1961-03-10

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last evening when I was not in the house the hon. member for Assiniboia made certain statements which I think reflect on me. They are to be found on pages 2841 and 2844 of Hansard, and I read them:
A few weeks ago the Minister of Finance said in this house that one of the reasons why there is so much trouble today with regard to unemployment is because of the wartime babies. He said there were too many wartime babies and they are now old enough to be on the labour market. He said, "We cannot deal with the love life of Canadians and the new citizens we have who are coming of working age. There were too many wartime babies." We asked why so many people are on the unemployment rolls. "Too many pregnant women drawing unemployment insurance who should not be receiving it." Some answer.
That is on page 2841. On page 2844 the hon. member said further:
The Minister of Finance said that one of the reasons the government was having a difficult time achieving a full employment economy was the high birth rate during the war. If the hon. gentleman will read the remarks carefully he will find this in the speech.
And further, speaking of myself the hon. member said:
He said that this was the reason unemployment was so high and he could not do anything about it.
And again:
Except there were too many people coming of employment age and the government could not do anything about employment.
The remarks attributed to me, Mr. Speaker, have never been uttered by me. What I did say on this subject is a matter of record in the house and could have been quoted precisely from the record by any hon. member wishing to refer to my remarks in their proper context. They are to be found on page 1001 of Hansard and read as follows:
.. . the growth of our labour force is now more directly attributable to the coming of age, from an employment point of view at least, of the large number of babies who were born in Canada during and immediately after the war.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks attributed to me by the hon. member
for Assiniboia bear no resemblance whatever to what I actually did say, and the best that can be said for his remarks is that they are an irresponsible distortion of what I said.



MR. STARR    REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON MARCH 9

['The announcement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs of this increase in the representation to South American countries will, without a doubt, increase the understanding between the nations concerned. We are, therefore, gratified to hear of the appointment of such able and experienced personnel.']
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: We have a very sensitive government this morning.


Michael Starr: I rise at this time because of remarks made by the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate. I did not rise last night, Mr. Speaker, because I wished to study the statements of the hon. member in the report of the proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the minister has given sufficient reason for deferring his objection. After all, he was in the house last night when the remarks about which he now wishes to complain were made, and I am very sceptical about the desirability of a practice which allows members to go back and pick up what has been said and debate the matter. The Minister of Finance was not in the house and in such circumstances where there is a real injustice or cause of complaint I have not objected to the matter being raised as a delayed complaint.
The rule is clear, however, that a point of order or privilege must be taken at the time it arises. If the Minister of Labour feels that there is any exceptional circumstance which takes him out of the rule I will hear him, but I would hope he would not want to establish a practice which, to my mind, would be very harmful to the proper conduct of the business of the house.


Michael Starr: I always have great respect for the rules of the house, and I shall abide by your ruling.



Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On January 20 I informed the house that the Canadian government and the governments of the republics of Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama had decided to establish diplomatic

Appointment of Ambassador relations. I now wish to announce the appointment of Mr. Jean-Louis Delisle as ambassador of Canada to these four Central American republics. Mr. Delisle will normally reside in Costa Rica but will pay regular visits to the other three countries to which he is accredited. The Canadian embassy in Costa Rica will be opened next week under a charge d'affaires ad interim, pending Mr. Delisle's arrival in May. Arrangements are being made for reciprocal representation of the four republics in Ottawa.
Mr. Delisle, a native of Quebec city, is a career foreign service officer who has served Canada with distinction at home and abroad for nearly 20 years. He is a graduate in law from Laval University and holds a degree from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes scholar in 1939. Since joining the Department of External Affairs in 1942 he has served in Rio de Janeiro, Boston, and Warsaw, where he was charge d'affaires from 1954 until 1957. In the following year he served as a member of the United Nations commission in Togoland which paved the way for that country's independence in 1960. Subsequently he served as head of the legal division of the Department of External Affairs and since September 1959 has been counsellor in charge of press and cultural relations at the Canadian embassy in Paris.
Central America has been until now one of the areas in which Canada was seriously under-represented, mainly because of the heavy demands that have been made on a growing foreign service in other parts of the world. The government's decision to expand Canada's relations with that area is a further step in a policy of fostering closer economic, political and cultural ties with Latin America as a whole.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This further announcement indicates the expansion of Canada's diplomatic missions in Latin America. The minister does not say whether or not this appointment and the opening of the new mission is part of the government's policy of giving further consideration to membership in the organization of American states. On some other occasion, if not today, I would hope the minister might also deal with a matter to which he referred last session having to do with the opening of another mission, namely in Iraq in the Middle East.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The announcement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs of this increase in the representation to South American countries will, without a doubt, increase the understanding between the nations concerned. We are, therefore, gratified to hear of the appointment of such able and experienced personnel.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him how long he had known that the national employment service was co-operating in the production of the program "Close-Up" featuring the Exelbys before he made his statement in the house?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I did not know about this program until the evening when it was produced and I saw it.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a supplementary
question. May I ask the minister whether the officers who co-operated in the program had read the whole script?


Michael Starr: That I do not know, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister inquire and tell the house.


Michael Starr: I shall be glad to inquire.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Has his attention been directed to a statement in a story in yesterday's Toronto Telegram by Mr. Peter Dempson in which the following appears-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have a proper question, but before he reads any factual material on which to base his question I think he ought to indicate something more than what he began with, namely "Has the minister's attention been directed to?" because that gives no lead at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Labour the other day with regard to Mr. Exelby, will the minister now correct the great injustice he has done to Mr. Exelby?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Essex East is again trying to make statements, smuggling them into the record in the guise of asking a question. He has done nothing more than make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's point of order is well taken. As I recall the phraseology, the hon. member for Essex East has made an assertion that the minister has done a great injustice to Mr. Exelby. He

Inquiries of the Ministry
knows that the question period is used for wish to deal with that now. The Liberal the purpose of obtaining information, not for party has paid nobody. This is a reflection on making debating points.	the Liberal party-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out to you that the Minister of Labour the other day used the orders of the day in order to make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member had any complaint on that score he should have made it when the event took place. If there was a point of order involved in the statement made by the Minister of Labour in reply to a question, the appropriate time to complain about it was then. It is too late now for the hon. member to make that sort of statement about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I did not know until about an hour ago what the facts were. My point is that the Minister of Labour on the orders of the day attacked an individual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have indicated to the hon. member what the limitations are with respect to commenting on the minister's statement of yesterday. If the hon. member has a question to ask the minister it would be in order to ask that question, but not to make an argument such as he was attempting to do, nor to comment on the previous answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am prepared to put my question, but I was dealing with the point of order and, with great respect, to the observation of Your Honour. I was simply indicating that until a short time ago I did not have any justification, as I now have in my hand, for the statement I made that the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate that the hon. member is entitled to make that comment with respect to the point of order, but in my view it does not alter the circumstance. Although additional information has come to the hon. member's knowledge, he was in the house when the statement was made-


An hon. Member:: He was not.


Mr. Hodgson:: How much has the Liberal party paid him?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether or not the hon. member was in the house. However, that is the view I hold about comment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) has just said, "How much has the Liberal party paid him?" I


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -and it is a reflection on every member of this house because we seek to defend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member raises a matter of privilege about a reflection on the Liberal party. Reflections on parties are, I think, too general to be raised as matters of privilege. But the remark was improper and should not have been made by whoever made it-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was made by the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.).


Mr. Speaker:: -without his having the floor and without it being relevant to some proceeding which was taking place.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he will now correct the statement he made about Mr. Exelby, in view of the fact that Frost Metal Products' personnel manager has said that the Minister of Labour was wrong about Mr. Exelby turning down any job, because he was not offered any job; he applied for it but did not get it. Now the-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: -Minister of Labour has an opportunity of correcting an abuse against a private citizen of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are three members seeking the floor. Would the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka resume his seat, please.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member's point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East is going right ahead, in contravention of your ruling, and is reading the article that he was instructed not to read.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the presentation this time of the question by the hon. member for Essex East is entirely different from what it was when the hon. member rose before on his point of order. I think it is quite in order for him to ask whether the Minister of Labour is prepared to correct a statement in view of an additional fact, and the point of order is not sustained.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made the other day in respect of this matter was based on information given to me by

Inquiries of the Ministry the manager of the national employment service in Hamilton. I understand that is a statement they are prepared to substantiate.


Hon. J. W. Piclcersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to have the official who gave him those statements appear before the industrial relations committee to substantiate them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I have an answer to my question?


Mr. Churchill:: It is not a proper question. [Later:]


Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the contradiction between the statement made by the Minister of Labour and that made by a reputable newspaper man, will the Acting Prime Minister call immediately the committee on industrial relations to hear evidence in connection with the matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would judge by all the questions which are being asked by the opposition today that the Minister of Labour got a bull's-eye when he dealt with this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I regret the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister, for whom we all have very great affection and admiration, but the Minister of Labour made a statement that affects an individual Canadian citizen who is not here to defend himself.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not aware that comments on answers made by the ministry to oral questions can be raised as a matter of privilege unless there is something in the answer itself which raises a specific matter of privilege. I heard the answer of the Acting Prime Minister and it did not reflect in any way on the conduct of any member which would entitle him to raise a question of privilege. I think the hon. member for Essex East has misconceived the opportunity that privilege presents.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, I would like to submit to you that when a minister of the crown in particular makes a charge or a statement that is harmful to an individual Canadian citizen, that individual should be afforded an opportunity of putting forward his side of the case.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member to raise a question of privilege relating

to the reply given by the Acting Prime Minister. It appears that he is now referring to some statement made by the Minister of Labour and, in effect, is questioning the aptness of our procedure to deal with the matter. I can only say there was a debate of this matter last night and there will be other opportunities. In my view it is not appropriate to use this question period for the purpose that the hon. member has in mind.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES TARAS SHEVCHENKO    ANNIVERSARY OF DEATH OF UKRAINIAN POET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the house to draw to its attention that today, March 10, 1961, is a day of great significance to Canadians of Ukrainian origin, being the centennial of the death of their greatest hero and poet, Taras Shevchenko. His name is worshipped by 45 million Ukrainians wherever they may be found, and by some half million of that race in Canada who have integrated themselves in the Canadian way of life and who can be counted as constituents of most of the members of this house.
Taras Shevchenko, the son of a Ukrainian serf, who was a free man for only nine years of his short life, died when he was 47. His pen proved to be more powerful than the decrees of the oppressors of his people, and by his unfaltering faith in the victory of democratic ideals, despite all obstacles he became the greatest poet and freedom fighter of the Slavonic world. He is not only a national figure among a given people but a luminous personality in the world course of contemporary history. His poetic works-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked for the leave of the house and by its indulgence has called attention to this very interesting anniversary, but if he is to take more time he must have the expressed leave of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: His poetic works deal not only with the oppression of his own people but also with the enslavement of every other nation raped by the white despot of his time and by the red imperialist of today. To his own people his works "Kobzar" are the national gospel and are to be found in nearly every home. His fiery words resurrected a nation thought to be dead; they inspired his people to deeds of heroism in their struggle for independence and give them hope and courage in bondage. He calls to all to "rise

and break the chains" and, echoing a passage from la Marseillaise, to "spatter freedom with evil enemy blood". He calls for brotherly love among the Slav family of nations.
His works are not only popular among his own people. They have been translated into all Slavonic languages as well as into English, French, German, Italian and Swedish. To his immortal name those of his origin in Canada are erecting a monument in the grounds of the Manitoba legislature in Winnipeg because, as a poet, he not only enriched the literature of his own people but inspired them with new hope for freedom. What he sought for them he sought for the oppressed everywhere in the world. This monument is to be unveiled on July 15 of this year, and gratitude goes to the government of Manitoba for permitting its erection.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and, through you, the members of this house for having given me the opportunity to make this statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The house has unanimously agreed to lay aside its procedures in order to permit the hon. gentleman to pay tribute to one of the great poets of the Ukraine, Taras Shevchenko. It is appropriate that hon. members should join with the hon. member for Marquette in marking the anniversary of this great Ukrainian who in his poetry has given justification for the hopes of contemporary Ukrainians for the liberation of their homeland.
In doing so we can recognize that there are many Shevchenkos in every ethnic group in our country, who likewise give cause for hope of liberation from totalitarian oppression which has now taken hold of so many of them. The hon. member is a Canadian of Ukrainian descent. He may be assured that those of us in the Liberal party recognize the great contribution made by the Ukrainian people to the building up of this nation, as indeed we recognize the contribution made by so many other ethnic groups toward building up this country, the most envied country among the nations of the world, despite its current difficulties.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. F. Legere (Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare):: Friday is a good day for a maritimer to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question of which I have given him notice and sent him evidence. My question is this. Is the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry aware that undersized lobsters are being served at the parliamentary restaurant?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question and also for supplying me with the evidence. I am happy to report that an autopsy was performed in the department this morning and we found that although the lobster in question had a carapace measurement of 2} inches and would be below the minimum size limit in many lobster fishing districts, there are some other districts in which the minimum measurement is as low as 2J inches. Therefore it can be reasonably concluded that although this lobster came to its untimely death, or what would have been an untimely death, perhaps in Yarmouth, it did so completely within the law.


Felton Fenwick Legere: Will the Minister of Fisheries use his good offices to encourage the parliamentary restaurant to bring in a more typical maritime lobster than this baby food?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries. Will he undertake to promote the use of Queen Charlotte islands crab? He will find that none of those are under size.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. I feel it should be brought to the attention of the house and to your attention, sir, because you have full jurisdiction up there, that the lobster in question was billed on the menu last night as baby lobster.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF INTERIM PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize for not giving notice, but some days ago he informed the house that a 10 cent interim wheat payment would be paid to the western farmers. Can the minister inform the house when these cheques will be mailed out to the farmers?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the definite information with me but I recall seeing a report dated March 3 which said that at that time over $16 million in cheques had been sent out. I would imagine the remainder would be out in the next two or three weeks.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



FORESTRY-FAILURE TO APPOINT FRENCH SPEAKING SENIOR PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry stemming from the rather chagrined comments made in the press of French Canada about the senior appointments in the Department of Forestry announced two days ago, which resulted in none of the top positions going to French Canadians. Was, or is, any consideration given to choosing men for such senior posts from the French language people in the service?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the utmost consideration is being given to that end.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not hear clearly the answer given by the Minister of Forestry. I understand he said that undoubtedly consideration had been given to choosing French Canadians in the service. Since none was chosen, I wonder whether I can ask this supplementary question. In view of the fact that Quebec has such a large sector of its economy in forest industries, did the minister canvass within the forestry industry of that province for any of the senior personnel in his new department?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is more conversant than I with the general procedure under which appointments of that nature made within the department itself are, generally speaking, made by the civil service commission. The promotions, which I presume he has reference to, were announced yesterday, and they were made entirely from within the department, the transfers being made from the Department of Agriculture to forestry and from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to forestry.
The answer to his question in connection with whether or not the department will endeavour to find suitable personnel from the province of Quebec is obviously yes. The department is always looking for suitable men from all parts of Canada, and especially from a province which has such a great interest in the forest resources of this country.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the 3 per cent

sales tax imposed by the Frost government of Ontario, which would increase the retail delivery cost of passenger cars already burdened by a federal 11 per cent sales tax and a 7J per cent excise tax. Can the minister inform the house whether consideration is being given to the elimination or reduction of the excise tax on automobiles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is dealing with a budgetary matter. I do not think he could expect budget policy to be declared in answer to a question before the orders of the day, when he recalls the secrecy that is always involved in such budgetary changes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Fort William. Will the Minister of Finance-


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is out of order. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood you to rule the question asked by the hon. member for Fort William out of order; therefore a supplementary is not allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a new question but not a supplementary to a question that was ruled out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You ruled that this was a budgetary matter, Mr. Speaker, and I submit to you that my question will now indicate that it is not a budgetary matter. Will the Minister of Finance not exercise the powers that the governor in council now has to abolish by order in council the excise tax on automobiles, thereby contributing very fundamentally to an improvement in the unemployment conditions that prevail in the automobile industry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the government will continue as in the past to try to undo all the harm that was done to that industry and many others toy the former administration of which he was a very vocal member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East asked a very argumentative question and he received a very controversial reply. I suggest that the matter be left at that point. The hon. member for Skeena.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that cannot be left in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question that is within the rules he may ask it, but I have now recognized the hon member for Skeena.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance if he will give consideration to the passage toy the governor in council of the necessary authority to abolish the excise tax on automobiles?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has again overlooked the fact that it is parliament that makes the laws and imposes the taxes, not the government, and he has attributed to the government a power-


Peter Francis Martin: You have that power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -which the government does not possess. After all, parliament is still supreme notwithstanding the hon. member's lapse of memory.


Peter Francis Martin: You have the power now, and you know it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I regret not having given him earlier notice but the matter just came to my attention before the house met. In view of a report in the Winnipeg Free Press to the effect that C.O.T.C. and R.O.T.P. university students have been warned by letter from an armed forces coordinator to shun nuclear disarmament clubs or face elimination from public financial aid, would the minister indicate how he reconciles such an instruction, if it exists, with freedom of conscience and whether the armed forces co-ordinator's letter represents the policy of the Department of National Defence?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the report in the Winnipeg Free Press is quite incorrect. Therefore the question which the hon. member has based on it contains statements and assumptions that are also incorrect.
This is the actual basis of the matter. On the University of Manitoba campus there is apparently a ban the bomb organization and also an organization called the students' association for nuclear armament. Apparently some members of the latter organization, who are members of the cadet training corps, posted a notice on Department of National Defence property that a meeting of the association would be held there. As a result the co-ordinator for university military training wrote a letter to army cadets only indicating 90205-6-181
Inquiries of the Ministry that regular force personnel-R.O.T.P. subsidized officer cadets and second lieutenants- are not permitted to become members of
S.	A.N.A., the student association for nuclear armament or to participate in S.A.N.A. activities. The letter went on to say that reserve personnel-U.N.T.D., C.O.T.C., U.R.-
T.	P.-who choose to belong to S.A.N.A. as private citizens must not participate in the activities of S.A.N.A. in their capacity as members of the armed forces and, finally, that the armed forces office is not to be used for meetings of the students' association for nuclear armament.
I think nothing was sent out to the students in connection with any other organization, and the only reason the letter was sent was that a notice had been posted on Department of National Defence property of a meeting to be held on departmental property. This action was taken in view of queen's regulations and orders, section 19-36 of which lays down among other things that no officer or man shall, without permission, publish his opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities. There were no specific instructions issued apart from these, so far as I know.
The whole story is really entirely incorrect. I understand that the reporter who wrote the story telephoned the R.C.A.F. staff officer, who was not in at the time, represented himself to the corporal on duty as an R.C.A.F. officer, and sought to get information in connection with this matter. He did not get any information. He then telephoned the public relations officer and did not get any information from him either. In spite of that he went ahead and wrote the story.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the minister any swap deals between his department and the United States air force cooking at the present time and, if so, can he tell us whether the temperature of the stew is tepid or beginning to warm up to a boil?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: The Department of Defence Production always has swap deals on hand. I am a kind of trader. I should like to tell the hon. member for Trinity that there are some deals cooking at this time which are really lukewarm.
2860	HOUSE OF
Civil Service Act COMBINES



PACIFIC PRESS LIMITED-INQUIRY AS TO STATUS OF INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Perhaps I may intervene to comment briefly on what was said earlier by the hon. member for Laurier. If I remember rightly, the hon. gentleman quoted me as saying, in relation to what the minister had said, "Although the law has been breached-" and so on. What I intended to say, and what I think I said was: "Even if the law has been breached in some narrow, technical way-", Of course, the minister did not think it had been breached at all.\nProgress reported.']
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, as found on page 2808 of Hansard. The parliamentary secretary indicated that he would take the question as notice. I wonder whether it is possible for an answer to be provided now either by the parliamentary secretary or perhaps the Solicitor General.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the director has been sick. There is no information of importance at hand now but I will give a detailed reply on Monday.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Justice whether the terms of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to Fort Pepperrell have yet been agreed upon by the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Acting Minister of Justice):: I am not in a position to say, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada.
(Translation):
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, time ran out on me last Thursday before I could conclude my remarks.
I hope that the Glassco commission will make a complete survey of all improvements that can be brought to the operations of the Canadian civil service, not only for the good of the commission itself, whose general efficiency is recognized everywhere, but for that of the general economy of the public service of Canada.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to reply to the speech made
[Mr. O'HurleyJ

by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), because his remarks contained some very great truths that I must endorse.
However, I regret that his speech contained at least one part that I noticed in the English record-I trust he will excuse me-expressing views which I cannot share and I quote:
(Text):
-Jules Leger, who for many years was deputy minister of external affairs and later became under-secretary of state for external affairs.
(Translation):
He expressed regrets upon the fact that when the Hon. Mr. Pearson was deputy minister of external affairs, certain situations occurred. I must remind him that the Hon. Mr. Pearson was secretary of state for external affairs when a French Canadian, Mr. Jules Leger, was appointed deputy minister.
I therefore feel that it was quite inappropriate for the hon. member in those circumstances to blame the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I agree-
(Text):
I am just starting my speech, Mr. Speaker, and already the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) and this other member whose constituency I do not recall, are talking louder than I am. I hope they will be called to order at this time.


Mr. Martel:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I may have been talking but the first question came from the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). I do not say this to excuse myself, but the hon. member probably got caught in our crossfire. The hon. member for Hull should include the hon. member for St. Denis in his objection.


Mr. Denis:: The hon. member is just like his own government; he puts the blame on somebody else's shoulders.
(Translation):


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to you that I did not try in any way to interrupt the hon. member for Hull. I was just exchanging a remark with my colleague from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and I did not think that the hon. member for Hull was speaking, since I did not understand what he was saying. It was quite impossible for me to understand him.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I was not privileged to hear the three members who have risen to explain,

but not to deny, that they have been speaking while the hon. member for Hull has the floor. It is not possible to carry on debate if members talk to each other or to the member who has the floor, while they remain in their seats, whether or not their remarks are audible to the reporter or to the Chair. I hope that hon. members will observe the proprieties and not converse in tones which are likely to upset or interrupt the debate.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the act of 1918, though very well drafted, had become obsolete and needed some changes. We had hoped for that. Besides, it was the St. Laurent administration that had asked the civil service commission to inquire and determine what could be done to improve the situation. The minister is introducing today a bill that bears very close resemblance to the one introduced last year and in that regard we might say that if the former legislation had a white beard, this new bill is almost antediluvian, because instead of moving forward, it is moving backwards.
We note a bad and dangerous tendency in the new act because it might vest with increased powers the governor in council and thus the ministers and department heads, the deputy heads and their subordinates, without any provision enabling the civil service commission to interfere in order to prevent any abuses in that regard.
The Civil Service Association of Canada complained about this last year and I am convinced it will continue to do so, because this is what I read on page 5 of the C.S.A.C. journal for January 1961:
(Text):
This reference is to Bill No. C-77, not the bill we are studying today:
Under the present Civil Service Act, (i.e. chapter 48 R.S.C. 1952) the civil service commission has the statutory power and obligation to report upon any matter pertaining to the organization or proposed organization of the various departments. As a protection to the merit principle, this would seem to be a wise provision, and experience over the years would indicate that every possible safeguard to this principle must be maintained in the law.
The proposal in Bill C-77 takes from the civil service commission the authority or right to make such reports except at the request of the deputy head. We are opposed to this provision and urge that the right to make such reports still be vested in the civil service commission.
(Translation):
In fact, Mr. Speaker, that remark by the Civil Service Association of Canada is quite relevant; because, if wider powers were 90205-6-181i
Civil Service Act
granted to the governor in council or to ministers, as well as to chiefs of departments, that is to say to deputy ministers or their subordinates, and if those powers were used in such a way as not to always satisfy the employees, the morale of the employees might suffer, and if the morale of the employees is not good, their work will be the less efficient.
The increase in the number of prevailing rates employees is another matter of concern and trouble in this bill. Civil servants regret that the government seems to wish to obtain that right, even if it does not intend to exercise it-I do not wish to impute motives either to the Minister of Finance or to the Secretary of State-but when powers are granted to them, there is always the danger that those powers be taken literally and that they may be used to increase the number of prevailing rates employees. I agree that under certain circumstances, it may be necessary, and I refer, for instance, to the census which comes once every ten years and which obviously requires a considerable number of supplementary employees, some for three months, others for six months, and a few others even for a year. Therefore, it is normal that those employees be considered as prevailing rates employees, but there shoqld be no provision in the act to allow ministers, the governor in council, deputy ministers, or their subordinates, to suggest a too substantial increase in the number of those employees, because those who start in a department intend to make a career there that is, to prepare their future and ensure their living for their old age.
What will happen to the security of employment in the civil service if it can be decided over night that the prevailing rates shall apply? This makes the situation intolerable for federal employees. It will surely be reflected in their work, and the qualified employees will seek employment in private industry rather than in the public service.
Besides, if we consider the report commonly known as the Heeney report, which is the report of the civil service commission, tabled in December 1958, we find concerning the morale of the employees, the following statement on page 10:
Maintain good morale by clarifying the rights and obligations of employees.
It seems that the government scorned the wish expressed by the Heeney commission to see to it that public servants enjoy a greater measure of security in order to give better service.
The merit system is essential if we want our employees to enjoy the sound morale which will mean a better service. To this end, it is important to clearly define and allot the

Civil Service Act
authority conferred upon each party. The cabinet should not be given the right to interfere too often in this field or to ignore the decisions of the civil service commission.
The commission should be and remain a lot more independent of the executive, because its members are not interested in politics. They are more interested in the smooth working of the civil service, because of their past experience.
We know that when the Civil Service Act was enacted in 1918 the commission hardly numbered 40,000 employees, with the majority of them working as clerks at different levels. However, in the meantime, the responsibilities of the civil service commission have increased. At the time we were merely a British colony, and, consequently had less responsibilities than we have now. With the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1927, which was finally signed in 1931, Canada became an autonomous country and government departments grew larger and more numerous. This, in turn, increased the responsibilities of civil servants and, at the same time those of the civil service commission.
During the war, the number of civil servants grew to an almost terrific extent. Many of them accepted positions of permanent character because the country's new status was compelling the government to multiply its services.
The post-war period brought about the recognition of Canada as an international power and an unprecedented development took place in the Department of External Affairs thus requiring new categories of employees.
There was growth too in the research branch. A considerable number of scientists offered their services to the state to the advantage of all Canadians.
The number of federal civil servants grew so much that the civil service commission had to take special precautions in order to retain its employees of unusual merit.
Now that cannot be achieved unless the civil service commission remains free to establish its own regulations and to develop its services without undue government interference and, above all, provided it has the upper hand on the often arbitrary decisions, as they were described by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), of division heads and deputy ministers. Well, the line should be more clearly, more accurately drawn.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Hull must have misinterpreted my remarks. I did not mention deputy ministers. I said: a few officials, a very few services, a few heads. My

remarks were of the general character. I wish the hon. member for Hull would report exactly what I said.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, since I do not have Hansard here. I accept the correction made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and I say that a few minor officials use their authority to impose their views, sometimes unduly. Therefore it is necessary that the civil service commission have greater, instead of reduced powers. Besides, I see in paragraph 10, page 9 of the Heeney report, the following remarks:
Clearer definition of the division of authority and responsibility for decision as between departments of government on the one hand and, on the other, the commission, to which, as a body independent of the executive, certain functions are assigned by parliament;
And further on:
-subject only to such safeguards as may be necessary to maintain the merit principle-
And again:
-a program that will, within a reasonable time, result in "One Civil Service" in which all are subject to the same standards of obligation and benefit;
And further,
Greater participation by employees in the processes leading to the determination of their conditions of employment.
Those are conclusions of the Heeney report requesting the government to grant that recommendation and I am now requesting the same thing today. The sound administration of the civil service calls for a clear definition of those points and it is particularly necessary that the civil service commission retain its powers.
The commission should remain independent so that no minister or deputy minister may, alone, through a decision of his own, bring about changes without a recommendation to the civil service commission. Final decisions should never be left to ministers nor to deputy ministers or their subordinates.
There should be set up a board or court duly empowered to deal with the appeals of those civil servants who feel that they have been unfairly treated.
Admittedly such appeals are being heard at the present time but the Heeney commission did in fact recommend a widening of the grounds for appeal and an improved and more judicial procedure in this respect.
I think that at the moment, while grievances of deputy ministers and their subordinates are heard, proceedings are practically in camera, which means that those people are sent away and then the appellant or plaintiff

is called without having heard what the other had said. They are thus being placed in a position of inferiority. Moreover, they are entitled to call on an employee or a member of an association to defend them, but they have not been allowed to call upon a lawyer to help them prepare their case.
I think there should exist in the civil service commission as in the unemployment insurance commission a tribunal before which any employee could bring his case and even be defended by a lawyer. Complaints would be made while the appealing party and the person involved in the complaint are present. In his examination the lawyer could, possibly through appropriate questions, bring out contradictions and ascertain whether the complaint is well-founded or if it is only because of some personal spite or grudge that the employee is in a difficult situation.
Both sides should be given a chance to explain why suspension or dismissal is recommended. Employees would then feel more secure especially as regards promotions.
Civil servants often complain-I do not say that they are right-that they were denied deserved promotions. Well, how can you prove whether they are right or wrong if there is no tribunal to hear complaints and find out if there was a well-founded reason for denying a promotion?
I know of a case of a person whom I know very well. He is a French Canadian who tried and passed every examination for a certain position. As he always came out first the head of the department applied to have the position abolished so that he would not get the promotion. If there had been an appeal tribunal, that man could have had his case heard before the abolition of that particular position, he could have found out why a competition had been opened and then, following the examination, why application had been made to have the position abolished.
This is one case in a thousand, because since I have been a member of this house I have received a voluminous correspondence telling me of the complaints of dissatisfied people. I do not pretend that this has happened only under this government

it existed before, but it is, however, a lack that should be filled now by an amendment to this new bill. That is why I suggest that the government disregarded the justified complaints of the small employees who are just as much entitled to be defended as the higher-ups.
Civil Service Act
Besides, if the appealing party could call on a lawyer, he would have much better protection, since it is not everybody who can state his complaint quite clearly; in fact, a civil servant may be a perfect clerk who perfectly knows his work, but when he has to appear before an appeal board where it is important to express himself well, not being used to public speaking, he cannot defend himself easily in a case of this kind, while if he had his own counsel, he could rely on him to relieve him of his sudden uneasiness and state his case much more clearly.
Besides, at page 16 of the civil service commission report, I read something about the appeals in paragraph 38:
With these considerations in mind, the commission's proposals are designed to place firmly on the departments primary responsibility to maintain discipline while, at the same time, providing suitable safeguards against uneven or unfair treatment of employees.
Therefore, the civil service commission
itself had realized there had been unjust treatment of certain cases, and that there had been no means to cure this situation because of the excessive power of certain divisional heads.
Our proposals entail among other things,
(c)	that the scope of appeals to the commission in such matters be substantially broadened;
(d)	that dismissal be effected by the commission on the recommendation of the deputy head (instead of by an order in council); and
(e)	that, before an employee is dismissed on grounds of political partisanship, his case be fully investigated and reported upon by one or more commissioners appointed for the purpose under part I of the Enquiries Act.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying has been provided for in the civil service commission report. So, it is not new, and I suggest that we should act upon this.
And here is another weakness existing within the civil service, and it is the famous rating. As far as this question of rating is concerned, the same standard should be applied by all departments without exception. When this rating of the employee is ready for submission to the civil service commission- the rating factor is important for promotion- it should be submitted to the civil servant for his acceptance or refusal. If he feels that his chief who has given him this rating was unfair, he should have the right to appeal to the civil service commission and that right of appeal should be recognized in the act, but it is not so now.
There is only one department that I know of-there may be others of which I am not

Civil Service Act
aware-but we have the Department of National Defence where employees, accustomed to those efficiency reports in the army where a soldier, when shown his report, could appeal to his superior officer, maintained the same procedure. Since that practice existed in the army, it has been applied to the civilian staff of that department. They are asked to sign the report and if any objection is raised, then the report is discussed and often amended.
I can say that when I was myself an employee of the civil service in 1927, I have seen cases where there was an injustice because a head of department did not like a subaltern's mug. I suppose that the same situation still exists.
We live with men who unfortunately labour under certain human frailties and tend towards feelings of unreasond likes or dislikes. That is why, when the time comes to discuss this particular point, this should be corrected by standardizing the rating. In addition, the civil service commission should have the right to legislate in that field, to hear the appeal of the employee who feels he has been discriminated against, the appeal being heard in the presence of both the author of the efficiency report and the appellant to prevent any discussion behind closed doors. Thus one day, great and small will be able to be treated fairly in the civil service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of salaries. It has been brought up often during these last few years especially by civil servants who, I feel, were quite right in their complaints.
In the January issue of their newspaper, here is what I find on page 7:
(Text):
Canadian civil servants have a right to play a definite role in determining their wages, salaries and working conditions. Clause 7-
That is clause 7 of the bill.
-does not provide even an elementary basis for a proper system of negotiation.
We would therefore urge, with all the emphasis we can muster, that this committee amend clause 7 to read as follows:
"The cabinet, or such ministers or minister, or officer or officers of the crown it may designate, is empowered to negotiate directly and consult with representatives of appropriate associations and organizations of employees of the crown on all matters of personnel administration in the public service, including remuneration and all other terms and conditions of employment under regulations and procedures drawn under the provisions of this act. Such direct negotiation and consultation shall be initiated by the cabinet or its appointees

on the one hand, and by recognized staff associations and organizations on the other hand.
"The provisions of such regulations as may be drawn should also include provision for arbitration of issues which cannot be settled by negotiation".
(Translation) :
I fully agree with the civil service association on this point.
Besides, I suggested last year, when Bill C-77 was introduced-it was later withdrawn -that whenever negotiations dealt with salaries or working conditions, civil service organizations should be called in and should have a representative sitting with the commission, in order that their views might be known. In this way, what happened in the past would not happen again, such as the issuing of a secret and confidential report which nobody knew anything about and to which nobody could refer before its publication. That famous report caused serious injustice. If I am not mistaken, salary increases started to be granted in April. One group of employees got their increase as of the 1st of April, another group on the 1st of May, another on the 1st of June and so on each month until September.
Raises were therefore granted class by class. They were retroactive only to the first of the month in which the recommendation was made to the house by the minister.
This means that employees of equal merit did not get their increase until September, and were refused those rights enjoyed by those who had had their raise in April, May or June.
That Mr. Speaker, was a glaring injustice which moved the employees to bitter complaint and properly so. Had they taken part in the discussions, had they been entitled to attend the negotiations, they would have known what was going on and they would have shared the secrets of the powers that be.
They could have then made representations to the commission, to the department and also put their case before the people of Canada through the newspapers, if they were being treated unfairly.
Moreover I find that my request is not in contradiction with the terms of the Heeney report. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 132, appendix (b). The Heeney report is totally in agreement with this request since it says:
For 14 years, organized civil servants have possessed in the national joint council-
And further on:
The opinion is widely held that the council could play a more active role in this area with

advantage to both employer and employees. We share this view and consider that the time has come for a re-examination of the terms of reference and procedures of the council, with the object of strengthening its position and prestige, and making it a more useful and effective body for joint consultation.
That recommendation of the civil service commission has been completely ignored, completely disregarded.
Yet, the minister told us that section 7 provided for meetings between employees, at their request, with the department or the commission. But those recommendations may be accepted or refused by the department. So, if it were enacted that employees are entitled to share in negotiations, the department could not turn them down; it could no longer say: "You cannot have this," or "You are not entitled to that", because it would have to accept it.
That is a recommendation made by the civil service commission after a thorough investigation of this matter. And in section 3 of appendix (b) we find this:
The last authorized view coming from the government was that of the Prime Minister, expressed on May 1, 1958,
That is the present Prime Minister, who is now in London. He expressed this view on May 1, 1958:
-in an address delivered before one of the large staff organizations:
Please note, Mr. Speaker, that I am quoting no less a person than the Prime Minister of Canada. Only a few years ago, he stated, and I quote:
I think that civil servants, through their associations' representatives, should have a greater say in the establishment of salary scales in the civil service. A more rational method should be adopted whereby your ideas and advice could influence the application of principles on which there is nearly full agreement in matters of salary.
The Prime Minister was in agreement. They were supposed to enjoy more consideration, but I do not know what happened to change that approach, because this is not included, as it was not included in Bill C-77, introduced at the last session.
Section 4 reads as follows:
On the side of the employees, the associations have, over a considerable period, advocated the introduction in one form or another of negotiating procedures and "collective bargaining". Some have pressed for the amendment of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so as to include civil servants and open to organized government employees the processes of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration for which that statute provides. Some have advocated the establishment of a special arbitration tribunal whose awards, in the event of failure of agreement,
Civil Service Act
would be binding on both sides. No recognized association has asserted on behalf of civil servants the right to strike.
Therefore, it is clearly established that no recognized association has claimed the right to strike, and I think they were right in that. Now, the right to strike under special circumstances is a sacred and a natural right of self-defence against abuse by certain companies. But government employees have a higher duty toward their country than certain labour associations. So civil servants have no intention of claiming the right to strike, but they do claim the right of association and even the right to arbitration.
To my mind this would not deprive parliament of any of its privileges because, in the final analysis, parliament would set salaries when estimates of the civil service commission are before us, so that the last word in the matter would remain with parliament. Furthermore, claims made by associations of civil servants and joint decisions reached may not be considered by nor will be binding on parliament except for the voting of estimates.
Section 5 has to do with joint committees and here is how it reads:
Although officials of the principal staff associations are in regular and frequent contact-
Allow me to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is an answer to the assertions of the minister, an answer to section 7 of the bill now under discussion.
... are in regular and frequent contact with the commission on questions of pay, there has so far been no systematic procedure for discussion of these matters between representatives of the employees and representatives of the government. In our opinion, this is an unsatisfactory situation from every point of view. Civil servants compare their position unfavourably in this respect with that of other employees; neither side has adequate opportunity to explain its case; the inevitable consequence is the resort to pressure tactics and public controversy.
That is the whole point. Civil servants must be granted the rights normally enjoyed by human beings to have their representations heard regularly without having to go hat in hand to the cabinet or the commission, but through rights clearly defined in the act, they must be enabled to say: "We are coming here on behalf of those we represent, on behalf of associations, to ask for such conditions and such a salary." The final decision will remain with parliament, but we must give civil servants the right to make representations.
And further on, I read:
Representation of the employees affected would be provided from the staff association which, for the purpose, would have to establish suitable joint machinery.

vivil Service Act
We should supply the suitable machinery, and this is not something I have dreamed up, it is stated in the civil service commission report. The government should, through amendments to the act, provide the suitable machinery; it should not be a time to time affair, but machinery perfectly and clearly defined which would give civil servants the right to be heard when necessary.
Again on the same subject, here is what we find in section 10 of appendix (b):
An Important element in any such regime would be that the commission's recommendations subsequent to the conduct of discussions should be communicated simultaneously to the government and to the staff associations concerned. Final decision on the commission's recommendations would, of course, remain a matter for the government, subject to the ultimate will of parliament.
And in section 12, we read the following:
We therefore recommend:
They are the recommendations of the civil service commission.
We therefore recommend:
That the government request the commission-
Listen carefully, for this is clear and explicit:
That the government request the commission- commission, in consultation with officials of the treasury board on the one hand, and the staff associations on the other, to develop and institute procedures along the lines described above for the participation of government employees in the determination of compensation in the civil service-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am sorry to advise the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Forty minutes have expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member started at 11.53.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, constituting as it does the first revision and modernization of the Civil Service Act in 43 years is of very high significance and vital, long range consequence. Since it is proposed that it shall be referred to a special committee for detailed study, a committee in which I hope to take an active part, my contribution at this time will be less extended than it would otherwise be.
I do not propose to refer in detail to the speeches which have been made earlier in the debate. My failure to do so is not to be interpreted in any way as an indication, even by inference, that I agree with all that has been said in the debate thus far. Indeed, with one speech which was made I profoundly disagree. I do not deny, sir, that abuses occasionally do occur in personnel administration. Civil servants are as human as any

other citizens, but I do assert with the greatest of confidence that abuses are very much the exception rather than the rule. That is all I propose to say at this time in respect of that, sir. There will be an opportunity in the special committee where, if necessary, I will make my views known in greater detail.
The Civil Service Act of 1918 is a lasting monument to the government of Sir Robert Borden, and in its day it was the most advanced measure of public service reform in any country in the world. It firmly established the merit principle as an instrument of national policy; it banished the old spoils system, the nepotism and favouritism which had plagued us in earlier days. The mere fact that after 22 years of government by one party a change of government could take place, as it did in June of 1957, with the least upset to the civil service of any change of government in our history, is the best evidence of how firmly embedded the principles of the Civil Service Act of 1918 had become, and how firmly was the adherence of the Progressive Conservative party to those principles.
All but one of those who have spoken previously in this debate have emphasized how Canadians everywhere have reason to be proud of the standards and calibre of our civil service. I have said before in this house, and I repeat it now, that at international conferences and at learned societies as well as in the performance of day to day duties, our Canadian public servants can meet on at least equal terms the public servants of any other country.
In modernizing the Civil Service Act after 43 years I submit that parliament must be guided by two basic and associated objectives. The first must be to maintain and constantly improve the standards and quality of our public service. The second, and the companion objective, must be to make a civil service career at least as satisfying, as attractive and rewarding as any professional or business career. We must encourage a high proportion of our young people of exceptional talent to enter and remain in the public service. We must give to a civil service career the status and respect which will be an incentive, a stimulus to the young, highly educated men and women in the sciences, in the professions, in administration and in other basic fields to offer their services to the state.
Too often uninformed public opinion tends to look upon career civil servants as persons

looking for an easy spot where they can avoid the stress of competitive society as in business or in a profession. Such a public attitude is, in my opinion, totally unjustified and unfair. I believe that the overwhelming majority of our public servants are conscientious, hard working and effective.
What I have been trying to say was put very neatly by Mr. Neil McElroy, former United States secretary of defence and now chairman of the board of Procter and Gamble Limited, in a speech last November 22, when he said this:
We must recognize their contribution to our nation's progress and give them proper status in the public esteem.
Moreover, they must be adequately compensated. No one expects a government career to offer wealth. It has its other valued compensations. Like teaching or the ministry, it is a dedicated service. It can offer satisfactions in personal accomplishments and fulfilment for which, for many, there is no substitute. Government service, if it means to us what it should, must have its justified place in the consideration of careers by the young people of the country.
That expresses, I believe, the attitude which parliament must adopt in this important task of modernizing the Civil Service Act. As parliamentarians, as the elected representatives of the people, we must recognize that it is to the career civil service that we must look for long range continuity and experienced competence in our government. However able may be the ministry, however dedicated and sincere may be the front bench of any political party, they can succeed in their tasks only with the loyal support, the objective and disinterested advice and administrative competence of thousands upon thousands of career civil servants. And so, sir, I hope parliament and the special committee will submit this bill to certain basic tests and ascertain if it does, as I believe it does, meet certain standards.
The first standard or test is the preservation intact of the merit principle. Upon that cornerstone we must build. There must be an assurance that it is in fact, however, a genuine merit system. Parliament wants the genuine practice of the merit system, not a system of lip service to it. The mere abolition of the spoils system, the abandonment and prevention of political patronage or favouritism, is not in itself assurance that the merit system truly prevails. The Heeney report speaks of what it describes as "bureaucratic patronage" as being less apparent but no less insidious and demoralizing than political patronage. With that I fully agree.
In this new act and in its administration I hope that that may be avoided. I hope we 90205-6-182
Civil Service Act
will have the assurance that appointments and promotions are made on the basis of an objective determination of the relative merits of qualified candidates. We have that assurance, and I think we must have an assurance as well that there will be safeguards against any internal abuses, against any favouritism, against what the Heeney report described, as I have said, as "bureaucratic patronage".
The second standard or test to which I think we must submit this bill is whether it preserves fully the independent status of the civil service commission. That it does, in my opinion. Since 1918 the commission has enjoyed a quasi-judicial status. That position, in my opinion, is fundamental to the establishment of sound principles of recruitment and promotion.
The third test to which the house and the committee will wish to submit this bill, in my opinion, is whether it will provide increased flexibility of administration as well as greater simplicity of procedures. As I read the bill, sir, the division of authority between the commission and the deputy heads will be more clearly defined, that of the commission in recruitment and promotion being reinforced whereas in direct managerial matters, for speed and ease of decision, which are very important factors, a greater authority will be vested in deputy heads. The house must always remember, I think, that organization and classification play as significant roles in standards and conditions of work as do recruitment, promotion or pay.
One of the results which I hope will flow from this legislation is a more positive use of planned transfers as between departments. The Heeney report spoke of this as a means of providing promising civil servants with more productive and more attractive careers, and with that I most heartily agree. It will avoid good men getting into blind alleys or following well travelled ruts. I hope that a positive program of interdepartmental transfers will be pursued in order to broaden the experience and increase the knowledge of promising young career men and women.
The fourth standard by which the bill must be tested is that which has had perhaps the greatest publicity, the question of increasing participation of civil servants and their associations in all the processes leading to the determination of pay and other conditions of employment. The amendment made to the draft bill as presented last year enables the staff associations to initiate consultations and discussions, and of that I enthusiastically approve. The basic issue that is before the house

Civil Service Act
and will be before the committee is whether the techniques ought to be embodied in the detailed provisions of the law. Should the processes of consultation and the results to flow from consultation be spelled out in the statute?
As I see it, sir, parliament is embarking upon a totally new adventure in the field of employer-employee relations, and my own view is that the techniques, like freedom, ought to broaden down from precedent to precedent. My hon. friends from Ottawa East and Hull now profess a lifetime of undying devotion to the full application of the principle of collective bargaining to civil service employment. With respect, I suggest that their conversion has come somewhat late in life.
The hon. member for Hull sought to have the Liberal rally as late as January, 1961, endorse collective bargaining, and with what result? It was turned back by the subcommittee; it was referred to the policy committee for further study, and it has never yet seen the light of day. What that much vaunted Liberal rally refused to endorse my hon. friends place before the house as Liberal policy.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That is not a correct statement.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Completely false.


Thomas Miller Bell: My hon. friends will have an opportunity to deal with what I say. I have clippings here from both newspapers which indicate that this is precisely what happened.


George James McIlraith: I am telling you it did not.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then my hon. friend must have his quarrel with Mr. Greg Con-nolley and Mr. Richard Jackson.


George James McIlraith: With the hon. member for Carleton.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will allow my hon. friend to pursue his quarrel with them.


George James McIlraith: With the hon. member for Carleton.


Thomas Miller Bell: My hon. friend can have the clippings any time he wants them. I say to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) that during all the years he and his colleagues, the hon. member for Ottawa East and the hon. member for Hull sat on this side of the house they did not have enough influence with their own government to persuade that government to take one solitary step toward consultation in employment matters.


George James McIlraith: Will the hon. member permit a question on this point? Will he tell us when the national joint council was set up?


Thomas Miller Bell: If the hon. member is now saying that the national joint council is a process of collective bargaining, I have never heard him assert it before in the house. I say to him that now that a major and constructive step has been taken, hon. gentlemen opposite seek to criticize it and to pretend that they have always believed in something more. I have always found actions more convincing than professions.
What this bill does is to provide a framework within which procedures and techniques of consultation may develop and expand to the mutual advantage of government and civil servant. This is not a strait-jacket; it is a guide to future progress in a field fraught with not a few problems, and staff associations and others are aware of these problems. In my opinion these new provisions will call for constructive statesmanship on the part of the leaders of staff associations as well as representatives of the government. Responsible, temperate, accountable stewardship will lead to constructive results in the application of clause 7. Good will and cordiality will achieve what immoderation of language and action would simply throw away.
The bill in my view is the culmination of a series of major and constructive advances in civil service administration achieved under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. I give but a few examples; the establishment of the pay research bureau, increases for superannuated civil servants, revision of the Public Service Superannuation Act to provide inter alia a six-year average, the institution of a modern medical-surgical plan, the appointment on every practical occasion of deputy ministers from within the ranks of the service, the institution of a system of class by class salary increases with periodic reviews based on the principle of fair comparison, the appointment of the Glassco commission to study the organization of government generally, and now this bill.
This is the record of achievement under the leadership of the present Prime Minister with the support of the Minister of Finance. I believe that more genuine progress in civil service administrative reform, in conditions of employment and pay, has been made in the past three years than in any comparable period in our history.
This, I believe, is a good bill. It may well be that the conscientious, non-partisan study of the special committee can make it a better bill. From that study and from the bill when ultimately enacted I hope there will emerge a civil service act which will bring pride

of status to every civil servant, and which will stand as a example to all legislatures in the world interested in the application of the merit system.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. If he believes, as he said, that practice should proceed from precedent to precedent, will he then explain why he preferred a written bill of rights to the established system of following the British practice?


Richard Albert Bell: I do not know how ridiculous a question can be, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is just the inconsistency that amuses me.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make at this stage of the bill. I think it is a well known fact that the only political party in Canada that has had any consistent approach to collective bargaining rights for employees of the public service is the C.C.F., whether at the provincial level or the federal level. However, late as it may be that support comes from other quarters, and even though that professed support is really not a policy of the party itself and perhaps exists only in the minds of a few individuals, nevertheless we welcome the attitude of those progressively-minded Liberals such as the hon. member for Hull who have finally come to the conclusion that perhaps collective bargaining is the only decent thing we can provide so far as employees in the public service are concerned.
I think it is also a fact that generally speaking over the years employees in the public service have from time to time been given rather shoddy treatment by governments in office. I think this has primarily been so because the employees have not had the right of determination, the right that other employees and other citizens in this country have, the right to participate in forming a union and in bargaining collectively with their employer.
I think this must be done. The only end to which we should look is to ensure that the employees in the public service of Canada, and in the various provinces, obtain the right to participate in shaping their own destiny. I believe it is of paramount importance that the law of the nation applying to the rights of individual employees to bargain collectively shall be equitably applied, so far as it is possible, to the employees in the public service.
I have dealt with this subject on other occasions in presenting the ideas I may have in bill form, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to go over the same ground again. I believe that each employee, whether he works in the 90205-6-1821
Civil Service Act
public service of Canada, a crown corporation or for a private concern, should be treated on an equal basis and should have the same rights, freedoms, responsibilities and opportunities, regardless of the particular group within which he may fall.
We can argue and quibble over details as to which system of collective bargaining may be more advantageous or more suited to a particular group of workers. We can say that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act should apply; that, with some alterations, we can establish a system of collective bargaining within the Civil Service Act; or we can say that we should set up some special law relating primarily to the employees of the public service. I do not believe it matters too much what the system is so long as it is a system based on equity, so long as we think in terms of treating the men and women in the public service of Canada on the same basis that we treat employees in private industry or in a crown corporation. I am referring to the right to work, along with your fellow workers, in negotiating with the employer to reach a mutually satisfactory collective agreement. I feel this is the only matter with which we should be concerning ourselves in so far as bargaining rights are concerned.
If there is no opportunity of obtaining a mutually satisfactory agreement within the framework of the system we would like to see, then I believe the parties should have the right to proceed to an outside agency for assistance and guidance or perhaps an arbitrary decision that would resolve the differences. The hon. member for Carleton mentioned what he and others have classified as bureaucratic patronage. There is no doubt that this is a very difficult form of patronage to put your finger on, Mr. Speaker, even more difficult than political patronage. If an individual finds he is subjected to bureaucratic patronage he has no opportunity now of finding a solution to this problem. I believe that when the parties are working out a collective agreement they should make provision for some grievance procedure, perhaps for some outside body to argue the case just as some individuals in industry do now.
The special committee to which this measure is going to be referred has a most important function in assessing and reviewing the subject matter of the bill referred to it. I for one hope that, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, this will be a non-partisan committee and that the government members of the committee will act as they individually think and as their consciences dictate after studying the bill. I hope they will not act, as has been the case so many

Civil Service Act
times in the past, as if they were mere puppets controlled by the Minister of Finance or some other government official.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The observation which the hon. member has made, I feel, is a reflection on those members to whom he referred who have been sitting on these committees. There is no member in this house who has ever acted as a puppet of the present Minister of Finance. The present Minister of Finance has never asked anyone to act as a puppet, nor would he wish any member of this house to act as a puppet. All hon. members of this house exercise their freedom in the light of their responsibilities, whether in relation to the committees of the house or the house itself, Mr. Speaker. I consider this is a reflection on the members of this house that the hon. member would not wish to leave on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: On the
point of order-


Frank Howard: May I say a word on the point of order?


George James McIlraith: If I may say a word on the point of order, I would point out that the hon. member who was speaking did not say the members of the committee acted as puppets of the Minister of Finance. He said that they acted as if they were puppets of the Minister of Finance. There is quite a sharp distinction.


Frank Howard: May I say a word on the point of order? I am quite prepared to leave the statement on the record. I would recommend to the Minister of Finance that he read the proceedings of the veterans affairs committee this session, and he will find that certain members condemn themselves in this respect by saying that they could not do anything else but support the government; that after all this was a measure introduced by the government and they had to support it.


Mr. Speakman:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member is speaking to a point of order.


Frank Howard: I was just mentioning the point of order which had been raised by the Minister of Finance. All one has to do is read the record to see that there was no reflection cast upon the Minister of Finance as being an active participant in a Punch and Judy show.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was the members, not the minister.


Frank Howard: If the Minister of Finance, however, thinks that the remarks were personally directed toward him and no other individual member, then I suggest he is far too thin-skinned. May I call it one o'clock?


James Stanley Speakman: On the point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not take the remarks as directed toward me, but they were remarks that reflected on the members because the statement was that they were acting as puppets of the minister.


George James McIlraith: As if they were puppets.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Did the
hon. member for Wetaskiwin wish to raise a question of privilege?


James Stanley Speakman: The hon. member for
Skeena is in haste now to call it one o'clock, having reflected on the members of a certain committee. Since I am a member of the committee to which he referred, I can say that the members of the committee acted independently and in good conscience. We did what we did because we had the interest of the veterans of Canada very much at heart.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I had been mentioning that the committee which will be established and which will consider this particular bill has a great responsibility. I think the individual members of the committee must approach the bill and the presentations that are undoubtedly going to be made to the committee with a great deal of openmindedness. If the committee is going to be nothing more than a rubber stamp which will endorse the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are debating the second reading of the bill, are we not, rather than a motion to establish the committee?


Frank Howard: That is quite true, Mr. Speaker. I just said that the point I was getting at-


Mr. Speaker:: I was just reminding the hon. member that he was not speaking to the issue before the house.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct. All I was doing was reiterating again-in order to put the matter in

its proper context and as I had almost reached the end of my remarks-in saying that the bill undoubtedly, as we have been told, is going to go to a committee; and that if the committee acts as a rubber stamp for the government proposal, there is not much point in setting the committee up at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with respect to this legislation which is important, as everyone will agree because it deals with improvement of the Civil Service Act which is designed to give government employees a fair deal as befits a good employer. Unfortunately, it is a charter which falls short of giving the men and women working for the government, who have proved their loyalty and capabilities over a long period of years, the consideration which they richly deserve.
I am sure there is no division of opinion in the house when I say that we are fortunate in having a civil service second to none in the world. Where there is a division of opinion, however, is as to the way in which we treat these faithful servants who, in many instances, have refused better paying jobs in business and in industry so that they may carry on and remain at their posts.
Since the introduction of this measure I have listened with more than passing interest to the discussion of the merits of its content, and also of the ways in which it fails to meet the expectations of the civil service. I am particularly concerned with that part of the bill which ignores the fundamental rights of employees to negotiate with their employers in a manner recognized as a standard practice by the trades and labour movement of our country. It is true that it contains a reference to the right of initiating consultations but in no way does it recognize the right to negotiate an agreement; and in the event of disagreement there is no provision for the appointment of an arbitration board.
Speaking at a banquet of the Civil Service Association of Canada a year or so ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a statement which was generally understood to mean that the application of the principle of bargaining rights would be implemented in any future changes of the act. He said:
What is needed is more opportunity and better arrangement for your representatives to sit down at a table with officials representing the government and with officers of the civil service commission.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what I have just read commits the Prime Minister to a measure which will recognize bargaining rights for all civil service employees.
Civil Service Act
A year ago last November the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MacLean) spoke at a mass rally of more than 1,000 federal government workers and took occasion to express the view that civil servants should have the right to negotiate with the government on salaries and working conditions. When he was asked if he would propose in parliament that these rights be granted, he replied that he would bring the matter up in the caucus of his party in order to obtain the views of his colleagues. I think he was sincere, but evidently he failed to convince the government that such a proposal was desirable or necessary.
In their submission the civil service association recommends that one of the clauses be amended to read as follows:
The cabinet or such ministers or minister or officer or officers of the crown it may designate, is empowered to negotiate directly and consult with representatives of appropriate associations and organizations or employees of the crown on all matters of personnel administration in the public service, including remuneration and all other terms and conditions of employment under regulations and procedures drawn under the provisions of this act. Such direct negotiations and consultations shall be initiated by the cabinet or its appointees on the one hand, and by recognized staff associations and organizations on the other hand.
I submit that such an amendment would not constitute the conferring of privileges not enjoyed by nearly all other employed workers, including those working in city hall staffs, firemen and policemen. The latter two categories enjoy all bargaining rights except for the fact that their contracts do not allow them to strike. However, they have the privilege if there is a break-down in negotiations of asking that the matter be considered by a board of arbitration whose decision will be binding on both sides. I am confident that the civil service association would not object to having such a clause added to this measure.
Professor Saul J. Frankel of McGill University, speaking at a gathering of the professional institute of the public service of Canada, made some very pertinent observations on the status of civil servants in Canada. He was speaking about the negotiation and arbitration system in Great Britain. After giving an outline of the history of the movement to obtain collective negotiation rights for civil servants, the professor stressed that the establishment of a collective negotiation body such as an arbitration board contributed a great deal toward better relations beween the government and civil servants. He made the statement that there is much less friction today than there was before they had such a right. Both sides agree to abide by the findings of the arbitration board and therefore there should be no fear that at

Civil Service Act
any time the government would be faced with civil servants going on strike.
Here we are primarily concerned with giving to a substantial and important segment of our people the same rights and privileges which other Canadians everywhere have taken for granted for more than 50 years. Let us ever be mindful of the fact that civil service employees, be they working in offices, government departments, income tax branches, as customs officials, immigration officers, whether they are serving on trains, steamships or in the far reaches of the north in humble but important tasks such as delivering the mail to our door, are giving their service to our government with loyalty and zeal irrespective of whether that government is Liberal or Conservative.
Of course, that is precisely what is expected of them, that they should serve no particular party but should simply perform their duties to the best of their ability and advise those in authority. Not the least of their functions is to counsel, because of their experience, on what may be best for the Canadian people.
I believe some dissension in the civil service is due to the fact that once an employee reaches the maximum salary for his particular position he must wait years before he can expect any salary increase. While it is true that civil servants may try examinations for a higher grade, it must be remembered that after ten or 15 years away from school the average man has forgotten much of the academic questions that appear on the usual civil service examination papers.
Although the civil servants may be able to step right into a better position and discharge his duties perfectly, he invariably finds himself teaching these duties to a student recently out of school. This student, by virtue of the fact that he still has the type of questions fresh in his mind, is usually able to pass the examination, whereas the older but much more experienced employee in the work actually required is often unable to pass. It has been the experience of some men to remain in the same salary bracket for 15 years and watch youngsters step out of school and into senior positions. In this case the older employee usually has to teach them the job.
At the present time it takes five years for a civil servant to reach his maximum salary rate. I wonder whether a plan could be evolved by which he would be kept in that position for another period of five years unless, of course, he successfully passed a higher examination at the end of this five-year period, so that he would automatically be promoted to a higher grade unless the head
[Mr. Badanal.l
of the department provided the commission with excellent reasons why he should not do so. Once promoted, the same routine would follow until five years prior to his retirement.
Such a plan would not only bring an end to much of the dissatisfaction in the service but would also increase its efficiency by giving civil servants an incentive in recognition of their efforts. I have in mind the case of an ex-secretary of the board of grain commissioners in the city of Fort William who was appointed secretary to the board when the statistician's office was moved to Winnipeg. This chap was a graduate of a university but had no experience. He lasted about a year. A local boy with a grade 11 education, who had started working in the office when he left school and had learned the practical end of the job by serving his apprenticeship over a period of years, took over the job and has been a success. In that particular job the university graduate was a failure.
There are many positions in the civil service in which a university education is not an essential ingredient for efficiency and which can best be filled by an older employee with years of experience. It seems to be an obsession in some quarters that unless one is a university graduate he should not aspire to top positions in the service. I realize, however, that there are positions for which a specialized university education is necessary. I am speaking primarily of the vast majority of the men and women in the service whose jobs have been learned by hard work and long hours over the years.
I now wish to mention a rather touchy subject, the restrictive discipline imposed upon civil servants with regard to their rights as citizens in connection with federal elections. One of the sections of this legislation does not provide security for an employee who may be dismissed because he had the temerity to enter the committee room of a candidate during an election or attended a political meeting. He may have to suffer the consequences of being cast into the ranks of the unemployed because of the whim of a member of a political party or perhaps the whim of a member of parliament.
I recall an instance during the 1958 federal election. A person in my constituency who held a position with the postal service told me he had been warned that if he took any part whatever in supporting my campaign he had better look for another job. This is by no means an isolated case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Warned by whom?


Hubert Badanai: That man-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member by whom his informant was warned.


Hubert Badanai: I am not stupid enough to answer that question. A man or a woman working for the government today is deprived of those rights which are fundamental to our Canadian way of life-rights which are now spelled out in the bill of rights-or does this measure not apply to civil servants? I am not suggesting that civil servants should take to the platform. What I am suggesting is that they should be free to support any candidate of their choice and to feel free to criticize government policies according to their own convictions,


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member accept criticism from his own employees in his own business?


Hubert Badanai: Yes. I can answer the question truthfully by saying that I do accept criticism from my own employees, and I have many of them. They are still there after more than 20 years.
This legislation fails to define clearly what are considered adequate reasons for dismissal. If these reasons were clearly defined, independence of action would be guaranteed to employees, so long as they properly carried out their duties, and the threat of being fired would no longer hang over their heads. In other words, what I am asking is that our civil servants should be given treatment comparable with that enjoyed by other Canadians. This would keep their morale high and encourage them to discharge their responsibility efficiently and in the best traditions of the civil service of Canada. That is all I am asking.


George James McIlraith: In rising to take part in this debate I wish to open my remarks by expressing my appreciation of the objectivity which has been exhibited, generally speaking, by those hon. members who have preceded me. I think the general quality of the observations made so far has been of a very high order and I hope my own will not lower the standard in any respect.
I do not propose to go over the history of the legislation on this subject. That has been dealt with by other speakers. I think this legislation is a natural occurrence in relation to the developments of our times, bearing in mind that the original act was passed in 1918 and that great developments in government service, in these later years especially have made it necessary or desirable in the view of the former government and, now, of this government, that new legislation should be introduced. I was glad to see that the work put
Civil Service Act
in hand by way of an investigation by the chairman of the civil service commission was continued by the present government although it had been initiated by the former government. I am glad to see that the value of the report has been acknowledged and that legislation based at least in part upon that report has been brought forward.
There is one major point that concerns me with regard to this legislation. Under the present Civil Service Act the independence of the commission is made very clear. That independence is guaranteed in several ways, among others by the fact that the commissioners are appointed for a term certain as to tenure and can be removed only by the governor in council on a joint address by both houses of parliament. This guarantee goes to the very root of their independence. Moreover, they report not to a minister of the crown as such, but to parliament itself, the method of reporting being through a minister designated for that purpose.
For the last number of years the minister designated has been the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) and so far as I know there has been no change made in that procedure; at least, no change has been announced to the House of Commons. I am therefore a little curious to know why this legislation now before us is presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) rather than by the Secretary of State. My concern arises from what I regard as the absolute necessity of the commission remaining an independent body in line with the principle established in the former act. I hope it is nothing more than a matter of convenience, but perhaps the Minister of Finance would clarify the situation when he speaks.
If the hon. gentleman were to indicate that an attempt was being made to make the commission more directly answerable to the minister and I myself do not believe this is the case-it would, of course, give ground for real concern on all sides of the house. The minister has been accused on many occasions of bringing the C.B.C. too directly under his own influence because of his control over finance. While that may be a controversial point, I think it would be desirable for the minister to make it clear when he replies that there is no intention to take any steps to bring the commission more directly under ministerial authority. I may add that I see nothing in the legislation itself which would warrant such an inference, but I do think it is a point worthy of the hon. gentleman's attention.
In my opening remarks I made some reference to the speeches which had preceded mine on this second reading. I do want to except from that general statement the

Civil Service Act
remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). In my view a great many of his remarks having to do with particular complaints were in the nature of superficial criticism of individual items rather than being addressed to the principles of the bill. Some of them, at least, contained what I considered to be rather poorly drawn innuendoes. They were points calculated to arouse passions and destroy pride in our civil service and our confidence in it.
In any event, I have no doubt-and it has been my experience-that in any large organization such as the civil service there are abuses from time to time. However, it seemed to me that the speech made by the hon. member did not address itself to the real problem. The problem before us is to enact the type of legislation which will enable such abuses to be corrected by the proper procedures for the relief of grievances and so on. In my view the purpose of this legislation is to provide methods by which such grievances can be remedied.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) began very well and made some excellent observations in the early part of his speech. In general he was handling the question in an exemplary way. Then he suddenly departed to that spiritual home of his, which I might call that segment of the people of the fine and historic riding he represents, Carleton Toryism. I do hope that he will not press those points in committee because, with deference to him, I suggest that some of them were quite historically inaccurate and not worthy of the earlier remarks he made in his speech.
If the hon. member will examine the text of his speech when it appears in Hansard, I think he will see that when he was speaking about the 1918 act he sought to claim that it was legislation brought about by, I think he used the term, the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden. My reading of history rather indicated to me that the government headed by Sir Robert Borden at that time was a coalition government.


Richard Albert Bell: I said the government of Sir Robert Borden.


George James McIlraith: It further indicated to me that the reason for the 1918 act was that, through the rapid growth of the civil service during the first world war and the vigour that was being applied in making appointments on a political patronage basis, there was a revulsion of feeling in the country on that point which was ultimately shared by the government. That was the reason for the legislation and indeed it is thought by many that the legislation could not have been passed at that time by party government. It

was a coalition government that made it possible. If hon. members will examine the records a little further they will find that the minister who handled the legislation and presented it was the late A. K. Maclean, and the other minister who seemed to have the most to do with it was the Hon. N. W. Rowell. That is the origin-


Richard Albert Bell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Was the Hon. A. K. Maclean secretary of state or acting minister of finance?


George James McIlraith: I think he was the latter, but I am not sure.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes; in other words it was not the secretary of state who handled the bill at that time.


George James McIlraith: No. As a matter of fact, the act was not in existence at that time and the secretary of state did not have the responsibility of answering to the house.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Maclean was never secretary of state.


George James McIlraith: No, quite. The hon. member for Carleton misses the point about it altogether. We now have an act, and the Secretary of State is the one who is answerable to the house on this subject. The Hon. A. K. Maclean was not in that position because there was no such legislation and there was no secretary of state or minister answerable to the house for these matters.


Lionel Chevrier: The member for Carleton came into the house lately.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I wanted to check the hon. member on his history on that point and also to point out to him that in his reference to the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), he was a little less precise than I think he would ordinarily wish to be in describing their speeches and the position they took. The speeches are on record and I do not propose to go over the points raised by them, but I do draw that matter to his attention and to the attention of the house in case anyone should take his version of the speeches as an accurate representation of the points discussed by them.
This bill is going to the committee and, while it is quite true one could raise a great many matters of principle that are debatable on second reading, I think it is desirable that these matters be discussed at the committee stage. I am concerned with one or two of the matters. At the time I was very critical of the handling by the Minister of Finance of the pay increases in 1959. As he well knows, there were different views on the techniques.

of his handling of those increases. I do not propose to repeat my criticism of his technique in handling that subject at that time, but I do wish to say that the difference of opinion and loss of confidence arising out of that episode indicated rather clearly the desirability of new legislation at least on that phase of the subject. I think probably the minister himself will agree with that. Indeed, the minister's remarks in presenting this legislation were considerably improved over some of the remarks he made at the time of the pay increases and his handling of that subject. I am quick to acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Finance is entitled to have this said about his remarks so far on this bill.
In any event, the bill now presented does contain a very improved clause 7. I am quite sure that in committee this clause will get a rather thorough examination. It raises one aspect of the question of the technique or method of the public service organizations dealing with the government. While probably under the rules it is a matter that can properly be discussed on second reading, as far as I am concerned it can be better discussed in committee and I am quite prepared to reserve my remarks on it until that time arrives.
The necessity for the civil service bodies having the right to negotiate collectively, a right that is not something given to them at the whim, if you like, of the government but something established by law as their right is very important. That seems to be done by clause 7. Further aspects of it will have to be examined. There are different points of view on whether clause 7 does exactly what we think should be done, and there may be some shortcomings in it. In any event, it is not something that requires further debate here in principle.
Another matter which will require examination in committee is the some 25 or more changes between the bill introduced in the house last year and not proceeded with and the bill now before us. The reasons for some of the changes are readily apparent from reading them; others are not readily apparent and we shall expect to have detailed explanations of these matters in committee.
There is another point which was alluded to briefly by the hon. member for Carleton. It is rather well summed up in a report of the civil service commission of Canada dated December, 1958, commonly known as the Heeney report. While the hon. member did not quote it directly, he obviously had reference to this sentence which I shall read:
Not much is gained if the "malign influence" of political patronage is replaced by bureaucratic patronage which may be less apparent but which can be no less insidious and demoralizing.
Civil Service Act
All criticisms I have read of the proposed legislation and all analyses of it have raised this very point as something that will need careful examination in the new legislation. The rapidly developing extent of the civil service administration over the last few decades has undoubtedly required certain additional authority to be given administratively to deputy ministers within their own departments but that being so, there is a counterbalancing necessity of a strengthening of the procedure for any complaints about their administration. Great care will be required in the committee to make sure that the counterbalancing provisions in the bill now submitted are adequate and that they give civil servants who are subjected to the exercise of this added right by a deputy minister the right, if they feel aggrieved, to a proper appeal and proper remedial action.
The whole matter was dealt with at some length in what I thought was a very admirable analysis that appeared in the civil service association of Canada "Journal" for January 1961. The analysis dealt with two phases of last year's bill. The statement set forth was prepared by the national president in collaboration with the executive committee and the research advisory committee of the Civil Ser-ice Association of Canada. The legislation is dealt with generally and then there is a more detailed analysis in part 2 of the statement. I hope that when we get to the committee stage there will be an adequate opportunity when we are hearing the association's representatives to deal with the analysis point by point whether or not all the points are covered by particular clauses of the legislation.
I also hope there will be an adequate opportunity to examine the points that are included in the Heeney report and the appendices thereto, particularly some of the recommendations of that report which were not carried through into the legislation.
There is one other field that is of particular interest in discussing this subject. I have in mind the excellent development work which has taken place in the whole field of the relationship between the public service and government in Great Britain and more particularly the Whitley councils. Without spelling it out in legislation they seem to have evolved a technique of developing procedures that enables certain of these problems I have been discussing and other related ones to be dealt with in a way that is wholly desirable. I would hope that in the committee there will be an adequate opportunity to examine that technique in relation to our legislation.
In that connection I might point out that what I think is a rather interesting article has been prepared by Professor Frankel, who

Civil Service Act
is assistant professor in the department of economics and political science at McGill University and who made a study of the British civil service arbitration tribunal with a view to its possible adaptation to Canadian conditions. Interestingly enough, his research was made possible by a Canada council senior fellowship. I would hope that in the committee stage we can examine this whole subject in some detail with a view to its possible adaptation to conditions in Canada.
The other civil service associations all have their points of view, and while I have referred to the civil service association of Canada's analysis I do not want that to indicate any less interest in the comments and representations of the other civil service associations or public bodies which have dealt with this subject. I hope they can all be heard. I hope that when we come to the committee stage it will not be necessary to press this matter unduly but that we can find a technique of carrying on the work of the committee so that the hearings will be conducted expeditiously but at the same time will be full and thorough. I say that because it seems to me that under our system no government action can be fully effective without a thoroughly competent civil service to carry out policies as laid down by government and legislation as enacted by parliament.
We in Canada have been singularly well served over the years by our civil service. It has received praise from time to time and I think that praise has been well deserved. While some of the hon. members of the present government may not have expressed that praise as vigorously or as frequently as one might have wished when they first took office, it seems to me that in the last year or two they have come to appreciate our civil service. I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his opening remarks acknowledge the high standard of the civil service in the way he did and to hear him pay that compliment, if I may paraphrase his remarks, in the manner he did. Under our system we cannot afford to have a demoralized civil service or a civil service that is operating at less than peak efficiency. This is increasingly so as government inevitably reaches more and more into the affairs of private citizens as time goes on and as the decades pass.
Without saying more I should like to conclude by expressing my appreciation of the fact that this legislation has been introduced and by saying that I look forward with interest to serving on the committee which will examine the bill in a critical and, I hope, a very thorough and objective way.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on only two facets of the debate. The first, which was raised by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), relates to the question of giving civil servants more scope for political activity. To those hon. members on the government side who seemed to scoff or thought that the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William were a little ridiculous, I might suggest that their party in particular has always stressed the example that we can find in the mother of parliaments and in Great Britain itself. If they check I think they will find that means have been found by both parties in Great Britain ever since 1919 to enable more and more British civil servants to take part in politics.
As I remember, the last figure I saw about a year ago was in a paper that had been prepared and which indicated that some
600,000	employees of the British government, especially those employed in what we would tend to call corporations or arsenals or other such establishments, are free to take part in politics and to belong to a political party. There is a continuing committee always examining various spots in the British civil service to determine when and where in the hierarchy a man reaches a position where it is felt that he can no longer take a free part in politics.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does that include standing for office?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not hear the hon. member.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When he says they are permitted to become members of political parties, does that include standing for office?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, it very definitely does. In the last general election in Britain there were a number of people in all parties running for office who were government employees. A leave system is arranged. If a person wins he concludes his service, of course, but if he does not win then his leave is terminated and he goes back to the service. They have found great difficulty in delineating just what role a man may have within the civil service before he is free to take part in political activities.
As I look around this house, and I have expressed this view before, I find about 100 lawyers, a great many small businessmen, a great many farmers and a few teachers. I have been able to find only two hon. members who, you might say, come from large scale corporate organizations. I refer to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the hon. member who sits next to him, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). In other words, this house lacks

representation from the large corporate organizations that dominate our business and financial life. At the same time, as I am sure every hon. member knows who has been around a university, a great deal of our best talent is funnelled off into the civil service.
I wonder how much longer we can go on depriving politics of the ability that lies in these two areas, that is to say the very able people who go into the. civil service and the very able people who go into corporate organizations.
I know there is no law that says someone who is an executive in a corporate organization cannot run for office, but in the main they do not. They take very little part in politics. This reference, of course, is outside the scope of the debate, but the civil service aspect of it is not. I think it is about time we began to be large enough in spirit, as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) suggested, to consider this possibility instead of being petty. I know that I had a shock several years ago when I discovered that if a member of parliament made a complaint about a civil servant taking part in political activities, that pretty well sunk the civil servant. This was the accepted Canadian practice. At the time, the Minister of Transport pointed out he was merely following the practice of the preceding administration.
I cannot honestly say that if the members of the civil service were able to take part in political activity and belong to a party, it would do me or my party any particular good. I would say, judging from the political attitude of the provincial civil servants in our part of the country, that most of them would be Conservative. So far as I am concerned, that is fine. I would be agreeable to their taking part in party activities so long as those activities remained within a certain level and did not have an effect on policy decisions.
The second point upon which I should like to touch is not a very popular one with some of my colleagues and, I imagine, with other hon. members of the house. However, this is a personal observation, and I feel I should reiterate it at this time. I feel that there should be much more leeway to bring people in from the outside to fill top positions in the civil service. It seems to me that one of the feelings I often encounter in government- I do not think I am giving anything away- is the feeling that senior civil servants may not be as enthusiastic as they might be about their minister and the things he wants to do. I believe this is unfair, not only to this government but to any government. For that reason, I should like to see much more-not so much of heads rolling at the top-of the practices followed when a minister takes office of surrounding himself with his own
Civil Service Act
people. I do not mean the executive assistants, I mean the senior posts in the department. I believe that the civil service commission and the act should be so set up that the minister could do this.
I would point out to hon. members that such a provision would do two things. It would mean we were developing in Canada the idea of a new cabinet bringing in its own experts to help it with its policy direction and, second, it would eliminate the excuse I have heard so often, "Well, how do you expect us to get things going when so many of the civil servants are against us?" I do not believe the civil servants are against the government and I would not like to make that point. However, I do believe we have a lot of time servers and quite a bit of dead-wood at the top of the civil service because of the conditions of employment. If I were a minister I would want to have a little bit of room-enough space at the top-so I could fill it with people who were dedicated, not only to me and the policy I wanted to introduce but also to the subject of the field itself.
Now, as I said, this may sound like heresy but I feel that if we had more of this type of thing we would have much more life and dynamics not only in the civil service but also in the government of Canada. In this particular case, I think we can look to both the United States and British examples and see the way they take advantage of drawing on people on the outside. It seems to me a rather invidious commentary upon the party that took power three years ago that they brought in only one deputy minister. They actually brought him in as an assistant deputy minister but as a result of a death he moved up. Surely, the Conservative party had close to it or within it more people of ability that they wanted to have help them guide the country along with some sense of direction. I am not speaking as a Conservative. I am trying to speak as someone who would like to see some real sense of direction within the administration. As it is now, with our present civil service setup, it seems to me that governments pass on but civil servants go on forever. I am wondering if this is not one of the reasons that I, as an opposition member, feel this government has not had the dynamics and drive one might have expected from it.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: should like to say a word about the speech to which we have just listened. I agree that there should not be any prohibition against bringing in outside people, and obviously

Civil Service Act
there could not be. On the other hand, I like much better the approach adopted by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). It was to the effect that if we wanted to have a civil service which would attract the best sort of people, which is what we do want, it was very desirable there should be a feeling that, by and large, the top positions were available to all. I think that is a fair interpretation of what the hon. member for Carleton said. I would be very unwilling to see any other attitude adopted because I think it would work to the disadvantage of the civil service and prevent the attraction of the best people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to thank all hon. members for the support they have expressed for this government measure, which evidently has gained support in all parts of the house. I do thank all hon. members for the support they have indicated. I had not intended to participate in the debate by way of reply, Mr. Speaker, but certain points have been raised, and in particular by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mc-Ilraith), who directed several inquiries to me with which he asked me to deal before the debate is closed.
Most of the matters that have been raised in the course of the debate can be dealt with more conveniently in the committee. Perhaps, however, I might touch on several of these at this time in closing the debate on second reading.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) indicated in his remarks that he is under the impression that civil servants appearing before appeal boards are not permitted to have counsel. If this is the view of the hon. member, I must tell him he is labouring under a misapprehension, because civil servants are entitled to be represented by counsel in appearing before appeal boards. Indeed, this is the practice in Ottawa, and some of the most eminent counsel at the Ottawa bar appear from time to time before appeal boards on behalf of civil servants.
The individual matter which perhaps engaged most attention of hon. members participating in the debate, concerned the provision in the bill providing for consultation with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees with respect to pay and other terms and conditions of employment.
This provision is for consultation, of course, at the request of such representatives as well as at the instance of either the civil service commission or the Minister of Finance.

I have no doubt that this provision will continue to receive attention when it is before the committee and I do not intend to dwell at length upon it.
I made some observations on the general tenor of the bill in introducing it on Tuesday. However, I should perhaps draw attention to one fact that evidently has been overlooked by some hon. members. We have heard a good deal of praise of the Heeney report and properly so. In speaking on Tuesday I had occasion to pay tribute to this really outstanding report. Nevertheless I invite hon. members to consider the fact that the Heeney report did not recommend collective bargaining. Indeed, the Heeney report did not recommend any provision going as far as the provisions of this bill go. Let me remind hon. members of exactly what it was that is said on this subject in the Heeney report. I am referring now to paragraph 32 of the report under the heading of "employee participation". It reads as follows:
The commission believes that in the general interest, means should be developed to enable civil servants to participate more effectively in the process by which their salaries and conditions of work are determined. We note that the Prime Minister during the past year had occasion to make reference to the government's interest in improvement in this respect. We have concluded that the differences in the circumstances of private and public employment do not readily admit of the simple and unqualified application to the civil service of the normal industrial pattern of collective bargaining. Nevertheless, we believe that, by developing and enlarging the role of the commission in this area and by strengthening the National Joint Council, it should be possible, with the co-operation of the staff associations, to arrive at a solution which would meet the essential objectives of the employees without involving the genuine difficulties associated with other proposals.
The outline of such a solution is contained in appendix "B" to this report. It is recommended that, if this proposal meets with government's approval, the commission be requested to develop and institute suitable machinery and procedures to give effect thereto, in consultation with treasury board and senior departmental officials on the one hand and the principal staff organizations on the other. The commission has had in mind the possibility of such development in its review of existing legislation, but we have concluded that it is neither necessary nor desirable that detailed provisions on this subject should be embodied in the law.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn to appendix (b) of the report where in some detail the civil service commission outlines what is called "general consultation between government and employees on pay and conditions of work". There the three members of the commission have indicated in some 12 paragraphs their views on this subject, and they conclude with two recommendations which are as follows:
We therefore recommend:
(a) That the government request the civil service commission, in consultation, with officials of treasury

board and other departments on the one hand, and the staff associations on the other, to develop and institute procedures along the lines described above for the participation of government employees in the determination of levels of compensation in the civil service, and
(b) That, in consultation with the civil service commission, the National Joint Council be requested to examine its constitution and terms of reference, and to submit recommendations to government for making it more useful and effective as a forum of joint consultation in other matters of mutual concern.
The type of collective consultation which the three commissioners there recommended was one in which, as has been described, the civil service commission would sit at the end of a table in a somewhat detached capacity, the representatives of the civil service organizations and associations would sit on one side and representatives of the treasury board would sit on the other, and there would be discussions. This report had barely been made public when at least some of the civil service associations expressed themselves quite forcibly on the subject and indicated that this kind of system did not meet with their views. While there were discussions of that matter, it was made quite clear from the outset that these proposals did not go far enough to meet the views of the representatives of the civil service organizations and associations. I say no more on that subject at this time except to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the bill now before the house in this regard goes substantially farther than did the commissioners in their recommendations in the Heeney report.
The next point which perhaps should be mentioned now, Mr. Speaker, is the one for which the hon. member for Port Arthur argued vigorously. He evidently believes that civil servants should be free of all restrictions in the matter of participation in political activities. Evidently he does not stop short of believing that all trammelling restrictions upon civil servants in that regard should be forthwith abolished. This view has not prevailed in the House of Commons and I doubt that it will commend itself to most hon. members.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister is not suggesting that those were my views. He referred to me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I meant the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). I thank the hon. member from Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for the correction.
The act at the present time is quite specific on this subject. Section 55 of the present act reads as follows:
Civil Service Act
55. (1) No deputy head, officer, clerk or employee in the civil service shall be debarred from voting at any dominion or provincial election if, under the laws governing the said election, he has the right to vote; but no such deputy head, officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with any such election, or contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for any party funds.
(2) Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be dismissed from the civil service.
The one change that the present bill would make in that existing provision of the Civil Service Act is to provide that no person shall be dismissed for violation of this provision unless the alleged violation has been the subject of an inquiry at which that person has been given the opportunity of being heard. The new bill ameliorates the provisions in this respect to that extent but it maintains -and, I submit, properly so-the prohibition of political activities on the part of civil servants.
The hon. member for Fort William can complain about this matter if he wishes to do so, as being an interference with the personal rights of a citizen in a free country. However, the fact remains that larger issues are involved here. There is involved the whole question of the public interest; and the public interest has been served by a civil service which has been denied the right to take part in partisan politics. How can you expect a civil service to earn the kind of respect, the kind of approbration which has been expressed frequently in the course of this debate; a civil service that can equally serve succeeding governments regardless of changes in political stripe of governments, that can give the same service to a successor government it gave to the predecessor if the civil service on the one hand is going to be permitted to engage in political activities or, on the other hand, is going to be exposed to them?
There is an element in this situation that has evidently been overlooked by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). It is the extent to which provisions of this kind protect the civil service. This is something of simply overriding importance. If the civil service did not enjoy the protection of a prohibition of this kind, those who are engaged in the civil service would be open to all kinds of pressures, or could be submitted to all kinds of pressures by any government in office.
In days gone by, long years ago, when our parliamentary system was growing up, measures of this kind would have been of very great protection to the civil service. Measures of this kind were not introduced simply to impose some arbitrary restriction upon the

Civil Service Act
political rights of individuals. They were imposed, first, in order that the public interest might be better served by those who can under all circumstances give equal loyalty to successive governments regardless of political stripe. In the second place, the civil service itself should be protected under all circumstances from pressures exerted upon it by whatever government happened to be in power, or by the party that happened to be out of power if it sought to bring pressure to bear on the civil service to help them win their way into power.
That is the reason for a prohibition of this kind on political activities, so that no civil servant can be dragooned by his minister into taking part in political activities or called upon to make any contribution to party funds. Let us see this in its proper light. It is not an interference with political rights; it is a matter of giving effective protection to the public service against all kinds of subtle pressures that might otherwise be exerted upon it by a government that did not have too many scruples in that respect. I say nothing more on that subject.
I turn next to the matter that was touched upon by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), namely the numerous changes that appear in the present bill as compared with Bill No. C-77 introduced last June at the 1960 session of parliament. I do not propose to repeat what I said on this subject in moving second reading on March 7. What I said in this regard is to be found in Hansard at pages 2760 and 2761. I drew attention to the fact that there are many changes between the two bills, most of them of a minor nature relating to administrative questions.
However, there are two changes of a quite material nature. These are changes in policy and I outlined them at that time. I do not wish to dwell on this subject, but there is a complete misinterpretation of my remarks on this subject appearing in the Ottawa Journal of March 8 at page 21. This is the sentence:
Of the many changes in the Civil Service Act contemplated in this bill, said Mr. Fleming, most are "of a minor and administrative significance only".
What I had to say about changes of minor and administrative significance only was with regard to the changes between Bill No. C-77 introduced last June and the present measure. If you compare this measure with the Civil Service Act, you will find that there are many changes, and I think there are enough of them to engage the serious study of the proposed committee for some period of time.
A point was sought to be made that this measure is introduced in the name of the

Minister of Finance and not in the name of the Secretary of State. Perhaps I should feel flattered that this should be regarded as a matter worthy of comment by some hon. gentlemen opposite. The fact is that under our existing system of government the Secretary of State answers to the house for the estimates of the civil service commission, but all matters pertaining to pay, salary, working conditions and terms of employment are, and have been for a long time, matters for which the Minister of Finance is held responsible.
Ever since I have been in the house, since 1945, this has been the division of responsibility. My predecessors, Mr. Ilsley, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Harris were the spokesmen of the government in the house for all matters pertaining to salaries, working conditions and terms of employment of the civil service. It has been my privilege in these past three years and eight months to introduce in the house those changes which have been, I trust, of great benefit to the civil service, namely the increases in salaries-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question on this point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I finish? I introduced in the house the measure for increases in salaries, the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the medical-surgical benefits for the civil service and the increase in superannuation benefits to retired civil servants. These were all matters pertaining to salary, pay, terms of employment and working conditions and were accordingly sponsored in the house by the Minister of Finance. Therefore there is nothing new in this present sponsorship; there is no significance in it such as the hon. member for Ottawa West feared. I can assure him that the independence of the civil service commission was never more completely recognized and scrupulously respected in all our history than it is at the present time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question on this point. The examples the minister has given of matters that he brought before the House of Commons pertaining to the civil service have all been matters affecting pay or the financial aspects of civil service employment. Do I understand the minister to claim that matters of hours, employment and holidays have always been treated as matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not specifically individual holidays. Questions of whether a particular day is a day on which the civil

service closes have been dealt with in the house by my colleague the Secretary of State. My remarks on this matter concern terms of employment and working conditions in general. These have been a responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I think no more need be said on that point; it is not a point of significance.
Finally, I think all hon. members are aware of the procedure that has been proposed. It is that following second reading of this bill it should be referred to a special committee to be appointed for the purpose of studying it. I have on the order paper a motion, which will be called immediately after the bill has been given second reading, to establish a committee for that particular purpose. When agreement has been reached among the parties as to the personnel of that committee, it will be appointed and the bill can then be formally referred to the committee for study and report.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for the support which those who have participated in this debate have indicated for the measure. I believe it to be a measure of very high importance. Indeed I regard it as one of the most important bills likely to come before this present parliament. I look forward with some degree of gratification to seeing a strong committee appointed which will give this bill a very, very thourough study.
The committee, of course, will be master of its own procedure. It will, if it wishes, be entitled to call on and hear representatives of the civil service organizations and associations and to give the bill a most thorough scrutiny. I believe its importance warrants nothing short of a very thorough scrutiny. I can tell hon. members, having had some experience of scrutinizing this measure in its preparation and the study of the Heeney report that preceded it, that it is a very large subject. But in a matter of this kind the extent of the study on the part of hon. members both in the house and in the committee will be repaid, I believe, by the satisfaction they will derive from dealing with a subject of such great importance to good government in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That a special committee be appointed to consider Bill C-71, an act respecting the civil service of Canada, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
Special Committee Appointed
That the committee consist of fifteen members to be designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house; and
That standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I make only one comment? Since this motion was placed on the order paper there has been some discussion with the opposition parties, and a wish has been expressed that the committee might be somewhat larger than that contemplated in the motion, namely, 15. Fifteen members were appointed to the committee which sat last session to consider amendments to the Superannuation Act, but since it has been requested by hon. members opposite that this proposed committee should be enlarged, the government has no objection to make, and, accordingly, and if the house would agree, we might substitute "twenty one for "fifteen" in line six of the motion.


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to the minister for that suggestion. I had already prepared an amendment to the same effect. I think it would be of great assistance to those who sit on this side of the house, because a number of members have expressed not only their willingness but their desire to take part in the proceedings of this committee and they would not have been able to do so had it not been for this change. We would have been entitled to only three members at the most but, as it is now, our representation has been increased and I am sure it will be appreciated.
There is just one other comment I should like to make. I note that the motion contains a provision that the committee be empowered to sit during sittings of the house. I merely express the hope that the committee will not find it necessary to do this. I shall not give the reasons why we feel that way about it, but I am sure the government would not want the committee to sit unless it were really necessary, and in this case it would strike me that since most of the witnesses who are likely to be called will be from the service, in any event, it will not be necessary to get them from the outside and the necessity of sitting while the house is sitting may not arise. I do not wish to make an issue out of this. I simply repeat the hope that it will not be necessary for the committee to sit while the house is sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Have I the unanimous consent of the house to substitute the word "twenty one" for "fifteen" in the third paragraph?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Labour


Mr. Speaker:: A consequential change should be made in the last line, which should read:
That standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.
The change is necessary because standing order 67 says that no special committee may, without leave of the house, consist of more than 15 members.
These changes by unanimous consent will give effect to the arrangement made among the parties. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Aye.
Motion as amended agreed to.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
178. Departmental administration including a grant of $10,000 to Frontier college and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,373,104.


Michael Starr: Last night, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said this as reported on page 2835 of Hansard:
When the minister got up with all his power and might to smear this poor fellow who had been trying to earn a living-
Later, he said:
The minister had to come into the house and break the law made by parliament.
Again, he said this:
-if it is your chance to earn a livelihood you can be smeared in defiance of the law by a minister of the crown sheltering under his immunity in this house.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has thus accused me of using my function in an improper way. He has used the word "smear" which is, I submit, an unparliamentary word. He has accused me of breaking the law. He has accused me of doing this behind the shield of parliamentary immunity. The fact is that he himself is hiding behind the shield of parliamentary immunity, and I intend this afternoon to deal with this matter fully, because to do anything less would be an abrogation of my responsibility both as a member of parliament and as a member of the government.
In the first place, these are all trumped-up charges in every sense of the word, as I shall endeavour to prove very fully.


Lionel Chevrier: The law is clear. It is not a trumped-up charge in that respect.


Michael Starr: Of course, the hon. member for Laurier has his own version of the law, because it suits him best to have it, and so have his colleagues.

I would refer now to the report of debates for May, 1960. I said at that time, as reported on page 4033:
It was brought to my attention in December of 1959 that certain instructions had appeared in the official manuals of the unemployment insurance commission which would have the effect of limiting the availability of information to members of parliament whether in the provincial or federal legislatures who were seeking information on behalf of their constituents. I felt that this was an undesirable limitation which was being placed upon members of parliament in carrying out their duties, and I immediately wrote to the commission informing them of my views on this matter.
I then quoted from a letter which I had written to the unemployment insurance commission on January 20, 1960. The letter said this, in part:
I do not see how anything in section 98 could under any circumstances be construed as granting authority for a directive against giving out information to members of parliament.
If there is such a directive, I think it should be rescinded.
Mr. Chairman, the directive was rescinded. It is my recollection that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was among those who applauded that statement most enthusiastically at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister permit a question at this time? If the directive to which he has just referred was rescinded, did he give any consideration to amending the act along the same line?


Michael Starr: There was no necessity to amend the act. If the hon. member for Laurier would allow me to proceed with my statement without any interruption I shall only be too glad to answer any questions when I am finished.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that my statement in this connection was made in answer to a question of the hon. member for Gloucester who wanted to know whether there was any restriction regarding the release of figures to members of parliament. This, of course, had been quickly followed by a supplementary question from the hon. member for Essex East who asked, as recorded at page 4003 of Hansard:
Has the Minister of Labour given any instructions to the unemployment insurance commission or to any government servant that members of parliament are not to be supplied with information that it has always been regarded as a right of the representatives of the people to have?
This question was couched in the familiar rhetoric of the hon. member for Essex East. At that time last May hon. members of the opposition were terribly concerned about the rights of members of parliament to have information. At this time, when a question is asked by a government member, they claim

it is just a planted question and when a minister gives an answer he is breaking the law.
I am dwelling on these points at some length because, as I pointed out, I feel I have a right to do so in a matter involving what I consider to be a libel upon myself as a member and a minister. I feel that I have a right to make whatever explanations are necessary in order to deal with the very serious accusations which have been made. I will go a step further, Mr. Chairman, and say that if such a right is not to be accorded in such circumstances, then I cannot see how it will be possible to carry on business in this house.
I said this also at page 4033 of Hansard of May 19, as part of the context of my remarks:
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that any member of this house will be given whatever information he requests, provided that the information is available and that it is not of a confidential or privileged nature.


Mr. Benidickson:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Kenora-
Rainy River says "hear, hear" and he is quite right.
I want to say that in this instance certain facts were made available by the person himself on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation national program and were used as the basis of a broadcast. In so doing this person removed the veil of secrecy and confidence, if there was any, surrounding his employment record. In view of that, Mr. Chairman, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Cariboo is as follows:
Can the Minister of Labour tell the house the circumstances of Mr. Glen Exelby, who was depicted in the main role of the C.B.C. program "Close-Up" last night, and inform the house whether the national employment service is doing anything to secure employment for him?
I repeat, in view of the fact that Mr. Exelby had made most of the information available, there was no secrecy attaching to his employment record. I supplemented that record by saying that he first registered for employment at the national employment office on September 9. I went on to say:
He had quit his previous employment as a salesman at $6,000 per year and had given the reason that there was "no future".
There is no secrecy about that. I continue:
On November 29 he was referred as a salesman at $350 per month to Service Steel and Engineering in Hamilton.
There is no secrecy about that. He answered an advertisement put out by the C.B.C. requesting a white collar worker for a television program. There is no secrecy about that. I continue:
Supply-Labour
Apparently he was successful in obtaining this employment and I am informed that it was remunerative to the extent of $25 per day.
There is no secrecy about that. As a matter of fact, he earned $50 a day. My reply continued:
On February 24 the unemployment insurance commission office in Hamilton offered Mr. Exelby a position as a foreman at Frost Metal Products-
There is no secrecy about that, nor is there any secrecy about anything in the reply I made to the question asked by the hon. member for Cariboo. I further said, as recorded in Hansard of March 9, at page 2810, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Welland, as follows:
Is it possible for the Minister of Labour to procure information regarding the employment record of a person registered with the national employment service if he is requested to do so by a member of parliament?


Michael Starr: I think it is evident that the hon. member for Welland refers to the reference I made yesterday in respect to Mr. Exelby.
To that, as I looked at the hon. member for Welland, who is now in his seat, he nodded agreement.


Mr. McMillan:: I didn't.


Mr. Thrasher:: I saw you myself.


William Hector McMillan: I would still like an answer to my question.


Richard Devere Thrasher: You are getting it.


Michael Starr: The hon. member nodded agreement.


William Hector McMillan: I didn't.


Michael Starr: I said:
If that is so, Mr. Speaker, then I feel that if Mr. Exelby undertook of his own volition to disclose his personal affairs in great detail on a national television broadcast and in so doing created a completely false impression, it is quite proper for me to present certain facts of the same nature.
I should like to refer also to my original statement in answer to the hon. member for Cariboo which I completed by saying:
I am very sorry that the program did not reveal these facts also-
-since they were evidently in the process of revealing all of the employment facts of this person in question.
Now, the charge of breaking the law, of course, enters the realm of the foolish and has existence only in the inflamed imagination of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, and I am sorry that he is not present at this time. But this is not the first time that a charge of this nature has been levelled. It is a favourite gambit of the hon. member for Essex East, and I do not believe we have to look any further than that for the

Supply-Labour
origin of this charge. It is a charge which he made last year with relation to the administration of the unemployment insurance fund and now it has been resurrected and trotted out to do its duty once again on behalf of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The statement which I made last May, Mr. Chairman, covers the situation fully.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege. The minister asked that he not be interrupted and I have acceded to his request. He stated that he wanted to make a statement and has proceeded to do so but in the making of that statement he has now charged motives to the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, both of whom are away on important business.
The question of privilege I raise is that the minister complains about the fact that he has been unfairly treated and that unfair charges have been levelled against him but he is doing exactly the same thing with reference to the hon. member for Essex East, who did not raise the question, and also with reference to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who did raise the matter by way of a question on orders of the day and also in the debate. My question of privilege is that it seems to me the minister should not proceed in the manner that he complains members on this side of the house have adopted against him.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I had finished making charges, as the hon. member for Laurier wishes to describe them. However, I must point out that I sat here yesterday and had to listen to many falsehoods and charges which were made last evening.


Lionel Chevrier: They were not falsehoods any more than the statement the minister has made now.


Michael Starr: The statement I made last May covered the situation fully. I indicated my intention at that time of making available to members of parliament and also to members of provincial legislatures information existing in the files of the unemployment insurance commission. There was not a word of objection at that time from anyone sitting on the opposition benches. That statement still stands. This is my policy, Mr. Chairman, and it has been my policy ever since.
Let me point out also that as Minister of Labour I have every right to set such a policy. I had every right in May of 1960 to say that I would make information available to members of parliament. I had every right to make such information available in
[Mr. Starr.l
answer to the question of the hon. and respected member for Cariboo on Wednesday. I also had every right to do what I did last May, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knew very well at that time and as he knew very well last night when he was making his trumped-up charge.
I remind him and other members of the committee of subsection 5 of section 22 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is the section dealing with the employment service. Subsection 5 of section 22 reads as follows:
The commission is responsible to the minister in respect of the administration of this part.
There is no question of interpretation here, Mr. Chairman, no twisting and turning such as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indulged in last night when he attempted to interpret section 98. Section 22 gives the minister full authority in the administration of the employment service and the information supplied to the house was information solely and completely relating to employment, over which the minister has full authority.
As a matter of fact, the gentleman in question was not registered for benefits because his salary in his former job was above the insurable ceiling. The information in question is information that is given out to employers every day right across this country. Does anyone think you can operate an employment service and refer claimants to jobs without telling the employer where they last worked, how much they earned and so on? It is also information which had already been made known through the television screens of the nation but in a form that was far from complete.
Why are hon. members objecting to setting the record straight? The answer to that is quite obvious. They do not want the record to be set straight. The hon. member for Essex East suggested today that an injustice had been done to the gentleman in question. Let me assure him that nothing was further from my mind. The only injustice done has been that hon. members of the opposition have sought to make a political football of the gentleman in question, and nobody deplores these tactics more than I do.
I put certain facts on the record because 1 thought that as a matter of public interest they should go on the record. There was no intention of injuring any person. It was a matter of setting the record straight and that is all.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that if the facts had been fully presented on the television program to which I have referred it would not have been necessary to present the full facts in this chamber. However, once a picture had been presented and that picture was

incomplete it became a duty to present a full picture, and this was done. To say that there was anything wrong in this is, I submit, just sniveling nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister said he would answer questions after he sat down and I did not want to interrupt him because of his request. I would ask the minister what distinction he makes between the information which he divulged to the house in connection with this matter and information which might be divulged to a member of parliament concerning the income tax return of an individual?


Michael Starr: There is a great deal of difference. I want to point out again to the hon. member for Laurier what I said on May 19, 1960, as reported on page 4033 of Hansard. I want to repeat it.


Lionel Chevrier: I would appreciate an answer to the question.


Michael Starr: There is a great deal of difference in this particular case. I said then:
. .. any member of this house will be given whatever information he requests, provided that the information is available and that it is not of a confidential or privileged nature.
I say that the difference in this particular case is that the gentleman in question revealed his employment picture of his own volition over the television system of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that since he did that and made public his employment record there was no secrecy involved in setting the record straight and giving the full picture with regard to his employment record.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that reply but it leads me to this question. Once the veil of secrecy has been lifted in regard to a matter of this kind, even though it concerns the income tax return of an individual, does the minister say that a matter of that nature should be revealed to a member of parliament or to anybody else?


Michael Starr: I think that is putting the question on an altogether different basis. The two situations have nothing in common. If the employment record, as I pointed out, is not confidential or privileged, it can be revealed. If it is, then it cannot. In this particular instance, the veil of secrecy was lifted by the individual himself.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not be long in dealing with this matter but there are one or two questions to which I should like the minister to reply. Do I understand the minister correctly, if an individual lifts the veil of secrecy on a matter such as that to which he has referred-I am putting aside for the moment
Supply-Labour
the income tax return-then, the minister has every right, notwithstanding section 98, to give that information publicly?


Michael Starr: Well, in so far as an employment record is concerned there is not that same sense of secrecy at all because employers right across this country have access to information in employees' records. It is the only basis upon which many of them are prepared to hire people. There is not that same sense of secrecy or confidential nature as there may be in any other matter. The matter of an employment record is not secret to that same extent.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has made a statement about giving it to an employer. Well, giving it to an employer is one thing, but giving it publicly is an entirely different thing and it is contrary to section 98.
I come back to the original question: Does the minister take the view that in the statement which he made he was not in contravention of section 98?


Michael Starr: Yes. There is nothing in my statement of March 8 regarding the employment record of the man in question that is a contravention in any shape or form.


Lionel Chevrier: One last question: Is the minister now going to make public the personal details of an applicant for unemployment benefits?


Michael Starr: That depends on the circumstances of each case.


William Hector McMillan: I should like to ask the minister if he would be willing to make available to me or any other hon. member of the committee the information he made available to the hon. member for Cariboo concerning an applicant registered in the national employment service?


Michael Starr: The hon. member has access, by virtue of the rescinding of a directive in respect of these matters, to any information that is available at a local office.


Mr. Henderson:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I was the gentleman who asked the question. I saw the film and I was not altogether satisfied. My wife was awake all night because she was crying most of the night about the sobsister who had been on that film. I said, "I will find out in the morning when I go to parliament whether or not this is genuine." This fellow should have had a job with D. W. Griffith, and she could have worked for those two actresses we saw on Sunday. She was just as good a sobsister.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one further question? In answer to a question I put to the

Supply-Labour
minister as to a representative of the national employment service taking part in the program, he said he did not know. Has the minister inquired and can he tell the committee whether he has ascertained the facts?


Michael Starr: Yes, I have made inquiries and the officials of the national employment service office in Hamilton inform me that they saw no script and knew nothing of what was going to be in the script.


Mr. Pitman:: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I shall yield the floor to him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member for Laurier, and it is this: It seems to me we have to take a common sense view of this case as put by the hon. member for Cariboo a moment ago. We are really ignoring the important effects of what was done. As a result of what took place the other night, a very large number of people in this country, beginning with the wife of the hon. member for Cariboo, have been distressed beyond words. I think a disservice has been done to the whole situation. It so happens that I have a daughter who is a social worker and I know how deeply these people are affected by the distressing cases that come before them.
In reviewing what has happened we have to have common sense. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to whom I usually listen with great respect, was away below his usual level the other night. I wish he were here today because he is the kind of man who, when he is wrong, will say so. As I say, he was away below his usual level in sneering at the minister. He almost went so far as to say that we on this side were not sympathetic to the unemployed.
In so far as disclosing information is concerned, surely what happened was that Exelby by going on the air, created a situation in which, in the interests of truth and of the facts of life the minister almost had to come to this house and state the truth. I gravely question the judgment of the C.B.C. in this case. When the hon. member accuses the minister of behaving improperly, he seems to me to be ignoring the common sense view. If there was-even the slightest technical irregularity-and apparently there was not, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate appeared to suggest that the minister should have communicated with the board instead of with the representative in Hamilton. Does anyone suggest that if the minister had communicated with the board he would not have secured the information?
Further, let me say a word on the legal aspects of this matter. In law, there are two sides to a question; there is equity as well

as law. I suggest that if there is the slightest technical irregularity from the point of view of a breach of the law, which I doubt, from the point of view of equity what the minister did was justified over and over and over again.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to be drawn
into a debate on this matter, and I do not intend to be. However, I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would not object if I did make just one or two comments on what he has said.
In the first place, I do not believe anybody will disagree with the statement that many people were distressed by what they saw and what they heard. I also want to add that many people were distressed by what the minister said in the house.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment; I hope I will be allowed to say what I intend to say. I am not charging the minister with having made a statement that did not come from the officers of the unemployment insurance. I think what the minister did was to give the house the information which he received from his own officers. On that point, I do not believe there can be any doubt; that is not charging any insincerity to the minister.
What I do say is this, sir. If it was distressing to hear that one story it was equally distressing to hear the other from the minister and because of this event, if any other occasion arises, not necessarily on television but in some other medium such as the press, the minister may get up and give information which is of a confidential nature, and whether it be on an equitable or on a legal basis will make absolutely no difference. The point is this: Was it legal and was it authorized under section 98 or was it not? The contention we are making is that it was not authorized.
I know what the hon. member for Greenwood would say about an infraction of the law if he were sitting on this side of the chamber. I clearly remember one occasion when the minister of justice in another administration was charged with having broken the law because he had not complied with one section of an act having to do with the administration of a board or commission which came within his jurisdiction.
There was no end of attack on the minister of justice at that time because he had broken the law. There is no doubt that there has been an infraction of the law in this case. It will not serve the purpose for the hon. member for Greenwood to say that, although the law has been broken, in equity this is the

way in which it should be treated. It will be for parliament to decide that matter and for others as well.
Let me make one final point. The hon. member for Greenwood said that it was important that the truth be told. I would not for one moment stand here and say that the minister has not told the truth. The point is that the person in question, namely, Exelby, has denied at least one if not two of the statements to a reputable newspaper and has said that the statement made by the minister as given to him by officers of his department is untrue. I therefore say to the hon. member for Greenwood that the truth has not been established. It may well be that some of the statements made to the press by Exelby were not accurate. I simply wanted to rise not so the Minister of Labour will think that I am accusing him but rather to say that I realize that he gave information that came from his own officers; and I repeat, whether in equity or whether in law, it was in breach of the statute and should not be allowed.


William Moore Benidickson: Let us clear up the matter in the committee on industrial relations.


James Stanley Speakman: May I put a question to the hon. member.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor.


Walter George Pitman: I was hoping to begin my remarks on the estimates of the Department of Labour by offering congratulations to the national employment service, and I still wish to do so. I have a good deal to do with officials of the national employment service. I have found them to be most kindly and most effective in their work. One of the things about which I have been most happy is the fact that employees of the national employment service have not begun to act as they *did back in the thirties when there was large scale unemployment and to treat workers who came to them with an air of superiority. I have had much experience with the operations of the employment service and I think it is something for which the Minister of Labour can be congratulated.
However, this is the particular problem which I see in this whole situation before us. I would not go as far as to say that the minister has broken the law. However, I would say that he has committed an indiscretion. He has lowered public opinion across this nation of the national employment service employee. I wonder whether people who go into these offices are not going to be rather concerned about giving personal information to these employees, fearing lest the facts disclosed may be made public on the floor of the house, through newspapers or any other
Supply-Labour
medium. I think we have reached the nub of this whole problem. I congratulate the Minister of Labour on the fact that he changed the directive which would not have allowed members of parliament to obtain information. Surely, members of parliament, when going to national employment service employees and asking for information, regard that information as confidential; and surely people at the local national employment service offices in giving information are not going to expect that their member is going to march into that office, find out some pertinent information and then spread it across the local press. If I believed that, I think members of parliament would go into the national employment service offices on a number of occasions which would embarrass this government. The tragedy of this matter is not that what Mr. Exelby said in front of the television camera was evidently or seemingly untrue. The tragedy is that it has brought disrepute on people who are suffering. If the C.B.C. had looked far enough, I am sure they could have found other people.


An hon. Member:: Why did they not do so?


Walter George Pitman: I am sorry but I have nothing to do with the C.B.C. I would also suggest that the C.B.C. should bear the brunt of this particular criticism. Perhaps at the same time as I say that I should say that we in a sense have created the situation because the unemployed have a fierce pride. They went through the forties and the fifties believing that unemployment would never come to them, that they were living in a democratic state in an economy that would never let them down, that unemployment insurance would see them through. They do not want to go in front of television cameras except, evidently, people like Mr. Exelby.
I know that we have a local board which tries to find the facts about unemployed families, to get the facts from people who are unemployed. What happens? They could not find one single person who would open his mouth. I have heard people say "Where are your unemployed?" We do not see lineups of unemployed on the street. No, they are not on the street. They believe that the day of soup kitchens and line-ups by reason of unemployment are over. This government gave them reason to believe that they were over in the election campaign of 1957 and 1958.
No, we do not have to blame the national employment service. That was not the reason why the statement was made. We have a grave situation for the national employment service. I say that the Minister of Labour went much farther than was necessary. He

Supply-Labour
was asked about the circumstances of Mr. Exelby. The circumstances had nothing to do with what Mr. Exelby said to his former employer when he left the service of that employer, when he said there was no future in this particular line of work as advertising agent or whatever it was; that is the real tragedy.
This is what I am wondering about. We are entering into an era of more and more government concern or more and more government planning. This will depend upon more and more information being given by individuals and corporations. Are we going to lose all concern for the rights of people who give information that can be passed on to others who need that information, such as the record of an employee given to a future employer? Are we not going to be in a position where people will be afraid to give information because of what may appear the next day on television or in the newspapers? Have we lost all interest in and all concern for the individual rights of people in this nation? Are we becoming so thin skinned as a government that we cannot now see anything on television without concern?
Are we going to have people standing up complaining every time there is a C.B.C. play about fishermen? Are we going to have the Minister of Fisheries stand up and tell us that because the hold was only half full it does not really give the picture of fishing on the west coast? Are we going to have this continual defence of everything coming out of television and through the public press? Are we going to have a full scale investigation of individuals who put on interviews for the C.B.C.? Are our skins getting so thin as that? Or is it the thought that parliament is so great that we are overlooked and we now have to defend, whether it is television broadcasts or newspaper reports.


An hon. Member:: We want to get the truth.


Walter George Pitman: In answer to the hon. member may I say yes, we want the truth. But do you ever get the full truth?


An hon. Member:: From the press.


Walter George Pitman: Is not any interpretation only a partial picture from the point of view of that person who makes it? Can you give the history of the employment record of every single person who may be brought before a television camera? I would be the first to admit that that particular incident on the C.B.C. the other night was an unfortunate incident. The tragedy is that it brought disrepute on the unemployed and led people to believe that this was the picture of the

unemployed, given by a man who evidently does not have too great a concern for the truth. That is the tragedy; but there is nothing on television or in the newspapers which is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To that extent I think we have to recognize that we do not live in a perfect world.


Walter Clarence Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, does not the hon. member think it would be awfully easy if they just put on television-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member for Cariboo to resume his seat. That is not a point of order.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I should be very glad to answer the hon. member for Cariboo if he wishes to ask me a question. I am concerned with the truth, and I think all hon. gentlemen on this side of the chamber are concerned with the truth. At the present moment I should say that the truth has been dealt a greater blow through people in this country thinking this is the extent to which the C.B.C. concerns itself with the truth, and to the extent to which the unemployed are led to prevaricate for the sake of-


Walter Clarence Henderson: Last year there was a case in which the woman concerned had to admit it was all false. That was just a year ago. Don't you think-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are on the estimates of the Department of Labour and we are not concerned with broadcasting.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the hon. member for Cariboo that his questions would be better directed to the Minister of National Revenue, because I have nothing to do with these matters. Perhaps we could widen the area of discussion in regard to the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I will talk to you outside.


Walter George Pitman: I think the Department of Labour is going to be one of the most difficult departments in the government with which to concern oneself in the years to come. Mr. James S. Band, deputy minister of welfare for the province of Ontario has suggested that in the next decade automation is going to replace four out of five industrial workers. We do not seem to be able to do anything about our problem of seasonal employment. We realize that every four years we have a period of cyclical unemployment and every time this gets worse. There is a greater number of unemployed after

each of these depressions and recessions, and in fact we never really fully recover from them.
Looking at the estimates of the Department of Labour I cannot see that this department is really facing up to this situation. As hon. members of the official opposition have suggested, this government has not recognized it as a national emergency. I think what we need in this country is a full realization that this is our No. 1 problem. I think we should have a meeting or conference, something on the scale of the Gordon commission, to look at this problem facing our nation and to ascertain what the unemployment situation is going to be over the next ten or 20 years. It should not be just an economic survey but a full scale inquiry concerned with the problem of unemployment. I realize that other surveys are going on, but surely we could project our plans and commitments over the next five or ten years and give this government or whatever government is in power some idea of what is necessary to solve the problem.
Before we can do anything, surely we have to recognize what is going to develop in this country over the next five or ten years. I am convinced that winter works programs, which were a drop in the bucket last year and are this year two drops in the bucket, are not going to be a solution to this problem. The minister suggested that 200,000 jobs were provided by the winter works program, but in one particular constituency, my own, these jobs were on a six weeks' basis. They tried to pass the jobs around to as many people as possible. Does the figure of 200,000 people employed on winter works programs include those people who had just six weeks' work? If that is the basis on which this number was computed, perhaps that is an area where we should have an actual break-down in the number of jobs, the number of people who tok those jobs and the length of time for which they were employed.


Richard Devere Thrasher: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister said in the house that this information would be made available to hon. members.


Walter George Pitman: Thank you very much. I must have missed that. As I say, to consider work on the winter works program is, I think, completely irrelevant. Too often it was not work that had to be done. There is also confusion here which I think is very important affecting the Department of Labour. That is the confusion between work and welfare. Until we in this country gain some respect for work and labour I am afraid we are never going to be able to compete with other countries in the world in our development. One of the
Supply-Labour
things I have come to dislike about the winter works program is the fact that too many jobs are being carried out. In other words, we have the men digging somewhere when that work could be done by a bulldozer with one man. We employ ten men with picks and shovels simply because that way we will employ an extra nine men rather than put them on the welfare lists. Perhaps that is a good thing. In other ways it is not a good thing because I do not think any man has much respect for the service he is giving to his community when he knows he is being employed simply because the government does not want to give him a hand-out in some other way.
This is not the answer to the kind of economic problems we are going to have over the next five or ten years. Even the winter works projects were restrictive. I know one community which wanted to acquire an area for industrial redevelopment. This was not allowed. This was the kind of job which could have been done and in connection with which men could have been employed. But the program was too restrictive and as a result the project was not allowed under the winter works program.
Also, I think that leaving it to the municipalities is not the way to deal with this problem. The municipalities are overburdened with their own problems and the costs of overseeing the whole project are far too great for them. The responsibility should not be left to them.
I should now like to turn to another phase of the estimates of the Department of Labour. I refer to the retraining scheme brought in last session. I supported this retraining scheme with considerable enthusiasm at the time the legislation was brought in. However, I must say that my enthusiasm has been dampened over the last few weeks because I have failed to see anything very dynamic being done in the scheme.
I should like to repeat the words of the Minister of Labour quoted in a news release put out by his department. The minister said:
We are now in a period when we can no longer afford the luxuries of indifferent preparation and use of our manpower resources.
Local school boards and departments of education find it difficult to work adequately in the light of national needs. Business and industry work within their own interests. Without some co-ordinated planning and effort beyond what can be given by ten different school systems considerable confusion will probably be our lot.
Is not that exactly what we have done? The federal government has taken no more responsibility in this regard than simply handing money to the provinces, who in turn have handed it to the municipalities.

Supply-Labour
What kind of co-ordination do we have on that basis? The minister went on to say:
We are in competition with nations of the world where the development of human resources is planned on a broad scale. In these countries the development of manpower potential is given a high priority and technical and vocational training is a continuing process from school through years of employment.
That is the very point. There is no national co-ordination. We do not know where we are going. When a group of unemployed people desire a retraining scheme-and I congratulate them for their enthusiasm-the local municipalities have to deal with the matter. They are interested in the program, but they are also overburdened with their own problems. This is no help to a group of people who have been working hard in one job and want to work hard in another.
Then there is this point. How do the municipalities know what are the national needs? They simply look for something which seems to fit, and you have municipalities training welders when there are already welders on the streets looking for work. If for the next ten years the municipalities were given statistics of the needs, we would have a regulated system. At the moment there are completely unregulated programs going on in little areas-none of which are going in any particular direction with any particular knowledge of what they are doing. In other words, I suggest that we are going simultaneously in a great many directions, spending a great deal of money and, consequently, not getting anywhere.
An example of the type of thing we have been doing is illustrated in Cornwall. I hope the hon. member for Stormont will correct me if I am wrong about this. They are there giving courses in barbering and meat-cutting to a limited number of people. In Brantford, 75 people are taking part in a retraining program in connection with radio and technical courses. I believe there are four courses. One course is for radio electronics and I believe another is for stenographic services.
They have no real knowledge of what they are doing. That is the trouble with this whole matter; there is confusion among the people who are to be retrained in these little municipal areas all over the country. These people will go out and find they cannot even get a job with the new skill they have acquired because this skill is already possessed by thousands of people who are on the labour market. Then there is also the question that automation has taken over in that particular job.
I think this problem has to be seriously considered. It has been said that education is a provincial matter. Yes, education is a provincial matter, but training is not education.

There is a difference between training and education. Training welders has very little to do with culture, very little to do with language and certainly nothing to do with religion. This is an area where a national program should be effected in terms of its organization. Who should be organizing it? Probably the mayor of the city. He, and people like him will be stuck with trying to work this training plan for the unemployed.
It may be an ad hoc solution, but is it a national solution? I do not think so. These people have not the time, and they have no idea what direction they should take. This is one field where you should have specialists, where people who have a real knowledge of the problem should move into the area and relate the needs of those to be trained to the needs of the nation as a whole and then set up a scheme adaptable to those requirements. Nothing of the sort envisaged by the present government is going to provide a solution of that kind. In any event, such a project will cost a great deal of money, and some are going to ask: is it worth it? May I read something written by Lord Beveridge which seems to me to be relevant?
To submit to unemployment or slums or want, to let children go hungry or the sick unattended for fear of increasing the internal national debt is to lose all sense of values.
I certainly agree with that comment. What are the solutions? Perhaps, I might also read the following:
-The state is obliged in as great a measure as possible to provide employment through public works which are useful to the community, and to facilitate, through advice and in other ways, the hiring of those who seek work.
That was a quotation from Pope Pius XII. What is the cost of unemployment? We shall be paying this cost, not so much now as in five or ten years from now. A Catholic service bureau in the Peterborough constituency accomplished a considerable piece of work when it undertook a survey of so-called "down and out" people. The bureau discovered that the great majority of these people had lost their jobs at the age of 35, or 40, and had never really got back into society. Instead they had become a burden to the community and dependent upon the social services provided.
What about the cost to business? We know that the rate of business failures has reached a level not known in the last 20 years. The rate of failure was 18 per cent higher than in January of last year. Doctors find their bills are not paid; teachers find their classes are crowded with people who have no hope of getting jobs and who are cluttering up the education system.

We are still mesmerized by the idea of a welfare state. It is ironic, but we still think that welfare is the answer and we are rushing to try to establish a welfare state at a time when the welfare state is to a large extent outmoded and ineffective in the twentieth century. I am not suggesting that payments now being made should be discontinued, but we have to plan so as to reach a stage where such payments will not be necessary. Let us take the present trends to a final conclusion; we shall find one quarter of the population working and paying unemployment insurance and three quarters of the population collecting it, on the basis of all that is being said about the changing labour markets today. This is the picture, and it is no use talking about socialism and free enterprise, because neither of those words has any reference to realities in Canada today.
We are still mouthing words which have absolutely no connotation.
When the Leader of the Opposition says we can work only in a free enterprise economic structure, that means nothing. We have not got a free enterprise system. No one wants socialism, either. What we do want is an intelligently planned economy which would make proper provision for the needs of our citizens.
I am surprised that so many references have been made recently to President Kennedy. I am surprised at all this enthusiasm for leftwing thinking. The Conservatives here usually regard themselves as being to the political right, but in the United States Mr. Kennedy is now being accused of being in the hands of labour. He is criticized as being too greatly under the influence of whitecollar socialists from Harvard. That is the sort of thing they are saying about Kennedy now.


William Moore Benidickson: Liberal, not socialist.


Walter George Pitman: I am only quoting from the news release I saw. In fact, Mr. Kennedy has congratulated labour on its ethical code and has suggested that business could take a leaf out of labour's book in this respect. Though it is strange to see the government rushing into the arms of Mr. Kennedy it is not without historical precedent, because in the thirties when Mr. Roosevelt was introducing certain reforms Mr. Bennett suddenly became very concerned about what was happening south of the border and tried as best he could to copy what Mr. Roosevelt had done, though he forgot about the B.N.A. Act in the process. So what we have seen in the last day or two is not unhistorical.
I suggest, however, that there is a great difference between what Kennedy is doing and what we are doing here. Even though we may have taken some of the steps Kennedy 90205-6-183
Private Bills is taking, those steps, however well inten-tioned, solve nothing because we never carry them out with imagination, or feeling, or enthusiasm. We simply go through the motions, mouth a few phrases and take a few faltering steps. Our efforts to put on a bold front are not convincing, and I am afraid that the kind of leadership being provided today by Mr. Kennedy is not the kind of leadership we are getting here in Canada.
Until new concepts have been adopted it is idle to look for any real change in the estimates of the Department of Labour.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I may intervene to comment briefly on what was said earlier by the hon. member for Laurier. If I remember rightly, the hon. gentleman quoted me as saying, in relation to what the minister had said, "Although the law has been breached-" and so on. What I intended to say, and what I think I said was: "Even if the law has been breached in some narrow, technical way-", Of course, the minister did not think it had been breached at all.
Progress reported.



LOTTERY


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: the second reading of Bill No. C-18, to provide for a Canadian lottery.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill to the house, I cannot help remembering the many remarks made to me since I first mentioned my intention to have lotteries made legal in Canada.
Like my colleagues, I appreciate that, according to the letter and spirit of the Criminal Code we now have in Canada, it is illegal to organize, promote or allow lotteries. It is not my intention to recommend any infringement of the law. On the contrary, it is by submission to the law that we can best serve our political and parliamentary institutions. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because I am a staunch upholder of the law that I am moving this bill to have certain lotteries legalized.
This project first came to my mind when I was given a brief by the Joliette local of the national syndicates in 1958, recommending the establishment of a national lottery.

Private Bills
I have also read in the press that the international brotherhoods of railway employees have recommended a government lottery. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the establishment and operation of a Canadian lottery and sweepstakes. The bill provides that the governor in council shall appoint ten members of parliament to serve without pay as a commission; the commission would use the staff, property and facilities of the Canadian government and crown corporations to carry out its operations. After allowance for prizes, profits are apportioned among family allowance recipients and so on.
And then you could add to this bill-this is a matter of detail in case a lottery should become legal in Canada and a national lottery was established-that tickets could be sold through post offices, "caisses populaires" or banks.
As you all know, some time ago a large daily newspaper in Quebec, that is La Presse, investigated the matter and found that 98,780 people were in favour of a provincial lottery and 149 were against it. That was an unprecedented success.
I am sure that if La Presse had carried out such an investigation to find out whether the public was in favour of a national lottery, their success would also have been an unprecedented one.
La Presse certainly deserves to be congratulated for calling the public's attention to the matter, while making it possible to debate the matter and find out how it rates with public opinion.
I shall not go over all the arguments that were brought forth again and again in favour of or against a national lottery. I am fully aware that you know them as well as I do. I only want to point out that at one time lotteries were allowed in Canada and that the people who bought tickets then were not any more venturesome or reckless than the people today. There were quite a few lotteries, such as the people's lottery, the province of Quebec lottery, the popular lottery, the Mount Royal lottery, and all those lotteries paid thousands of dollars to the lucky winners, while the promoters collected thousands of dollars, generally used for charitable purposes.
I am not suggesting that the authorities of the time were wanting in foresight when they decided to prohibit lotteries in this

country; nor am I suggesting that they were prompted by petty interests that had nothing to do with the lotteries themselves; I shall merely point out that the situation has changed since then.
Today, lotteries are illegal. And what happens? Tell me frankly. Is there any member in this house who has not been offered at some time or other lottery tickets from other countries? I shall not ask those who have bought tickets to rise, but you know as well as I do that this country is full of agents for foreign lotteries who sell millions of dollars worth of tickets annually and who drain our money out of the country. And yet hardly a month goes by without the papers reporting that Mr. So-and-so, perhaps the brother's father or Miss So-and-so won the grand prize in the Irish sweepstakes or the Navy lottery. In every case it is our dollars that are going out of the country. In our estimation about $90 million in Canadian money go to foreign countries every year. In my opinion, we must put a stop to that bleeding of the Canadian people's money to the profit of other countries.
Our people are neither more evil nor more timid than others, and they are as fascinated by games of chance as the people of France, the United States or South America.
Our people like to risk a few cents, even a few dollars, and that is so much money going out of Canada.
Don't you worry, our laws will never prevent our people from betting. They will bet on horses, boxers, hockey games and baseball games. There are even some who bet on federal elections.
The bill I have the honour to introduce in the house is not designed to encourage vice or make people spend. Such an idea is very far from my mind. This bill is based to some extent on the desire of our people, as elsewhere in the world, to bet on things that are particularly unpredictable, but where the element of chance can be reduced through serious study.
Between you and me, a bet is always a bet, and those who indulge in that game must be prepared to lose as well as to win.
Lotteries are the expression of that instinct people have of taking a chance, and often the risk is very slim in proportion to what it may yield.

Private Bills
In allowing the organization of national lotteries in Canada, for certain charitable or social purposes, or as mentioned in this bill to increase family allowances, the Canadian parliament would, at the same time, keep in Canada those thousands of dollars now going abroad, which would represent an important factor in our economy.
However, there is one thing we should not overlook. In order to be successful and efficient, a real lottery should cover the whole country. In fact, if the federal parliament decided to pass legislation to allow the provinces to organize lotteries within their territory, we would then be faced with a terrible problem of displacement of funds.
Just imagine for a moment that Quebec and Ontario should organize lotteries, in order to help hospitals or for other charitable purposes, while other provinces would not. What would happen? You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that people of those provinces having no lotteries would hasten to buy tickets in provinces where lotteries exist and you would then have, within the country, important movements of funds, which might jeopardize the financial position of provinces having no lotteries. Such a situation would hardly be desirable.
However, this does not mean I am opposed to provincial lotteries.
Therefore, I believe that if the bill I have the honour to introduce is adopted-and I do hope it will be, naturally-I think the federal parliament will have to arrange for a huge national lottery to be held in order that all Canadians, from coast to coast, may have the opportunity of taking part in it. With one stone, we could kill two birds. We could help finance the charitable organizations selected, or attain such other purpose as may have been designated. Participating Canadians might have a chance to get the lucky ticket.
Here are, in a few words, Mr. Speaker, some of the reasons which prompted me to submit this bill. I wish we could all study it in the same spirit and with the same open mind.
I would also be grateful to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bell) if he would, in the course of this debate, let us know what he thinks of this bill and the establishment of national lotteries in Canada.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the two hon. members who have placed
90205-6-1834
on the order paper resolutions to allow lotteries in Canada. I refer to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) whose bill is now before the house, and the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie), who is unfortunately kept home by sickness.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had to say. One can disagree with the views expressed by the hon. member in connection with the bill introduced today, but that is not the point. At this stage of the second reading of the bill, it is the principle of the legislation that should be discussed. And it is in that light that I want to talk briefly about the present bill.
The assertion of the hon. member that wagering and betting are here to stay cannot be denied. According to the hon. member, bets are taken even on federal election results. I would add that it is also the case with provincial election results. Perhaps the hon. member could have said more about this.
Mr. Speaker, like many other members of this house who are interested in this matter I am thinking of all the things that are needed in Canada, particularly in the provinces, and of the steps that could be taken to bring about new sources of revenues. Speaking of lotteries, one can admit nowadays that no genuine principle stands in the way of a lottery. I will even go a little further. Reference is made to an amendment to section 179 of the Criminal Code. That section to all practical purposes is inoperative at this time. Why then should we delude ourselves? Why not face the problem?
If I remember correctly, one of our learned professors of political economy, Mr. Edouard Montpetit, told us one day during a lesson on public economy: "The best law in the world becomes inoperative if it is not based on the psychology of the masses". It is quite clear that today-and we should be fair enough to admit it-we ourselves take a hand in foreign sweepstakes, whether they be Irish or English, in defiance of section 197 of the Criminal Code.
In these circumstances, I think we must be realistic and consider that question on the basis of our needs.
My hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm mentioned the poll initiated recently by the newspaper La Presse in the province of Quebec. It is quite revealing that close to 100,000 people who gave their name and address, expressed their wish to see a lottery organized in Quebec. That brings up a very important consideration. I see many problems at this time in the establishment

Private Bills
of a federal lottery. We must have regard for the views expressed by some provinces which do not seem prepared to agree. Well, in Quebec, we are ready and I do not see why an amendment to the Criminal Code could not be introduced permitting the establishment of a lottery in order to give effect to the wish expressed by the people of the province of Quebec.
In answer to a question I addressed him recently, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) replied that as a matter of fact, he had exchanged unofficial communications with some premiers on the matter of a lottery. On the other hand, the premier of Quebec stated himself recently that he had talked the question over with the Minister of Justice.
If Quebec taxpayers are in favour of this idea, if the legislature of the province of Quebec is in favour of a lottery, I trust that the premier of Quebec will make a formal request for it to the federal government.
During the discussion on the Canadian bill of rights, several hon. members would have liked to have a national bill of rights, and we recall that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) then said: "For our part, we are ready. There are certain provinces which apparently are not ready yet. So, we will take the lead."
And, to go one better, at the recent federal-provincial conference the Prime Minister said to the premiers: "You will now have the task of finding your income sources in your respective provinces."
Consequently, this is a way to enable the people of Quebec to get organized, a way to meet their wishes and their needs.
Since we have to decide at this stage on the principle of lotteries, I trust that all hon. members will wish to make known the assent of this house. This is a popular question in Canada today.
May I point out to my hon. friends that many newspapers report the reactions of many Canadians to the effect that there is nothing more deplorable than certain bills submitted to this house being talked out without any decision being arrived at.
On this question of lottery, why should we not take our responsibilities, why should we not adopt today the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm?
I do not wish to unduly lengthen this speech but in conclusion, I simply want to read a few lines from an item that appeared in La Presse of February 15, following a public poll held in the province of Quebec. The article reads as follows:
Quebec is in favour of a lottery and that is something that the people's representatives, whether they sit on municipal councils, in the provincial legislature or in the House of Commons, must or should realize. Since that poll enabled the taxpayers to enlighten their representatives, they in turn, are bound to inform their governments and bring the necessary pressure to bear upon them.
Is there any need to spell it out? That question is beyond all party politics.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I wish to say that, to a certain extent, the members are bound by the wish or will of the taxpayers when it is clearly indicated.
Well, those of us particularly who are from Quebec, have received a very clear mandate to try to obtain, through our pressures and requests, that section 179 of the Criminal Code be amended, in order to allow the establishment of a lottery. That is what we are doing today, that is what I, for one, am doing, and what I intend to do whenever the opportunity arises. And I hope, as I said a moment ago, that before long the province of Quebec, through the action of its legislature, will submit to the government of Canada an official request indicating the wish and will of the province of Quebec to establish a lottery in that province.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: About 230 years ago an English writer, Henry Fielding, turned out a verse that expressed some opinion on lotteries and it might be well to lead off by reading that verse:
A lottery is a taxation Upon all the fools in creation;
And heaven be praised It is easily raised.
Credulity's always in fashion For folly's a fund,
Will never lose ground,
While fools are so rife in the nation.
This is a most interesting bill that the hon. member has introduced. I think perhaps the most intriguing part of it is that it would tend to encourage something which we had on a much larger scale in Toronto in the thirties when everyone there was much exercised about the baby derby. There were prizes put up by a well known Torontonian which led to a test amongst the mothers to see who could have the most children in so many years. This was a rather outrageous situation

but it led to giving the popular press a great deal of scope for publicity and we certainly learned a lot about the problems of mothers who have children on such a regular basis.
The purpose of this bill would really be to provide funds for those parents who had large families-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is the hon. member in favour of this bill at this point?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am going to give the subject fairly complete coverage and I will tell the hon. member where I stand. It seems to me that the purpose to which the lottery would be dedicated is such a highly specialized one that I feel I could be much more sympathetic to the bill the hon. member introduced last year. As he will remember, that bill was linked more directly with charitable purposes. In so far as lotteries are concerned, it seems to me any lottery is a form of gambling. The participants pay money for the privilege of trying for prizes which are given on the basis of chance. There is no skill or cleverness required. Such sweepstakes are based completely on chance.
A prime example of this practice right across the country is the game of bingo. There are all kinds of games going on at the present time that are very much like this game of chance. I think everybody in the House of Commons knows that one is continually being solicited to buy tickets for hockey pools, football pools, the Irish sweepstakes and the very well known Quebec sweepstakes. The point of my remarks is that gambling seems to be inherent in the human nature. There was an article in the Montreal press the other day based upon the theory that the four men who had been murdered in recent weeks were tied up with the numbers game racket. I believe that is some form of lottery.
Surely there is not an hon. member who has not some organization in his home town that is dunning him to buy a ticket for something like an afghan, a bond or a car. The prevalence of these things in the world today is tremendous. If, as Fielding said, lottery is a taxation upon all the fools in creation, then Canada is loaded with fools. The whole question seems to be involved in the approach the hon. member is taking and I think, myself, that in so far as the problem of football pools is concerned-which seems to be involved in the negotiations between Mr. Lesage and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton)-we should put this on some kind of legal basis and get the most out of it.
Private Bills
The question as to whether it should be put on a legal basis is the real crux of the matter. We can look to examples in other democracies that have a longer tradition than our own. At the present time in Great Britain the equivalent of the Minister of Finance has his own field of lottery because if you buy government bonds you are entitled to participate in a draw and if the serial number of your bond is drawn you may earn a substantial sum of money as well as invest in the nation. Ever since 1934 Sweden has had a semi-official lottery and the proceeds are used to support certain charitable institutions. In Britain itself there are the football pools which are an example of a lottery. Some of us think there is an element or a modicum of skill in it, although I think it is capable of exaggeration. When I was in England for several years I enjoyed playing the football pools. I looked forward to the regular custom early in the week of filling out my chart. I do not feel it harmed me or any of the millions of the people in Britain who take part in these particular football pools.
The main reason for the banning of the old lotteries, especially in England in 1823, was the triumph of puritan middle class morality. The other factor that was involved was that legalized forms of gambling of another kind connected with dog racing or horse racing came into effect and the jockey clubs have always been the bitter enemies of the lotteries because they siphoned off a great deal of their take. I have always been amused by the fact that horsemen improving the breed for racing purposes must depend so much upon the gambling revenue that comes in from the tote machines, the pari-mutuel or whatever the system may be. There is nothing wrong with this, and it has been established as a legal form of gambling in Canada for many years. What is the difference between gambling on a horse and buying a ticket on a lottery? Apparently it is the modicum of skill that is involved. I have not met so many successful horseplayers who were satisfied with their skill that one could be really sure on this point. This seems to be the only distinguishing mark we can make between buying a lottery ticket and taking a flyer on a horse.
Here again the British are much more liberal and open about this. It is possible to get in touch with a bookie very easily at the racetrack, the corner store or at some official betting agency. Again, I do not believe Britain has had any great moral breakdown or corruption as a result of this form of gambling, that is what you might call the skilled kind of gambling. This would suggest

Private Bills
to me that those who feel that the legalization of lotteries would lead to a break-down in morality are all wrong.
I do not feel that the reasons for the strong opposition to lotteries by the Protestant sects are so related to theological subjects as they are to certain moral rules. Superficially, it might appear strange that religious groups stressing the freedom of the individual to choose his own means of finding God and insisting on the individual's right to worship in his own way should be their brother's keeper in the field of morals. A similar attitude was once noticeable toward insurance, card playing, dancing and still exists toward the drinking of alcoholic beverages. We still have within the protestant sects moral rules that condemn these practices.
I think all who have looked at it historically are aware of the fact this is part of the puritan tradition which is over four centuries old and which still has a great deal of vitality in this country. I think Homan Catholicism tends to take a less jaundiced view of drinking and gambling, perhaps assuming from its long history that these are minor vices.
The Catholic and Protestant attitudes are pertinent to any assessment of the chances for legal lotteries in Canada because strongest support for them comes from Catholic Quebec, strongest opposition from the organized Protestant clergy in the rest of Canada and from newspaper editors who follow their lead. If hon. members want illustrations of this fact, they could go to the various reports of committees which were held and which went into this subject fairly thoroughly. They will find that most of the strongest opposition to lotteries came from mostly ministerial spokesmen for the Protestant groups.
Clergymen and newspaper editors are very influential in swaying legislatures. However, it is also a fact that the moral code of today is less stern than it was 30 years, 40 years or 50 years ago. I think many of us who have followed the newspapers would agree that the newspaper editors have not led the way in relaxing the morals code. In the advertising pages I think there has been a move towards relaxation but not in the editorial pages. I think the same thing holds good in so far as the protestant clergy are concerned.
In recent decades the province of Quebec has taken a great interest in lotteries and several times the provincial government there has tried to have passed bills that would make them legal. The Criminal Code is drawn up by parliament in Ottawa. However, it is put in practice through provincial attorneys general. I think this is one reason

why, if you get a province that takes a lenient view of lotteries or raffles, it is unlikely that you will ever get any lottery promoters prosecuted. I think this is why in Quebec you have so many lotteries or raffles. I know that the few times I have been in Montreal during the hockey season there seemed to be a bewildering variety of lotteries or hockey pools in operation. I think the same situation applies in almost all big cities.
The last time that lotteries were a big political issue in Ottawa was back in 1934 when the Senate sent to the House of Commons a bill that would have let provincial authorities set their own course with any lotteries designed for aiding hospitals. I have here copies of that bill and I actually intended to introduce the same bill this year until I discovered that my intention had been, let us say, preceded by the intention of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). In 1934 Mr. Bennett was prime minister and Mr. Mackenzie King was leader of the opposition. They let it be known that the whole matter was going to be decided on a free vote. The measure was defeated, 105 votes to 57 votes, with almost all the support coming from Quebec members. The vote might have been closer if Mr. Bennett and Mr. King each, as private members, had not spoken against it. Mr. Bennett stressed that his decision was based not on "absolute right or wrong", but on the fact that lotteries had a sorry history, as indeed they have back in the 19th century even in Britain and in Italy. Mr. King was concerned, as one might imagine he would be, knowing the delicate nature of his sensitivities, with the unsettling nature of lotteries. He said:
What we require in the affairs of individuals and of the nation is less of uncertainty and more of certainty ... less of reliance on chance and luck, and more reliance on judgment and effort.
That is in context the Protestant ministerial moral line on the whole matter of lotteries. Mr. King went on to state a theme that ran throughout the entire debate of the subject:
There is no doubt that much of the distress of the times has come about through excessive speculation . .. for too many people . . . have got into the habit or relying upon chance and gambling in one form or another.
The Canadian parliament, influenced by the great crash of 1929 and the subsequent depression, identified the basis of sweepstakes with stock-market speculation. As Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, leader of the C.C.F., put it, if one decried the one, one had to decry the other; that is, if one was against playing the stock market, one pretty well had to be against the idea of the lottery.

Actually, the vital difference between a sweepstake and a stock market speculation is that the latter, like bridge-playing, chess, or even betting on the horses, allows some room for skill or inside knowledge. For some reason, this tends to give such forms of gambling a superior prestige over the forms that are based on pure chance. Depending on the prosperity of your society at the time, there is greater or smaller concern over the fact that no matter how skilful the speculation, it is true in most cases that someone has to lose. One should remember that at one time the insurance business had to be conducted secretly because it was considered to involve forbidden wagers against the outcome of events. Even joint stock companies were once held by religious authorities to be immoral organizations just as, I am sure all members of the house know, at one time Christianity condemned usury or the taking of interest.
In any discussion of the fundamentals of gambling one must come to grips with a mystery called nature. Nature, or the unpredictability of such things as weather and man's behaviour, has always made much of each person's life a gamble, or better, left it open to chance or luck. This is an element with which we are all extremely familiar. It is the common denominator of the whole human experience. I refer to this question of luck or chance. I think it is instinctive with us as human beings that we are willing to take a chance. I suppose the greatest gamble of all is what Haskell used; that is the greatest gamble was related to the belief that God existed. But whatever the case may be, we as human beings are always prepared to take these risks. Yet because of Puritan and moral concepts, we have hesitated to legalize these things and to set up any framework through which we can take decent advantage of them.
I would put it to members of this house that Fielding's remarks about lotteries being a taxation upon all the fools in creation may have some validity; but what sort of tax upon our foolishness is the situation in which four men are murdered in one of our modern cities because they are mixed up with something that is conducted below the level of the eyes of the law? It seems to me that we have strong grounds today, in judging human nature and the Canadian situation, for saying that it is time that we had lotteries and that we used the revenue from them for good and sound purposes. I can think of a number of sound purposes that are obvious; for instance in connection with hospitals, medical research and sports as the British and Swedes do with their football pools, with their general amateur athletic enterprises.
Private Bills
In other words there are any number of good things that we could choose for our lotteries and I think such lotteries would strike the common denominator and interest of all Canadians.
Since 1946, the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion has held polls of public opinion on the question of government lotteries. In the first poll there was a majority of only 52 per cent but in the recent ones the appeal has become stronger and stronger. I have just forgotten the exact figures with regard to the last one, but it now appears that almost two thirds of Canadians whose opinions have been sampled by this particular organization would be in favour of some kind of lottery. One of the things that frightens me-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the hon. member whether he is talking about lotteries with some public objective or just lotteries in general?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am talking about lotteries with a public objective; that is to say lotteries sponsored by the government. One of the problems in connection with legalizing lotteries is this. We might have the prospect of a whole host of various provincial lotteries.
This could create a great deal of difficulty. It would create difficulty, for example, if we had enabling legislation, through the Criminal Code, allowing provincial attorneys general to support this measure. We could have, say, a massive lottery for hospitals in Quebec. In order to reach out and give the lottery the widest possible financial basis they would be selling tickets right across the nation, one would hope and perhaps one would expect, and yet we would be faced with a problem something like that of the question of coloured or non-coloured margarine because these tickets would be going into other jurisdictions.
For that reason I feel strongly that if we are going to have a government lottery it would have to be somewhat along the line set out in the hon. member's bill; that is, something on a national rather than a provincial scale. But we would hope that the benefits of the lottery would go to institutions that might fall within the provincial framework.
Of course, one of the most important questions in relation to legalizing lotteries is this. What will legalized lotteries do to the illegal lotteries which support so many charitable and group association endeavours at the present time? It seems to me that this is something about which we know very little. An inquiry would almost of necessity have to be undertaken in this connection before we supported a measure such as this on

Private Bills
third reading. It we did have a large scale legal lottery in Canada, where tickets were sold across the breadth of the nation, what would this do to the church bingos, the ladies' raffles and even the political parties raffles? I know that all three political parties in our part ot the country have at various times conducted, or are conducting raffles or lotteries of a sort. This question, of course, is something that I cannot assess.
However, I do not think a well established national lottery based upon something such as the Grey Cup or the Queen's Plate classic in the spring, or events such as these would necessarily interfere with local lotteries that are carried on at the present time and which in many places are the lifeblood of service clubs and associations.
I know that in our city every spring there is a contest sponsored by a reputable service club in which one has to guess when the first ship is going to arrive in the harbour. I understand that in one of the western provinces there is a very large lottery in connection with when the break-up is going to hit a certain place on the river. We do have these lotteries. My own feeling is that a national lottery based on three or four events would not cripple the lotteries held by other organizations.
In conclusion I should like to mention something about the British premium savings bonds. This is a form of government lottery. One of the odd things is that the Canadian government allows these British bonds to be sold in Canada. They can be purchased through a Canadian bank for dollars and any prize money will be paid in dollars. I understand the top prize is $14,000.
In other words, here in Canada you can play the British treasury's bond game. That is another example of a breach that has been made in this question of lotteries being illegal. It seems to me that we have here another instance of a situation where we are ready for legislation that recognizes the interest of the Canadian people on this whole question of lotteries.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for sponsoring the bill. There is one part of the bill about which I and some of my colleagues are in a little doubt. That is the matter of whether the reward or surplus from the lotteries should be apportioned among family allowance recipients according to a scale that increases with the number of children in the family who are qualified to receive allowances.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. The hon. member is no doubt aware that a lottery is held among members of parliament, and

he has direct control over the result. The lottery is based on when parliament will end.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am quite aware of that. I am sure the hon. member also has some responsibility. I understand that government members are much more interested in this lottery than are hon. members of the opposition. Perhaps the hon. member would answer my question as to why that should be.


Thomas Miller Bell: We do the
guessing and you do not; that is the reason.


William Moore Benidickson: You introduce the legislation, sometimes late.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this bill I should first like to say that I do not see any difference between lotteries and many other activities that are carried on today in our country. In this connection I share the same opinion as service clubs and many other people throughout the country.
Everyone is free to dispose of his money as he sees fit. It has been argued that life itself is a gamble. Whether you invest your money in trade, on the stock exchange or any other avenue of activity, you certainly take a chance. I do not think there is anything wrong in the principle of spending a little money on a lottery, say to the amount of one or two dollars a year. I will go further and say that in years of expensive living such as we are going through, there is something to be said in favour of allowing a person to introduce into his life the element of hope and ambition that comes to him from spending a little money on a lottery.
I remember buying a ticket on a car lottery. I paid $1 for the ticket and from the time I bought it to the time the car was raffled I dreamt all day that I was going to win that car. I received a great deal of enjoyment out of the dollar I spent on that ticket. I do not think it did me any harm, and I am sure that, like myself, many people received enjoyment although they did not win the car either.
We often read and hear about the Irish sweepstake results. I am very happy that many of the people who win are not in the rich class. As a result of being fortunate enough to win the sweepstake they are able to enjoy a happy time for the rest of their days. We also read that older people have been able to enjoy happiness for the rest of their lives through winning a sweepstake.
I feel that a lottery under government control, where a great share of the profits would go to the establishment of hospitals, their building and maintenance, to those people who are in need of welfare, to building homes for the aged, or to some other useful public

service, would be of great public benefit. The fact that the law governing lotteries is not being obeyed by the public proves that it is not a popular law. You cannot enforce a law that is against popular opinion.
You can trade on the stock exchange, you can bet on the horse races, or you can take part in the games of chance at fairs. You can do these things as much as you like and there seems to be no harm in them; there is no danger of demoralizing our young people. But when you buy one or two tickets on a lottery conducted by a public organization, it is said that our young people are being poisoned morally and socially.
I mentioned betting on the horse races. My hon. friend mentioned this and he said it was a matter of skill. I have been to the horse races and I have placed a $2 bet on the horses. I have seen other people bet $2 on the horses. Well, I did not collect very often. Sometimes you receive $4, but most of the time you see people there who cannot afford to be betting. They are betting on these horses coming in, and they cannot really afford it.
I am not by any means against horse racing, but I would draw to the attention of hon. members that if we are going to have one form of gambling, why cannot we have another? I have mentioned the games of chance to be found at fairs. That matter is a disgrace to this country. I am certainly against this type of betting. You go through these fairs and come to the barkers at the side-shows. You cannot get away from them. You take your family to the fair and go to the sideshow and you hear the barker say, "Come on over and win. I will give you a free chance." You see there people who cannot afford to spend their money in this way. They walk over to the barker at the sideshow and he says, "Here you are; now pick up a clothes pin". The fellow reaches over and picks up a clothes pin. The barker gets all excited and says, "Yes, you are fortunate You have just won $25. It has not cost you anything. Now, if you give me $5 you can have another clothespin to take off, and you might get a hundred." He gets another off, and the man says: "that is wonderful; now if you go on you have a chance of winning a wonderful wristwatch". It can go on like this for hour after hour, and I have seen ladies crying when they left those stands because their husbands had spent every penny in their pockets. We can allow this kind of thing yet we cannot allow people to spend a dollar on a sweeepstake ticket. What harm would there be in allowing the sale of sweepstake tickets at a dollar? You might win $140,000 and get some enjoyment out of it.
90205-6-184
Private Bills
By legalizing lotteries in Canada we would first of all ensure large sums being made available for the maintenance of our hospitals and educational institutions, funds from a source which today contributes absolutely nothing to these purposes. In the second place, such a law would allow people to do legally what they are today doing illegally.
I am referring, of course, to small pools on the results of hockey games, bingos and the like. In the third place, such legalisation would, to a large extent, stop the spending of Canadian money on tickets for lotteries run by other countries.
A lottery run under government supervision would mean honest and absolute control. It would attract to Canada millions of foreign dollars. It would supplement the dollars now being contributed by the taxpayer and bring millions into federal and provincial treasuries. In 1931 about $20 million was awarded in prize money in the Irish sweepstakes. More than $7,300,000 went to hospitals from the sale of tickets. We have hospitals and homes for the aged in this country. I read in the paper the other day that the city of Calgary has no more room for the sick in its hospitals and that cases have to be sent to Edmonton. We need hospitals, and how better could we raise the money than through sweepstakes restricted to once or twice a year, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) suggested.
A royal commission formed to inquire into the sale of Irish sweepstake tickets in the United Kingdom found that the total sales in connection with the first eight sweepstakes amounted to approximately $90 million. That will illustrate how much money goes from one country to another when events of this kind are involved. If we permitted sweepstakes to be made legal in our country we would see this money coming into our treasuries to provide help for hospitals and other much needed projects.
No one can convince me that the spending of from $1 to $5 a year on lottery tickets by any citizen of this country will tend to demoralize him, his family or his neighbours. I wonder if the people who oppose lotteries have ever been shocked by the hopeless outlook of those of our fellow citizens who have lost their last nickel and mortgaged their future by gambling on the stock exchange, the grain exchange, the mining exchange and similar institutions. The hon. member for Port Arthur suggested that people were gambling on these things. Others say that a great deal of skill enters into it. That may be so, but after all there is skill attached to horse racing. However that may be, the percentage of people who gamble on these

Private Bills
exchanges when they clearly have not got the required skill must be very great.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that if he continues to speak the house will be unable to vote on the principle of this bill?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am sure the hon. gentleman is in favour of this bill. He has expressed his views and I believe he would want me to express all of mine. I have got a number of my views across so far-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: There has been a very interesting debate on this subject. Many good points have been raised. While I am sorry I have taken this extra minute or two, I think we have drawn some important opinions
to the attention of the house and while this measure may not come to a vote today I am sure the knowledge of all hon. members has been increased a good deal as a result of this debate.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I take it it is six o'clock. Perhaps I could ask the leader of the house whether the business as announced last night for Monday and Tuesday and the rest of next week is confirmed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we can be sure that the announcement of business for Monday and Tuesday stands.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Boulanger: What has been the amount of subsidies paid for milk to the following condensed-milk processing firms: (a) Carnation Limited (b) Trino Limited (c) Dominion Exchange Dairies, during 1958, 1959, 1960?
Question
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
The subsidy of 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk used for manufacturing purposes is payable only to milk producers. The factory or factories receiving milk for manufacturing purposes, acting as agents of the agricultural stabilization board, pay the 25 cent subsidy and after proof of payment are reimbursed by the board. No subsidy has therefore been paid to the condensed milk processing firms referred to.
90205-6-184J

Monday, March 13, 1961