D R A F T – check this against the SCAN, fix the Sessional page-tops.
 
The text below was hand-typed from a pdf-scan of the Gordon testimony extracted from the original English Railway Committee Minutes.  The scan was provided by the National Library and Archives in Ottawa.  Download a free copy of that scan.  In the transcript below, emphases have been added for research purposes.
 

The Official Parliamentary Committee Minutes
of what Donald Gordon actually said in English

___________________

Sessional Committee on Railways, Airlines and Shipping (Minutes) (1962)

Download a scan of the Original English Minutes

HOUSE OF COMMONS

First Session—Twenty-fifth Parliament
1962

___________________

SESSIONAL COMMITTEE
ON RAILWAYS, AIR LINES
AND SHIPPING

Owned and Controlled by the Government

Chairman:  HONOURABLE W. EARL ROWE

___________________

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE
No. 1

___________________

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1962
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 20. 1962

___________________

Canadian National Railways Annual Report (1961)

___________________

WITNESSES:  The Honourable Léon Balcer, Minister of Transport.  From the Canadian
National Railways:  Mr. Donald Gordon, Chairman of the Board of Directors and President; Mr. R. T. Vaughan, Secretary of the Company:  Mr. J. L. Toole, Vice-President, Accounting and Finance; Mr. J. W. Domcoe, Vice-President, Transportation and Maintenance.

ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.S.C.
QUEEN’S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY
OTTAWA, 1912
23041-3—1

Gilles Grégoire

Donald Gordon

Lionel Chevrier

Guy Rouleau

59

RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  That is the one.

MR. FISHER:  Well, if it is, that union does not have anywhere near a
50,000 membership.

MR. GORDON:  No, no.

MR. FISHER:  Would it be in the neighbourhood of 5,000 or 7,000?

MR. GORDON:  It would be of that order; say between 7,000 and 10,000.

MR. FISHER:  Then, if you have that many letters from them, there is
a mistake somewhere.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  I am in a position to show you all those letters, and I am
sure you would be surprised.  They all request that at the time of the next
negotiations they be given an opportunity to form their own Canadian union.

If you like, Mr. Gordon, I will send you references and details in that
connection.

MR. GORDON:  They are of no interest to me.  You tell your correspondents that if they want to change their union there is a proper way to do it through
union procedure.  If they are able to find sufficient interested members they can
then apply for certification of that union — but, not to management; we have
nothing to do with it.  It is the same procedure that is used when some people
get in their heads the idea they would like a change of government and they
go out and vote on it.

MR. FISHER:  If you like, you can tell them to get in touch with Mr. Bernard
Wilson, Secretary of the Canadian Labour Relations Board in Mr. Starr’s
department, and he can advise you in this connection.

MR. RIDEOUT  Reverting to the original discussion on the maritime freight
rates —

MR. GORDON:  How do you know? ²

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Then, which ones are?

MR. GORDON:  I want to find out from you who is a French Canadian.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Could you name for me the ones who are.

MR. GORDON:  I do not know how to define a French Canadian.  But I will
say this : these are all Canadians, everyone of them.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  They are not names of French speaking Canadians.

MR. GORDON:  There are some French speaking Canadians on the board
of directors.

MR. FOY:  Mr. J. Louis Lévesque is on the board of directors.

MR. GORDON:  There are several members who can speak French, if that
is what you want to know.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  We do not wish to impose upon you and have all French
speaking Canadians on the board of directors but we feel entitled to have some French speaking Canadians named thereto.

MR. GORDON:  Let me say quite clearly that the promotion policy of the
Canadian National Railways has always been based upon promotion by merit.
The man who, by reason of experience, knowledge, judgment, education or
for any other reason, is considered by the management to be the best person
fitted for the job will receive the promotion, and we do not care whether he is
black, white, red or French. Even Scotsmen receive promotion in the C.N.R.
We never ask questions of that kind in regard to promotion or employment,

60

SESSIONAL COMMITTEE

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Mr. Gordon, you perhaps do not wish to take language into
consideration, but if some consideration were given in this regard perhaps
we would not see the situation develop in Quebec which we now see there on
occasion, with the result that on lines between Montreal and Chicoutimi or
Montreal and Quebec individuals riding on the train cannot understand what
the trainmen say.

I should like to ask you another question.  Were you not able to find any
French speaking Canadians qualified to be named to the board of directors
as listed on the first page of the annual report?

MR. GORDON:  That is not a correct statement.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Yes, but board of directors in French would be “direction”
or “selection”.

MR. GORDON:  I repeat that we do not attempt in C.N.R. practice to break
down types of Canadians.  Our employment opportunities are open to all
Canadians, and our promotional policy is based on the fact that promotions
are made regardless, as I quoted the Canadian Fair Employment Practices Act,
of race, national origin, colour, religion or age.  That requirement is set out in
an act of this country.  It is part of the law of this land and we carry it out.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Does it follow from what you have said that there were
no French speaking Canadians qualified to hold these positions or there were
no French speaking Canadians who made application for these positions?

MR. GORDON:  We have officers and employees who are able to speak French
in all positions where there is such a requirement in order to serve the public.
I think our record in that respect is better than most organizations in this country.

In regard to making promotions of any kind in this group that you have
referred to, there are men who speak French.  You cannot judge by name
whether a man speaks French or otherwise.  I am aware of a number of names
of French speaking Canadians which do not appear to me to be French names at all.

MR. FISHER:  A good example of that is the name “O’Hurley”.

MR. GORDON:  Perhaps the name “Fisher” is a French name for all I know.

The CHAIRMAN:  Even the minister can speak French.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Could you give us some detail concerning those individuals
named on this list of board of directors who are bilingual?

MR. GORDON:  You are referring to them being bilingual in what respect?

MR. CHEVRIER:  Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with what Mr. Grégoire has
said as one who looks at this page.  I say with all due respect to the president of
the C.N.R., and I have known him for a long time, he is not prejudiced in the
slightest degree.  Having said that, I think it is a misnomer to put an annual
report before the parliament of Canada including this list of names indicating
that you have not been able to find one qualified individual in the province of
Quebec.  That situation is not understandable.  It is all right to say that there
are no discriminatory practices and so forth and so on, but an organization such
as the Canadian National Railways ought to be able to find people who are able
to fulfil these positions, and who are French speaking. 

61

RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING

MR. GORDON:  Mr. Chevrier, may I say this?  We are speaking of a group
of men as listed here, all of whom have arrived at these positions on the railway,
if you are referring to railway men, as the result of 20 or 30 years’ experience.
This may be the result of a policy of 20 or 30 years ago which produced these
men but not a policy for which I am responsible today.  We have done more
for the cause of the French language in the C.N.R. than any other organization
in Canada.

MR. CHEVRIER:  You cannot make me believe that in an organization such
as the Canadian National Railways there are no men of the standing and level
of those who are listed on the second page of the annual report who are
French speaking who could fill these positions.  I do not want to be unfair
or unjust, but it seems to me to be a misnomer for an organization such as the
C.N.R., to say that there are no French speaking Canadians of that calibre.  I
do not believe such a statement.

MR. GORDON:  Mr. Chevrier, let me say this.  What you really are asking
for is discrimination.

MR. CHEVRIER:  I am not asking for discrimination at all.

MR. GORDON:  Yes, you are.

MR. CHEVRIER:  It may be that I could give you names, Mr. Gordon, but I
will not give them publicly, who fit this category.

MR. GORDON:  I would be glad to have them, I assure you.

MR. CHEVRIER:  Just a moment, I will give you these names afterwards,
names of people who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many people in the
province of Quebec, should have obtained promotion because of their knowl-
edge and because of their experience in the C.N.R., but who were not given
promotions.

MR. GORDON:  I can assure you of this, and I want to make this statement
clear.  In respect of these promotions, and particularly during our recent re-
organization, there was not one of these appointments made before we had
combed every possible analysis that we could devise to make certain that the
man who got the position was the best qualified.  There was no discrimination
in that respect.  The fact that you do not recognize a French speaking Canadian’s
name in that group has nothing whatever to do with the choice. I deny
emphatically on behalf of management that there has been any discrimination
in this regard and say to you that we have a completely non-discriminatory
policy, and that we have chosen the men who were qualified.

MR. CHEVRIER:  I accept your denial but say that for nine years I have
heard the same explanation that you are giving this committee now by your
predecessor and by others.  However, I repeat what I said earlier, that in so
far as you personally are concerned there is not the slightest prejudice involved.
I know that to be true, but there is something wrong some place.  I only ask
those of you in connection with this who are operating the railway to give
this matter a little more serious consideration.

MR. GORDON:  We cannot give it more serious consideration than we have
given it.

MR. CHEVRIER:  You will not do anything about it then?

MR. GORDON:  I can give you part of the reason for the difficulty that
you have referred to.  I could give you chapter and verse, but I will ask you
to accept my word for this, in respect of French speaking Canadians who could

62

SESSIONAL COMMITTEE

have filled certain positions but who refused to accept promotion because they
did not want to leave the province of Quebec, or because they did not want to
leave the city of Quebec or Montreal, as the case may be. If we are going to
educate our officers and make them qualified they must be willing to go any-
where in Canada in the course of their training.  This situation gives rise to
one stumbling block.

I could give you chapter and verse of a French speaking Canadian, a
gentleman that you know very well, who I was on the verge of appointing
as vice president, but who went to what he thought was a better job in the
province of Quebec.

Another difficulty involved is that these French speaking Canadians who
are qualified are under premium demand today.

MR. CHEVRIER:  I will be glad to discuss that particular case with you at
any time.

MR. GORDON:  I could give you the man’s name.

MR. CHEVRIER:  I know the name and I am very familiar with the circum-
stances, but they are not as clear as you have stated.

MR. GORDON:  Let me say this to you. I will stick my neck out this far;
when I come back here ten years from now you will find that some of the men
we have employed in the last two or three years will be occupying some of the
positions to which you refer.  We have recruited a great number of French
speaking Canadians from universities, for example, in an effort to solve this
problem.  We have employed many individuals in this category, and this
policy is working very well.  It will be some time before we see the results
of this policy, but in a few years I am sure you will see a change. That is
why I say to you when you ask me to give serious consideration to this, and I
hope you will accept my word, that it has had most serious consideration.

MR. PUGH:  Mr. Gordon, you said in answer to questions in this regard,
“We–“, and I should like to know whether you mean by that the board of
directors?

MR. GORDON:  I had reference to the management of the C.N.R. which
includes the board of directors, yes.

MR. BALCER:  Mr. Ayers is French speaking also.

MR. GORDON:  A lot of these promotions are made on my personal recom-
mendation.  They come up to me from the regional officers, and they come
through to me as chief executive officer of the railways.  I bring them before
the board of directors and they hear all there is to be said about it.

MR. PUGH  On all senior appointments?

MR. GORDON:  Yes.

MR. ROULEAU:  You mean to say that in your own judgment there are no
French speaking Canadians with the proper qualities and the capacity to become
officers of the company?  You have not been able to find French speaking Cana-
dians in the province of Quebec who in your own judgment would have the
capacity to be appointed as officers in a country like ours?

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  How can you explain that, when we have a Minister of
Transport who is a French speaking Canadian, you cannot find other French
speaking Canadians having enough merit to be members on the board of
directors of the Canadian National Railways?

MR. GORDON:  Both of you are distorting what I have said. I am saying that
we are not discriminating in connection with our promotions.  Of course, we
have a number of senior officers, for example the general manager of the St.

63

RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING

Lawrence region whom you could call a French Canadian, and in terms of
selecting these particular positions to be filled when they become vacant, for
example, this man who was appointed had a better entitlement to the job in
terms of ability, qualifications and experience which goes into making a
judgment.  Everyone on the railway who had a right to be considered for that
job was duly considered and eventually we made a choice.  However, we did
not make a choice because the man was an English speaking Canadian or a
French speaking Canadian or anything else, only that he was a Canadian.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  But not enough to find one, or a couple of them or six, to
put on the board of directors?

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Do you intend to say there are no able French Canadians in
the province of Quebec, who are as able as the officers you have appointed?

MR. GORDON:  That is a distortion of what I said.  When one of these jobs
become vacant, if any of them dropped dead tomorrow — which God forbid —
when the management sits down to consider it, anyone in the railways who has
the qualifications, experience, education or anything else, will be considered
for it.  If he happens to be what you call a French Canadian, he will get it.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  But you were not able to find anyone in the past years.

MR. GORDON:  At the time these appointments were made, I repeat, the
best man was chosen.

MR. ROULEAU:  Would it not be possible to make a special effort to find a
qualified French speaking Canadian for the job?

MR. GORDON:  You are asking me to discriminate.

MR. ROULEAU:  It is only fair.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Mr. Gordon, they were found less able in your judgment,
is that right?

MR. GORDON:  Let me say that the man chosen for the job was the best
person available at the time.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  In your own judgment?

MR. GORDON:  In the judgment of myself and my advisors and in the
judgment of the people who worked with him and who made the recommenda-
tions.  I do not run a one-man show.  By the time we make that appointment I
have probably received ten or twelve different appraisals.  We have a staff
folder giving the man’s record.  All these things are examined over the years
to see where the man fits best.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Was the judgment that led you to find those people more
able than any French speaking Canadian the same as the one you used to name
the C.N.R. hotel which we all know of despite the protestations of all the people
in Montreal?
 

64

SESSIONAL COMMITTEE

MR. FISHER:  I think these questions are not to the point.  Maybe Mr.
Gordon could tell us what are the inhibiting factors at the present time that
seem to keep the people who might be called French Canadians — I do not know
how you define that — away from these positions?  Mr. Gordon has mentioned
the past, but I would like to know the facts.  Is it because the C.N.R. conducts
all its business in English?

MR. GORDON:  I do not think so.  We do not conduct all our business in
English.  Our train operating rules are written in English for the simple reason
that there can only be one language when you are dealing with issuing such
rules, just as it is in the army.  If you are issuing orders, you must have one
language which everybody realizes means the same thing or you will get into
dangerous difficulties on the question of interpretation.  There can be no ques-
tion about that.  But if you ask me to make a general statement, I will say this,
that the C.N.R. — or indeed the railways of Canada — have not apparently been
regarded as an employment field where we have been able to attract the
brighter men of French Canada, and we have not had the men. Over the past
ten years we have gone at this thing very definitely.  I started it myself, and I
can claim credit for it — although I am sure I will not yetxxxxxxxxxx it–that we started
examining right away to see how we could improve the content, so to speak,
of our staff to get French Canadians with ability and education.  As a result
of this, for instance, in 1961 — Mr. Vaughan just called my attention to it — out
of 42 university graduates whom we took on our staff from all across Canada,
there were 11 who were from Laval or Montreal university.  That is 25 per
cent.  We got those by going after them.  In due course those men will feed in
other people from French Canada.  If we do not lose them.  I found from experi-
ence — and I would point this out to Mr. Chevrier in particular — that when we
do find a French Canadian and we develop him and he begins to stick his
head up and begins to be recognized, we lose him.

MR. FISHER:  What about the prospect of bringing French Canadians in
who have experience outside, bringing them in on an executive level in your
organization?

MR. GORDON:  We would do that if there was a need for it, but I do not
think it is fair to prejudice the existing employees in the C.N.R. who have made
it their life’s work by bringing in men over their heads if we do not need them.
We have however brought some in.

MR. CHEVRIER:  You have done that in one or two cases.

MR. FISHER:  Because of special circumstances and whenever these special
circumstances may obtain, they will get special consideration.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  What was your experience with the C.N.R. before you were
nominated as president?

MR. GORDON:  I never worked in the C.N.R.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  When you came to the C.N.R. was it in prejudice to the
people there?

MR. GORDON:  That would have to be answered by the people who appointed
me.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  You have said something about the rules of the C.N.R.
being in English so as to avoid misunderstanding.  Do you mean that the laws
of the government of Canada, which are in both languages, can bring about
misunderstanding between citizens and the judges.

MR. GORDON:  I would not want to comment on that.  I am not enough in
the courts.  But it seems to me there is plenty of confusion in the laws of
Canada.  When you give an order to a man, whether it be in the army or the
railway, that order must be precise, and mean one thing.  We only know there
is no time to translate when there is danger.

65

RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Do you think there would be danger in translating the
rules of the Canadian National Railways?

MR. GORDON:  Yes, very definitely.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  Do you think it would be more dangerous than to trans-
late the laws of the government of Canada?

MR. GORDON:  Yes, very definitely, and quite obviously, because there are
differences in translation.  You have asked me for an opinion, while you give
your own.

MR. FISHER:  I would like Mr. Gordon to have an opportunity to answer
the question.

MR. GORDON:  Let me illustrate it by giving you a little story covering my
own initial experience with bilingualism.  Before I entered the railway, I was
in the Bank of Canada, and we found it necessary to demolish an old building
in order to build the Bank of Canada.  In my innocence, I awarded the tender
to the lowest tenderer, who happened to be a French speaking contractor,
named Lajeunesse.  I do not know if he is yet around. But there was a
terrible row in the city of Ottawa.  Why would we give the contract to a
French speaking contractor when there were plenty of English speaking
ones here?

I called the contractor in and said to him  “Surely it ought to be possible
to employ some men who are English speaking Canadians?  Why do you have
to take all French speaking Canadians, mostly from Hull, to do the job?”

The contractor said “This is dangerous work.”

I said, surely you can get English speaking Canadians to do dangerous
work?

He said:  “That is not the point, that building is 5 or 6 stories high, and
there is a big steel beam up there.  Let us say there are 2 employees on it,
and that beam is about to fall.  The foreman yells “jump”.  There is no time to
translate.”  It is exactly the same thing with the railway.

MR. GORDON:  I am not talking about the rules generally for employees.
Certainly we publish our general rules in English and in French.  We have
page after page of them.  I am talking about the train operating rules, the
running rules which cover the movement of trains, the physical movement of
trains, the running orders affecting the movement of trains.  That is a very
small segment.

There is an authorized operating rule book which is common to all
railways in Canada as well as on the North American continent; it is the same
with the United States, and it is agreed on between all the railways, so that
a certain thing means the same thing on every railway.  Those are orders;
those are running rules.

The other rules are all our information to staff and everything that we
publish, such as our management bulletins, and everything that we put out
for the information of staff, and this we send out in French and English.  I
have a long list of things which we do in this regard.

MR. GRÉGOIRE:  I thought we were speaking of the rules of the Canadian
National Railways, and that this would have been the reason why French
Canadians are not more fully engaged in the administration.

MR. GORDON:  No; it is a different thing altogether.

28041-2-3

66

SESSIONAL COMMITTEE

MR. FISHER:  We have had it expressed here in the way of some fairly
strong opinions that it would be advantageous in many ways if we did have
some French Canadians in executive positions with the Canadian National
Railways.  If I understood your reply, your policy is that you will not dis-
criminate either for or against, and that your appointments are made on the
basis of merit and ability.

MR. GORDON:  That is right.

MR. FISHER:  Assuming that that is a fair policy and that you are continuing
it, you are still seeking to bring into your executive force people with French
Canadian background.

MR. GORDON:  We are looking for them and are anxious to get them.

MR. RIDEOUT:  I hope that when Mr. Gordon is choosing people from the
universities for future high positions in the railways he will not forget
St. Joseph’s University.

MR. GORDON:  You can’t win!

MR. CHEVRIER:  May I now refer to the report?

THE CHAIRMAN:  We have discussed the $27 million item. If there is anything
more on it, let us start with that.

— Discussion of French-speaking / ethnic employment ends here. —

Nope, that’s it, page 108 is the next thing “Miss Bell” sent, which is irrelevant; and there was 118-119, in the initial send, but these are both irrelevant, not a thing in them on the French Canadian issue.

___________________

FOOTNOTES

__________
 
1.  This is Mr. Grégoire’s original question to Donald Gordon.  Note that by the time the “scandal” reaches the (communist-controlled) French press, the content of the question has been edited down to hide the fact that there are indeed French “names” on the CNR Board of Directors.  That fact is revealed in the course of the Committee hearing by the Chairman of the Committee and other members of it, who attempted to assist Mr. Gordon in replying to Mr. Grégoire’s false allegation.  By “communist-controlled” is meant Mr. Gérard Pelletier, Editor-in-Chief of La Presse newspaper, the largest French daily in North America; and Mr. André Laurendeau, Editor-in-Chief of Le Devoir, the other major French daily in Quebec.  In 1964, Pelletier is fired by the Catholic owners of La Presse for his left-wing subversive activity.  Details on Laurendeau will be presented elsewhere.
 
2.  Mr. Gordon said:  “How do you know?” (i.e. that “none” of the names of members of the Board of Directors of the CNR on the “first page” of the annual report for 1961 is “French Canadian”)?  French Canadian is an ethnicity.  And Mr. Gordon is right.  How can you tell someone’s ethnicity and their mother tongue or the languages they speak from a mere name on a list?
 
³  There is a federal statute on the books which prohibits “discrimination”.  Discrimination is in favor of one, and against another in spite of their qualifications; it is prohibited.  The result being that this kind of data cannot be considered when hiring or promoting a federal employee.  Only their experience and qualifications may be considered.  Since “race” can’t be considered, the data obviously will not be collected.  It will therefore not appear in the Annual Report of the CNR that Mr. Gordon is called to answer for.  To collect such data would be a sign that the law was being violated.  Without the data, plus a legal definition of “French Canadian”, Mr. Grégoire’s question (which he keeps reformulating) cannot be answered.  Unless you can say that Mr. Grégoire has the legal right, as an individual MP, to decide arbitrarily what another man’s ethnicity is, i.e., whether that be French Canadian, “Anglo Saxon”, German, or other.