.R. ships have been either reduced to lower positions at great financial sacrifice, or else many of the men in the crews have lost their jobs entirely.
This question was raised in the special committee on government-owned railways and shipping by the hon. member for Kamloops. He questioned Mr. Donald Gordon about this agreement that had been made with the Canadian Pacific, and I propose to quote from the questions and answers commencing at page 200 of the report of the proceedings of that committee. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops we find the following:


Mr. Gordon:: Under our agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway the crew of the joint ship will be supplied by the Canadian Pacific. This is another agreement, I hasten to call your attention to. I must reserve my position on it.


Mr. Fairey:: What is the name of the ship?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Princess Norah.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Although it wouldn't be known as the Princess Norah from now on. It will be renamed.
They are going to change the name of the ship, apparently. It is still a C.P.R. ship with a C.P.R. crew.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What can you do, if anything, for the crew of the Prince Rupert or what hope can you offer?
Let me point out again that many of these are men who have worked for many years for the Canadian National Railways.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not specifically, no.
I do not believe that was fair treatment.
In my view the C.N.R. should not have pulled out of that service. If the Prince Rupert was not fit to carry on the service, they should have built another vessel. It is a great tragedy that the C.N.R. should give up that line. Certainly these men have had shabby treatment.
I regret that no provision is being written into clause 23 which would instruct the railway to endeavour to make arrangements for men who are displaced because of an agreement of this kind. I suggested in committee that there be an amendment which would include such provision, but the minister refused to have any such clause inserted.
I would remind hon. members that there is a provision of the type I am advocating in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, chapter 39 of the revised statutes of 1952. I refer particularly to section 17, the first section of the part dealing with cooperation between the national railways and Canadian Pacific Railway. The first part of the section goes on to instruct the undertaking of co-operative measures. Then we find this provision concerning the men who, as a result, would be put out of work, where the companies are directed to agree-
-to attempt forthwith to agree and continuously to endeavour to agree, and they respectively are, for and on behalf as aforesaid, authorized to agree, upon such co-operative measures, plans and arrangements as are fair and reasonable and best adapted (with due regard to equitable distribution of burden and advantage as between them) to effect such purposes.
Then comes the part I wish to emphasize:
And they are further directed that whenever they shall so agree they shall endeavour to provide through negotiations with the representatives of the employees affected, as part of such measure, plan or arrangement or otherwise, for a fair and reasonable apportionment as between the employees of National railways and Pacific railways, respectively, of such employment as may be incident to the operation of such measure, plan or arrangement.
That provision was written into the act, and of course the act was passed originally in 1932-33. I believe too little thought was given to following a course of that kind in connection with the agreement for the joint operation of a ship in service between Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I ask the minister today whether it would not be possible to give further consideration to this matter in the hope that some arrangement can be made to help these men of the Canadian National Railways to get back to positions similar to those they held before this pooling
Canadian National Railways arrangement went into effect. I also ask the minister whether, even at this late stage, he would be willing to bring in a provision of the type I have mentioned, so it could be included in clause 23 of the bill.


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra has referred to the pool services on the west coast and has read part of Mr. Gordon's remarks on the subject when he appeared before the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. I think I should supplement what he has read in this connection, but I shall try to avoid reading all of Mr. Gordon's evidence on the subject.
The question was brought up as to this joint operation, and it was pointed out that two ships, namely the Prince George and the Prince Rupert, were involved. Mr. Gordon, referring to the Prince George, which was a cruise ship, said:
That will continue to operate on that service, but we are discontinuing our Prince Rupert, a ship which is ready to be retired in any event and we do not intend to replace her in service but will join with the Canadian Pacific Railway in joint service for that regular schedule.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the occasion for this, Mr. Gordon? Have you been having bad returns?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The economics of the situation- perhaps I might give you a little of the background. The Prince Rupert ship which is well known to you, I am sure, has reached an age where her retirement from this kind of service at least is imperative. We were faced with a decision along three lines, whether to try to run a service with only one ship, namely, the Prince George, whether we should try to get a replacement ship for the Prince Rupert and thirdly whether we should build a new ship.
Some years ago I said we had the building of a new ship under consideration and indeed in the 1952 and 1953 budget we had an estimate for the building of a ship, which was approved.
On a closer perusal of the matter it was revealed that the deficit inherent in the operation of a new ship was such that we decided that we could not justify it. The new ship, incidentally, would have cost in 1953 about $4,172,400.
Now, our actual operations in the British Columbia service show that last year we had a deficit before depreciation or interest of $24,772. With depreciation and interest our deficit was of the order of $348,000 annually. We are hopeful, therefore, that by going in with this pool operation with the Canadian Pacific-it is not proper to call it a pool operation but a joint operation with the Canadian Pacific Railway-we will effect substantial economies and will maintain service on the British Columbia coast which will be adequate in relation to the traffic offered.
As I understand the matter, the Prince George is to continue to operate, and I infer that the Prince George will have a Canadian National crew. I take it that the other ship, which is being operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway and to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago, will probably keep the crew which operated her before.

Canadian National Railways Mr. Green: Is it not a fact that the Prince George is merely to be used as a cruise ship, operating only in the summer months?


George Carlyle Marler: There is no changing that fact, as I understand it. It is a cruise ship, and I understand it is to be operated in the summer months. But I believe at the same time, when one considers the matter, that it is not easy to impose the condition that there must be a distribution of employment every time there is an arrangement such as this worked out between the two railways. It is for that reason I have felt that neither railway should be handicapped by inserting a provision such as my hon. friend has in mind with regard to the apportionment of employment as a result of what may be called pooled operations, although I do not think this one should be so described.
I suppose what it comes to is that very often those operations are carried out in order to effect economies and avoid deficits. The only way deficits can be avoided is by cutting down the number of persons carrying out particular operations. That is a sad fact, but I think it is also a realistic appraisal of the situation. Economies of any magnitude cannot be realized except by cutting down the number of personnel engaged in the operation.
In this particular case, as I understand it, there is a diminution in the number of C.N.R. employees engaged in this particular shipping service. On the other hand, there is no diminution so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned. Perhaps there may be another deal elsewhere in Canada where the situation would be reversed.
I do not think the committee should adopt an amendment which would have the effect of tying the hands of management in negotiations of this kind. I feel perfectly confident, thinking of it from the point of view of C.N.R. employees, that they will have no more ardent advocates of their interests than the president and other officers of the railway. If I were a C.N.R. employee I would feel perfectly happy in thinking my interests would be protected whenever it was possible to do so.


Howard Charles Green: I can assure the minister that the crew of the Prince Rupert do not feel very happy about the way their interests have been protected. They have no reason to feel happy about it, either. I would ask the minister whether there is any hope of the C.N.R. resuming this service which, as I pointed out, they have operated for 45 or 50 years. Is there any hope of resuming that service?


George Carlyle Marler: That matter was gone into in the committee with Mr. Gordon, and I do not think I can add anything to what Mr. Gordon said on that occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 27-Motor vehicles.
George Alexander Drew: I gather from the fact that the minister has not risen it is not his intention to reconsider his position. I do not intend to repeat arguments I made this morning; I simply intend to re-emphasize the contention that has been put forward. I am thoroughly convinced that this clause is not only a contravention of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, but it is actually a breach of faith with the provinces that they are not consulted in regard to a question about which there can be doubt, even if one or the other point of view may obviously be put forward in good faith, leaving it to follow that one must be wrong. However, it is obvious that there are widely divergent points of view here. I believe the provinces should be given an opportunity to express their opinion. It was the choice of the Canadian government to bring them in. They should not be left out of the discussion at this time.
I shall say no more. We shall vote against clause 27. It is not necessary. No reason has been put forward that indicates the necessity of clause 27. There is a charter which gives a subsidiary company full power to carry out whatever activities need to be carried out, unless there is some purpose not now disclosed. We shall therefore vote against this clause.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, as I have already said on many occasions, there is no undisclosed purpose so far as clause 27 is concerned. The purposes which the Canadian National Railways have in mind are those which I have stated to the house on several occasions, and as recently as this morning.
With regard to the question of consultation with the provinces, Mr. Chairman, if it was our view that there was any interference with the effect of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act; if it was our opinion that the operations to be carried out under the authority of clause 27 were not going to be subject to the jurisdiction of the provinces, either under the constitution or under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, there might be some reason for consultation. But, as I think I made perfectly clear this morning, we are convinced that we have chosen the best legislative method of giving the provinces jurisdiction over the activities to be carried out under clause 27.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I do not really see any purpose in reiterating what I said at great length before.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said this morning regarding section 27 of the bill. This morning, the minister admitted that, owing to the way this section is drafted, it could give rise to various interpretations. I humbly submit, Mr. Chairman, that if-


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. member will permit,
I never stated that this section could give rise to two interpretations. What I said was that legal texts can often be interpreted in various ways, but not that particular section.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, it was stated this morning and proven that certain legal texts, and more particularly the one about which we are concerned, could give rise to two interpretations. Then, why not delete it completely, as was suggested this morning by the Leader of the Opposition? Or, why not amend it by adding that the Canadian National will actually be governed by the legislation of the different provinces?
By acting in this way, Mr. Chairman, by leaving this section open to two interpretations, there can be no doubt that before long some courts of law will be called upon to decide who is right. This will entail large expenses for the federal government, as well as for the provinces, who will want to defend their rights, and for the companies concerned. Such a waste of funds should be avoided and, if for no other purpose than saving money, I suggest that this section be amended or deleted altogether.
A legal text is recognized to be ambiguous, and yet allowed to stand as is. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, why not add that the Canadian National Railways will be governed by existing legislation in the various provinces? This bill is a further step towards centralization, which we have so often opposed in and outside this house. I find it hard to understand that the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) should not see in this section a means of further centralizing, into the hands of the Ottawa government, the powers that belong to the provinces. His present attitude is in no way consistent with the views he held while he was a member of the Quebec legislature. In fact, when sitting in the Quebec provincial parliament, the hon. minister has repeatedly endorsed certain motions requesting the central government not to deprive the provinces of their powers and thus to avoid an ever-growing centralization. It is un-
Canadian National Railways fortunate that the hon. minister, through his contacts with his new friends of the central government, should now be leaning somewhat towards centralization.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we are further taking over powers which do not belong to the central government but which come under the jurisdiction of the provinces; section 27 of this bill leaves another door dangerously open to centralization.
I therefore approve the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and hope that, by its vote, the house will avoid giving the impression-such an impression is already widespread-that the central government is seeking by all means, often by improper means, to get hold, for the benefit of the government now running the country, of powers which belong to the provinces.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Will the hon. member allow me a question? Does he know that, when this bill was discussed in the railway committee, the representatives of the various Quebec trucking concerns and bus services, among others Mr. Roch Tremblay, Q.C., vicepresident of the Canadian Motor Coach Association, Mr. N. A. Fournier, of Quebec city, vice-president of the Quebec Motor Coach Owners' Association, Mr. Joseph Racine, of Boischatel, representing the chamber of commerce, and Mr. Wilbrod Bherer, K.C., a Quebec lawyer acting as counsel for the Quebec Motor Coach Owners' Association being present, raised no objection to the amendment suggested by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and by no means subscribed to the views expressed by Mr. Coyne during the discussion?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, if certain persons did not choose to raise any objections, that hardly need prevent the member for Quebec West from voicing his own.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: These people have a more direct interest in the matter than you have.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I say, and I repeat, that the Canadian National Railways are being granted powers contrary to the spirit of the constitution.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You are the only one to say so.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I beg the hon. member's pardon, but the Leader of the Opposition has much more experience in these matters than the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport.

Canadian National Railways


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The Leader of the Opposition is not yet recognized as an authority on constitutional law.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that more and more attempts are being made to confer upon the federal government powers belonging to the provinces.
As I said a moment ago, I am convinced- no matter what the opinion of others, and I respect my own-I am convinced that it is not a sound principle.


George Carlyle Marler: I simply wish to answer my hon. friend's question and that will be all. I gave detailed explanations in that respect this morning. I would refer the hon. member to tomorrow's report of the debates, where he will find the information he is requesting.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That did not prove anything!' (Text):
Clause as amended agreed to: Yeas, 54; nays, 31.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friends had greater respect for their own opinions, they probably would be taken seriously and they would respect the opinions of others.
I am also convinced-as has been proven in the past and will be proven again in the future-that attempts are being made, by every possible means, to usurp powers which are vested in the provinces by the constitution.
In spite of the views expressed by some people who support this amendment, I must state that I am definitely opposed to it and that 1 shall vote against the section now being discussed.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, just a word before the question is put.
First of all, it was precisely because I cared and still care for provincial rights that I insisted so strongly upon having sections 18 and 27.
I am convinced and strengthened in my opinion by that of Mr. Driedger, from the Department of Justice, that, with the amendments we moved to sections 18 and 27, the bill reaches the objective we aimed at from the first, and that all operations under section 27 will be subject to provincial jurisdiction, either according to the constitution or to the act I mentioned just now, i.e. the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
Mr. Chairman, far from wanting to infringe upon provincial rights, we preserve them and that is why we moved these amendments.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Since the minister is now making a public confession, and since he claims to be so respectful of the rights of the provinces, I shall ask him why he did not try to protect them further by inserting into the bill a clause stating that the Canadian National Railways will be subject to the regulations of the various transport control boards which exist at present in the provinces of Canada?

Clause 28 agreed to.
On clause 29-Docking and warehouse facilities, etc.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 29 gives the Canadian National Railways authority to purchase, hold and use certain lands, and to enter into agreements respecting the use thereof. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to take up with the management of the Canadian National Railways a matter which has been drawn to my attention. It relates to the use of certain land which is the property of the Canadian National Railways and which adjoins the Fort Rouge shops in Winnipeg.
Until a short time ago employees were permitted to park their cars on this property. If they parked without the facility of a heater plug there was no charge of any kind, and in the case of those who had the facility of a heater plug there was a rental of $7.50 a year. Recently, by the terms of an order sent out under date of May 23, these employees were informed that henceforth those who park on company property without any plug, instead of having that service free, will have to pay $32 a year. Those who have the facility of a heater plug find that the rent has gone up from $7.50 a year to $40 a year.
Even a Liberal cabinet minister will have to admit that this is a rather substantial increase. He can imagine the feeling of protest on the part of the employees concerned. On their behalf I present this protest and ask the minister if he will take the matter up with the management of the Canadian National Railways to see if this order cannot be modified or dropped.


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. member would say whether or not it was justified I would undertake the mission of inquiring into this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether the protest was justified? Is that what the minister means?


George Carlyle Marler: I mean whether or not the action taken is justified. The hon. member starts off on the premise that merely because it has been done and someone has complained, therefore it is wrong. I am ready to

give the management the benefit of the doubt in the matter, but I should be glad to make inquiries to find out what the circumstances are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not like the suggestion that every protest that is made to us is taken by us as necessarily correct and is raised on the floor of the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, if we brought to the floor of the House of Commons all the protests we receive we would be here the year round and then some. In my view the protest made by these employees was justified, knowing as I do the property in question. It adjoins the shops at Fort Rouge, in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South, and consists of so much vacant land. Surely the company is not so hard up that it must impose these rentals, which in turn come out of the pay of the employees of the company. Because I think the protest is justified, I ask the minister to take it up with the management.


Mr. Trainor:: I should be glad to support the protest made by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this respect. If the minister wishes to know whether or not the protest is justified, I can assure him that it is justified. It is justified on the ground of exorbitant rental, if for no other reason. The rates quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are greatly in excess of rates for similar service elsewhere in the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. Hansell:: I have just one question on this clause 29. What is the meaning of the term "may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire" and particularly the term "otherwise acquire"? In other words, has the national railway the right of a sort of modified expropriation?


George Carlyle Marler: Not under this clause. I think the hon. member will probably realize that "purchase, lease or otherwise acquire" would obviously include, for example, the right to acquire by means of exchange. That is another way that is not a purchase. I do not doubt we could think of other examples. The company has powers of expropriation, but not under section 29.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 47 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Library of Parliament Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 192, to amend the Library of Parliament Act.


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


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister making a
statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; I should be pleased to make a brief statement.
The purpose of this bill-and the only purpose-is to carry out the recommendation of the joint committee of both houses on the library which was adopted unanimously in this house on June 23, 1954, and which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of that date. The second part of the report reads as follows:
That at the next session of parliament, the Library of Parliament Act be amended so as to have only one librarian in charge of the whole library from such time as one of the present joint librarians may retire; it being understood that there shall be an associate librarian who shall be required to possess the full and practical knowledge of the official language which is not that of the librarian for the time being, and that the librarian should be alternately English speaking and French speaking according to the unwritten rule which has always been observed for the speakership and elsewhere.
The bill does not, in fact, make any provision about the mother tongue or the language of the persons who shall occupy these positions. On searching the statutes it was found that this had never been done, and it was felt that the same unwritten conventions that govern Your Honour's position here in this house were conventions that any government of any complexion could be relied upon to carry out in the implementation of this bill.
Of course, like any other measure having to do with parliament this one is in form -but not in any other way-a government measure. It is the result of the work of the joint committee on the library in which I think there is no politics whatsoever. During the time I have been associated with that committee since I became a member of parliament-and that is not very long ago, I admit

Library of Parliament Act -I have found that all the members of the committee co-operate in the interests of giving the best possible service to members of parliament.
The fundamental reason for this departure at this time is that it was felt that it would be more efficient to have one person responsible for the administration of the library rather than two. There was an additional reason which was in the mind, I think, of some of the members of the committee, and it was this. In 1885, at the time provision was made for two librarians instead of one, Sir John Macdonald, who introduced the amendment, gave these as his reasons. If the house would bear with me for a moment or two I should like to read what he said on May 6, 1885:
The object of the resolution is to alter, in some degree, the constitution, and increase the staff of the library. Instead of having one librarian, as before, it is proposed that there shall be two officers, who shall hold a joint commission, one to be known as the general librarian and the other as the parliamentary librarian ... A parliamentary library proper is a library that contains all the works necessary for the use of members of parliament. But here, as in Washington, we have no British museum, no general library, considered as a national one, but under the name of a parliamentary library we have increased the number of books so much as to make it become a national one. It has grown so vast that we think it ought to assume that position in every respect. In order to carry out that project, if it is satisfactory to the house, it is proposed that there shall be two librarians, holding a joint commission, one to be known as the general librarian, whose special duties will be to look after the library as a whole, as a scientific and literary institution, and the other to be a parliamentary librarian, the object being that he shall apply himself specially to parliamentary precedents, and see that the latest and best works connected with constitutional law and history and political subjects generally are obtained.
It was not very many years ago that parliament established a national library, which is now set up to serve one of the two purposes that Sir John Macdonald said the library of parliament was serving in 1885. The special functions attributed at that time to the general librarian are now performed by the national librarian and in that sense, of course, the position of general librarian has become redundant.
It will be noted, of course, that it is not intended to disturb either of the present incumbents, and that the bill will only go into effect upon the retirement-and perhaps I should say "or demise", which we hope will not precede their retirement-of one or other of the librarians.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of the bill I want to point out that no mention has been made of the qualifications of future

appointees. The parliamentary librarian is to be appointed during pleasure with the rank of a deputy minister, and he is to have the control and management of the parliamentary library. An associate parliamentary librarian is also to be appointed. This is an age of specialists. In all branches of academic and professional life standards are being raised, and it seems very strange indeed that the standards or qualifications are not mentioned in the bill.
In the past there have been two librarians heading the library of parliament and, as we all know, their qualifications have been long years of experience. Certainly no one questions their ability, but when the time comes for their retirement what is going to happen? I imagine also that retirement is not far distant. The government gives no indication and no assurance that it will appoint a qualified person to head such a large and expensive show piece of parliament, as well as a useful part of it. While academic and professional standards are being raised everywhere, the government pays no attention to this.
One of the finest libraries in Canada could become something of a political plum without a guarantee from the government that scholarship and not political patronage will dictate the appointment of future parliamentary librarians. I believe it is an insult to trained librarians and to the Canadian library association. On more than one occasion the library association has passed resolutions urging that no person should be appointed to libraries anywhere in Canada who is not properly qualified. At the annual meeting of the Canadian library association in 1953 the following resolution was passed:
Be it resolved that this association urge upon the government of Canada that library appointments in all departments and agencies of government be made under the provisions of the Civil Service Act in respect to professional qualifications and merit.
In the bill the government ignores that resolution. In public libraries throughout Ontario standards are very zealously guarded. Trained librarians must have a bachelor of arts degree and a bachelor of library science degree. These are the minimum qualifications for a librarian. Many students go on to get their master of arts and their master of library science degrees. These young people go to these schools at their own expense and are trained for these jobs. 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.

Entrance qualifications to both library schools are a bachelor of arts degree from a recognized university and a reading knowledge of both English and French. The degree given by both McGill and Toronto is that of library science. The B.A. plus the B.L.S. are now required for professional positions in Canadian libraries. Unless the government changes its mind, it can take inexperienced persons and train them at the expense of the taxpayers. One library of parliament official claims that long experience in the library of parliament is training as good as or even better than graduation from a library school. This point of view is open to argument, but the fact remains it is unfair to librarians and unfair to the taxpayers to provide that experience at public expense.
I know there are highly experienced librarians in the parliamentary library, but there are only four with the degrees I have mentioned:	bachelor of arts, bachelor of
library science or master of library science from schools recognized by the Canadian library association. I should like an assurance from the government that these four will not be by-passed when the time comes for the appointment of the chief parliamentary librarian. To do otherwise-that is, to appoint an unqualified person-would be just about as ridiculous as appointing an inexperienced practical nurse to head a great and complex institution like the Toronto General hospital.
In the Toronto public libraries, and I mention them because they are within my own ken, scholarship is of the utmost importance. This is also true of the national library in Ottawa. In fact I understand that applicants there not only have to have these degrees but must have obtained very high standing in their courses. The point is that libraries are not just general stores where occasional inventories are taken. Cataloguing itself is a highly qualified science now. Reference libraries draw the brilliant and questing minds of Canadians, and it takes a highly trained person to answer their questions.
In the Toronto public libraries the absolute minimum qualification is a B.A. degree and a B.L.S. degree. The Ontario government co-operates in maintaining such standards by refusing certification of the libraries if they are not met. If certification is refused no money grant is made to the library. This has proven to be a most effective way of maintaining high standards.
For these reasons I am going to move an amendment when the bill goes into committee, and I hope the amendment will indicate our respect for and appreciation of librarians
Library of Parliament Act right across Canada who are showing a determination to maintain their own high standards.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) has rather spoiled my speech in that she has said almost everything I would have said if I had been making the speech. While the bill appears to be an innocent one of an administrative character dealing with certain routine matters respecting the library, I think it has in it rather serious implications along the dines just indicated by the hon. member.
The trouble with the bill is that there is in it no guarantee that those who receive appointments under its provisions will be either efficient or well qualified. One might suppose the government would certainly not appoint anybody who was unqualified, but there have been certain experiences in the past and I think it would be safer, as the hon. member suggested, for something to be written into the bill to guarantee these things.
I do not agree that experience is all that is necessary. One could have a good deal of experience sitting in an arm chair, without accumulating very much ability or knowledge thereby.
I think, first of all, we should have the qualifications of a trained librarian, and on top of that there should be a considerable amount of experience. I do not know what the position is in the library with regard to personnel. I know the two gentlemen who now hold the top positions. We have a parliamentary librarian and an assistant librarian or general librarian with, as I understand it, equal rank. This situation is now to be changed. All the duties which are now performed by the general librarian and the parliamentary librarian will be performed by the parliamentary librarian who, I am informed, will have the rank of a deputy minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They both now have.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: And will have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, of course; there is no change.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No, but under the bill he will not have an assistant of equal status. There will only be one who will have the rank of deputy minister. I am not particularly interested in rank.
Then I should like to make reference to the committee report of June 23, which was quoted by the minister in regard to language questions. There is tremendous emphasis put on the language, as if that were more important than the qualifications. I am

Library of Parliament Act not concerned particularly with the language qualifications of the head of the library. I have no prejudice against either language. But I am interested in that question of qualifications, efficiency and experience. I want to add my protest to that of the lady member who has just spoken. I shall be interested in finding out what her amendment is.
As to the men who now hold the top positions, I do not know how correct it is but I am informed that one of them may retire fairly soon. This would advance the other, if this bill were to pass, to the position of parliamentary librarian. Now, who would come up into his position I do not know, because I am not aware what the position is in the senior ranks in the library. I would simply hope that a senior rank of personnel could be established who would have at the same time library qualifications, efficiency and experience. Then if in the natural course of events these people were promoted to the top two positions there would be no conflict as between seniority and qualifications. The two things would be there personified in the same person.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is all I would care to say on the matter until we get into committee. I do not think I would go so far, on account of the omission of certain things that should be in this bill, as to oppose it. I feel that would be too drastic; but I would appeal to the minister to see if he could not somehow meet our wishes in this regard.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not believe that we in this group are going to vigorously oppose the bill, Mr. Speaker, though I think we would be to some extent in agreement with the two previous speakers. The reason we cannot very well vigorously oppose it is that the bill is based upon the report of the parliamentary committee on the library on which I believe all groups were represented. These matters were discussed, and I do not recall that any of us objected seriously to the proposals. We certainly did not object to the report, and by reason of that fact it was a unanimous report.
However, I do wish to say this. I do not know just how far this bill goes in effectively meeting the needs of hon. members who sit in this house. I have had this in mind for a long time, and I have mentioned it in this house before. We do get reasonably good service from the members of the library staff when we want a book or when we have some particular subject in which we are interested. They can look up their indexes and try to find a number of books for us. Not long ago I recall that I asked for some material, and a messenger was sent


up with an armful of books with little slips of paper put in at various pages where I might find what I wanted.
But even that did not fulfil what I believe is necessary to' help members of parliament. For a long time I have been advocating that, as members of parliament or as representing various groups in this house, we should have competent research men to look into matters that perhaps cannot altogether be found in the books and material housed within the walls of the parliamentary library. In my opinion that is what is needed to help us more effectively carry on our work. For instance, we have 20 ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General; 20 government departments. I claim it is a physical and mental impossibility for members of parliament to become thoroughly acquainted with all the details of those departments. As a matter of fact, we have parliamentary committees established during the session and it is a physical impossibility for members of parliament to read all those committee reports. There would not be enough hours in a day for us to individually read all those reports. They are in the parliamentary library and are at our disposal.
What we need is men who might be specifically asigned to various groups in this house, men who will understand the position we take and the particular views we hold in respect to certain things, so that when we want something we do not have to spend two or three hours getting what might be a small point but a very important one. It might take hours to search it out. It occurs to me that something should be embodied in the bill. I do not know just where this bill ends, Mr. Speaker, and your authority may begin in respect to these matters, but I do claim that is the need.
Supposing, for instance, a member of parliament wanted some information about bond issues in the first war. I suppose he could phone someone in the Department of Finance. Perhaps that information would not be available in the library. He might want to know something about trade agreements that were signed 20 years ago, and that information might not be in the library of parliament. Our C.C.F. friends might want to know something about profits made during the first world war, and that information might not necessarily be in the library.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have that information.


Ernest George Hansell: It has taken them a long time to get it, perhaps. All I am saying is that I do believe our work in parliament would be more effective, and the work of parliament would carry a little more authority, if we could have the necessary help in this respect.

In saying this I am not reflecting in any way upon the management of the library. I think we have found those men to be competent, notwithstanding what has been said. Of course when we adopt a bill of this kind we are not doing so on the basis of the present incumbents, who are not always going to be there. Staff will be changed from time to time. As has been pointed out, some of the staff will retire and they will be replaced by others. I trust those successors will be competent.
I claim there is a need this bill does not necessarily fill. Therefore I urge that some effort be made to solve what I consider a bit of a problem for members of parliament. I was always under the impression that the library was under the direction of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) but I note that this bill is sponsored by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill).
This group is going to support the bill, but we will be interested in any amendments that may be offered, and may have to support them.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), as to the need to fill the very important post of parliamentary librarian with someone who has recognized qualifications. After all, as she said, it is the highest library post in Canada, and it is only fitting that the person filling that post, the highest in the profession in this country, should have the qualifications required by the Canadian library association, namely a degree of bachelor of arts and of bachelor of library science. If the post is filled by one holding lesser qualifications, then I think it could be considered an insult to the Canadian library association. There seems to be no reason for acting contrary to their suggestion.
The hon. member for York-Humber has asked the minister to give the house the assurance that this post will not be filled by someone who is not properly qualified, and I feel that should be a very easy assurance for the minister to give. I hope he will do so. It will be an easy assurance to give, unless the government plans to hold the post as a political plum to be offered to a faithful party supporter. I hope this will not be the case. The best way to assure us that it is not is to tell us that the post will be filled by a qualified librarian. I trust the minister will give that assurance soon.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to say something in support of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber, because what she has said about
50433-S06
Library of Parliament Act qualifications is of great importance. It is true that it is necessary that such appointee should have the degrees of bachelor of arts and bachelor of library science, or the degree of master of arts. If we, in making a choice for the largest library in the capital city, the library of parliament, appoint someone totally unqualified, then it gives a slap in the face to every licensing board across the dominion.
There are many professional people in this House of Commons, graduates at law, in dentistry and in medicine, who I am sure would agree that were the library of parliament of Canada to hire an unqualified person it would do away with all possible chance of recognition of licensing boards across Canada.
The minister has stated that the appointment is to be non-political. I am glad he has said that, because it is a matter of importance to us. It is our library, and at the present time we are spending a large amount of money rebuilding it. In this bill we should take care that the staff, too, is carefully rebuilt.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has referred to his difficulty in obtaining information in the library, and has mentioned the necessity of having a trained librarian familiar with research work. If we had trained librarians these things should be at their fingertips, the cataloguing would be done thoroughly and there would be generai improvement throughout.
I notice that when the civil service commission advertises for a librarian for any of the various departments of government the qualifications are always listed. They ask for a B.L.S., a B.A. or someone with corresponding qualifications. If the civil service commission requires these qualifications for libraries in the various departments of government, then certainly we should have librarians with equal qualifications in the library of parliament.
The minister has gone out of his way to say that the appointment is to be nonpolitical. I appeal to every member in the house that it should be so. There are many professional men sitting here who will know that the Canadian library association has requested that in appointments to the library of parliament qualified persons should be selected, and I believe this request was made to the Prime Minister.
So we make this serious request, recognizing that the library of parliament is involved. We urge that there should be no slap in the face to the licensing boards, that there should be recognition of the request of the Canadian library association, and recognition of the fact that these are the qualifications demanded throughout the country for those who

Library of Parliament Act look after books. I compliment the hon. member for York-Humber-possibly because she made the comparison with a hospital, and 1 thought the comparison particularly fitting- on saying that we might as well appoint a practical nurse to head the Toronto General hospital as put an unqualified person in the library of parliament.
There are in the library those who have high qualifications. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) has referred to the handing out of a plum, and to the fact that this post will have the status of deputy minister. It is an excellent position. Therefore in this bill let us recognize the request of the Canadian library association and make sure that in future those who are appointed to the library staff also possess the necessary qualifications. We cannot go wrong on that, and I think the minister should be ready to accept the amendment that will be moved by the hon. member for York-Humber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have only two or three sentences to say. I support my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and others who have urged that there be included in the bill a provision that future appointees to these posts should meet certain qualifications. That is all to the good, and I hope the minister will give consideration to what has been said.
My main reason for rising, however, is that as one who, along with other members in the house, makes a good deal of use of the parliamentary library, I wish to say that under its present administration and with its present staff, our library gives us excellent service.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the joint committee on the library of parliament I should like to say a few words. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has said this bill was recommended by that committee. I would point out, however, that the committee did not draw up the bill. I feel quite sure that if we had we would have recommended that the librarian should be fully qualified.
In addition to a librarian, an associate librarian is to be appointed. I understand that this associate librarian must have a full knowledge of the official language which is not the language of the librarian. I do hope that when the hon. member for York-Humber moves her amendment she will include in it the requirement that the associate librarian shall be fully qualified. It has been the unwritten rule in this house that if one librarian is English then the other should be French, or vice versa. I suppose that will continue.


I also note that this bill will not come into force until there is a vacancy in the library.
While I am on my feet I wish to say I am very much surprised at the dilly-dallying that has been shown in the remodelling job. It has cost over $2,500,000 to date. No one knows what the additional cost will be or how many years it will take before it is completed. It was hoped that it would be ready by next year, but if they continue to dilly-dally the way they are doing now it will be 1957. I see Mr. Speaker looking at me; therefore I shall get off that subject. It is something the taxpayers across the country are greatly worried about.


Mr. Croll:: They have not the slightest
idea what is being done.


Mr. Sinclair:: In my riding they have no idea of what is being done to the library.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am fairly well qualified in building.


James Sinclair: I was not saying that; I was referring to the taxpayers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Many of the
taxpayers are qualified in building, in architecture and in repair work. When you have a cost-plus contract it can go on and on. The collapse of the floor is something the contractor should-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All right, Mr. Speaker. It has been said that the office of librarian should be non-political. The associate librarian should also be in the same class, and he should be fully qualified. As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) said, it is also a slap in the face of the universities and the halls of learning who have qualified people for that position and who are not recognized at all. When the minister rises to reply-and he will have an opportunity soon-I do hope he will say that the people appointed will be fully qualified in every way.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: This is another of the simple little bills that contain just a few clauses that are introduced toward the dying days of the session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, this bill has been on the order paper since March 4. I have been here pretty nearly every day ready to proceed with it at any time hon. gentlemen opposite would keep quiet long enough for me to do so.


George Harris Hees: Why did you not bring it on? We were here, too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is remarkably easy to
bring the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to his feet. This bill may have been on the order paper for a long time. It is only just now being brought forward for second reading, and of course in the dying days of the session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We hope they are dying days.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was introduced in the ides of March and brought forward for second reading in the dying days of the session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was going to approach this subject, Mr. Speaker, in as philosophical and fine a spirit as possible, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is a little touchy. May I say, since he is encouraging me, that in his introduction of the bill this afternoon he glossed over the situation. He said that in 1885-he does not like us to go back and look at things that happened in the past, but he found it useful to do so today-I think it was in 1885-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In 1885 it was considered advisable to have joint librarians for a particular reason. That reason has gone. Therefore let us revert to the situation as it was before. It is as simple as that. That is the way it was presented to us this afternoon. It is a simple little change in accordance with the change in the times and in the library situation. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this simple little bill should not occupy the attention of the house more than a minute or two.
The minister did not go quite to the extent of saying, well, now, you can trust us to do everything that is just right with regard to this matter. Perhaps he is saving that for the committee stage, or when he replies at the end. "You can of course trust us to put in charge of the library someone who is thoroughly qualified for the job. After all, we have been in power a long time, and you know how carefully we deal with all these matters and what confidence the house should have in us." He has not said that yet, but it will likely come.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have spoiled it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think he will repeat it.


William Earl Rowe: He will not do it as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I say, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at these simple little bills very closely. In this one we find again an omission, and we are suggesting that the omission be corrected. If the government follows the course it has followed in the last few days I 50433-306J
Library of Parliament Act suppose it will make the correction. Perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be a little more amenable to reason than the minister who sat here on Monday night and listened to us discuss another bill.
The hon. member for York-Humber presented the case extremely well, and I certainly support the point of view she put forward. In these days a profession has developed which has been recognized throughout the North American continent, namely that of librarian. It is surely of the greatest importance that here in the capital of the country and in the parliamentary library the status of the librarian should be recognized. Why the bill did not immediately indicate that escapes me. Suggestions have been made-the minister was pleased to say that the report of last year was adopted unanimously-that there was general consent. The suggestion is made that because the committee reported on this unanimously and it was accepted by the house, there should be no objection.
Naturally, as the hon. member for Peterborough pointed out, we did not know just what was to be contained in the bill. We might agree to some general principle, but until we saw the bill we were not sure all the points were covered, and obviously they have not been covered in this bill. When we have our universities training people for the profession of librarian, and when we have libraries throughout this country making their appointments on the basis of that professional training, we should ensure that here in the parliamentary library the same tiling is done. It would be an extraordinarily bad thing if through carelessness on the part of parliament it is made possible to appoint to one of the top positions in library work in this country someone who does not carry the necessary academic qualifications.
I quite agree that experience is an essential factor in any of these positions. Libraries are becoming increasingly more important in our lives. We are dependent here as members of this house on the library of the House of Commons. We are dependent on the staff of that library for assistance, and at this point I should like to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the members of the staff of the library. I have found them very helpful on all occasions. I appreciate that they are working under very difficult conditions at the present time, and have been for the last year or so, and I hope that soon they will find themselves working under better conditions. I have nothing but praise for the assistance I have received from the librarian here and from librarians elsewhere during the course of my life. I have been

Library of Parliament Act very dependent on them, and very dependent upon libraries for information.
It is because of the importance of libraries in our lives that we must see to it that this particular library ranks at the very top of the libraries in this country. That can only be done by ensuring that we have a qualified and trained staff in charge of that institution. Even at this stage, after the remarks that have been made from this side of the house I hope the minister will be prepared to say he would like to withdraw the bill and reconsider it, as inadvertently he has omitted to include the necessary provisions to meet the demands of the present.
We are at least endeavouring to impress upon him the importance of the library staff and, of all people, he does not or should not need any indication or suggestion along that line. He has had a long academic career and has himself been dependent upon libraries and librarians for assistance in that career. I expect that during the course of his political life he has been very much dependent upon the parliamentary library and the people who staff it. Perhaps he found that quotation about 1885 himself. He most likely asked somebody to dig it out for him, which is what is normally done in this institution.
This is anything but a simple matter. It is a matter of importance and seriousness. This bill will determine for many years to come the status of the parliamentary library, and will have its effect upon the status of the profession of librarian in Canada. My hope is that we will be able to have the appropriate changes made in this bill.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one question. In the Library of Parliament Act which this bill is amending, is the qualification of the librarian not defined at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to all the speeches and particularly to the extraordinary speech delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who has just sat down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am trying to match your accomplishments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot say, sir, that I am flattered. The hon. member suggested that I had made an omission in this bill. This is only by courtesy my bill. This is the bill of the joint committee on the library, on which sat a good many distinguished and learned members opposite, as well as on this side


of the house, and which has been introduced, except for the one point I mentioned, in the form in which it was recommended by the committee. It would have been a piece of impudence on my part to have introduced a bill that deviated in any marked degree from that report.
I am going to deal in a moment with the suggestion about having a professional librarian. This suggestion was never mentioned at any of the meetings of the committee, and it is not unfair to say that the whole idea came from outside the house after the committee reported. But before I come to deal with that, which is the most serious point, raised by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) and supported by nearly everybody else who spoke, I Should like to say something about the other points raised.
The hon. member for Macleod talked about the necessity for having more help for members of parliament to criticize the government. I think they need more help. I certainly agree with him. I suppose the hon. member for Macleod was thinking of providing help to the opposition on the lavish scale on which it is provided in the legislature of his province.


John Horne Blackmore: What does that mean?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the opposition ask questions there, they dissolve the house.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), raised a further question about the language of the librarian and the associate librarian under the new legislation. I think I should repeat here that the government felt there ought not to be in the bill itself a departure in this respect for the first time, as far as we were able to discover, in legislation since confederation. We felt that, regardless of what party or group of parties might form a government at any time, that convention would be respected. It is perfectly obvious that if we are to give equal opportunities to all members of the house, regardless of which of the official languages is their mother tongue, it is essential that one of the senior officers in the library be a person to whom any member can talk in his mother tongue. I do not believe there is any dissent from that anywhere in the house.
It was suggested that there might be some danger, unless an amendment were made to this legislation, of the office of librarian becoming a political plum. Well, sir, I had a little research done for me on that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By whom?


An hon. Member:: The librarians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can let the hon. member make his own surmises. I find that in no case when this party has had charge of the government or occupied the treasury benches has anyone ever been appointed librarian except a member of the staff of the library. I find, however, that when the party of the hon. gentlemen opposite was in office and this position fell vacant, it was customary to appoint someone from outside the library staff, someone who had been prominently associated with their party.
Actually the real reason Sir John Macdonald brought in this silly legislation which we are now asking the house to repeal was that he had appointed a gentleman named Mr. Martin Griffin, who was a journalist in Toronto, to the job of librarian when it became vacant, and there was such an outcry from his supporters in another part of the country that he brought in this legislation to create two positions, so he could satisfy both claimants. A very distinguished member of Sir Robert Borden's government occupied the position of librarian for a good many years. He was still here when I first came to Ottawa, and in my opinion he discharged his functions very well indeed.


An hon. Member:: Was he a professional librarian?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, of course he was not; but he was a cultivated gentleman and a very good librarian. Now, I do not think there is any question that it would be preferable, other things being equal, to have as librarian a person trained in what is called library science. I was approached, as many other hon. members obviously were, by people who were interested, and I think perhaps I should read to the house now the reply I made on this point, because this will be the position I intend to take on the hon. lady's amendment and which I hope my friends in the house and the hon. member for Greenwood, who like me has a soft spot for the humanities, will find it possible to support. In this communication I said:
The bill ... is designed to carry out the recommendations of the joint committee on the library. I am afraid I would not be disposed to recommend, or even to support, an amendment such as that suggested by the Canadian library association. I agree that it is of great importance to have trained librarians on the library staff, and that, other things being equal, it would be desirable to have a trained librarian as head of the library.
But in this world other things are not always equal,-
As, I might say parenthetically, I discovered not so long ago.
-and there is a great variety of qualities required in a good parliamentary librarian, and I would think it most undesirable to have parliament restrict the freedom of choice of the governor in council in making on rare occasions when it
Library of Parliament Act
becomes necessary the most suitable selection, all things taken into account, from the whole Canadian population.
I go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think the fact of having been a distinguished member of the privy council- as Mr. Martin Burrell was-should be a necessary disqualification.
I was flattered, as I am sure were all my colleagues on the treasury benches, by the appeals from the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) in particular and from several other hon. members that the government should give an assurance that the right kind of person would be appointed to this position. I have no hesitation in giving such an assurance so long as the Liberal party is on this side of the house. We hope these appointments will not have to be made for a considerable time, but if they are made I am quite sure that as long as the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister occupies his present post, he would not make any recommendation except one which he thought would serve all hon. members on both sides of the house.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, desirable as it would be to have someone who was a trained library scientist, it seems to me there are other qualities that are even more important in the head of a library. Most important of all, it seems to me, is a good general education, with a strong bias toward history, constitutional law and political subjects.


George Harris Hees: And a liking for the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like Mr. Burrell. It seems to me it is unlikely that anyone on either side of the house who happened to occupy the position now occupied by the present Prime Minister, with the responsibility given under this legislation or under the previous legislation, would make any appointment which was unworthy.
That leads me to make reference to the most recent of all appointments, namely that of the present librarian, who was recommended by the Prime Minister's predecessor, Mr. Mackenzie King. As all hon. members know, Mr. Hardy is not a trained librarian but he is a very cultivated man. I do not think anybody on either side of the house would say that Mr. Hardy was anything but completely impartial in the discharge of his duties.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Library of Parliament Act
On clause 1-Librarian.
Miss   Aiiken@: Having listened to the minister I feel more than ever that I must move my amendment. I was slightly reassured by his opening remarks when he said he was going to be non-political, but I lost that reassurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I ever actually used that phrase.


Miss   Aiiken@: The expression "non-political" came in somewhere in those opening remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is entirely foreign to his nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not the slightest objection to being political myself. I think that is what we are all here for.


William Earl Rowe: We knew that but you do not always admit it.


Miss   Aiiken@: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark:
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 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.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose I ought to rise and say that this amendment is not acceptable to the government. I have already indicated that fact.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I was not
at all certain that I was going to make any contribution to this discussion, but I have been rather put on the spot. I admit quite candidly that what the minister said appealed to me very considerably. I dislike restrictions. I dislike too many rules and regulations. Of course he greatly commended what he had to say by his generous reference to Mr. Martin Burrell. On the other hand it seems to me that the scale comes down on the other side for this reason. We now have-as we did not have, I presume, years ago-a body of trained librarians. It is now a profession in a sense in which it was not so recognized not so many years ago.
I would hope that we can make the best of both worlds by getting not only a person with a good general education, as the minister has indicated, but also a person with special qualifications. I do not see any reason why we should not have both. Finally may I say that it seems to me, as has been so well stated already, that with regard to a position of this eminence, to refuse to give recognition to

this profession which has become one of real distinction would be an unfortunate matter. Therefore, in spite of the minister's most seductive appeal, I shall vote for the amendment.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I feel that if I
were to take the action that my emotions and feelings dictate, after the remarks the minister made on second reading I would do anything to shoot the bill sky high. I think the remarks he made were completely uncalled for. When I rose and told him we would support the bill because it was based on the recommendation of the parliamentary committee on the library, I thought I was quite generous in my remarks. Then he had to turn around and speak as he did. In commenting on what I proposed I think he certainly depreciated any dignity he may previously have had, by making what I claim were simply dirty political remarks. As I say, if I were to do what I feel like doing I would do anything to defeat the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose that is ar.
objective attitude.


Mr. Wylie:: After your speech why should anybody vote for it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You will surely vote for something on its merits and not on the merits of my speech.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is the first good admission you ever made.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You can say that again.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not going to vote on the merits of the minister's speech. That is one thing that is certain. Furthermore, we do not vote against a measure just because we get angry with the minister. We have to be fair in that respect, fair with our own conscience.
We are still going to vote for the bill. I think in general the principle of the amendment proposed may be good, namely that librarians should be competent, and the most competent ones would be those recommended by the library association or who have attained certain degrees.
I know that is true of other professions. In my own profession men with degrees are looked upon as exceptionally competent, though on the other hand I have found some who did not have any degrees at all who were much more competent than those who had a string of them. That is in my own profession. But I hardly think we can support the amendment, for the reason that it seems to me it casts a bit of a reflection on the

present incumbent, and I do not think we should do that. I think the present incumbent has done his work marvellously well. I have been on committees where he has appeared and has been open to questioning, and I and all members of this group, I believe, regard the present incumbent as a man very highly qualified for that particular position. For that reason I do not feel we can vote for the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise at once to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of what was said by the hon. member for Macleod. It seems to me this amendment would have disqualified both of the present librarians. It would have disqualified Mr. Martin Burrell, the immediate predecessor of Mr. Hardy. As a matter of fact, I was surprised that the hon. member for Greenwood would strain his principles so far as to follow his party into support of this restrictive amendment, and I use his own word when I say "restrictive".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I think we support the amendment. I should like to reiterate what my colleague has said regarding the present library service. I do not think it is casting any reflection whatever upon the present librarians or the service provided for us to ask that future librarians should be qualified and have a proper degree. As far as the present librarians are concerned I think we will all say we have been very satisfied. Let me point out that these gentlemen are not concerned at all with the bill, because it will only come into effect after their retirement takes place.
May I say that I did not like the tone of the minister's speech. I think he interjected into this quite routine matter, a subject of some seriousness and importance, a political element which may have been engendered by the debates of the last few days but certainly is not justified thereby.
I want to make my attitude perfectly clear on another question. The minister mentioned what I said about language. I thought I had made it very clear that I was not prejudiced either for or against anybody on account of the language he happened to use.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman thought I was reflecting on him, I assure him I was not. That was my understanding, too.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: But the minister did refer to the recommendation by the committee with which I may say I am in complete agreement. The point I wanted to get at was that the important thing was not the language the person used. That was not my criterion. To me qualifications were the important
Library of Parliament Act thing. Whoever is building up the staff in the future should see to it that a staff is built up with the language qualifications, if you like, but who should all have also the library qualifications that we on this side seem to be demanding. That is what I wanted to make perfectly clear. We shall support the amendment.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word in support of the amendment. I certainly do not agree with the hon. member for Macleod when he suggests that this might be a reflection, or might even be remotely construed as a reflection, upon the present incumbents in our library.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They could not have been appointed if this legislation had been in force.


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall deal with that in a moment. Everyone is agreed that we receive courteous and efficient attention from the members of that staff, and the last thing in the world that anyone would want to do is reflect upon them. As a matter of fact we will be reflecting upon some of them if we do not pass the amendment, because four or five on that staff have acquired these degrees and are now in the employ of the Dominion of Canada in the hope that some day they will receive the attention and recognition they deserve, though it has sometimes been whispered that this will not happen if the bill is passed in its present form.
It is true that the senior members of the staff would not be qualified under the bill because at the time they received their appointment the degrees of bachelor and master of library science were virtually unknown. It is something that has been recognized as a necessity within the last two decades. Men such as the present chief librarian, men like Hon. Martin Burrell and others to whom the minister referred, certainly were efficient librarians, but if the present incumbent, for example, were being appointed today and made an application I am sure he would have a degree or he would not expect to receive the appointment. I must say I was impressed as usual with the agility and footwork-sometimes he stumbles-of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration this afternoon.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Sometimes he brays, too.


George Clyde Nowlan: When he dealt with the bill in the first place he spoke very matter of factly. He was really simply the mouthpiece of the library of parliament committee, and that was all. It was only incidental that he was introducing the bill. He had no views and he could not do anything about it because

Library of Parliament Act this was the report of the library of parliament committee. But when the amendment was produced he said immediately that the government would not accept it. I have never seen a greater change in emphasis, standing first on one foot and then on the other, as the minister displayed after the hon. member for York-Humber introduced the amendment.
But regardless of the qualifications of the persons who hold these positions today, I am thinking of the young people of the country. I have known some of them who, at great expense and sacrifice, by borrowing money and everything else, have gone through university to obtain these degrees. Within the last 20 years they have developed in this country and elsewhere a profession of which they are proud. It was only a few centuries ago when even members of the medical profession were not too well qualified. After all, at one time in this country we had barbers as surgeons. However, I am quite sure that today no one, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, would suggest that even the best looking barber in Canada should be appointed to a medical staff anywhere. The same thing is true of the lawyers; they have evolved in the same way. The jewelers evolved from the old pawnbrokers. All throughout history we have this matter of evolution, and this is one sample of that evolution which has taken place, a professional evolution.
I would say, sir, it would be most unfortunate if we in the parliament of Canada, who are supposed to be setting an example, setting standards for our young people in this country, by our legislation set very low standards. True, this position was established first in 1885 and now it is being amended, but we should at least try to bring it into line with today's conditions. We should recognize the sacrifices these young people are making. We should recognize the qualifications of our library science schools. There is no municipal board anywhere in the country which has a municipal library which would not require, as a prerequisite to appointment as librarian, graduation from a library school. Are we going to adopt a lower standard? It is for that reason I am going to support this amendment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add a word that I had intended to say when I was on my feet before. I want to associate myself with what has been said about the present librarians and the service we get. The last thing in the world I would want would be for any word of mine, by any indirection, to seem to reflect upon them, because I have the highest regard for them.


Mrs. Shipley:: The emphasis on the qualifications for this position, Mr. Chairman, has been placed by speakers from the opposition on the degree of graduate librarian. In my opinion the chief qualification of the top librarian, in this the greatest library in Canada, should be administrative ability. We can hire innumerable trained librarians to do that type of work, but the chief librarian here would be doing very little if any of the type of work for which the training of librarian would fit him.
I am quite sure that no member of the opposition would suggest for a moment that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not done a most efficient and effective job.
I have not listened to one argument from the opposition that would not apply if they were suggesting that no one but a medical doctor should be head of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I was particularly interested in listening to one of the members of the opposition who is a member of the medical profession. I am quite sure the medical society of Canada would not come here and suggest that this minister, who is a lawyer by training, has not done as excellent a job as the most outstanding physician or surgeon in Canada could do.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we need as chief librarian here a man who primarily has administrative ability. I do not suggest, nor does the bill suggest, that he could not also be a trained librarian. I do not think for one moment that we should restrict such an important position to only those who are trained as librarians.


Mr. Noseworihy:: I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's speech. As the minister knows, I am very willing to support him provided I can find some reason for doing so. It is not sufficient for the minister to say this amendment is not acceptable to the government as soon as the amendment is introduced, thereby sounding a warning note-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit an interjection. Perhaps he was not here when I spoke at the conclusion of second reading and gave the reasons for my opposition to the amendment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I heard the minister's reason. The minister indicated that other than the purely academic qualifications such as visualized in the amendment were required. Surely the minister will be the last person in this house to say it would be impossible to find, amongst those who have the academic qualifications, men with administrative ability such as he has in mind. Unless the minister wants the government to be

free to make political appointments I can see no objection to this amendment. Surely there are qualified men who have all the administrative ability and all the other qualifications the minister had in mind when he made this statement.
What is important is that the profession of librarian is one which has not been recognized. In the past library boards have been very loath to employ trained librarians. Personally I think that in our parliamentary library, the first library in the country, we should give encouragement to libraries all across this country which the appointment of a qualified librarian would give. I feel quite sure that persons could be found who were qualified and at the same time possessed the extra qualifications, such as administrative ability, the minister had in mind. Unless the minister can give us reasons why this is not acceptable, reasons which carry a little more weight than those he gave when he made his explanation, we will not be able to support him.
What are some of the qualifications required in a librarian that are not likely to be found in one who has the academic qualifications set forth in the amendment? Does the minister assume that he will not be able to find the type of person that will be suited to that position within the group of properly trained librarians? I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. member for Macleod, nor with the suggestion implied in the minister's statement, that to adopt any such amendment as this would be a reflection on the present librarian. I think everybody in this house agrees that the present librarians have done just about everything that was expected of them. But I am quite sure that the gentlemen who occupy the positions at the present time would be the last to say that if they possessed the academic qualifications set forth in the amendment they would not be still better qualified, good as they are now and good as is the job they have done. There is no reason to assume that they might not have done even a still better job had they been qualified as would be required by the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: *My objection to that
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. I think if there are two people equally good, one would prefer that; but I do not like to see a lot of Cana-
*See correction and amplification at page 5322, column 1.
Library of Parliament Act dians excluded from any hope of getting this position because they do not happen to have a particular degree.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Does the minister lay
down the same restrictions regarding appointments of other professional people within the civil service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not a professional appointment. This is the appointment of the deputy head of a department. I know of no department of government in which there is laid down any professional qualification. I might say that I am an unrepentant and enthusiastic amateur.


James Sinclair: I would like to join in what has been said by my colleague the Minister of Fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: Well, I think in terms of Newfoundland so much that I associate Newfoundland with fisheries. I join also with the hon. lady from Timiskaming. I think this qualification, spelled out, would exclude a number of people who are well qualified and who could expect the appointment as librarian of parliament. Certainly it is a very desirable qualification for any aspirant to that position to have a degree in library science, but the lack of it should not bar any man with wide training and general interest, especially one having knowledge and training in history and law, from aspiring to this position.
I spent too many years in too many universities in my youth to have any undue regard for the possession of a university degree as such, especially in these days when more and more degrees are being given and the fields are becoming narrower and narrower-such as this new field, for example, of librarian sciences. The three great libraries of the English-speaking world are, first of all, the library of congress at Washington, the largest in the world. The head of that library until recently was Archibald MacLeish, a poet. I am certain he is not a graduate of a school of library science approved by either the Canadian or the American library association.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did he run the library?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Splendidly.


James Sinclair: Then, to mention two of the greater libraries in the English-speaking world, there is the British museum library and the library which is close to the heart of the hon. member for Greenwood, the Bodleian library of Oxford University.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And close to the heart of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Algoma East.

Library of Parliament Act


James Sinclair: Yes, and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and even the hon. member for Kamloops. I sent the hon. member for Greenwood a note saying, "Do you think the Bodleian library would be better served by having a graduate librarian in charge, instead of the distinguished scholar who now heads it?" I shall leave it to the hon. member to give the house the answer he gave me.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You can read what I said.


James Sinclair: He said, "I'll take that as notice." We would be interested in his feelings, as a scholar, a man who believes in a broad and liberal education, a man who has many times spoken of the value of a broad and general education at universities such as his old university of Queen's, and his other university of Oxford-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is the distinguished
scholar you have referred to?


James Sinclair: The name is so well known to the honourable and studious member for Kamloops that I am sure there is no need to repeat it here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is he?


James Sinclair: My main reason for putting this question to the hon. member-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who is he? Answer.


James Sinclair: My main reason for writing this note to the hon. member for Greenwood, knowing his devotion to the university, is that he could name the present librarian of the Bodleian library, an old fellow classmate of his, as I have no doubt he will say when he stands up to reply, after having received my note.
Here, for the first time, we have the Tory party endorsing the principle of the closed shop; because apparently anyone who is going to get the job as librarian of parliament must have the endorsation of the Canadian library association, another trade union.


Mr. Charlton:: Did I understand the minister to say that certain people would have to have a college education.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I said that they must have a professional degree.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the same thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. member for Greenwood would agree with you on that.


John Alpheus Charlton: "A professional degree"- what does that mean?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I have several
degrees, and no profession.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is obvious, but I would not expect the minister to admit it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You asked for an answer, and you got it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Practically every position under the civil service demands a degree of some kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not deputy ministers.


John Alpheus Charlton: When patronage enters into the picture, perhaps not; because men may not be qualified but they let it be known that they want the job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have a lot of friends who have been to universities.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like to ask the minister one question. I understand that under this bill a librarian is to be appointed, and then there will be authority for the appointment of an associate librarian. Does the minister feel that neither the librarian nor the associate should be a qualified librarian? He mentioned a minute ago that these others were still deputies in the different departments. The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and suggested that he had done an excellent job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is all very fine; but do you think he could have done that job if he had not had a fully qualified man as his deputy?


James Sinclair: Under him.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am referring to Dr. Cameron. He is the man who has helped the Minister of National Health and Welfare do a good job, as the hon. member for Timiskaming has said. Does the minister feel that neither the librarian nor the associate should be a qualified person? Surely one of them at least should be qualified.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think they should both be qualified.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Qualified librar-v ians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I do not think the only or indeed the major qualification for a good head or associate head of a library is necessarily that he be a man with a library science degree. I think we would be making a great mistake in this house if we limited appointments to these two positions to such a comparatively small part of the whole

Canadian population, particularly when their salaries are being paid out of everybody's taxes.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, let us keep the discussion on a reasonable basis. The suggestion made in relation to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has no application whatever to this. A comparable suggestion would be to put a mining engineer in charge of a hospital, and you would not do that, of course.
So far as a medical position is concerned you would appoint a skilled medical practitioner. If it were a legal position you would appoint a lawyer. And as far as administrative posts are concerned in the ordinary course of events governments call upon men or women to administer departments without regard to technical qualifications. Even the Minister of Fisheries may learn something about fish after he has spent some years with that department. The fact that he might not have known a plaice from a haddock in the first instance does not mean that he could not do a good job, so long as the administrative task was well done. The comparison is not there.
A very serious attempt has been made in Canada in recent years to bring the position of librarian into the field of responsible professions. Everyone has agreed that this is an important task. In order to attract people to this profession it is necessary to give them the feeling that the training they get will be recognized. I have heard no suggestion made which would offer any reason why this amendment should not be accepted, having regard to the length of time which has already been devoted to the training of librarians in this country. Perhaps ten years ago, fifteen years ago, it could not have been done because this is a comparatively modern development. Now we have plenty of trained librarians.
Unless there is some reason that has not been indicated by the minister it would be a desirable thing to offer the encouragement that would be offered to those who have been training as librarians by making this profession a requirement under the act itself, and I am supporting the amendment on that ground.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I am quite surprised that the government is apparently refusing to grant professional status to the many graduate librarians throughout Canada. What the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said a moment ago was, if you require that the persons who are given these jobs must have professional qualifications you will be limiting the field. That is precisely the situation 50433-307}
Library of Parliament Act that obtains in other professions. One would not think of filling a post that required a medical doctor unless the appointee was properly qualified. The same thing applies to members of the legal profession. I suggest that qualified graduate librarians across Canada are professional people. They have professional standing. Apparently the government is seeking to deny librarians professional status.
It may be true that the bill refers to a deputy minister. I suggest that simply granting deputy minister status to a librarian does not make him any less a librarian. He is still a librarian. Primarily he is the chief librarian, whether you give him the status of a deputy minister or not. Notwithstanding the arguments that have been advanced, the only method of filling positions of this kind, in order to create an atmosphere of fairness to librarians across Canada, is to fill them with personnel who are fully qualified librarians.
No arguments on the part of the minister are going to get around the arguments that have been put up by the opposition. I suggest it is a very simple matter. There are many hundreds of qualified librarians throughout Canada. For the minister to suggest that there is not in Canada a sufficient group to draw from is an insult to librarians throughout the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not suggest that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent during the first part of this discussion. Will you kindly read the amendment?


The Deputy Chairman:: 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:
No one shall be eligible to be appointed as parliamentary librarian or associate parliamentary 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.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, speaking to that amendment, I find it absurd. I will tell you the reason. I am one of the members of parliament who have used the library to the utmost. All of those who are there, the whole staff, are A-l, perfect. I wonder whether they have any degrees from anywhere. I do not believe in degrees; I believe in efficiency, and they are all efficient. I hope the appointments will be made from people who can compare with those who are in the library of parliament at the present time, and who are in the library of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Library of Parliament Act


Miss   Aiiken@: Mr. Chairman, to answer a few things that have been said, I must say I became a little confused as the debate went on. Before long the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was talking back to his colleague the Minister of Fisheries. That really tied me up. First of all, I want to assure the hon. member for Macleod that in this amendment there is certainly no reflection on the present librarians. If there were any reflection in the amendment then the bill itself would be a reflection on the librarians, but everything points to the future, not to the past.
The minister has made much of past appointments by governments to the post of librarian, and pointed out they were not trained librarians. We did not have any library schools or library courses at the universities in those days. It is a comparatively new and struggling profession. I feel the minister has been extremely scornful of librarians as professional people. He read a letter in which it was said that many qualities were needed in a parliamentary librarian, and I would gather insinuated from that letter that probably those qualities could not be found in a trained librarian. This bill, without the amendment, is an insult to all professional librarians across Canada, and that is why we on this side are supporting the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; this is too serious a matter to decide in such a hurry. Let us see what is happening. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration informed the house that he was bringing the bill before us just as a courteous gesture to carry out the recommendations of the joint committee of both houses. After having made that remarkable statement he went on to make a biased political speech. He could not refrain from that, and he extended it a little later on by casting a slur on Sir John A. Macdonald. He said he made two appointments to the library staff because the library was a joint library, not a parliamentary library. Subsequently in the course of his remarks he said that was done just for political purposes.
That was the type of speech the minister made in introducing the bill, and it was exactly what I expected. He has been doing that all along. He is following the practice of other ministers. He raised the big stick. Immediately the amendment was read he jumped to his feet to say the government was
I Mr. Pouliot.]
opposing it. He said nothing about the joint committee, which had not even considered it. No; the government was opposed to it, and of course when the government is opposed to anything, then we are all supposed to quail and go creeping around. I suppose we should bow three times to the east before we approach this minister.
Not content with that, he then introduced the red herring. This amendment, if passed, would affect the present incumbents of the office. All he had to do was bring in the hydrogen bomb and we would have had the thing complete. He tried to scare us out of our wits.
Then he suggested that the person appointed to the library would be deputy head of the department. No such thing. He may be occupying a position which is recognized as being equivalent to the deputy head of a department, but it is not a department of government. It is just one of those nonsensical arguments put forward with the intention, it seems to me-I hope not, but it appears to be the intention-of misleading the committee. I hope the minister did not have that in mind. However, that is the way in which this bill has been introduced to us. The minister can lay it at his own feet if this measure is delayed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that it is six o'clock.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday we shall take the estimates of the departments of national defence, fisheries, secretary of state and justice. However, on Friday we shall take as the first order of business third reading of the Canadian National Railways bill and then, as I said the other night, the second reading of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the government has of course the responsibility for deciding the business but, having regard to the vital importance of the Department of National Defence, I had hoped that when this debate started it would carry right through, because certainly the discussion will be carried on in a much more orderly manner and that will expedite the debate that will undoubtedly take place on the first item, as is usually the case. I would hope the minister will reconsider that and carry the debate right through.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the point the hon. member has made but, as I explained the other night, the Minister of Agriculture will be here and, to be frank about it, I do not believe there will be very much debate on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, from what I am told. With respect to the other bill, we do not think there will
Business of the House be very much debate on third reading. I understand it may be the intention of hon. members to move an amendment on third reading, but I would suppose that could be disposed of very quickly.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 16, 1955