1961-07-13

MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN CIVIL SERVICE REPORT

Hon. Gordon Churchill (for Mr. Fleming, Eglinton) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission, concerning certain employees of the House of Commons, laid upon the table by Mr. Speaker on June 29, 1961, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the house will allow me to make reference to the fact that in the gallery there are present today members of the Nigerian trade and economic mission composed of Hon. Chief F. S. Okotie-Eboh, the Nigerian minister of finance, Hon. Z. B. Dipcharima, minister of commerce and industry, Hon. J. C. Obande, acting minister of works, and ministers from the three regions of Nigeria who represent their country on this mission.
Nigeria is one of the greatest of commonwealth countries, having newly achieved its autonomy. The Prime Minister of Nigeria at the last prime ministers' conference revealed something of the great capacity and ability and power of leadership that are his. Nigeria is a bulwark for the commonwealth. I am sure the house will join in extending the warmest welcome to these representatives. Through the chief, the minister of finance, we convey to the people of Nigeria the warm affection of the people of Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be permitted to associate our party with the words of welcome the Prime Minister has extended to our distinguished guests from Nigeria. We welcome them not only for themselves but because they represent a great new independent African state with which we are privileged to work in close co-operation as fellow members of our commonwealth of nations.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to associate the members of this group with the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the distinguished and colourfully attired delegation from Nigeria. I do not think any delegation coming to the House of Commons has received a warmer welcome than this delegation has received this morning. Nigeria, of course, represents a new sovereign nation amongst the nations of the world, and I think represents in a very real way the future of the world in that it represents emerging nations. It demonstrates the basic and underlying strength of the commonwealth. I am confident that in the future our relations with Nigeria will be strong and close in every respect.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the house at least an interim report on the conversations with the secretary of state for Commonwealth Relations of the United Kingdom.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, there have been preliminary discussions between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Right Hon. Duncan Sandys. These conversations will continue today between four ministers of the government representing Canada and Mr. Sandys, and at the conclusion a report will be given to the house. What I could give at the moment would not be helpful, for there has just been the beginning of discussions which are going to continue for a day or more.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Leeds which reads as follows:
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the government has received any

Inquiries of the Ministry communications since June 20, 1961 from representatives of the international monetary fund criticizing or questioning this government's action in forcing down the exchange rate?
I would say that no communication has been received by the Minister of Finance or by myself.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR REPORT ON LABOUR DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Labour whether he has now received a telegram from Robert Smeale, the business manager for C.A.L.F.A.A. and whether or not he has any comment to make on the charges made in that telegram?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received a telegram from Mr. Smeale and I have replied to his telegram as follows:
Retel eleventh industrial relations and disputes investigation act provides for the making of complaints alleging unfair labour practices in the form prescribed by section ten of regulations under act. All such complaints received in department undergo prescribed procedure. However it was understanding of my officer, following your protest of May twenty-eighth, that it was not your intention to proceed further. While filing of complaint is completely within your discretion I would suggest that parties are following most constructive course in attempting to settle dispute concerning wages and working conditions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister has anything to report on any developments in this dispute, and whether he thinks there is a real possibility of a settlement.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by Mr. Remi Duquette, the chief Montreal officer of my department, that the meetings between the parties that have been going on for some days have been now adjourned and that both parties have agreed to meet with him again on Tuesday, July 18 at 10.30 a.m. The adjournment was for the purpose of allowing both parties to review the situation as it now stands. Mr. Duquette has said that although talks have not been conclusive, they are encouraging.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschate-lets) asked me the following question:
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
Is the minister aware that several hundred employees will be laid off at Dorval as a result of the granting of a lubrication service contract to an American firm?
The answer is as follows. On July 1, an aircraft fuel feeding pipe system was inaugurated at Dorval. That service is operated by a Canadian company, the Consolidated Refuelling and Services Limited, which is incorporated in Canada and controlled by Canadians. The inauguration of that system has brought about a reduction in the number of tank car operators employed by the various fuel companies at Montreal's international airport. However, we understand that the employees in question have either joined the staff of Consolidated Refuelling and Services Limited or have been given other positions by the companies for which they work.
(Text):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister yet received a report on the construction of the proposed Chignecto canal?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisler of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker.



P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON FEASIBILITY STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he has yet received a report on the feasibility of the Prince Edward Island causeway?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, when I receive a final report on either one of the studies I will be very happy to inform the house.



MONTREAL-GEORGIAN BAY CANAL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON FEASIBILITY STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether the interdepartmental study authorized several months ago by him to restudy the studies made in earlier years regarding the engineering and the economic feasibility of

the Montreal-Georgian bay canal has been completed, and can he make any comment at this time?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the study has not been completed as yet.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say when he expects the study will be completed?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire into the situation thoroughly before answering that question.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice which arises out of a statement by the clerk of the privy council with reference to the recent exercise Tocsin, that it took about 23 minutes from the time the Prime Minister received a warning from the chiefs of staff until the proclamation under the War Measures Act was sealed by the Great Seal. I wish to ask the minister whether in fact the War Measures Act had been declared to be in force, under the provisions of the act?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it this was an exercise and the remarks of the clerk of the privy council must be taken in that light, that a hypothetical sealing of the proclamation was carried out.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's statement in the house on July 11 that the civil service commission has followed the policy of granting regular leave to full time civil servants only, would the minister care to comment on the fact that as far back as ten years ago the civil service commission advertised positions for part time stenographers in the Ottawa papers and offered sick leave and holiday benefits?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for sending me a copy of his question. Unfortunately I received it only a few minutes before the opening of the house, so I will take his question as notice and will answer it as soon as possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



WITHHOLDING OF BENEFITS DUE TO ABSENCE FROM AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister will recall that there were some 13 individuals who had come to Ottawa in the march of the unemployed and who lost their benefits for that day. They subsequently appealed this, and the appeal was turned down by a split vote.
I have now received a letter informing me that on June 20 last these 13 claimants were advised that their further appeal had been referred to Ottawa for disposition by an umpire and they would be advised of the date and time of this hearing. I should like to ask the minister whether he can inform the house the reason for such unwarranted delay.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this matter lies within the jurisdiction of the umpire to whom appeals are made. He has the final decision in these matters. I must advise the hon. member that I have no jurisdiction over his activities or how he handles these cases.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Would the minister say whether it is a fact that the government has now decided not to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act this session?


Michael Starr: No decision has been made. When a decision has been made, the course to be followed by the government will be announced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says no decision has been made. How then does he explain the announcement in the speech from the throne that the government was going to bring in an enactment amending the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Michael Starr: As I said earlier, no decision on this matter has been made. When a decision is made there will be a policy announced by the government as to the course which will be followed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then the announcement in the speech from the throne means nothing.
7990	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether it is the intention of the hon. lady before this session is concluded to introduce the revisions to the Immigration Act which were forecast in the speech from the throne, and whether a firm decision had been made by the government to do so before the speech from the throne was read.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to introduce these revisions at the earliest possible moment. We are still working on them. I cannot indicate the time or date when they will be brought forward, but it certainly is our intention to bring them forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I may ask the hon. lady a supplementary question. Does the hon. lady consider that these amendments have the same urgency which she and her colleagues thought they had in 1957?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member I think I should draw attention to the comment I made some time ago, to the effect that many of the welfare organizations and immigrant aid services in Canada have asked us to go slowly in this regard in order to give them an opportunity of thoroughly studying the situation themselves.



REQUEST FOR LIST OF OUTSTANDING RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he can now give a progress report to the house in respect to the formidable task he undertook the other day of compiling a list of the returns ordered by this house which have not yet been complied with.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have already produced a partial list. We are progressing and will try to compile the rest of the returns as soon as possible.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of


Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is prompted by a lady corespondent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -correspondent. In view of the historic interest of the site where Dollard des Ormeaux defended Montreal, located at the foot of the Long Sault rapids just east of Hawkesbury on what is known as the old Ross farm, and in view of the fact this site will soon be lost by flooding due to the Quebec hydro project under way at Carillon, would the minister indicate what representations have been made to the Quebec government or Quebec hydro to have this site protected from inundation?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am grateful to the hon. member for having given me notice of this question, which involves considerable research. I wish I were as sure as he that the Ross farm site is in fact the site where Dollard des Ormeaux is said to have fought so heroically the battle of the Long Sault. This is one of the most stirring pages in Canadian history, and if it were possible to bring this page to life once again through a positive identification of the actual site, I assure the hon. member that I would want to explore all possible ways to preserve it as a part of our national historic heritage.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that at best the Ross farm site can only be said to be one of a number of possible locations where the battle may have taken place. A large body of archaeological opinion favours the Carillon site as the actual location. Historians support the viewpoint that Dollard's last stand took place at the western end of the lac des Deux Montagnes.
Mr. Thomas Lee has done some thorough archaeological investigation of the Ross farm site. The evidence unearthed is extremely interesting from a general archaeological standpoint. However, the artifacts located there do not go back beyond the early nineteenth century and indicate that the site in all likelihood was a portage encampment, one of the several portages on this reach of the Ottawa river.
This background information has been made available to both the Ontario and Quebec governments. However, in view of the inconclusive evidence I feel I have no justifiable grounds to attempt to delay the progress of the Carillon dam construction project through representations to the government of Quebec or the Quebec hydro electric commission.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-
1 ingate): Mr. Speaker, following the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Amid the many other urgent discussions that he has had to undertake since he became minister, has he had time to determine the exact place of Cabot's landfall which is urgent, sir, because of the minister's forthcoming visit to Newfoundland?
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that I shall leave for continuing discussion among the academicians, and I think I can include the hon. member in that category.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the minister.
(Translation):



COPYRIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister indicate to the house whether the government intends to take action this year on the recommendations put forward in the report of the Ilsley commission on copyrights, patents and trade marks, including the revision of existing legislation and the putting into force of the Universal Copyright Convention, something which was also recommended by the royal commission on publications?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to acknowledge the courtesy shown to me by the hon. member. Here is my reply. First, with regard to the Copyright Act and copyrights, the problem is under consideration and I trust that within a short time we shall be able to take a step towards the ratification of the international convention to which the hon. member has referred.
With regard to industrial design, we have a plan that is almost completed, and I hope to place it before the cabinet within a short time so as to implement the second recommendation of the Ilsley report.
Inquiries of the Ministry
With regard to the third recommendation, the matter is still under consideration and not much headway has been made. However,
I think the hon. member will appreciate that this is a very important and very tricky matter. In any event, we are going ahead as quickly as possible.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Lafreniere (Quebec-Mont-morency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the intention of the C.N.R. to acquire trucking companies, which obviously would mean a dangerous competition for private enterprises?
Could the minister also tell us whether the government intends to take definite steps with regard to that matter?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated in this house, the board of directors of the C.N.R. is responsible for the administration of the company, and the government cannot interfere directly in administrative matters.
Like all major transportation concerns, the C.N.R. officials feel it would best serve the company's interest to diversify its methods of transportation.
As to the competition which some people may feel would be prejudicial to other transportation companies, this is a matter to be determined by the provincial transport board, which will have to decide whether to grant or refuse a transportation permit to the company concerned.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the government's decision with regard to the presidency of the Canadian National Railways?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has already been said.

Civil Service Act OLD AGE SECURITY



REPORT OF DR. CLARK-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has yet been able to complete his study of the Clark report.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, the study has not as yet been completed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister now give us some indication as to when the study will be completed, and does he expect to have it ready by Labour day?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the government has anything to announce in this regard it will be made known to the house.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Postmaster General? In view of the fact that the minister boasted of having made an innovation installing plastic letter boxes, could he tell the house why is it that out of 580 new boxes installed on the island of Montreal since 1958, only three are plastic boxes while 577 are metal boxes of the old type?
(Text):


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, these were experimental types of boxes which were installed right across Canada in all major cities. As a result of the use of these boxes we have made certain changes in the design, and we hope to have a plastic letter box improved and styled again for test. Unlike some of the suggestions of the hon. member, we like to know where we are going and be sure of our ground before we spend public money.


Azellus Denis: I admit that you do not go very quickly.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada -Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.

On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned yesterday I was speaking on clause 1. In reading Hansard this morning I note that part of my remarks, where I was referring to the 1918 act, are reported without any interruptions. I regret that the enrichment offered by way of interruption of those remarks by the hon. member for Greenwood is not recorded for posterity. My remarks had relation to certain interjections he was making, and it is regrettable that the interjections are not on record. However, perhaps he will put the substance of them on record later in this debate.
In the concluding part of my remarks I was dealing with the matter of bilingualism as it had been treated by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I had suggested to them that I thought their treatment of the subject was not as objective as the subject itself, a very important one, deserves, or as objective as the members of the special committee were in dealing with the matter.
The point I was seeking to make, with particular reference to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, was that he had confused references to the two languages or to bilingualism with racial or ethnic origin, which is not the point at issue. The special committee attempted to deal with the subject of the necessity in this country of in fact using two languages as required, and it accepted the proposition that the spirit of confederation on this point had to be honoured. That was the approach of the committee, and I thought it was a very good one.
In dealing with the matter the hon. member did not treat it in that way at all. He spoke about the ethnic origin of certain persons in the civil service. So far as I know the civil service commission has never been charged with the responsibility of ascertaining the ethnic origin of Canadians being employed by them, and I for one hope that will never be the basis of selection for the civil service of Canada but that the basis of selection will be merit and the test of citizenship or ethnic origin merely Canadianism.
In other words the only proposition I can accept on that subject is that once a person becomes a Canadian citizen he is a Canadian citizen with full rights, and there are no distinctions as among Canadian citizens. Perhaps it is a trite way of putting it, but I take the position that once we have citizenship no matter by what process, whether through naturalization or by birth, we are Canadians one and all and we must not be kept in separate categories by reason of

ethnic origin. For that reason I was seeking to make a critical reference to the hon. member's argument on the question of bilingualism.
If I understood his French correctly, and on this point I think I did, it seemed to me that he was referring to French Canadians much of the time instead of referring to the French language and the necessity for bilingualism. To me there is a very important distinction. If he merely used the terms interchangeably or carelessly I have no objection, but if he was seeking to use the terms deliberately to indicate that the civil service commission must seek to ascertain the ethnic origin of persons being selected for positions I would take objection to that and say that the test must remain bilingualism, that that test alone is the proper one and ethnic origin is not the test.
The subject is a large one and quite complex. The committee did have some rather good presentations made to it. Le conseil de la vie francaise made a presentation and I thought the discussion in the committee on the whole subject was very good. I also want to point out one other weakness in their case. They took certain segments of the civil service and tried to make a statistical approach to the numbers who are bilingual in given branches. The weakness of that should be readily apparent. If you take a small branch you can come up with statistics that will show that practically all speak one or the other of the two languages.
It must be acknowledged that the necessity for the two languages is greater in some parts of the country than in others. There are problems like that. The point I wish to make is that if the statistical approach is to be used, the over-all picture must be considered. They should not select one branch or another. When that is done problems arise. You may be dealing with technical subjects in relation to which the educational system throughout the country is such that applicants from one part of Canada would seem to enjoy preference because their educational qualifications better suit them for certain positions.
This problem is interrelated with the whole question of education and training. I hope we can develop a solution to the problem on a broad scale. I hope the development of the solution will take full cognizance of the need for encouraging educational institutions in various parts of the country to provide the type of education that will better qualify applicants for some positions. I believe all hon. members would agree there is need for more and better training in the field of public administration as well as in the technical and scientific fields, and that this has a bearing
Civil Service Act
on the number of bilingual persons employed through the civil service in any particular branch. That is all I shall say on that subject for the moment.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member passes to another subject, would he indicate at what page I may find the reference to the remarks he attributed to me a while ago.


George James McIlraith: I listened to the hon. member's speech very carefully. I have not marked my Hansard because I did not receive it in time to peruse it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise only to point out that the hon. member appears to be confusing me with the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm. I think the hon. gentleman has attributed to me words used by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, words which I have not uttered in this chamber.


George James McIlraith: I am quite satisfied to accept the hon. member's explanation in toto. If I have in any way attributed to him words he did not utter I completely withdraw my reference. The hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm, when speaking, did raise the question in my mind. It may have been merely a careless reference on his part or it may have been intentional. The point is that if it was an intentional reference I wished to direct attention to the approach I feel should be taken in this matter. I wished to reveal my views on the point. I believe it is an important point in the long term, because it is related to a continuing situation and is dependent upon many factors, one of which is education.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona delivered a speech in which he seemed to indicate that he desired more direct ministerial control of the civil service. I was unable to gather how far he wanted to go in this respect. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not here to hear my remarks on this point. His comments were certainly capable of giving rise to the interpretation I mention. He appeared to be pressing for more direct patronage influence in appointments. If he did not mean that, I have no desire to insist on placing that interpretation on his remarks. On the other hand, if he did mean it I wish to point out to him that the original Civil Service Act attempted to get away from that sort of thing. I think it is the desire of most hon. members in all quarters of the house to continue to avoid controls of that nature. If I am correct in interpreting the hon. gentleman's remarks as representing a plea to return to that condition, I would

Civil Service Act
expect that hon. members on both sides of the house would not desire to support the hon. member's position.
There are many references in the bill to matters of major importance with which one is tempted to deal. One of the most important is that of the relationship between the government and staff organizations in the civil service. This represents a difficult and complex problem with which we shall deal in a detailed way when we consider clause 7.
Clause 7 as sent to the special committee was in my view inadequate. The committee was successful in having an amendment inserted, and the bill as it now appears before us is considerably improved over the bill that was sent to the committee in so far as the question of staff consultations is concerned. A long argument could be developed concerning whether or not the procedure for staff consultations is adequate. I do not like the word consult in that context, because I think it is imprecise and inadequate. I shall argue that point a little later.
Clause 10 relates to the subject of pay and allowances. This clause together with clause 7 raises the old question of the rights of civil service bodies to negotiate, to engage in arbitration and other related rights which may be discussed on the specific clauses. Another matter that is raised is this. Once this bill becomes law I feel it should be reviewed from time to time by a committee of this house. When I say "from time to time" I mean reasonably frequently because we are, through the growth of the civil service, moving into a period when the concepts of the civil service and of arbitration are changing. I am not wholly satisfied with the clauses as they now exist in the bill, and wish to see how they operate. I am grateful to the extent that they modernize the act, but I wish to see them examined and kept under constant review. If the government continues to have responsibility in this field, which I expect it will not in the light of forthcoming events, I hope the question of pay and allowances will be kept under constant review. Government needs to be ever watchful of the independence of the civil service commission.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member departs from that point would he be good enough to indicate how frequently he thinks review should be made? The hon. gentleman has raised an interesting point. I am sure it would be useful if on the basis of the hon. gentleman's experience he would indicate to the committee how frequently review should be made. Would the hon. gentleman suggest that it should take place every five or ten years?


George James McIlraith: I do not think it would be proper to give a dogmatic answer to that question in terms of a precise number of years. In a period when the cost of living is increasing and salaries reflect those increases, the question of pay and allowances becomes of acute interest and requires review more frequently than in a period when the cost of living is static and pay and allowances do not constitute an acute problem. If government is careful in its relationships with the civil service the need of review is not as urgent as it is when government is careless in those relationships. In any event, I am not talking about an annual review. I also think ten years would be much too long a time.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: We are talking about a review of the act.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member wants to crowd me into a somewhat dogmatic answer, I would say that probably three to five years might be the period of time.


Richard Albert Bell: We are not talking about review of pay and allowances.


George James McIlraith: No; review of the act.


Richard Albert Bell: We are talking about review of the act and procedures in the act.


George James McIlraith: It was a review of the act I was talking about. I picked out the pay and allowances matter only as an illustration of the type of subject that could be important.


Richard Albert Bell: Quite so.


George James McIlraith: I want to make that clear; it is review of this whole act. The clause of the Heeney report I wanted to read is this. By the way, I should at this point make it clear that the Heeney commission was a commission or process started by the former government and continued by this government. In debate yesterday there seemed to be some confusion on that point, but I think there is nothing at issue on it.
Paragraph 61 on page 23 of that report of the civil service commission of Canada on personnel administration in the public service reads as follows:
Although it is not, perhaps, widely appreciated, it seems to us that the independent status of the commission in matters of pay and conditions of work is as important a characteristic of our system as its independence in relation to appointment and promotion. In its recommendations on pay, the commission is no more subject to government direction than it is to influence by organized employees. It is as immune to outside pressures as the law can make it. Its sole duty is to reach, within the framework of accepted principles, conclusions based on objective examination and analysis through its pay research bureau and such other sources as may be available to it.

What I wanted to point out here was the need for constant vigilance in order to see that this condition continues. This is a very important matter. I do not wish to rethresh old straw, but I had a difference of opinion with the Minister of Finance having to do with this very subject. Regrettably we did not have an opportunity of debating that matter fully because of the form in which the matter came before the house. However,
I thought he was less objective or less vigilant than I would have wished him to be in his appreciation of the necessity for preserving the independence of the civil service commission on this point and related points.
Holding that view, I wish to stress again the necessity for continuing and continuous vigilance to preserve the independence of the civil service commission in its work. If we do not do that; if it becomes a mere agency of government as opposed to an independent commission with its independent guarantee in its performance of the duties with respect to the public service which it is created to perform, then we will have indeed indirectly undone the very thing we are seeking to do and to continue by this legislation.
There is another point of considerable importance that I wish to mention. Of necessity the authority of deputy ministers has been increased. My colleague the hon. member for Ottawa East yesterday put on record the dangers arising from patronage within the service. While we have in this bill increased the powers of deputy ministers and deputy heads of departments, I am not convinced that we have come up with a wholly satisfactory solution by way of appeal procedures to protect all civil servants against improper use of that power. In setting up appeal procedures and methods of protecting individual civil servants against the abuse of that power it is very easy to get a cumbersome kind of system that will impede the work being done and the internal efficiency of administering the service. There is presented a complex problem which I recognize at once.
On that point I am not satisfied that the bill as presented embodies a wholly happy conclusion. I shall therefore content myself now with asking for continued vigilance on the part of all members of the House of Commons to see that, if administration of the act reveals the necessity for a strengthening of the appeal, arbitration and related procedures in relation to this subject, the bill is brought back to this house or forced back to this house and the necessary action taken. From my point of view I thought our solutions were not quite as adequate as they should have been, and there is considerable doubt and uncertainty in my own mind as to just what the future holds in that respect.
Civil Service Act
I hope my fears in this connection will never be realized' but will be proved wrong. None the less, I would be less than frank if I did not say that they were there. I observe that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Miller Bell: Go ahead.


George James McIlraith: There are some other remarks that perhaps could be made.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCIeave):: The
hon. member's time has now expired. Is it the pleasure of the committee to give further time to the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I do not wish to abuse the good nature of the committee on this question of using more time than is provided by the rules. However, I have a few more remarks to make and I will try to abbreviate them.
There is the question of holidays. Changes had to be made for two main reasons. There are new problems in this field. The new problems arise out of the universal acceptance of the five day week since the original act was passed. It seems to me that a great many members of the committee failed to realize that the five day week, as a universally accepted proposition, is really in the final analysis comparatively new in relation to the 42-year history of the former act. It is something that has developed only since the end of the war and really in the last very few years. That consideration presents new problems in drafting legislation on the subject of holidays.
Then there is another problem that has arisen in connection with holidays. I refer to the very swift expansion of the civil service, particularly during the second great war. The civil service has gone into activities which, by their very nature, involve shift work and work of that nature other than office work to a far greater extent than was the case at the time of the 1918 act. Those two changes, with the effluxion of time, have created problems in relation to holidays for the different segments of the public service of Canada. When you are dealing with administrative staff and office staff it is quite a simple problem, but it can become a very complex problem where you are dealing with shift work, overtime pay and other related facets of the subject.
I am not sure that our committee came up with an adequate solution of that problem. I hope that again the commission under the regulations will be able to work out something that is satisfactory. We had some reference to this problem in the House of Commons in connection with the Post Office Department. I put a question to the Postmaster

Civil Service Act
General in relation to the July 1 holiday, which happened to fall on a Saturday this year. I thought his answer was less than adequate or satisfactory in dealing with that matter. It points up the need for a thorough job of work to be done by the commisison in working out the kind of regulations that will grant the holidays that are in accordance with our modern ideas on this matter of employees having to work overtime hours on holidays and allow them the necessary overtime pay or compensatory leave. It is a complex problem and there is perhaps no point in pursuing it further at this moment, other than to indicate that in my view the committee did not by any means reach a wholly complete or satisfactory answer on the subject. I hope the commission may succeed, through regulations and application of the legislation, in doing what the legislation itself may have failed to do.
There is one other major problem with which I think I should deal. It arises under one clause of the bill only but it does have general application to the whole civil service. I refer to the provision in the legislation having to do with the appointment to the civil service of ministers' secretaries and executive assistants. The bill contains a clause that as far as I am concerned is quite unsatisfactory. I want to deal with it here only in its relationship to the general problems of civil service administration. I will have further remarks to make on the subject when we come to the particular clause.
Under the bill as now resubmitted to the house, ministers' secretaries and executive assistants are eligible for appointment to the civil service after three years' service. The former legislation provided only for secretaries. I have no objection to enlarging that provision to provide for both private secretaries and executive assistants, but I must issue a warning on this one point. I think experience and an objective examination of this subject will back me up.
It now becomes possible for a government through this back door method, if I may use the term, to place some 40 new civil servants in the public service of Canada each year after the government has been in office three years. I think there has not been a sufficient realization of the significance of this provision. It does not take many appointments of this kind to lower the morale in a particular department, because they interfere with the expectancy of promotion. If this power were to be used as is provided in the bill before us, it could indeed do much to destroy morale in the civil service. The point-


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. member would just bear with me for a moment. The existing legislation has one limitation in this regard. This is not a precise way of expressing the limitation, but it is that when a minister leaves the department or dies-


Thomas Miller Bell: There is no limitation now on the number of people.


George James McIlraith: There is no limitation on the number of people, but in the existing legislation it is limited to one secretary-and if I may use this term, that cuts it in half-when a minister leaves a department.


Richard Albert Bell: No.


George James McIlraith: I will be coming to the precise terms of the act in a moment. I have the act here. My point refers to this removal of any limitation on the right to appoint those persons. I think it is important that those persons have the right to be appointed. However, I think that right should be subject to a further limitation, something in the nature of the death of a minister, a minister leaving a portfolio or leaving the government, something of that sort, so it would not be possible to have a continuing flow of ministers' secretaries and executive assistants from a particular minister in charge of a particular portfolio into this channel.
I am open to suggestion on the form of that limitation, but I think there should be a limitation in the clause of the bill similar to the former one; otherwise it could be very harmful to the morale of the civil service and much damage could be done to the civil service by this clause as it now stands.
The hon. member for Greenwood had a question he wished to ask me on the point, and I am afraid I cut him off.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question was just this. Is the figure of 40 used by the hon. member a theoretical figure, or is it an actual, realistic figure? Does that not imply that people holding these positions are going to be resigning year by year by year? It is just the figure of 40 that I wish to understand.


George James McIlraith: It is only a round figure. There are 22 cabinet ministers and the Leader of the Opposition, making 23 in all. The number could be 46 right now.


Richard Albert Bell: After three years.


George James McIlraith: Yes, but the government has been in office three years now. There could be 46 of these persons at the moment, and immediately this bill is passed-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member hear me out, please. If I am correct in the

number of cabinet ministers, 46 of these appointments could be made the day after this bill becomes law. Then you could repeat that process-


Thomas Miller Bell: It is after three years.


George James McIlraith: I wish to differ with the hon. member for Carleton. I was trying to avoid dealing with this difference at this stage;
I would rather do it on the clause. The difference turns on interpretation. The difference between the hon. member for Carleton and myself is this. The hon. member for Carleton says this could only happen each three years. I differ in my opinion on that. I say it could happen more frequently; I say it could happen every year. In any event, even if the hon. member is right my point is still the same if this could happen every three years.
For the purpose of answering the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood I wonder whether I could take an illustration. I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in her seat, and I am sure the charming lady would not mind if I used her for the purpose of illustrating this point. Immediately this bill became law she could have two persons put into her department under this provision. I presume they would be appointed to her department. That is a reasonable assumption based on past experience. She could have two persons appointed. That is a proper thing from the point of view of those persons and I do not quarrel with that. However, we must realize that it does interfere with the expectancy of promotion within the department.
Of course if the minister were moving to another portfolio, if she were moving to the other place or leaving the government for one reason or another, these private secretaries and executive assistants would be left in a very awkward position after devoted service in the public service of Canada. I wish to make it very clear that I have no objection to them being appointed in those circumstances, but if this method were used by the minister-and I do not suggest she would have any such motive-as a means of putting persons into her department, it could be quite badly abused and could destroy the morale of the department or be very harmful to it.
I do not know how many executive assistants the minister has, but she could have more than one. I wish to point out that the legislation does not restrict her; there is no statutory restriction on the number of private secretaries she may have, as I read the whole of the legislation. That comes to the nub of the difference in point of view between the hon. member for Carleton and myself. If the
Civil Service Act
minister has more than one private secretary, she could keep this process going indefinitely. If she has only one, of course she would have to appoint another person, and she could only repeat the process every three years. But even that would be a very severe thing. Suppose she were minister for six years. She might have put four persons into the department, and that could be a very severe blow to the morale of the department. As a matter of fact the hon. lady might take the case of the previous government, which was in office for about 22 years. Even accepting the argument used by the hon. member for Carleton it can be seen that some ministers could have appointed 14 persons to the department. In my view there is no doubt that this would have totally destroyed morale in the department, because it would have removed the expectancy of promotion on the part of departmental employees.
So this is a point which is of major importance to the whole subject, an importance which it is perhaps not appreciated by some hon. members. I do not hesitate to say it should be dealt with when we come to the clause concerned and that some restriction should be placed on this right to appoint. It should at least be made dependent on the minister leaving his portfolio, or leaving the ministry.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the hon. member not agree with me that the phrase "for which he is qualified" would have an effect on this procedure?


George James McIlraith: No. It has a very limited effect. It is not a significant protection. That means he is coming in from outside the department. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that we have a person within the department besides the minister's appointee, and that they are both equally qualified. The effect of placing the minister's secretary in the department removes the expectancy of promotion from the one already in the department who may have had every right to expect a promotion.
So this right to appoint ministers' secretaries is something which must be carefully used or it could be very harmful. The bill as it is submitted to us and as it is now before the committee, has removed some of the restrictions which were formerly part of the law on this point. I am not recommending that we should return to the precise wording of the former legislation, because the former legislation is too narrow in that the right was restricted to the appointment of one person.


Thomas Miller Bell: No. The hon. gentleman has said on a number of occasions that the former legislation restricted such appointments to one. But he is, of course, aware of

Civil Service Act
the ruling of the Department of Justice which indicated that the expression "private secretary" included associate private secretaries and assistant private secretaries. The net result was that there was no restriction in the old legislation on the number of persons from a minister's office who could enter the civil service through that channel.


George James McIlraith: Yes. I think the hon. member for Carleton will agree with me that what is attempted in the bill is to be more precise with regard to the point he has mentioned. The measure is, in that respect, an improvement because the language used is more precise and direct. I may say that in 1918, as far as I can find, the term "executive assistant" was rarely heard of. It is like so many titles placed on jobs in the service, some of which are new and ingenious. In any event it is a very popular title now.
I have no objection at all to the bill covering the two persons in the minister's office. I think these persons in the minister's office should be completely and adequately protected. But I think, consistent with doing that, it is not necessary to put in any language which is so loose as to be capable of permitting an abuse. One minister abusing this clause and taking advantage of the opportunity to use it improperly could practically destroy morale in the whole department, and that would be a most serious thing to do. It would materially hamper the effectiveness or the efficiency of any government.
I wish to thank the committee for granting me the indulgence of extra time, and in closing I should like to repeat the reference I made at the beginning of my remarks to the objectivity of those hon. members who served on the special committee which dealt with this subject.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to say a few words on the subject. I really do not think the hon. member has any reason for concern in the situation he has envisaged. I can assure him, and I believe my colleagues are in much the same position as I am, that competent executive assistants and private secretaries are so hard to come by that we are not anxious to have them leave our offices for employment in the department. Moreover, any employment within the department which would be attractive to them would be on a level where there would certainly be major competition.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make a correction in yesterday's Hansard, when I spoke on this bill. My correction applies to both the French and English versions of the official report.

As reported on page 5 of the appendix to Hansard for July 12, 1961, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) asked me to repeat the exact figure which I quoted to the house a few moments earlier as to the average French-Canadian representation.
At the time, I thought he was asking me in what proportion the French-Canadian representation had fallen off during the period from 1950-1958. In the case of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the figure was 0.7 per cent. That is the figure I quoted to indicate the French-Canadian representation in that department. That is not correct, since I know that as far as that department is concerned, the proportion of bilingual Canadians has increased, though I do not remember by how much.
(Text):


Mr. Crestohl:: I should like to make one or two general observations with respect to statements which have been made by hon. members, with a view to eliminating as far as possible any sense of discrimination because of language, race, colour, creed or religion.
We are, of course, proud that Canadian civil servants enjoy such a world-wide and eminent reputation for honesty and integrity. We are all proud of that whenever we travel and have occasion to talk to people abroad. We are happy, and justly proud, to learn of the fine reputations that our civil servants enjoy. I am sure, too, that the civil servants themselves wish to be completely sure that at no time does the question of discrimination creep into any of the considerations which come before them.
I see from Votes and Proceedings of June 26 that the standing committee has recommended an amendment which deals to some extent with the subject. I am not speaking directly to that particular clause, but I would point out in a general way that the amendment addresses itself to the civil service commission. It calls upon the civil service commission not to discriminate against any person by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion. This applies to the commission itself.
To my way of thinking that amendment is perhaps a little superfluous. It is, perhaps, not necessary; but I am satisfied to have such an amendment on the record, though I have seen nothing to indicate why it should be called for. I suggest generally that a precautionary measure of the same sort should be taken with respect to the civil servants themselves. There was an incident a short while ago when a civil servant expressed himself in a way which could indicate that he might practise discrimination. I hope, as

we come to consider this bill clause by clause, that I may have the opportunity to introduce an amendment to remedy that situation.
Members of the civil service very often occupy positions in which they have to make judgments and decisions in respect to matters which come before them. If a civil servant has any prejudices because of colour, race or religion, this would impinge upon his sense of impartiality. Therefore we should, if we possibly can, address ourselves to the civil service to prevent individuals from exercising or practising any form of discrimination. That is the observation I wanted to make in addressing myself to the civil service, against whom I say there is no criticism to be levelled in this regard. It was just the one incident which happened which led me to mention this subject, because it could provoke among members of parliament the fear that if there is one such individual there could well be others.
As I indicated a moment ago, and I propose to offer an amendment, the act should perhaps contain a provision that if any civil servant practises discrimination or is known to practise discrimination because of race, colour, creed or religion he shall be deemed to have exposed himself to the dangers of sanction and, perhaps, dismissal as a civil servant. I hope the committee will bear with me in this regard, because it is not a matter of politics or any consideration other than that which should be unanimous among members of parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words I should like to express at this time with respect to this particular measure. I want to associate myself first with others who have been calling on the government to accord to civil servants the right of bargaining collectively with the appropriate arms of the government in order to establish hours of work, salaries, holidays and other associated working conditions.
I should like to pay tribute to Canada's public service. I believe there has been developed in this country over the years a civil service which is second to none. I think we have within that service many thousands of citizens who are devoting their talents with, on some occasions, real sacrifice to the public good. I think all members of parliament from time to time should acknowledge the very great service that is being rendered our nation by these our public employees.
I do regret very much that at times there seems to be widespread condemnation of the public service, and regret that hon. members sometimes use words that might be interpreted as a general assault upon the civil service. I should like to take exception to
Civil Service Act
the words of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, because I feel he made rather sweeping charges about our civil service. At one point in his statement he was talking about the former government becoming arrogant, and then went on to say as reported at page 7966 of Hansard for July 12, 1961:
The whole service had got a little too stuck in that way of doing business. In some respects it had taken on some of the characteristics of its bosses, and a complete change was needed.
I do not think there is any ground whatsoever for such a general accusation. I have had a very moderate amount of business with the civil service, yet have not noticed any change in the attitude of public servants with the change in administration. I think a public servant who is a good public servant before a change in government is an equally good public servant after a change in the administration. Rather than tearing down public servants I think we should acknowledge what is the fact, namely that Canada has built a civil service that is a credit to this nation, a civil service that should be defended by members of parliament.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can inform the committee as to what encouragement in general is being given by the government to bilingualism in the civil service. Statistics have been placed on the record from time to time, and it will not be necessary to repeat them in detail, as to the proportion of civil servants who are bilingual in the various departments. Some of these statistics are contained in the "memoire du conseil de la vie frangaise", which was presented to the standing committee of this house, at pages 7 and 8 of that presentation.
I do not speak this morning to hurl any widespread criticism at this government or any former government, but merely rise to express the point of view that in a nation which is bilingual, with approximately one third of its citizens of French origin, we should be able to give greater recognition to this basic fact than we have been able to do as a nation to date, particularly in respect to the statistics regarding our civil service.
The statistics to which I refer comprise a comparison between 1951 and 1958, showing the changes which have taken place. Whether those changes tend to meet the point I make to some extent, or move further away, they cannot be blamed wholly on this administration, nor am I endeavouring to blame them wholly on the former administration. I should like to know, however, whether the parliamentary secretary can indicate any up to date statistics in respect to the proportion of civil servants of the various departments who are bilingual. I should like to know whether there

Civil Service Act
are statistics available beyond 1958 which establish a trend since that year toward bilingualism among our civil servants.
When the committee met the hon. member tor Timiskaming made what I thought was a very constructive suggestion. He suggested that real encouragement should be given to civil servants in all departments, working and resident in all parts ol Canada, to become bilingual, and that they should be allowed as part of their working time to take a certain number of hours per week in order to become fluent in the language other than their mother tongue. This kind of program would not only increase bilingualism in Canada but would give Canada's civil servants who are not bilingual an opportunity to acquire this facility in order to better serve our nation.
I should like the parliamentary secretary to inform this committee whether there are any particular plans in existence which the government is now implementing to increase bilingualism in our civil service. I think members of parliament in all parties agree that Canada is a bilingual nation, and I for one feel that French Canadians have a justifiable complaint that their language, particularly in this respect, has not been given the proper consideration by this or by former administrations. I think they are justified in feeling that, whether deliberately or otherwise, there has been discrimination against them.
I think we must recognize that there is a problem, and that all of us should do our best to see that it is dealt with and that there is the kind of equal recognition which I think members of parliament in all parties support. Therefore when I resume my seat I hope the parliamentary secretary can inform the committee now, when we are considering this bill, what plans the government has in hand to increase bilingualism in the civil service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to the subject that was under discussion between the hon. member for Ottawa West and the parliamentary secretary when I came into the chamber a little while ago. I do so without apology of any kind because, like the parliamentary secretary and perhaps unlike anyone else in the house, I have had some experience of being in the kind of position to which the hon. member for Ottawa West referred.
It is true that when I ceased to be head of the prime minister's office I did not avail myself of any rights I might have had under the Civil Service Act. Neither did the hon. member for Carleton. We both chose to follow a different path or were chosen to follow a different path; I am not sure which way I should put it. While I was head of the prime

minister's office for the period from 1945 to 1952, I had the feeling then and even after I went into public life, about which hon. gentlemen opposite may be incredulous, that the Liberal party like all things here below was not going to be eternally in office and that some day some problems would arise in respect of the staffs of ministers' offices. I recognized the feeling of the straight line civil servants-and I think the hon. member for Ottawa West put their concern very clearly- when someone from this "tainted" world in which the hon. member for Carleton and I lived for so long is put into a department and apparently blocks the promotion of a hard working, conscientious public servant.
I also think we should recognize what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pointed out a little while ago, that our government cannot function at all under our system unless ministers, who in these days when the state intervenes to such a degree in every aspect of life have terrible problems and responsibilities, are adequately assisted by competent staffs in their offices because otherwise they cannot do their work well. It is not fair to the people who are to staff these offices-and in fact in this competitive world it will not happen except for a few rare and conscientious people like the hon. member for Carleton and myself-to expect them to stay there very long when they can get more stable and secure positions elsewhere.
I do not count the fact that I stayed so long as evidence of any virtue on my part, because I had a good time when I was in the public service and I enjoyed it, although perhaps I did not have quite as good a time as I have had since then, but a computation was made once, and if I had just remained in the Department of External Affairs-where I was appointed under the merit system, I might say, in 1937-assuming that I would have received normal promotions from 1937 to 1952 and no favouritism my income would have been considerably higher than in fact it was. A friend of mine found that out for me, because I really was not that much interested. I had made the hypothesis one day and he made a computation covering two or three people who had entered the service at the same time I had, and they were all better off. I am not citing this as any virtue, because I think I had a better time than they had. They had to live abroad in other countries while I was able to go on living in Ottawa and doing the things that I enjoyed doing very much.
The real reason I am bringing up this matter is that I think it is essential to the proper functioning of our system of government that ministers have competent staffs,

and they will not get them unless there is some provision for a reasonable measure of security for those staffs in the case of a change of government or a change of minister. I think the hon. member for Ottawa West is quite right that security should not be provided in the act for someone who remains in such service for only a couple of years and then leaves because the minister does not get on very well with him. The minister is going to stay on, and it is quite wrong that such a person should be put in a slot in the civil service. If the minister has made a mistake and the person is not suitable, the unsuitable person should not be put in the civil service. That is quite wrong.
But it does seem to me that there should be maximum security consistent with efficiency in the service, which must always be the first consideration, when there is a change of government or a change of minister; because it would be quite unreasonable to expect a new minister to accept all the staff of an out-going minister. It often happens that they do, but they should not be expected to have to do so. One minister does things in one way and another in another way, and they should be able to make such arrangements that they can do their own jobs in the most efficient manner possible.
I also venture to discuss this matter for another reason. I have believed for a long time, long before I came to this side of the house and, indeed, long before I ever entered public life and while I was still a public servant, that it is not merely ministers who need adequate, competent and efficient staffs. I do not think that political parties in opposition which have an essential duty to perform, a duty that has never been more necessary than in recent times, should have to be dependent upon political funds to provide the staff to enable them to do the work they are expected to do in this house. I cannot think of a better expenditure of public moneys.
I may say that I preached this doctrine when I was a minister, and I preached it before I was a minister. I was not able to convince my colleagues, though anyone who will trace the history of the office of leader of the opposition from the time Mr. St. Laurent became prime minister will see that repeated and steady ameliorations were made in that regard. I do not think they were good enough and Mr. St. Laurent knew at the time that I did not think so. Indeed, I am sure he would not in the least mind my saying that on one or two occasions I urged that much more should be done. It is just as important that the staff of the leader of an opposition should be protected and given security as the staffs
Civil Service Act
of ministers. I understand that in the legislation they are, and that is as it should be. I know something about this, too, because I have had some practical experience of this matter. I think the committee might be interested in this. It shows how important it is for us, in carrying out our arrangements in parliament, to have a civilized way of dealing with these problems.
It so happened that some time after the late Gordon Graydon had ceased to be the leader of the opposition he went on one occasion to Mr. St. Laurent and pointed out that he had failed to take certain technical steps which should have been taken to protect the position, under the Civil Service Act, of the successor of my hon. friend from Carleton. At that time I was the head of Mr. St. Laurent's office. Mr. St. Laurent asked me if steps could not be taken, notwithstanding the fact that the law had not in fact been carried out, to make sure that the position was protected.
I am very glad to say that the civil service commission took a very liberal view, if I may use that word, and I insist that it be with a small "1", Mr. Chairman. The commission made a very liberal interpretation of the law and the position was adequately protected. That gentleman, I might add parenthetically, was quite properly devoting a good part of his activities at that time to an effort to overthrow the government then in office, as he should have been doing. Steps were taken to see that his position was adequately protected.
Then came a day some years later when that same gentleman no longer seemed to meet the requirements of his political chief, the then leader of the opposition. I am mentioning no names in relating this incident, but this is what happened. Because the leader of the opposition had not changed and because it was the same man for whom he had been working for some time, technically again he had no rights under the Civil Service Act. However, the matter was brought to the attention of the government of that day. It was brought to the attention of my hon. friend Mr. Harris, and by him to the attention of the prime minister. Again a liberal view was taken. Notwithstanding the technicalities of the act, provision was made in the civil service for that distinguished Canadian who had been for a long time the secretary to the leader of the opposition. Provision was made by the civil service commission with the concurrence and active encouragement of the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Mr. Harris, who provided him with a position in his own

Civil Service Act
department considerably above what the technical requirements of the law would have called for.
Very shortly after this event occurred I succeeded Mr. Harris in that department. I may say that notwithstanding his political affiliation, which had never been concealed and which was never concealed from that time on, he served in that department with the utmost distinction and loyalty. His service could not have been finer. In addition to that he served with the high degree of competence that I am sure he displayed with whoever he served. I had many loyal civil servants- and indeed I never knew of any who were not-in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration when I was the minister. I consider there was none more loyal and few who showed more initiative than the gentleman to whom I am referring.
This is the civilized way to do things. When the government changed, of course, the new administration felt it could use the services of that gentleman in a somewhat more "tainted" way-to use the word I previously used, again with quotation marks-as the hon. member for Carleton and I had served at one time, and he is serving in that way now, no doubt doing his utmost to further the fortunes of the government he is serving, as he should be doing.
I relate this experience because I think it illustrates the civilized way of handling these matters. I do not claim any credit for myself in all this because I was a public servant, I think, when these transactions occurred. Nevertheless the incident I have related illustrates the broad spirit in which Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris viewed these matters. When I hear some of the things that are said about public servants in this house now, I cannot refrain from drawing that contrast.
In that context let me say this, in which I think the hon. member for Assiniboia will be very interested. I do not think what I propose to do is against the rules, because what I should like to read does not relate to the debate we are now having but to something else, though it is extremely pertinent to my remarks. I have in my hand today's Globe and Mail which carries an editorial entitled "The Government and the Establishment" from which I propose to read part of a paragraph. I could read a sentence uncomplimentary to the present government, but I am not going to do that. I shall read just a portion of the editorial which sets out a so-called question of principle or practice. Referring to the present government, the editorial states:
When it came to power in 1957, it succeeded a Liberal regime which had held office continuously for more than two decades. During that long period

the higher, policy making posts of the civil service and the crown agencies, had been filled by men who, while not necessarily political partisans-
I might pause just to recall that two of them were Mr. Justice McTague and Mr. Henry Borden. I continue:
-were in sympathy with the policies of the King and St. Laurent regimes, and shared their conviction that Canada's economic health depended on the continuance of heavy taxation and tight restrictions on credit and business.
I congratulate the writer for having discerned something that has been very difficult for the Canadian people to discern and with which he deals in the following sentence:
The Conservatives, by contrast, favoured tax reduction, easier credit, and other policies designed to promote economic expansion.
I must say that anything more ironic, more Alice in Wonderlandish, in relation to what has really happened in the last few weeks, would be exceedingly difficult to imagine. The following is the sentence I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the committee:
But they found themselves compelled to work through a bureaucracy which was highly sceptical of these ideas and which yearned to maintain its accustomed ways.
I remember very well the days of transition in 1957. After all, I had been, though it was four years before that, for 16 years in the public service of Canada, part of that time in a not altogether obscure position. Of necessity I knew quite intimately most of the senior public servants in this country. After I have made my proposition I would even venture to go so far as to put a direct question to the hon. member for Greenwood, who for a while was a distinguished member of the government. My impression was that in 1957 and 1958, without any exception that I know anything about, public servants-like the people of Canada, I rather suspect to tell the honest truth-had got a little bored with the government that was in office, and rather welcomed the idea of working with new people with fresh ideas. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but I gathered that impression. But I had another impression that was very much stronger, and that was that they were ready and indeed eager to do their duty and to serve their new political chiefs in the same conscientious and forthright manner in which they had served the chiefs they had before June 21, 1957.
I must say that I know of no case in which that was not true. There may have been some ardent partisans among them, but I do not know them. I certainly have never heard of any one of the distinguished public servants of this country who ever attempted in any way to thwart or even to do anything but further the policies of the government of the day. If the government of the day in some

circumstances did not have any policies to be furthered, the civil servants could hardly be blamed for that situation. However, as I say, my experience, impression or feeling was that what I have said was true; and that is what the situation should be.
In that context, if I may do so, I should like to quote from a document-I am not sure whether it is immoral or immortal- which has been quoted in this House of Commons already by the right hon. gentleman as an authority for certain conclusions which he drew from it with his usual precision, clarity and that nice capacity for making legal distinctions which sets him apart from his fellow members of the bar. I refer to the Prime Minister's use of this document in another debate, when the Prime Minister used words of mine relating to civil servants about someone who was not a civil servant at all but an officer of parliament and who, according to the Minister of Finance, was responsible to this parliament and not to any political chief, as he had no political chief. That is, of course, the kind of exact, precise, scientific, legal definition the Prime Minister gives to things. That is the way in which the Prime Minister adds so much to our understanding of the correct relationships in our constitution in these days.


Richard Albert Bell: I hope the hon. gentleman gets back to the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand that the parliamentary secretary would much rather I got back to the bill.


Richard Albert Bell: No. I shall be glad to debate that subject at any appropriate time with the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This reference was just parenthetical, Mr. Chairman. The point was that my speech which the Prime Minister did me the honour to quote and to describe as immortal-and I think he exaggerated there-


An hon. Member:: You are too modest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I had completely forgotten about the speech until the Prime Minister dredged it up. However, I thank him. It is not the first time I have had occasion to thank the Prime Minister for advertising my literary efforts. I thank him again for advertising this one. However, I was talking about civil servants in this speech. I was not talking about officers of parliament who are suppose to be watchdogs to see that we do not have an arbitrary government. I did not expect words applied to civil servants to be taken up, torn out of their context and applied to some thing else entirely.
However, as I say, that is not the kind of argument I make or am seeking to make.
Civil Service Act
What I am seeking to do is to reinforce what I said, namely, that civil servants have certain well defined functions and duties, and that I believe the civil servants of this country, with very few exceptions and none that I know of, have performed their functions in that way.
I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from what I said about this subject. I would not have been so immodest as to do this if the Prime Minister had not cited it as an authority. I would not have thought it was an authority. It was just a fugitive speech that I made when I was invited, as a junior cabinet minister a few months after coming into office, to take part in the opening of the school of public administration at Carleton College. At that time my friend Mr. Coyne was the chairman of the board of governors of that institution. It was for that reason that my friend Mr. Coyne moved the vote of thanks. I am sure that my friend Mr. Coyne would agree completely with everything I said on that occasion, just as much now as he no doubt did then. But this was at an academic institution. Because he thanked me for making the speech he was not expected to endorse my views.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could we hear something about this bill instead of the history of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate?


Robert Jardine McCleave: While the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is tending to circle somewhat, I think he is sticking reasonably closely to questions relating to the civil service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just trying in passing to clear up a few misrepresentations about this speech by a very eminent member of this house. However, I wish to come back to the speech itself. Out of a relatively long experience as a public servant in this country I formed certain impressions which, since the Prime Minister considered they were worthy of note, perhaps might be worth being considered in relation to this bill. In this speech I said-


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before I embark on the quotation perhaps I might call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for luncheon I was referring to this document which the Prime Minister

Civil Service Act
described first as immoral and then as immortal. I do not think it is really deserving of either epithet.


John George Diefenbaker: I never called it immoral.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it was one of those errors of transcription that happen from time to time to the best of us. I was pointing out what the Prime Minister said about this speech. Of course I make no point of this, because the Prime Minister did not have the advantage of having the notes I used. There is nothing to that. The Ottawa Citizen report, which I have since examined, seems to me very fair and accurate, and I make no point of that.
However, what I did make some point of was that the Prime Minister chose to take words that I applied to civil servants and apply them to someone who was not a civil servant. That of course, in my opinion, is not a very accurate argument. I recognize this is not relevant to the present debate, but the Prime Minister did apply what I had to say about civil servants to an officer who has been described over and over again by the Minister of Finance as an officer of parliament responsible to parliament, in the same general category as the chief electoral officer, the Auditor General and those other people who are not servants of the government.
My speech referred to those people who are servants of the government, who are servants of the government of the day, under the discipline of the government of the day and having an obligation to the government of the day. Since the Prime Minister seemed to think there was some merit in what I had said, I thought I should put on the record just two or three paragraphs of what I did say on that occasion, because I do think it is very relevant to this bill, which deals with the civil service of Canada; which deals with those officials who are servants of the government and not servants of parliament or servants of crown companies.
With respect, if I may be permitted-and if anyone takes exception I will not do it, sir-to make a parenthesis with respect to the servants of crown companies, I think the original jurisprudence in this matter was established by Mr. Arthur Meighen in a very remarkable speech he made in this house in 1920; a speech with which, I may say, the Liberal party disagreed at that time but subsequently came round to accepting as the sound doctrine in relation to the C.N.R. and which every government up until very recent times has always accepted as a sound doctrine, and which I think is a sound doctrine.


Thomas Miller Bell: Those conversions will happen in other things as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, they do. We have had quite a history of conversions of one kind and another in this country. I think the hon. member for Carleton is, as he is wont to do, seeking to lead me away from the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I should not yield to his seductions or temptations or whatever word he would like to apply, but should stick really strictly to this large and growing but limited class of persons who are genuine civil servants, who are and are expected to be, and have a duty to be, the servants of the government of the day; who are not, like the Auditor General, appointed to see that public funds are not misappropriated by the government; or who are not, like the governor of the Bank of Canada, appointed to see there is not inflation in secret by the government or who are not, like the chief electoral officer, appointed to see that elections are not run in the interests of a particular party. These are the necessary checks and balances that the Prime Minister and others of his associates used to talk about some years ago when they were on this side of the house, that are essential to the proper working of a constitutional system, as opposed to a notion that seems to be current in some minds, judging from some of the speeches I have heard from behind me, and perhaps from, in front of me, that if you can get a majority you can do anything you like. That is not our system.


Mr. Graffiey:: No; there is no pipe line philosophy in this party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I say, there is a constant tendency in the committee to divert me from what I am trying so hard to say. I come back to that group of people who are civil servants under the Civil Service Act. I had something to say about their responsibilities, and that in my view their responsibilities were very large. Perhaps I could just quote from this document. I said: In the first place-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member has come to the end of his time. Perhaps it would be agreeable to the committee for the hon. member to quote the three paragraphs he mentioned. I do not wish to interrupt him in the middle of quoting those paragraphs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the suggestion you have made is acceptable to the committee. In any event, now that I have intervened the hon. gentleman may go on.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. I do not necessarily have to recognize the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as the next speaker. Is it agreed that the Chair's suggestion be followed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence and the good humour of the committee, which perhaps is a nice interlude compared with some of our proceedings in recent times. I was just going to quote two or three paragraphs from this speech. I said this about civil servants:
In the first place they owe loyal and zealous service to their political chief-


John George Diefenbaker: Why not put it all on the record so we will have the complete benefit of all the views of the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I cannot really regard the Prime Minister's suggestion that my mind was limited to this document as flattering, nor do I really think the right hon. gentleman thinks quite so badly of me. Perhaps I will follow the right hon. gentleman's example and quote only selected passages.


John George Diefenbaker: I meant the entire quotation, as I remember it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said:
In the first place they owe loyal and zealous service to their political chief so long as he enjoys the confidence of parliament. If they cannot give such service, even when they disagree with the policy, they are not entitled to feel they are doing their whole duty.
I know this can sometimes be hard, but it is sometimes hard, too, for individual ministers with strong wills and convictions to give loyal support to all the policies of the government they belong to-and yet that, too, is their duty under our system.
It is this next paragraph to which I attach great importance as a statement of the theory on which our system of government in this field, so far as the civil service is concerned, is based:
I do not think this means-or should mean-that a public servant should not honestly tell his political chief that he believes such and such a policy will have such and such bad or unfortunate effects, nor that he should not give him the full benefit of his ideas, his advice and his suggestions about policy if and when they are desired.
I believe a public servant should do his utmost to keep his political chief out of difficulties. But a public servant also has to learn that he does not make the final decisions and that the good public administrator takes his full responsibility but also knows precisely where it stops.
It was in that context and in relation to that paragraph that I also made the other semi-facetious observation which the Prime Minister quoted.


John George Diefenbaker: Would you read on?
90205-6-505
Civil Service Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, the next one is the
semi-facetious observation which the Prime Minister quoted and which, I understand, when I was down at the railway station seeing my family off to Newfoundland yesterday, was the subject of some discussion here in the house.
One way to put it is that civil servants, like children, should be seen and not heard.
I was a civil servant for 16 years.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then that, certainly, did not apply to the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This may throw some light on my character. It may be there are uncharitable members of this house on both sides who would be inclined to say that after 16 years of repression I seem to have been seeking to get over that repression. The fact of the matter is that for 16 years, after spending eight years expressing my views to audiences which paid to listen to me at the University of Manitoba, I was in the public service, and I think in the course of those 16 years I never made any public utterance of any kind which was reported in the press. To the best of my recollection I did not. I believe that on one occasion 1 read a paper to a club called the history club of the United College of the University of Manitoba. I think there were some people there besides the members of the club. But I do not think the address was reported in any newspaper and to the best of my recollection during those 16 years, while I may have expressed myself with a certain warmth at times in private- if I did not admit that I am afraid the hon. member for Essex East might rise to correct me, because he knew me in those days-my views were never expressed in public, although once or twice there was a little provocation.
These are really the only paragraphs I wanted to read. I wished to read them because it seems to me that therein lies the essence of the proper relationship between a civil servant-that is to say one who is a servant of the government, not one who is a servant of parliament-and the government. However, I think there is a corollary, and if the committee is inclined to be tolerant of me for three more sentences I should like to state that corollary. It is this. If civil servants should keep their views to themselves-and they should; if they should not make pronouncements about public policy- and in my opinion they should not-it follows equally that civil servants should not be blamed, as the Globe in its editorial of today sought to do, for the deficiencies of their political chiefs. If the political chief is to be the sole spokesman, he alone is responsible, and he is responsible for the deficiencies of

Civil Service Act
the civil servants as well as for his own deficiencies. That is the essence of our system of government.
I am not suggesting for one minute that this view has not been accepted by everyone on the treasury benches, but I do hear from time to time from certain hon. members who have not had long experience in this house the view that the government cannot be blamed for this or that because of all these wicked civil servants who will not let the government do what it wants to do. That is only a condemnation of a government; it is not a condemnation of the civil service. This, to me, is the essential point, and it is the point I have been seeking, perhaps with a few diversions, here and there, to make.


Mr. Marlineau:: We have been treated to a most entertaining discourse from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pertaining to what I think I can describe as his philosophy, his approach, his attitude in regard to the relationship between public servants-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Civil servants.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I said "public servants". The hon. member says "civil servants".


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a difference.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -and the government. I know the committee wishes to be entirely fair to the hon. member, and I think the only way we could be entirely fair to him would be to put on record as far as possible the entire thinking of the hon. member on the subject of this important relationship. The hon. member, with a modesty which I can only describe as being truly Pickersgillian, if I may be permitted to coin a phrase, chose to read only certain specific passages from the immortal address-I think he will agree that if it was not immortal before, it is immortal now-which he gave to the students at Carleton College on October 23, 1953, and which was reported in the Citizen the following day. There is a good deal in his address of which all of us can approve, and that is why it should be put on the record-I am serious in saying this-if I am permitted to do so. The headline reads "Pickersgill Opens New Carle-ton College Building". The report is as follows:
Marking a significant milestone in the history of Carleton College, Secretary of State J. W. Pickersgill yesterday officially opened a new school of public administration.
Now begins the report of the address:
State Secretary Pickersgill said it was impossible to be a good public servant without understanding and respecting the fundamental facts of Canadian nationhood-*
The point I wish to stress at this particular moment is that the hon. member is referring

to public servants at large, not to civil servants in a restricted sense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. I imagine I knew what I was talking about, or what I intended to say, and in any event I think the context shows what I meant, because every time I referred to public servants I also referred to their political chiefs. That speech comprehended only those public servants who have political chiefs, that is to say, those who are in a department having a political head. I want to make it very clear that that is the kind of public servant-a civil servant, in other words-to which I was referring in the whole of that speech.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, my very purpose in being on my feet is to be fair to the hon. member. I wish to be fair to him in every way. The hon. member has given the committee a certain interpretation of what was said, of what is here in black and white. That is his interpretation. No one denies that that is his interpretation. Other hon. members are equally free to take whatever interpretation they might like to take from the written words. Scripta manent. The report continues:
-the fact that recognition of two official languages and two systems of jurisprudence is embedded in our constitution and the fact the nation began by tolerating two distinct but closely related cultures.
That is good. Then this article continues:
"If we are to have a good and well balanced public service in Canada, recruits must be drawn from both those original elements of our population and also from those newer elements which have been added to it", said Mr. Pickersgill.
One thing Mr. Pickersgill did not conceive the new school as an institution which would be much concerned with the methods and techniques of public administration.
Referring to his own experience the secretary of state declared, "I know that there are those who would disagree violently with this view-some people already have, including the chairman of the board of governors of one of our most respectable universities-
I dio not know whether at that time he was referring to the chairman of the board of governors who happened to be presiding at that meeting and who thanked the hon. member following his speech. However, that is only a remark in passing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact I will clear up that point right now. It was not that particular chairman, and, to tell the truth, I have completely forgotten which one it was.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Be that as it may, it is immaterial in this particular construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The article then continues:
[DOT]-but I am vain enough to believe I was a good public servant."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: Such vanity.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is nothing like patting one's own back, and no doubt it was a deserved tribute which the hon. member made to none other than himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The article then continues:
His experience had shown him there were certain essential qualities of a good public administrator.
First of these was "the constant and unfailing realization that he is the servant and not the master of the public."
Mr. Chairman, were truer words ever spoken?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That applies to ministers as well.


Paul Raymond Martineau: And coming from the oracle-I was going to say illusive oracle, but perhaps I should say the evasive oracle, inasmuch as the oracle in this particular case is sort of invisible. We cannot see this oracle, we can just sense its presence.


Thomas Miller Bell: He called himself a fugitive this morning.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, perhaps a fugitive oracle would be the better description. Now, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget the second or any other part of this very impressive speech. It continues as follows:
The second was a proper appreciation of the limits of the public servant's responsibility.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is no mention here of civil servants and public servants and the distinctions that may occur, but twice in the matter of a few passages the term "public servant" is applied.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I seem to recall-I believe it was the hon. member, but if it was not it was certainly an hon. member sitting close to him-some of the members of the opposition saying during some of their more lofty flights of eloquence in a recent debate that a certain governor of the Bank of Canada was precisely not a civil servant but a public servant. That exact phrase which the hon. member used in this address was there applied. The article then continues:
"Under our system of responsible parliamentary government, public servants are not expected to take the responsibility for the policies they carry out-that is the responsibility of the politician and in my experience most politicians are ready to take it," Mr. Pickersgill said.
90205-6-505J
Civil Service Act
He should know, because at that time he happened to be secretary of state.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was a heavy responsibility.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The article then continues:
However, senior civil servants did owe loyal and zealous service to the political chief so long as he enjoyed the confidence of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the portion I read.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The article then continues:
"If they cannot give such service, even when they disagree with the policy, they are not entitled to feel they are doing their whole duty," he said.
That did not mean, in his opinion, that a public servant should not honestly tell his political chief that a policy would have bad or unfortunate effects. Nor did it mean he should not give his political chief the lull benefit of his ideas, his advice and his suggestions if and when they were desired.
"After all you want all the man's brains, not half of them," commented Mr. Pickersgill.
"One way to put it is that civil servants, like children, should be seen and not heard."
Mr. Pickersgill defined public administration as "the art of reducing a vast chaos of human relationships into some kind of order but it does not consist in my view of reducing human society to mechanical uniformity."
The state secretary said, "In public administration mere technical efficiency is no substitute for an understanding heart, but an understanding heart must be supplemented by a well furnished and inquiring mind."
Those are words of wisdom which no one will deny. That is the full report of the speech made by the then secretary of state, now the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the then member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Paul Raymond Martineau: And the then hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. There is only one further mention of the eminent gentleman in the report, and I think it is a fitting epilogue to the quotation. It reads as follows:
Mr. Pickersgill was introduced by Dr. MacFarlane and thanked by J. E. Coyne, chairman of the board of governors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may be permitted, although I know it is not quite according to the rules, to thank the hon. member for giving this additional publicity to my modest effort of another day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I accept the hon. member's thanks.
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I will not need to seek unanimous consent to make a long speech, because I only have a few brief remarks to make.
Some members on the government side referred yesterday to the content of clause 47 of the bill, which deals with bilingual employees within the civil service. I commend

Civil Service Act
those who referred to that clause and I join them in expressing satisfaction over the fact that it provides that a person hired by the civil service shall be sufficiently bilingual-
-to enable the department or local office to perform its functions adequately and to give effective service to the public.
I also commend the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue) who stated this morning that there were too few bilingual employees in the civil service.
In fact, I should like to describe a small experiment that illustrates how true it is that in various divisions, no thought is given to hiring bilingual employees.
In the first place, one needs only look at the unilingual telephone directory that every hon. member has in his office to find that in any division, there are very few employees with a French name, and that only a very small number of employees can answer in French.
Last year, I brought this fact to the attention of the minister of trade and commerce, who is now Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill). I asked him, on June 16, how many bilingual employees there were in the small business division. At the time, the minister replied that there were several employees but that he did not know the exact number. I then asked him how many spoke French. He replied that there was only one.
For my own information, I called up Miss Torontow of the small business division in the Department of Trade and Commerce. I spoke to her in French, and asked her whether she knew if there were some lectures given on small business on the occasion of certain visitors being in the capital. She answered "What did you say?" And I repeated my question:	"Do you know whether some
lectures are being given in French on the subject of small business for the benefit of those who visit the capital?" And she replied: "I don't understand." I asked her then: "Are you bilingual?" And she answered: "Yes." Then I asked her: "Can you answer me in French?" And she said: "No." I asked further: "What other language do you speak?" She replied: "A little of all, but not much of each."
Mr. Chairman, the experience I had with Miss Torontow is inacceptable to Canadians who are asking for bilingualism in the various departments. And when the Minister of Trade and Commerce states that there is one person [Mr. Dupuis.J
speaking French in the small business division, while that person scarcely knows two or three words of that language, I believe that he not only scorns bilingualism, but also this House of Commons, because he is giving wrong information, without checking the facts.
Before resuming my seat, I want to mention another aspect of the present situation, as we are discussing the Civil Service Act.
In the past, it was the Secretary of State who had the privilege of introducing this bill in the house. I do not know why this year the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), who is from the province of Quebec, was deprived of the pleasure or the honour of introducing this bill, because we must keep in mind that the Secretary of State is the minister responsible to the House of Commons for the civil servants.
At this time when we are considering the Civil Service Act, the Secretary of State is not even in his seat. This morning, when it was announced that the house would examine that act, the Secretary of State left the house and he has not come back yet.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is a shame that the Secretary of State should not participate in the examination of this bill. He is the one who answers for the civil service before parliament and he should be here to discuss matters relating to the civil service commission.
I am most surprised that the introduction of this bill has again been entrusted to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). It is always the Minister of Finance who introduces legislation. He seems to be the only competent minister on the opposite side. Yet, he has made so many blunders recently that he should have been relieved of the introduction of the Civil Service Act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to stress the point that we, from the province of Quebec, just like the members from the other provinces, are most surprised to see the small role the Secretary of State is called upon to play, that prerogatives are taken away from him and given to the Minister of Finance- indeed not even to the Minister of Finance, since he is not here, but to his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Bell) who is piloting this bill in the house.
We are surprised, to say the least. When section 47 purports to be favourable to French-Canadian employees, the French-Canadian ministers should be allowed to

play their role in this house, if minorities and bilingualism are to be respected here.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I have a right to rise on a point of order. I have just one word to say-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, but the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) has the floor.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -in reply to certain remarks the hon. member has just made-
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Is the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister raising a point of order?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, I am raising a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then he should address his point of order to the Chair and not to the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I was addressing the Chair. I referred to the hon. member in the third person; therefore I was addressing the Chair. I am sorry if the chairman did not understand because I happened to be speaking in French, but I was addressing the Chair. The point I am trying to make is that the hon. member stated that this bill comes under the administrative duties of the Secretary of State. My point of order is this-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. That seems to me to be a point of debate and the hon. member can make that point in due course. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, it is not a point of order. It is simply a point of fact that when the Civil Service Act was first introduced in 1918 it was introduced by the acting minister of finance.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
parliamentary secretary can make his point in debate in the normal way, but it is not a point of order as he himself has said.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I too should like to pay a tribute at this time to what I think and what I am sure all hon. members of this house will agree is a civil service of which we can be most proud. I am especially proud, when I think that Canada has not yet reached its hundredth birthday, that over the years since 1867, the year of confederation, we have developed such a fine civil service. I am sure I am not the only member of the house who
Civil Service Act
is most proud of that fact. I am happy to see the parliamentary secretary in the house today taking a great interest in these proceedings. No member has done more than the hon. member for Carleton to advance the real interests of our fine civil service in the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure my very good friend from Bonavista-Twillingate will be happy to hear that I intend to be very brief, but in my brief remarks I should simply like to say that since confederation Canada, as we all know, has gone through many so-called emergency periods which included two world wars. In Canada, as in so many other countries in the western world, simply by reason of the natural force of sociological, economic and political events, our civil service became bigger and bigger. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the difference between the treatment of the civil service by the present administration in the years 1957 and 1958 and the treatment accorded to the civil service in 1935. I will deal with that very briefly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1931 to 1935?


William Heward Grafftey: I should simply like to say this. I am not pretending to speak for my party at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wise man.


William Heward Grafftey: I have not consulted other members. I have not been so presumptuous, but I wish to advance my own personal opinion on the floor of the house this afternoon. I know that members on both sides of the house will have different opinions on this matter. Toward the end of the 22-year rule of the last administration I think a very bad thing happened, and certainly in my own mind I have established a general rule.
Along the opposition front bench today the only real House of Commons man, to my way of thinking, is the hon. member for Essex East. What happened toward the end of that 22 years of Liberal rule which I do not think aided the morale or spirit of a truly independent civil service? We saw the Leader of the Opposition come from the top hierarchy of external affairs right into the active arena of politics. We saw the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who served in the office of the prime minister, do the same thing. Civil servants in that office are meant to be steadfast and independent, if any should be, ready at all times to serve all prime ministers of all political parties. Where did he go? He went right from that high position into the active political arena.

Civil Service Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he considers that I am not steadfast and not independent.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I have never been a person with too much respect for people who plead humility all the time, and I think, as he himself does, that undoubtedly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a capable and loyal civil servant. But I am now talking about a general principle which I feel in my heart of hearts hurt the system. What else did we have near the end of 22 years of Liberal rule? The hon. member for Laurier went from being an active politician to the seaway commission, and then all around the circle and back again. I am not going to be irresponsible and make irresponsible attacks. I am sure when these gentlemen were in the civil service they were loyal public servants. But what I am saying most emphatically is that the present administration is today trying to correct the bad confusion which was created in the public mind at that time, not only among civil servants but among the public generally.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he not aware that the distinguished parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance himself was a civil servant?


William Heward Grafftey: I am quite aware that the hon. member worked in a minister's office-[DOT]


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I did.


William Heward Grafftey: As the hon. member did, but I do not know whether he was a civil servant in the strict sense of the word. I believe he was secretary to the minister of national revenue at that time, and I may be subject to correction here but I do not believe he was a civil servant in the strictest sense of the word.


Richard Albert Bell: And then to the leader of the opposition.


William Heward Grafftey: And then to the leader of the opposition.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Still a civil servant.


Thomas Miller Bell: A public servant.


William Heward Grafftey: I realize only too well that we have not the same system here as there is in the United States, where they recognize the separation of powers theory. But I do say this, and I say it emphatically; that parliamentary democracy only works well when you have a clear cut division between administrative and legislative duties. At the end of that 22 year reign the people from one

end of this country to the other were not making irresponsible attacks on these fine civil servants about whom I am talking, but they were making attacks upon what they called bureaucracy; not bureaucracy caused by the civil servants but caused by an administration which delegated to them tasks which they should never have had in the first place. This procedure was involved in those numerous orders in council, and it was caused by the leadership of the government of the day when so many of them did not see this clear-cut division which is so important in our democratic parliamentary process.
Let us compare, for instance, what is going on in Canada today with what went on in the United States not so many years ago. We had a very fine general enter into the arena of partisan politics and trespass upon the jurisdiction of the President of the United States. However, that general knew what he was doing. I ask hon. members to compare that with what is going on in this country today. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, has been charged, for example, with advising the governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not think it is necessary for the discussion of the principle which I am putting forward to become involved in a detailed debate as to whether or not a public servant has a responsibility to the government of the day or to parliament. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not think there was anything wrong in advising the governor of the Bank of Canada to take certain action, or advise him how he should write his various releases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I have already twice denied in this house that I had anything to do with the writing of those statements by the governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not really believe that repeated statements of that sort should be permitted, making it necessary for an hon. member to get up in his place-


Mr. Tremblay:: That is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course it is true; I have no intention of making anything of this or protesting because it is true. I said it once, and I do think that statement should be accepted.


William Heward Grafftey: I certainly accept the statement of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who is an honourable man, and I accept exactly what he said. He said he had [DOT]nothing to do with the writing of the speeches-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The statements.


William Heward Grafftey: -the statements-and I only made the general remark that he had a lot to do with advising the governor on his course of action. That is a very different thing.


Mr. Tardif:: Where did you hear that?


The Chairman:: On the point which was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I must indicate that hon. members are bound to accept the statement made by an hon. member concerning matters which are within the personal knowledge of that hon. member. That is the first point. On the second point, may I say that even if what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi was saying was relevant to the debate, he should not revive a debate which has been concluded.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to thank the Chair for directing me in such an able fashion. I am using these specific examples to give to the House of Commons my personal ideas on how important it is, in this day and age, that the voice of the people be heard in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: I simply say that I have used specific instances to point up the general idea that the administration I support understands what is meant by the voice of the people.


Azellus Denis: Prove it.


William Heward Grafftey: It may be that I am going far afield from the subject of this debate, but I believe my remarks are germane. When I talk about the rights of parliament I am not making an irresponsible attack on these fine civil servants. When I talk about the rights of parliament as opposed to administrative control, I believe I am talking about a real principle involved in the discussion this afternoon.
I noticed the hon. member for Essex East applaud but, as I said before, he is a House of Commons man. However, other hon. members opposite, time and time again, have said that the backbenchers on this side do not get up and express their point of view very often. I say they do. Just look at the Hansard index and you will see that it is the same old four horsemen who speak for the opposition, with the occasional interjection from the rear.
In concluding my remarks I should like to bring before this committee the fact that this administration is determined to preserve the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: It is determined that the voice of the people will be heard.


Mr. Habel:: When did you get prompted?
Civil Service Act


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let us go to the people, and we will see.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure that in their hearts not too many hon. members opposite are happy to see an appointed official giving testimony before a non-elected body.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of what he has just said, will he explain why he supported a government that denied us in this House of Commons the right to have a House of Commons committee deal with the governor of the Bank of Canada?


William Heward Grafftey: I expressed my views on that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


William Heward Grafftey: We are now in the realm of a past debate, and I expressed my views during that debate last week. This is the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


William Heward Grafftey: Not once did hon. members opposite express one question that they would ask in such a committee that they did not ask on the floor of the House of Commons. I think that answers the question. Again, I would simply say that this administration is drawing the line, between parliamentary rights and administrative control, a line that must be drawn if parliamentary democracy is to function in the proper way. This line was glazed over by the past administration, and legislators became administrators and then in turn became legislators again. One day a man would be loyal to the administration and the next day he would plunge into the arena of partisan politics.


An hon. Member:: You should have stayed in your crib.


William Heward Grafftey: I hear an hon. member say that I should have stayed in my crib. I suppose that is another reference to my youth.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member young?


William Heward Grafftey: As I look at hon. members opposite I understand their chagrin over the fact that the young people of the nation are not following their leadership.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In making his last few remarks it appeared, at least, that the hon. member looked in my general direction. I should like to say on a matter of privilege that when it comes to youth I will not take a back seat to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.

Civil Service Act


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to admit that a series of diversions have turned us away from the pith and substance of this debate. I can also assure hon. members opposite that over the last 10 minutes I have tried to terminate this speech on a matter of principle. That principle is simply this. This administration is going to restore this line of division, a line of division that was made not too clear by the past administration when legislators invaded the administrative wing of government and vice versa. We all know what is going on in the country today. These are principles that should be stated and restated.


An hon. Member:: It is too late.


William Heward Grafftey: I intend to state and restate them both inside and outside of this House of Commons.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Will the hon. member tell us whether it was not the Prime Minister who promised to do away with the rule of closure? Has he done so?


William Heward Grafftey: As I understand the question, it was whether it was not the Prime Minister-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think I should not allow the hon. member to reply to a question which is really not relevant and which would take us far away from the bill. I do not think the question was relevant to the general theme the hon. member was trying to develop.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: In fact, Mr. Chairman. I should say that the question was certainly relevant to the speech made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to answer an attack which I would call underhanded launched by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) against the Secretary of State, who is not in the house at this time because of other duties.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has never taken the trouble to study the background of the bill now before the committee. He has therefore failed to realize that it seeks to amend the Civil Service Act which was introduced in 1918 by the then acting minister of finance, Mr. A. K. MacLean, which indicates that the Civil Service Act is properly the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. As to the Secretary of State, he is

only the spokesman for the civil service commission in this house.
It is therefore quite appropriate for the Minister of Finance or his representative, the parliamentary secretary, to pilot this measure through the house.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. When the parliamentary secretary of the Prime Minister says my attack was underhanded, he is of course using an expression that was quite popular in Quebec in the days of the Union Nationale. I have never been underhanded.
I will say to my hon. friend, who looks upon himself as a fountain of knowledge, that I knew the civil service bill had been introduced in 1918.
However, my hon. friend apparently does not know that for several years secretaries of state have made it a point to be present in the house and to take part in discussions on the Civil Service Act.
I think my hon. friend should know that in 1918, the secretary of state department did not exist. Perhaps my hon. friend is not aware of it, but that responsibility was entrusted to the secretary of state around 1930. I think 1 am giving now a lesson to the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister who does not seem to know what happened in the past. I think it was only in 1930 or thereabout, that the secretary of state began to look after the civil service commission. From that time on, the secretary of state has been responsible to the house for the civil service commission.
My hon. friend says that I was underhanded with regard to the Secretary of State. Not at all.
We have now been studying this bill for two days. The Secretary of State was present yesterday. He was in this house during the question period today. But the very minute the discussion of the civil service bill was announced, which should interest him first and foremost, he left the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is dishonest.


Yvon Dupuis: I object to that and protest against such an attitude.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member does not seem to know that the Department of the Secretary of State is one of our oldest departments.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) just said I was dishonest. I am asking him to retract that epithet, which suits him better than me.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When the hon. member tor St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) stated that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), the Secretary of State, had left the house, he was dishonest because that is not true.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I was in the house and so were all the other members who are present at this time, and I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm to withdraw the word "dishonest" he used when he spoke about me.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I was just going to tell the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm that he must not use that word and ask him to withdraw it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word but I should like to say that the hon. member has been unfair to the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm showed a want of tact, as usual.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I have a very important announcement to make. I am not going to talk about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am not going to read his speeches. I am going to ignore them because it seems to me that this afternoon we have been in great danger of making the publicity of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the chief subject of discussion. Indeed, he indicated that himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not start it, though.


An hon. Member:: You encouraged it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to make two or three brief remarks about the civil service. I wish first of all to say a word about the committee and its proceedings. I was glad of what the hon. member for Ottawa East said. It is true that we really endeavoured to discuss in good temper, regardless of party, the questions which came before us. I am sorry to say that it remained for a member of this House of Commons who was not on the committee to refer to second class citizens, the juggling of wages, etc.
If there ever was a time when the subject matter was considered seriously, the subject matter being the welfare of the civil service, I think it was in that committee. I am glad to think that we are now going to have a chance to discuss it here in the same temper.
We were fortunate in having the hon. member for Carleton, the hon. member for Ottawa East and the hon. member for Ottawa West on the committee. They have, I think in very special degree, a knowledge of the ways and 90205-6-506
Civil Service Act
workings of the civil service, and we had the great advantage of their assistance.
I should like to read just a sentence from the report of the Heeney committee, pointing out briefly and accurately the tremendous change in the civil service since this act was passed more than forty years ago. It states as follows:
15. During this period-i.e. since the act of 1918- and particularly since the 30's, the functions of the public servant have undergone a significant transformation. Fifty years ago, nearly all employees in most federal government departments could be classified, with reasonable accuracy, as clerks, for most were engaged in routine clerical work. Today, the public servant may be scientist, medical doctor, meteorologist, film maker, etc.-
I think we need to remember that when we are considering the problems of allowing people into the service. The difficulties of selection, of course, are great. The question of educational equipment is, of course, all important. I think there is a danger that we should come to regard technical efficiency as the whole story. I do not believe it is the whole story. Particularly as you rise to the top of the civil service I think you need people with what I can only describe as general human capacity wisdom and a broad view of things. I would therefore say that in our selection we should have regard not only to technical matters but to other matters as well. 1 should like to say one word about the situation which has obviously arisen with the expansion of the duties and the qualifications of civil servants. I refer to the relationship between what is done by government- and we expect it to do so much more than formerly-and private enterprise. I think it is from the happy relationship of those two fields that the most successful and efficient operation of our economy will come.
Years ago I happened to see a good deal of the functioning of the department of mines of the Ontario government. I saw there what I thought was a very happy illustration of the fullest co-operation between the government and the private individual. That department carried on a great deal of scientific work. It had conducted surveys of the whole potential mining area and had indicated where the likely areas for prospecting were situated. They had carried out an enormous amount of useful work. But it was the hard boiled prospectors taking a chance, perhaps 100 to 1 against them, using that technical information and going in with the impulse of private initiative who, let us say, took to the ultimate the work which had been done in the department and discovered the mines.
I like to think of that because at the present time it seems we are sometimes not very clear as to the relationship between public and private services, and it seems to me also

Civil Service Act
that in that we had a very good illustration. I do not propose to say any more at this time, Mr. Chairman. We will be dealing with various matters as they come up item by item and I will reserve any further comments until later.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief words to say on this interesting bill because the civil service in relation to government, in relation to industry and in relation to the public as a whole has been an interesting study of mine throughout the years. It is one of those studies one undertakes when there is not something more pressing.
As I understand it this bill is based on the civil service commission report of 1958 and replaces, generally speaking, the Civil Service Act of 1918. I believe it is generally satisfactory. I followed the work of the committee and I think that regardless of party the committee is entitled to the commendation of the house for carrying on this lengthy study of a very important piece of legislation. There is one clause of this bill in particular in which this group is very interested. We believe further measures should be provided in recognition of the principles of collective bargaining. However, I will have more to say about that subject when we come to discussion of the various clauses of the bill.
There are many people in the country who fail to realize the great importance of the civil service of Canada. Our civil service has made a great contribution to the welfare of the state in war and in peace. It performs essential, valuable and faithful service to the nation at this time. But there are changing circumstances in our society because of increasing industrialization and the widening activities of government which make the responsibilities of the civil service different from what they were some decades ago.
I think it is of increasing importance that we should recognize the necessity of having an efficient and loyal civil service. For that efficiency to be maintained and for that loyalty to prevail we must have circumstances and working conditions that will maintain a high morale in the civil service. I believe we have to give the civil service justice in two particular fields. First of all there must be justice to all applicants. All persons who apply for positions in the civil service must have confidence in the fairness of the examinations and the fairness of the allocation to positions, and things of that sort.
Second there must be a sense of security in their employment and also in their retirement, as compensation for long and faithful service. They must have this security to compensate them for the opportunities which exist in private industry and which in some

respects are lacking in the civil service. Civil servants should have the same freedom, with economic equality, as industry: We in this group believe they should have a greater opportunity to practice the principles of collective bargaining, but as I said before, we will leave the discussion of that particular question until we deal with further clauses of the bill.
I have always been particularly interested in the protection of the rights of the civil servant as a Canadian citizen; in particular in political activity. We think that when a civil servant has that right it indicates a mature and highly developed nationhood and civilization. This problem is one that has concerned some of the parliaments of Europe* and particularly the parliament of Great Britain, for a number of years. In Great Britain they have been able to resolve a number of these questions which are still unresolved in somewhat newer nations such as ours.
In Great Britain they have accepted certain basic principles and certain practices as a result of debates in the House of Commons, as a result of reports of several committees which made a careful study of this question, as a result of experience with a developing civil service and as a result of public opinion.
I think we could very well follow with interest what has happened, particularly in Great Britain, in making provision for the greater majority of civil servants to participate in politics without in any way being questioned as to their loyalty to the government and the proper carrying out of their duties.
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote a few paragraphs from a book written by Harold J. Laski, who is well known as a professor at the London school of economics. This book is entitled "Reflections on the Constitution". Professor Laski deals fully with civil servants, both at the administrative and other levels. He deals with their economic rights and their political rights. I wish to quote briefly from this work because I believe Professor Laski makes some rather cogent remarks on this question.
I shall refer, first, to page 188 of this book. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see I have the rapt attention of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I am sure he is as interested in this subject as I am.


Mr. Brunsden:: May I assure the hon. member that he has my undivided attention.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the question.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman-

(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You are a bit optimistic, old boy; I have not finished yet. Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote from page 188. This is a chapter entitled, "The political rights and social interests of civil servants". Professor Laski says:
I should like to begin by saying at once that the report of the Masterman committee seems to me a woeful and timid document, built on a distrust of the honesty and loyalty of many hundred thousand civil servants who have given many years' proof that this distrust is utterly without justification.
This report was rather timid with respect to granting political rights to civil servants, but that situation has since changed.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member used the term "social rights". Will the hon. member define those rights? We understand political rights, but what are social rights?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think those are very easily described. They are all those rights which any Canadian citizen is entitled to enjoy in our society. I do not resent the intervention of the hon. member for Medicine Hat because it gives him the opportunity to make one of his infrequent speeches.
The author of this book goes on to say:
Above all, I believe it is a great mistake to separate the vast majority of officials from work in local government where, very often, their experience of administration would enable them to make an important contribution to the standards of administration.
In Great Britain and other western European countries, civil servants, that is, servants of the federal or state government, shall we say, take a very active part in politics at municipal and other levels. The author says:
In the French system, a great many civil servants, of whom, perhaps the best known among those living is that eminent humanist, Mr. Leon Blum-
Of course, Mr. Blum has died since this was written.
-have played their part in politics without any deterioration in their work; and I have known scores of lesser cases in which the official's political affiliation was both active and known without producing the conviction that he would not be loyal to a minister whose convictions were of a different school.
That is the sort of thing we have to learn in this country. We have to recognize that right, and have that trust. Mr. Laski goes on to say:
Perhaps I may summarize this by saying that when an official has strong political opinions he could not conceal them from anyone but the most stupid of ministers-
90205-6-506i
Civil Service Act
I hope they are listening over there.
-for more than the first hour of their relationship, and the real question was, and is, granted those convictions was he capable of looking at the minister's views with detachment and of helping him to apply them with the full energy of his mind. The answer is sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in his autobiography, tells an admirable story of the permanent secretary of the post office-
That is the same as our deputy minister.
-when he was postmaster general. They quarrelled violently over a decision Sir Austen proposed to make until at last he told his official that he had made up his mind that the decision stood. Thereupon, Sir Austen tells us, his permanent secretary said, "Well, postmaster general, if you want to make a damned fool of yourself, I cannot prevent you from doing so. But at least I can show you how to do it with the least possible damage to the country".
My, what a lot members of the government could learn from that attitude toward public life.
That is what I mean by loyalty and detachment, and I think they are qualities quite distinct from political convictions and party preferences.
Then the author goes on:
First, it is clear that all members of the administrative class should impose upon themselves a self denying ordinance in the political sphere. They ought to resign if they want to be candidates for parliament. They ought not to make political speeches. They ought not to write books or articles on the immediate issues of political controversy. They are too near the centre of power to do any of these things.
That is the practice in Great Britain. Administrative officials do not take part in politics. Apart from members of the administration class, officials can run for election, attach themselves to the party which they adopt, make speeches and take part in political campaigns. Then, continuing, Mr. Laski says:
Assuming that the average civil servant observes the normal decencies of political behaviour, I am unable to believe that the liberation of the grades below the administrative would shock any public opinion or do any harm to the work of the department.
I have quoted these extracts from this very interesting book to indicate the opinion of a man who is very well versed in politics and the principles which ought to be applied to the administration of the civil service. I believe we have to think along these lines. We have to do more in this country to recognize the rights of our civil servants in this respect. We have to trust them more. In Great Britain I have had the opportunity to meet a number of civil servants of high rank and a number of civil servants of lower rank. There is a spirit of confidence in their democratic principles, a spirit of confidence in civil service loyalty over and beyond political opinions which makes it possible for the

Civil Service Act
government and the people to recognize the right of civil servants, with the exception of those in the administrative class, to express political opinions and to take part in politics. While we are considering this legislation all members of this committee regardless of party should give this question some consideration so that as soon as possible in the near future we may be big enough and have enough confidence in our civil servants and in our system to give effect to principles which have been applied in Great Britain as the result of experience. In so doing we should be according to our civil servants the full rights to which they are entitled as Canadian citizens.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make only one correction. I said a while ago that the office of secretary of state did not even exist in 1918. I must say that I was wrong but it is only in 1930 that the secretary of state was entrusted with the administration of the Civil Service Act. I felt bound to make that correction because I do not like to mislead the house.
Therefore, ever since 1930 the secretary of state has been responsible for the administration of the Civil Service Act. He has participated in debates on estimates and legislation concerning the civil service of Canada. A while ago, I said that it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State should not be here this year when we are examining the Civil Service Act and when this bill is being introduced.
(Text):


Mr. Matheson:: In speaking to this bill may I dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. I think we have a good example in a person who was a distinguished King's counsel-


An hon. Member:: Queen's.


John Ross Matheson: No. It was King's counsel in that day, I believe-a colonel of His Majesty's and Her Majesty's forces, a supreme court judge who now adorns the office of chairman of the civil service commission. The fact that this gentleman, who is esteemed and highly respected in all quarters of the house, knew something about practical politics in no way reduces his usefulness to parliament.
Looking at the excellent report put out by the chairman of the civil service commission I note one or two things with satisfaction. One is the salary increase for the majority of civil servants. We must bear in mind that anything which has been gained in the way of salary increase has really been compensation for loss of real income. We must be reasonable and expect that within the near future this matter may have to be reconsidered,

particularly if our monetary policy is going to reduce still further the value of our dollar.
We notice also the statement on page 9 of the report that recruiting was easier in 1960. This, unfortunately, is simply a reflection of the employment difficulties which many of our university graduates have faced in the past two years.
On page 11 of the report there is a factor which I find disturbing and I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could help us with regard to this matter. Under the heading "Shortage Classes" the report says:	"At
professional level recruiting was difficult in the case of-" Then the report sets out the classifications of a number of people whose services were difficult to recruit. Among them are economists, and I find this distressing, particularly in the light of the longest budget in Canada's history which curiously contained practically no economic theory. There was a certain amount of reference to monetary policy but, after all, monetary policy is only a small part of economic theory.
Turning to Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society" and in particular to the chapter called "The Monetary Illusion" I find that the author says this, which I believe is germane to our discussion:
Not only did monetary policy belong to the banking community, but specific steps were taken to safeguard the exercise of this authority from the intervention or intercession of politicians. The central bank was kept "independent" of the government and in degree above it. Such was the case for centuries with the bank of England. It is still so, nominally, of the federal reserve system.
He goes on to point out, as I think we have heard in the speeches of the late governor of the bank, that monetary policy is only a tiny part of economic theory and sometimes an illusionary part.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Ross Matheson: In the language of Dr. Galbraith he says:
Monetary policy became a form of economic escapism.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I believe the hon. member is getting a little far afield now. He is taking the occasion of the report to discuss other matters which are not germane to the debate. I would ask his co-operation in this regard.


John Ross Matheson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly co-operate. I was pointing out, sir, that we should not overemphasize monetary techniques and be concerned with over-all economic principles.
In The Economist of July 8, 1961, an Ottawa correspondent has the following to say:

-Canada was not ready in 1957, and is still not ready in 1961, to take Britain's offer of a free trade area as a basis for negotiation.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I should like to indicate to the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. C-71 which is an act respecting the civil service of Canada. The problems which the hon. gentleman has been discussing are not affected by the bill as it is drafted and as it is before this committee.


Mr. Maiheson:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In referring to the interesting and scholarly address to which the Prime Minister devoted his attention when he enunciated his own thesis, that civil servants, like children, should be seen and not heard, I think we should remember the important part of that address

indeed, the real germ of the message which somehow or other escaped the Prime Minister as he considered the role of civil servants in government, namely, "We want all the man's brains". I think that is very important particularly in these areas of finance, trade and commerce, etc., upon which the well being of all Canadians so largely depends.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could tell us how many economists of the Ph.D. level have been taken into the public service in the year 1960.
Turning to the chairman's report, there is another sentence on page 13 under the heading "Staff Turnover", which is worthy of note. There is some satisfaction taken there in the fact that the separation rate in the civil service is only 10.5 per cent. However, sir, there is the disturbing sentence further on which reads as follows:
-turnover is not a problem in the civil service, except in a few highly specialized classes-
I would ask in the light of-


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman read on?


Neil Alexander Matheson: Yes, I will read the rest, which is as follows:
*-and is only a fraction of that for business and industry in general.
Is that as far as the parliamentary secretary would like me to go?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes. The hon. gentleman was leaving out the last part.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Yes, I was referring to what appeared to me to be the whole reason for the paragraph; that is, that there appears to be some concern on the part of the chairman that in certain specialized classes there is a higher separation rate than 10.5 per cent.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, and the next sentence says that it is only one quarter of the
Civil Service Act
rate for Canadian finance, insurance and real estate companies generally in Canada.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Yes, that is so, but I do not think we are particularly concerned about the problems of industry. Addressing myself to the comment of the parliamentary assistant I would say that there was a time when Ottawa was a great magnet for people highly qualified in the field of finance and economic theory as well as public administration. I think of great teams that were developed under Skelton and Clark and others. We still have our Department of Finance but somehow or another it seems to have lost its force.


Edwin William Brunsden: They are still coming.


Neil Alexander Matheson: That is the question. Are they still coming? How many Ph.D.'s have come to Ottawa in the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961? Are these people being brought here now? If they are being brought here are they simply silenced and put into departments or are they actually being heard- heard not on the public platform but heard by the ministers? Are they being heard by the parliamentary assistant? Does this administration really want "all the brains" of these highly qualified people? Do we have enough of these trained and specialized people? Some of them like Dr. Galbraith are slipping off to be of great service to the United States and to work in industry. Does the chairman of the civil service commission find it possible in any way to take advantage of the excellent academic material that we have in some of our faculties? Is advantage being taken of the splendid school of economics we have here in Ottawa and that other one, perhaps more distinguished if I may say so, which is only a hundred miles away, Queen's University? Is advantage being taken of these great schools? At a moment of critical change in the world we appear to be without any over-all economic policy or purpose.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, one could wish that a debate of this kind respecting so many people could transcend politics. The last speaker has made it very definite that he is speaking from a political angle. I refuse to believe that the civil service is bereft of new recruits from the colleges of Canada. I believe that the young men coming into the civil service today are as capable, as intelligent, as ambitious and as worthy as those of yesteryear. I resent very much the last speaker's suggestion that by virtue of this government being in office we have had an outflow of that type of civil service personnel which we need.

Civil Service Act


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I think the record will indicate that I made no such assertion. I did not have the facts and was asking questions in regard to whether the able people we have in public service are being heard, and whether we have enough of them.


Edwin William Brunsden: In regard to the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, there has been one gentleman loudly heard in the last few days. I believe that this government is just as anxious as any previous government to maintain a civil service as great, conscientious, intelligent and hard working as that maintained by any other government. There seems to be a feeling that this government is out to destroy the civil service.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Edwin William Brunsden: I suggest that belief is incorrect. The civil service is an integral part of the operation of the government of Canada. The hon. gentleman to my immediate right came up through the civil service. There are times when I become very indignant with him, but he was trained there, as was his leader.
How do we obtain men of ability to serve not only in the civil service but also the government of Canada? I believe if we can infuse the youth and trained personnel of Canada into our public service-I say this with due recognition of the fact that many of my young friends in the gallery in future years may take our places in this chamber -we will have a much better Canada.
I say, sir, that Bill No. C-71 is a good bill and should be supported. It may have some clauses that may be debatable, but all bills have clauses that may be debatable. Let us transcend politics on this particular issue. Let us say to ourselves as members of parliament that we are determined to establish a civil service that will be faithful to all Canadians.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, just like the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), and other members of the house, I regret that the Secretary of State should not be here to pilot a bill which comes under his department.
I would at least have expected the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) to attend since several thousand postal workers come under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. God knows how many meetings have been organized by those employees in the past two or three years to protest against

their working conditions, the way they are being treated and the inadequacy of their salaries.
Mr. Chairman, since I have repeated it on several instances in the house, you are not without knowing that every time such protest meetings were held by the postal workers, the Postmaster General was as conspicuous by his absence as he is this afternoon.
How many times have we asked the Secretary of State to see that some salary adjustments to which the civil servants are entitled, be made, when it was finally decided that they should get a salary increase.
You know, Mr. Chairman, that salary increases have been granted by bits and parcels over a period, so that some classifications have obtained their increase before others. They had been entitled to it for a long time.
Now we are today on a discussion of a bill which not only favours the government but the civil servants as far as working conditions and salaries are concerned. Unfortunately, in spite of protests they have made over the years, in spite of representations made in this house by members of the opposition, nothing has been done in this bill to give justice to those who have obtained salary increases some time after other classifications.
Another matter I wish to raise is the fact that federal civil servants cannot take advantage of statutory holidays which fall on legal holidays or on Saturdays. I think that, at last, a section of this bill grants them what we have been asking on their behalf for a long time. But I especially want to emphasize clauses 62 and 63-
Mr. Chairman, you hear the croaking on the other side of the house.


Jacques Flynn: If those conversations annoy the hon. member I shall have to ask hon. members to keep quiet.


Azellus Denis: I note the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay). He is now sitting on the other side of the house. Perhaps he has been punished? Or could it be that he seeks to get closer to the government officials, to the whip, or to the parliamentary secretaries?
I wonder if he is not looking for a department? Personally, I doubt that the government will waste its time considering such a request.

In any event, he is a friend of the Union Nationale. Perhaps he is complaining because he has not had his share of paint? We will try to see to it.
Let us disregard those rumours that are gone with the wind. I am now coming back to the matter before us, in order, if possible, to protect the employees of the civil service commission.
For several years a certain group of those employees has more particularly been complaining. I mean part time employees who do not seem to be protected by this bill.
If I understood the parliamentary secretary rightly-and I suppose that he will, later on, throw some light upon the subject- statutory leave at this time only applies to regular employees; under the present act, part time employees do not enjoy this privilege.
Not only do they not enjoy statutory leave, but they do not get annual leave such as is granted across the country, except by this government.
The government should set an example of fairness in its treatment of its employees, whether full-time or part-time.
If there are people who deserve the sympathy of the government, it is those who, being unable to find a full-time job, have to work part-time.
Such as it is, the act does not provide statutory leave for part-time employees.
If required to work on legal holidays, they get no extra pay for it. If they do not work on those days, they are simply not paid.
I come back to the question that two or three other members and myself have raised during this session as well as during previous sessions. We have asked the government whether it would not take the necessary steps to remedy the situation and put an end to this unfairness.
Recently, the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Lessard) asked a question on that point. I have asked one myself. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) made a speech along those lines. He suggested that the part-time employees should at least receive a percentage of their salary to compensate for the loss of their holidays.
I know that in the province of Quebec, employers grant their part-time or regular employees 2 per cent of their salary to compensate for the loss of holidays.
Yesterday, several questions were asked to the Secretary of State. He first replied he was not the only one dealing with the matter, that it comes under various departments.
Civil Service Act
After being asked the same question repeatedly, he finally gave the following answer, which I quote from page 1 of the appendix to Hansard for July 11, 1961:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to supply some information in reply to the questions which were directed to me recently concerning the advisability of granting paid leave to part time employees. Generally speaking, the government-and this includes the civil service commission-has followed the policy of granting regular leave only to fulltime civil servants. A thorough review of that policy is now being made. The new policy we are now considering would be aimed at granting leave to all employees on the basis of their period of employment. When the civil service commission has completed its study of the matter, the house will be informed of the way in which this principle would apply.
We are now considering a bill concerning the civil service. Why should we wait until we have passed upon that bill to look after such an important group of citizens as part time civil servants?
After four years, it is high time that the government stop carrying out studies and endlessly reconsidering the matter.
It is high time, Mr. Chairman, that the government stop considering only matters pertaining to the department. It should put a stop to this endless reconsideration of questions.
In my opinion, since we are now considering a bill concerning the civil service of Canada, the Secretary of State, who is not here today, should not have said yesterday, when he was asked questions concerning leave with pay for part time employees, "that the matter will be taken into consideration".
Why has he not considered that matter in the past two or three years or even since his party came to power, that is four years ago?
The Conservatives promised to correct all past wrongs, even those which existed under Mr. Bennett.
I will say that what was not done during 22 years, was not accomplished either by Sir John A. Macdonald.
If the government starts justifying its bad administration by accusing previous governments, we will be going back to Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel.
There has been some talk about a general election. The sooner, the better for the Canadian taxpayer.
Instead of blaming previous administrations for their shortcomings, I hope the present government will have the courage to say what it did during four years.

Civil Service Act


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Azellus Denis: No, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are afraid to reply?


Azellus Denis: No, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Shame.
(Text):


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the mood of the committee this afternoon is a very pleasant one although I have known it, on occasion, to be somewhat more relevant. However, of that latter aspect I do not complain because I am sure that at least the civil servants in Ottawa will understand that perhaps this bill is, in some respects, the victim of other circumstances on parliament hill.
At this stage of the discussion, sir, of this very significant legislation, I doubt if any really useful purpose would be served by any extended references on my part to the very many things which have been mentioned by hon. members on all sides of the committee. On each of the clauses of the bill there will be an opportunity available to make comment in relation to what has been said. I think it would be more appropriate to do so at those times. I wish, sir, to join with hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house who have referred to the high competence with which the hon. member for In-verness-Richmond presided over the special committee. He displayed a deep knowledge of the Civil Service Act, judicial impartiality and a skill in presiding. It was a real pleasure for me to participate in the work of the committee because I feel that all hon. gentlemen recognized the vital importance of the task and approached it with a genuine objectivity and, in almost all cases, on a nonpartisan basis.
The maintenance of high standards in our public service, the preservation and improvement of the merit system, the maintenance of the independence of the civil service commission itself, the continuing improvement in the conditions of public service employment, these things are of the very essence, the very lifestream of our whole system of government. Adequate compensation based upon the principle of a fair comparison, conditions of employment to equal at least those of commerce and industry is essential if a civil service career is to be as rewarding and satisfying, as attractive as a professional or business career. I believe that a career in the Canadian civil service must have a status and respect that will be an incentive, a stimulus to young Canadians, dedicated in the sciences and the professions, in administration and in other basic fields.

Yesterday in the course of his speech, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona used some phrases which might well be wrenched out of context to create an impression which I hope he did not intend to leave. Some of those phrases could cause deep misunderstanding among many dedicated civil servants. He spoke of there being too many barriers between the taxpayers and the civil service; of civil servants seeking to ram things down the throats of ordinary citizens. I will not use the various other phrases. If his words are to be taken literally, then I can only say his experience is very different from mine. During my 25 years in the practice of law and in public life I have had to deal with civil servants at all levels and on an almost daily basis. I say without hesitation that I think I have perhaps had more contact with more civil servants over a longer period than probably any other member except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and possibly the hon. member for Ottawa West. I have found, almost without exception, unfailing courtesy, genuine helpfulness, a genuine desire to be of service and a real dedication to the job. Those are qualities which I think have not been exceeded by the employees of any private employer.
It would be idle for anyone to assert that the civil service is in a state of Utopia. Abuses do, of course, occasionally arise in personnel administration and otherwise. I do assert, however, with the greatest confidence that they are very much the exception and not the rule.
Hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house have spoken of this new bill as a considerable improvement on the bill in its form at second reading and as it was sent to the special committee. With that view, I most decidedly agree. I think the committee, in this respect, made a considerable improvement upon the bill that was given second reading. I believe the bill itself is a considerable advance over the old Civil Service Act. Within the new framework which we have in this bill, I believe we can build, wisely, effectively and efficiently, not only in the interests of the civil service but of Canadians generally.
There have been many questions asked during the course of this rather long debate. I submit all these further matters which require elucidation may be dealt with under the individual clauses. I point out to the committee, of course, that this bill has had a very exhaustive, very detailed study in the special committee to which members on all sides of the house have contributed very effectively.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 2-Definitions.
Mr. Richard (Oilawa East):: During the discussions in committee, the civil service federation of Canada stated that several years ago the national joint council recommended that the principle of the payment of shift differentials be instituted. This is the normal practice in industry and should be applied to the civil service. At that time they were informed that, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, such payments could not be made under the old act. It is for that reason I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West:
Under clause 2, subclause (a), add a new paragraph (iii):
(iii) by reason of duties having to be performed by employees during any shift other than a straight day shift.


Richard Albert Bell: This deals with a matter which was discussed in the special committee at least on two occasions. On the final occasion on which it was discussed the committee had before it the clear cut opinion of the draftsman of the bill, namely the deputy minister of justice, that provision was now made for the payment of shift differentials and that it was unnecessary to have any amendment to give that authority. That authority will now be provided through the provisions of clause 12 of this bill which is drafted specifically, in its final paragraphs, to cover such circumstances. I quote:
-or such other rates as may in any special cases be appropriate.
It is also covered by the provisions of the Financial Administration Act which under the old Civil Service Act were overridden but which under the new act will not be overridden. The situation therefore is that the amendment is completely unnecessary as providing for something in respect of which the existing bill makes provision and in respect of which the committee had the specific and definite opinion of the deputy minister of justice. Consequently I would suggest to the committee that the amendment, being unnecessary, be not accepted.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I should like to rely on the opinion which has been given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Richard Albert Bell: It is not his opinion; it is that of the deputy minister of justice.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I refer to the opinion that the hon. gentleman expressed. If that is the case and if that is the undertaking, of course, I would be quite satisfied. However, that was the matter that was raised in the committee; and I thought it would be
Civil Service Act
much better for it to be expressed in the committee of the whole here this afternoon than just in the special committee so that it would be understood clearly that such was the opinion, namely that this provision is already made in the bill. Therefore under the circumstances I would be very willing to withdraw the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee give to the hon. member leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 2 as amended by the committee carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Powers and duties.
Jean-Thomas Richard: I move that paragraph (c) of clause 6 of Bill No. C-71, be amended to read as follows:
(c)	at the request of a deputy head or on its own initiative report upon any matter pertaining to organization and employment in the department.


Jacques Flynn: I assume that amendment would be to replace the present paragraph (c) by this one?


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is right.


Richard Albert Bell: This again was a matter which was carefully considered by the committee and upon which the opinion of the deputy minister of justice was obtained. The opinion of the deputy minister of justice, which is given at page 495 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee of Friday, June 16, clearly indicates that it is unnecessary to add these words in order to accomplish the purpose-and, I may say, the laudable purpose-which the hon. gentleman has in mind. In his opinion as the draftsman of the bill this matter is covered by the generality of the words in subclause (b). In other words, the position of subclause (b) is that the commission has the power to-
-report to the governor in council upon such matters arising out of or relating to the administration or operation of this act and the regulations-
Those words are of a general character. Subclause (c) provides for a different situation. Subclause (c) permits the deputy head to ask the civil service commission to report upon any matter pertaining to organizations and employment in the department. However, in the opinion of the deputy minister of justice subclause (c) does not in any way restrict the generality of the words in the opening part of subclause (b) and in his opinion it consequently was unnecessary.

Civil Service Act
Being unnecessary I venture to suggest to the committee that the amendment be not adopted.


George James McIlraith: I think the parliamentary secretary has correctly and accurately stated the position taken in the special committee dealing with this point and that his reference to the opinion given by the deputy minister of justice is quite correct. However, it seems to me that this is another one of those points or places in the bill where it is important to make it clear that the commission is independent and not merely enabled to act at the request of the government or the minister as the case may be. There are in the bill several places where that point becomes important and this is one of them. While I am not going to put myself in the position of saying that the deputy minister of justice is wrong in his legal opinion-I should be very reluctant to do that-I think his interpretation of the clause is rather generous to the point of view expressed by himself and by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. Certainly I can see no possible harm that the proposed amendment would do. It enlarges and makes more certain the right of the commission to act independently and on its own account in this respect. For that reason I should like to see the amendment put so that the committee will be aware of exactly what the point is. I think it is useful to raise these points as the clauses are discussed because it will be useful in dealing with the act and regulations that will flow from the act in years ahead.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is clear that in the structure and intention of the bill there is the desire that the civil service commission may on its own initiative report in respect of those matters which pertain to organization and employment in the department. There is no question that this is the intention of the bill. The opinion of the deputy minister of justice is that the power so to do is fully and amply provided in the first part of subclause (b).


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 6 carry?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, if I may. He says it is clear that in the structure of this bill the commission has the power to report on this subject matter. He says that is the intention of the bill. That is the very distinction I wish to make. It was undoubtedly the intention of the government in submitting the bill that this should be so, but I am not satisfied that it is clear in the actual language of the bill before us. It is to make it clear that the

bill before us, as drafted, does what the government intended in submitting the legislation, and what I understand to be the wishes of the special committee, that I raise this point.
We are not at cross purposes in this matter. In other words, we are not at cross purposes as to what was the intention as to what was to be done in this respect, but it is a question as to whether this clause of the bill adequately expresses that intention. When the parliamentary secretary says it is the intention of the bill I wish to be very sure it is the intention as expressed in the language contained in the bill, and not just the intention of parliament in enacting the bill or of those who were concerned with putting it forward. That is my point.


Mr. MacLellan:: On this point, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Ottawa West has considered the fact that this amendment could in effect reduce the effectiveness of the clause.
What is provided in the bill under clause 6 (b) and (c) is that there shall be three situations where the commission shall report to the governor in council. The first situation is in any case where they deem it necessary or desirable, as the words are used in the clause. This is very broad. They can report on anything they wish. The second situation is, at the request of the governor in council they shall report upon any matter pertaining to organization and employment in the public service. There is a third situation. That is, at the request of a deputy head they shall, even if they do not wish to do so on their own initiative, report upon any matter pertaining to organization and employment in the department.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Ottawa West has considered that if the words suggested in this amendment were inserted here, "at the request of a deputy head or on its own initiative report on any", and so on, this might narrow down the first situation where they could report; that is, in any situation where it is desirable. Then the two subclauses might be read together as meaning that the commission had only the right to report on its own initiative with regard to the organization and employment in the department.
Does the hon. member not think the first authority of the commission is as wide as it could possibly be and there might be a danger of narrowing that authority by this amendment? I think the present clause expresses our wishes very clearly.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, I have considered the very argument he has

raised and I have come to the conclusion that since the amendment is in (c) it does not in any way cut down what is expressed in subclause (b) ol clause 6. It does not in any way restrict it. It may be argued that it does not extend it-I will grant the hon. member that argument-but certainly it does not restrict it in any way. Whatever effect it has -I submit respectfully-it certainly does not restrict the effectiveness of the clause. The effect of the amendment is to enlarge and clarify and in no circumstances could it be construed as restricting the authority of the commission.
Amendment (Mr. Richard, Ottawa East) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 52.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 6 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Consultation with staff organizations.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, during the sittings of the committee one of the clauses that was discussed at great length and with regard to which there was most disagreement was clause 7. Even with the amendment submitted by the Minister of Finance as a last resort it is felt that this procedure is not sufficient, namely consultation. Therefore I wish to move the following amendment:
That clause 7 as amended by the special committee be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
7 (1) The commission, and such members of the public service as the Minister of Finance may designate, shall negotiate directly with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees of the crown, with respect to pay and other terms and conditions of employment, at the request of such representatives, or wherever in the opinion of the commission or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, such negotiation and consultation is necessary or desirable in the interests of the civil service or the government. Such direct negotiation and consultation shall be initiated by either the governor in council, its appointees, or the appropriate staff associations and organizations noted above.
(2)	Where negotiation does not result in agreement, the matter under dispute shall be taken to an arbitration tribunal by either party.
(3)	The results of such negotiation and/or arbitration shall be proclaimed by a suitable instrument, where necessary subject to the approval of parliament.
Mr. Chairman, it will be understood that this amendment is in substitution of the present clause 7.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Mr. Richard (Ottawa East) moves that clause 7 as amended by the special committee be struck out and the following substituted therefor. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?
Civil Service Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, this amendment, with which I agree, is the crux of this whole discussion and probably represents the major objection which is taken to the present bill. Clause 7 is in effect the argument, the disagreement and the basis of the whole bill. If the bill is accepted as it is, it will mean that civil servants will not have the right to know with whom they will negotiate for the purpose of reaching collective agreement. It will mean that they will not, in effect, have an agreement. They will still have to continue to follow the inefficient and ineffective means by way of indirect negotiations which have been available up to now. Obviously, if the government really wished to be progressive in its outlook this is the place where it would have given consideration to its employees. I do not disagree with the government's position in asking for a certain leeway in dealing with some of its top employees, though I violently disagree with the methods used in disposing of some of those employees. However, I think there is a level at which the government could ask for certain considerations beyond what is commonly known as a collective agreement.
I think the civil servants in Canada have now reached a stage where they have sufficient experience in negotiation to expect that a formal method of negotiating working conditions should be set up as a result of which the decisions reached could be expressed in a collective agreement. I see no reason why the government should be interested in inserting into the bill such a clause as this providing for indirect negotiations. We already have on the statute books the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which sets forth a formal system of negotiation. Some of the civil servants, and I am thinking of those in one particular organization, believe that the existing act is satisfactory. They believe it is in keeping with their status-that they are white collar workers and do not want to negotiate and bargain. This is not true, however, of the majority of civil servants. It was pointed out by one of those organizations, the association of postal service employees in particular, that they wish to enjoy the full benefits of negotiation and operate directly under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. What the amendment means is that the employees themselves want the right to negotiate directly. They want the right to go to an impartial arbitration board. They want to end up with a contract which

Civil Service Act
will give them certain conditions of employment, wages, opportunity for advancement, holidays and so on. They want this in black and white.
We have suggested that there might be two or three stages of negotiation. We have suggested that the civil service commission itself could, in the first instance, take to the governor in council the wishes and representations of the associations representing the civil servants but that once it has made this presentation, which must of necessity be public knowledge, they should step out of the negotiations, having made their recommendation. Then the employees themselves will be able to negotiate directly with the government.
Whenever people have opposed the idea that there should be direct negotiations with the government, they have always raised the question of possible strikes. What would happen, they ask, if the employees and the government reached a stalemate and it resulted in a strike? After examining the present act I am of the opinion that if any group of civil servants wished to go on strike there would be nothing in the law to prevent them. I think it should also be pointed out that most civil servants have not asked for the right to conduct a strike against the government. They have, however, asked for the right to conduct direct negotiations with the government or its representatives, the treasury board or some other organization. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to cut off now?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: You finish your speech. There is no hurry. It may be your last.


William Arnold Peters: I realize the hour is getting late, but I should like to conclude by making a strong appeal that the government should reconsider this clause. This is the clause which will determine whether civil servants are to be emancipated or not. It seems to me that civil servants should have a collective agreement which would clearly set out both their rights and the restrictions imposed on them. There are obligations imposed under a collective agreement but there are also privileges, and both employer and employees should know exactly what these are.
Let us take an example. If we read the act we find that as part of this collective agreement the employee of the government has certain holidays and those holidays are days for which he is entitled to payment. Then we read what the Postmaster General had to say on June 27 about a holiday on July 1. July 1 fell on Saturday. It is true that Saturday is not a normal working day

for most civil servants. But that is true with regard to workers throughout this country in organized labour and they do not always decide that July 1 will be declared to be a holiday on such and such a day for pay purposes. It is considered to be an inherent right that they are entitled to a number of days and if they do not work that day they get paid for it. If they work that day they are entitled to be paid twice the amount of their regular earnings, and it seems to me that this government, by using a technicality, is depriving the majority of civil servants in this country of their holiday pay in respect of that holiday. No doubt it is being done legally, but I believe that if we sit down in all honesty to negotiate a contract and it is said that the workers are going to get a holiday on such and such a day and that if they work on that particular day they will be paid with respect to it, if that day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday you should not rub your hands with glee and say: well, this is going to save the government a little money, it is unfortunate that it does not happen more often. It is true that for the next 20 or 30 years it will only happen on two or three occasions that July 1 will fall on a holiday, but I think that these should be conditions of employment which should be negotiated directly with the employee organizations. A collective agreement should be arrived at. For these reasons I hope the government will reconsider this clause and make provisions for direct negotiations.
Other countries such as Great Britain and Australia-almost every country which has had a long history of democratic dealing with its employees-recognize that civil servants have certain rights and liberties, that they have, finally, the right to apply to arbitration so that the settlement of their differences may be reached in a formal impartial manner. It appears to me that in Canada we should not wait for an evolutionary period such as took place in England before coming to this conclusion, but should take an intelligent approach taking advantage of the experience of other countries.
I completely endorse the amendment. I hope the government will give full consideration to it and that when we again discuss this matter we will be discussing a formal agreement enabling workers to negotiate with employers directly to arrive at a conclusion or agreement upon which the worker can operate. If we do not reach that stage the worker will always be under the threat of having regulations governing his conditions of work which he may never see, never be aware of, and never have the opportunity of making a decision in respect to it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps at this point for the information of hon. members who have copies of the amendment I should read the preamble, which is as follows:


Jean-Thomas Richard: that clause 7 as amended by the special committee be struck out and the following substituted therefor:


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the stage at which we are in the proceedings of the committee of the house, it is not possible to put before the committee a detailed presentation in respect of this amendment.
The position, as the committee knows, is that the original proposal as advanced when the bill was introduced, was a very great advance over anything that had previously been in vogue in civil service administration. The amended proposal of the Minister of Finance which is now before the committee of the whole is one which again is a very considerable advance, and one which I think would accrue to the benefit of civil servants generally.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I understand it is the desire to move that the committee rise I am sorry that is all I have the opportunity of saying at this time. However, when the committee resumes I would consider it a privilege to discuss this whole matter in detail.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order does the motion made in this way by the hon. gentleman kill the bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. gentleman is asking the committee to rise and report progress.


Richard Albert Bell: I have made no motion. I understand the house leader is about to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. member's pardon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, that was just a preparatory statement. After consultation with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house it seems wise to rise and report progress now and then consider interim supply, so I would now move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. McCleave in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Gordon Minto Churchill: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,045,379,927.94, being the aggregate of
Interim Supply
(a)	one-quarter of the total of the amounts of items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $922,235,223.75;
(b)	one-third of the total of the amounts of items 99, 141, 148, 195, 196 and 197 of the said estimates, $271,666.67;
(c)	one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 16, 101, 154, 204, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 218, 222, 223, 228, 337, 342 and 396 of the said estimates, $4,271,818.84;
(d)	one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 156, 158, 251, 284, 360, 365, 368 and 400 of the said estimates, $3,591,936.92;
(e)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $88,926,648.41;
(f)	one-third of the total of the amounts of items 516 and 527 of the said estimates, $1,181,383.34;
(g)	one-quarter of the total of the amounts of items 514 and 590 of the said estimates, $12,515,000.00;
(h)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $11,844,583.34; and
(i)	one-third of the total of the amounts of items 605 and 606 of the said estimates, $541,666.67; be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962.
He said: Mr. Chairman, just so hon. members of the house will kow the. procedure at this moment we are undertaking to study interim supply in the hope that we might complete that this evening so the house might adjourn. That is the purpose of bringing this forward at this stage on rather short notice. The proposed bill will provide in respect of the main estimates for 1961-62 (a) one-quarter of the items to be voted in these estimates amounting to $922,235,223.75; (b) an additional one-third of votes numbered 99, 141, 148, 195, 196, and 197 to a total of $271,666.67. Those are shown in schedule A of the bill.
Then (c), an additional one-sixth of votes 16, 101, 154, 204, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 218, 222, 223, 228, 337, 342 and 396 to a total of $4,271,818.84. That is shown in schedule B of the bill. Then (d) an additional one-twelfth of votes 156, 158, 251, 284, 360, 365, 368 and 400, to a total of $3,591,936.92. That is shown in schedule C of the bill.
In respect of supplementary estimates for 1961-62 the bill provides for (e) seven-twelfths of all of the items to be voted in those estimates for a total of $88,926,648.41 plus (f) an additional one-third of votes 516 and 527, shown in schedule D of the bill, for a total of $1,181,383.34 and (g) an additional one-quarter of votes 514 and 590, shown in schedule E of the bill, for a total of $12,515,000. In respect of further supplementary estimates (1) for 1961-62, the bill provides for (h) seven-twelfths of all of the items to be

Interim Supply
voted in those estimates for a total of $11,844,583.34 and (i) an additional one-third of votes 605 and 606, shown in schedule F to the bill, for a total of $541,666.67, the grand total being $1,045,379,927.94.
The proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide for the necessary requirements of the public service during August, September and October, 1961. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the same as that of similar interim supply bills passed previously. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I take it that this motion is made on the basis that parliament may not be sitting within the period contemplated by the motion although I imagine that perhaps it might be reconvened earlier. I only wish to say that an unusual procedure has been adopted. The leader of the house, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is representing the Minister of Finance today. To me this seems unusual.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is for a very temporary period.


William Moore Benidickson: I would have expected that the very competent parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance would have made these comments in the absence of his minister. As I heard the minister, the reservations as to the rights of members of parliament with respect to every item in the book of estimates are the same reservations that have always been given on interim supply. Do I have the assurance of the Minister of Veterans Affairs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is correct.


William Moore Benidickson: On that basis we have no quarrel with this measure. Under some votes extraordinary expenditures are required in the next two or three months and in those instances the percentage of the total amount now being asked for is somewhat greater. In other words, no over-all average percentage applies to all the items for which interim supply is being requested. That course has our entire approval. So far as the possibility of adjournment is concerned, it was indicated clearly yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East that we on this side were prepared to sit here as long as the government

was prepared to advance matters of current necessity and emergency. That was discussed yesterday.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this is the 157th sitting day of this session.


Edwin William Brunsden: Are you tired?


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe this is the longest session in the history of the country. We assembled in November ostensibly to begin a session that would be concluded in the early summer but as time has gone on it has become obvious that the session could not be concluded even by mid-summer. The government will, of course, have its own reasons for saying that the session has been unduly delayed. I think the main reason why the session has continued so long is the fact that the government is an incompetent government that has failed to meet the many urgent economic problems facing the people of this country and today this government does not have the confidence of the people of the country. It has failed in every way to deal with every single economic problem facing the people of the country.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member is making a political speech-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is widespread unemployment, inadequate agricultural prices, failure to provide a social security system even though the government's commitments in this regard are clear and failure to bring forward financial and economic policies to improve economic conditions. I would say that at this time Canada is probably the most mismanaged country in the world, the most incompetently mismanaged country in the world.
The government is in great trouble because it has failed to be consistent. It has failed to take a straightforward course and has used devious, underhanded methods to deal with situations instead of dealing with them straightforwardly as an honourable government should do in a democratic society.
We are asked this afternoon to provide interim supply for August, September and October. There is no indication when the government wishes parliament to resume. They are asking for three months' interim supply when all reports today have been that parliament would reassemble in September. The government has run into serious trouble in the economic field. It has run into serious trouble in the management of events in the House of Commons.

One of the many reasons why this session has been prolonged! is the fact that the government has not had a clear-cut program of public business ready to deal with the crisis but has gone on piece by piece, bit by bit, introducing one small measure after another and sometimes following the course of filibustering its own legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have been away too much.


Hazen Robert Argue: The house leader says I have been away too much, and this from a spokesman of a cabinet the members of which have been away most of the time. The Minister of Agriculture is so seldom here that when we have questions to ask him we have to ask them of someone else.


An hon. Member:: He is selling wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: The attendance of the opposition has been excellent this session-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and we have been giving a good account of ourselves. We are adjourning this session at a time when western Canada faces a drought, a national disaster. The government has no policy, no program, has announced nothing of an adequate nature to meet the very serious income deficiencies that are bound to affect the prairie provinces.


Edwin William Brunsden: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member says we have no program. The government has a very excellent program which has been acclaimed in western Canada. If the hon. member would take his seat while I am speaking-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
hon. member has not raised a point of order, but rather a point of debate. The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is another phony point of order from a member of this house who probably should be more concerned about doing something because the widespread crop failure will probably be greater in the constituency he represents than in any other. His constituency is likely to have a total crop failure even if rain should come within the next few hours. What does he do this afternoon? He gets up and makes claims that are not in accord with the facts, so far as I am aware, and which I am certain will not have the agreement of his constituents.
We need action by the government now to deal with this national disaster. The government may have its allies in doing so little. The head of the Saskatchewan retail merchants' association said the other day, why all this talk of disaster? He said, farm income is no more than 30 per cent of the income
Interim Supply
of Saskatchewan. A loss of 30 per cent of this income in Saskatchewan does constitute a disaster in the province and a disaster for Canada. If rain is not received in adequate quantities within the next few days-and I am glad to note there has been some rain in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan in the last few hours-this will be the greatest national disaster this country has seen since the end of the war and far greater by way of loss of income and total hardship although perhaps, for individuals, not as great as the Rimouski fire or hurricane Hazel or the Winnipeg flood.
This great national disaster facing the people of the three prairie provinces demands substantial action at this time. The government has announced it will pay part of the cost of moving feed grain. It has announced it will co-operate in the maintenance of the supplies of coarse grains that are now in the prairies. This is only a small part of the action which should be taken now. The government should be prepared to pay the full freight costs on cattle if it is necessary to move them long distances to pasture. I would suggest that the government should establish, not these national average support prices with deficiency payments that are such a hoax and which have meant so little in the last few years. The Prime Minister laughs. He can ask the egg producers how much they like these insignificant prices they received when egg prices have been so low. He can ask the hog producers if they have received anything from this program.


Mr. Harkness:: The hog producers have been very happy these last few months.


Hazen Robert Argue: We may soon find that out. Some of them have been happy with some of the marketings because this policy has been liquidating production. This is the only answer the government has to agricultural production. I suggest to the government that instead of using this deficiency average price-this is the kind of verbiage this government is good at putting into legislation- they should establish a floor price on cattle and hogs below which these prices are not allowed to go. The government should put in some floors, put in some guarantees and base these prices on a fair return to the farmer plus his cost of production.
I suggest further that there should be an income payment to farmers now, in addition to prairie farm assistance. In addition, if we are going to get this $1 an acre again that is always kept dangling, there should be a payment of $5 an acre from the national treasury where there is a total crop failure. The government always waits so long to make any announcement about this $1 per acre.

Interim Supply
The government promised the people of western Canada that there would be a comprehensive system of crop insurance. The government introduced a crop insurance scheme which has been largely a failure. Very few farmers in western Canada have been able to take advantage of this scheme because they felt they could not afford the high premiums that went with this kind of so-called crop insurance. It is not working. If the government had fulfilled its promise to the Canadian people and if we had a crop insurance system that was working, then we would not have to ask the federal government now for special disaster payments out of the national treasury. We would have had an adequate program of crop insurance, and this we do not now have.
As a matter of fact, any farmer who asks for crop insurance must, in becoming eligible for crop insurance, forgo the benefits of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We need a crop insurance plan that is available not to a few small areas where there is little crop loss or little risk of crop failure, but one that can be applied universally to all farmers irrespective of the amount of risk involved.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is exactly what we have.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not what we have at all. The farmers who have the greatest risk have to pay premiums that they cannot afford to pay; that is what we have. You say to them, therefore, this is the best we can give you and we have to keep the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which we criticized for so many years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are not talking about crop insurance at all; you are talking about some form of relief.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend was so good as the minister of agriculture that the Prime Minister transferred him to another department. The farmers all said, wonderful; we are in favour of it. Now, if the government wants a defence program that has greater support in Canada, the best thing they could do would be to transfer the present Minister of National Defence. They should make him a rotating minister. This would be a sign of improved policy, any time he was dumped out of a department. He was the minister of agriculture, and he was a failure. He introduced this legislation which has been such a hoax and today when most of the farmers in western Canada face drought conditions and disaster with no crop insurance, he says the policy is good. They are being looked after. Well, Mr. Chairman, they are not being looked after. They are being condemned to a very inadequate income.

This government is going to have an election one of these days. It will not be too soon for the people of this country. I am sure they will welcome the opportunity to express their opinion of a policy that has not worked, a policy that has failed. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister was right when he said the next election issue should be that of private enterprise versus democratic socialism. I think that is the best kind of issue on which to have the election. We accept this suggestion of the Prime Minister. The Liberals were over there for 22 years and they did such a terrible job that the people of the country decided there needed to be a change, and very rightly. Now, the Liberals have been supplanted by another free enterprise government that says, do not blame us; we cannot tell the automobile manufacturers of this country what kind of automobiles they should produce. We want to be so careful that we do not even want to advise them about anything. This government says, "We cannot do anything with private business; it is a law unto itself." All it can do is mismanage the financial and fiscal policies of the country but it cannot exercise any control over basic economic questions in this country.
We suggest this, Mr. Chairman, and the C.C.F. has stood for this for many years. The new party I believe, when it comes out of its founding convention, if it is to have a wide appeal to the people, as I am certain it will have, will be different from these old private enterprise parties. It must be different. It must present the people of this country with an alternative to the economic conditions and the economic slump and morass which this country now faces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Many things need to be done, Mr. Chairman. Many of the things need to be done for which we have been campaigning for many years. One is the removal of some of the rackets in the country such as the racket of the small loans companies and the small loans sharks and the interest rates in the second mortgage field that are supported by the other political parties in this house. We suggest that something should be done about the drug racket and the high cost of drugs. We suggest that to do something about this matter requires government action and government control. We suggest that if this step seems necessary, as we believe it is, the government should take an active part in manufacturing basic and essential drugs as a means of bringing down their cost. We are suggesting that the social security system in this country is very greatly lacking.


Mr. Drysdale:: Where?


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not believe we have achieved a welfare state, as Social Credit tells us, or that is an impediment to our development. We are suggesting the welfare state should be developed much more. We are suggesting that we should have an adequate social security system. We are suggesting that our old people who retire in this country should not have to retire on a pittance of $55 a month and be condemned to an inadequate income and near poverty for the rest of their lives.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: How much?


Hazen Robert Argue: There should be a social security system based on a proportion of the average national income. There should be a portable system of pensions, and into this fund, which should be actuarially sound, should be paid contributions from employers, employees, the treasury, and the self employed and the pension should be a very minimum $100 a month. That is not too much in relation to the income of this country and in relation to what should be our standard of living.
We suggest also that there should be a full employment policy, that the answer to unemployment is jobs, and that the way in which to bring about jobs is through active participation by the government in embarking upon a great system of public works projects and public development. When the Liberals were in power they did a great deal in this regard. They had a number of inquiries. They had green book proposals. They had a shelf of public works. They put all the works on the shelf. They have left them there and this government has kept them there. Nothing has been done to implement the great public works projects that are necessary. I refer to projects in the field of highways, sewer and water installations, new schools, new hospitals, parks and the cultural centres and so on which are so necessary. Somebody says "provincial".


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I said "fiddlesticks".


Hazen Robert Argue: As long as we take the attitude that these things are the responsibility of the provinces alone, we take the attitude that Canada shall be condemned to continuing unemployment. In a country like ours which is a federation and which should be a co-operative type of federation or co-operative federalism, the federal government has the obligation of taking a leading role so that worth-while projects of this kind, admittedly in the main the responsibility of the provinces, can be brought forward and implemented.
This government is a private enterprise government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Interim Supply


Hazen Robert Argue: Everybody applauds. They have been so consistently a private enterprise government that they are in danger of losing the election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Everything they do that has any popular appeal at all is an interference with the so-called private enterprise system. They are bringing in amendments to the Industrial Development Bank Act. They are bringing in legislation making provision for the government itself to get into the field of trade, and this step we welcome.


An hon. Member:: And housing.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; and housing. If the government wishes to do something, it must in these measures turn its back on the philosophy which it announces with such great vigour in this House of Commons. There are those who have condemned public ownership in this past. This government is doing its best to tear down the crown corporations of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: "Hear, hear", they say. The government has been doing its best to tear down the C.B.C., and T.C.A., to interfere with the crown corporations that have operated in the interests of the people of this country.


An hon. Member:: The Bank of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Bank of Canada, somebody says, which is very much in the news is another instance of this government's interfering with the operations of public institutions.
In our judgment an increase in the field of public responsibility in the area of public ownership is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. We say, as I have already said, that in the field of drugs and in the field of the manufacture of farm implements the government should give consideration to an increase in public development. This does not mean nationalization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Everybody says, "Oh, oh". This could mean federal money being invested either on its own or in co-operation with private business or in conjunction with cooperatives in developing these very important fields. Instead of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited not being in a financial position to buy out Cockshutt when it had an opportunity to do so after the war, we suggest it would have been much better for a federal government of the day to offer the co-operative organization a type of partnership for the development of a manufacturing

Interim Supply
farm implement industry owned in this case as a co-operative measure by the people of Canada and by the farmer-consumers involved. We had a farm implement inquiry. Some of us have made certain recommendations; but we suggest that, until the federal government takes an active role, farm implement prices will continue to rise.
The Prime Minister has been a great advocate of Canadianism. When he advocates Canadianism, I think it has a particular appeal to the people of this country. In order to bring about a measure of Canadianism I suggest it is time that, as a national policy, we embarked upon a program of developing this country in the interests of Canadians. I believe steps should be taken to remove this huge trade deficit with the United States, which means in fact that in exchange for imports of many millions a year Canada is steadily selling larger and larger chunks of her natural resources and her industries to investors from that country. Instead of Canada following a course of development more and more in the ownership and control of Canadians, we are going the other way; we are going backwards. Fifty-one per cent of the manufacturing industry of this country is controlled from outside our country; 75 per cent of the petroleum industry is owned outside our country; 97 per cent of the automobile industry; 98 per cent of the rubber goods industry.
We say it is time we embarked upon a policy of public development and of a repatriation of these industries to Canadians. We suggest that we shall never have complete and full independence in international policies; we shall never have the full respect of other nations in international affairs until we can demonstrate that we have embarked upon a policy under which our country is developed in the interests of Canadians and is not following a course in which a larger and larger part of this nation is owned and controlled from outside. Surely no one will argue that a country as wealthy as ours should be able to produce the kind of investment capital needed to put people to work, to provide ownership of Canadian industry.
Mr. Chairman, this government, by the very fact that this session is the longest in the history of this country, has proven itself inept. In my opinion the government is at an all-time low since the last election as far as support in Canada is concerned. We suggest that the people of this country need to be offered a real choice; a choice between mismanagement, free enterprise as defined by the government, and a program of public

development and public expansion based upon democratic institutions and on control by the Canadian people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Will he not agree that the speech he has just made is a much abler speech than anything that could be done in that line by Mr. Thomas Douglas?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I would welcome the opportunity in any part of the country to allow the public of this country to make their own choice, in answer to the question of my hon. friend.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, before the-


An hon. Member:: Are you a candidate too?


Frank Howard: I may be a candidate in a short while, depending upon when the "sooner or later" arrives.


An hon. Member:: It will be later.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Assin-iboia referred to the statement of the Prime Minister some months ago that the next election, whenever it does come, would be fought on the basis of private enterprise versus democratic socialism. I do not think that was what the Prime Minister really meant. I think he has had misgivings about that statement concerning the basis of an election campaign. Just the other day the Prime Minister said an election would be fought on the basis on Senate reform, and I understand he has now changed his mind about that and is searching for some other basis upon which to fight an election.


Mr. Speakman:: From where do you get your information?


Frank Howard: In raising this question of private enterprise and the detrimental effects of private enterprise upon the average citizen and upon the Canadian consumer I should like to deal with the aspect of it within which the drug industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, falls. I dealt with this subject on another occasion. I did not have the opportunity to go into it fully at that time because in the estimates of the Department of Justice the objection of the Minister of Justice to discussing a certain type of report was upheld. But this is now public property.
I think we must consider the drug industry as being entirely different from any other type of industry because the consumer relationship with the industry is not the same. We find that in fact what these free enterprisers on the other side of the house attach themselves to does not exist within the

ethical pharmaceutical industry. The relationship of the consumer is not with the industry; it is with his doctor. The relationship of the industry is with the doctor through advertising and every other means, and not with the patient or the final consumer of the drug.
We find that the consumer, or the patient, because of the uniqueness of the industry, is generally not knowledgeable with regard to the product he obtains. He does not know what it contains; he does not know how it is supposed to affect him, except in so far as the doctor tells him. He is dealing with a highly technical product, chemically named, with a highly involved nomenclature developed by the industry. The consumer really has no knowledge of what he is getting once the doctor writes out the prescription.
The consumer buys toothpaste. He knows generally what it is for. He buys an automobile. He has an understanding of its use and to a degree has information as to its full operation. If he buys a coffee pot or any other commodity such as that, his relationship with the industry is closer than it is with the drug manufacturing industry. Because of these unique characteristics the consumer has no effect whatsoever upon the price he pays for a particular product. There is no price competition in the ethical drug industry, either here or in the United States. This was discovered in the United States. I should like to quote briefly from the report of the Ke-fauver committee of the United States on the drug industry. The report is dated June 27, 1961. I wish to quote a small section of this report in order to indicate the attitude of the drug industry to price competition and how it really does not exist.
This is a quotation from the direct evidence of Mr. Francis C. Brown, president of Scher-ing corporation, who said:
Unlike consumer marketing, Schering cannot expand its markets by lowering prices. Cortisone proved this. After all, we cannot put two bottles of Schering medicine in every medicine chest where only one is needed, or two people in every hospital bed where only one is sick. Marketing medicine is a far cry from marketing soft drinks or automobiles.
That is, even though they use the same approach in so far as slick advertising is concerned to get across the brand name of the product to the doctor. The consumer restraint on corporate price fixing that may exist in other industries is not available in the drug industry. The consumer can have no effect whatsoever upon the prices the drug industry establishes, (1) because of the attitude of the industry which I just read and (2) because of the fact that the consumer has no direct
Interim Supply
relationship with the industry itself. His relationship is through a professional person, a doctor.
Competition does not exist, and it is relatively impossible for it to exist, in the pharmaceutical industry because of the uniqueness of that industry. This again was indicated in the gentleman's comments before the Ke.-fauver committee which I just read. Corporate conscience, if there is such a thing in the drug industry, could have some bearing on prices; but again the statement I have just read-and the evidence is full of similar statements-indicates that there is no corporate conscience in the pharmaceutical or drug industry. Its whole concern is to rake off the highest possible prices it can and make the highest profit possible on sickness and on illness and to gouge the consuming public to the fullest possible extent. This is the attitude which the drug industry has stated before the Kefauver committee, the answer which it has stated publicly in this regard.
How, then, do we protect the consumer? This government is obviously not concerned about protecting the consumer in relation to the drug industry or to any other industry for that matter. It believes in the concept of free enterprise and it knows full well that free enterprise does not have, except in an incidental way, the interest of the consumer at heart. It has primarily at heart the making of the highest profits possible, the expansion of the industry and the development of control over that industry. The individual consumer is virtually helpless to protect himself against the activities of private enterprise. He needs someone else to protect him. There is only one agency-and I am talking about the drug industry now-which can ensure that the consumer is protected both with regard to the price and with regard to the purity of the drugs he buys, as well as against incorrect, false and misleading advertising. That agency is parliament, or government. This government, believing as it does, or as it says it does, in the private enterprise system is most unlikely, I would assume, to take any steps to protect the consumer. If it believes in the private enterprise system and is, at the same time, of the opinion that some checks or controls must be imposed on behalf of the consumer to protect them against the activities of private enterprise, then it really cannot believe that the next election issue should be private enterprise versus democratic socialism.
The Combines Investigation Act has proved to be relatively ineffective in protecting the consumer. It can be the means of discovering facts leading to prosecution, to fines imposed by the court on guilty parties and to restraining orders to prevent them doing the same

Interim Supply
thing all over again. Alternatively recommendations may be made for certain action to be taken in connection with tariffs. But this is the full extent of the powers under that act and it does not, in essence, provide protection for the consumer. The act enables courts to impose a penalty against private enterprise for things it has done in the past and it enables some futile attempt to be made by court order to prevent the same thing occurring in the future.
In my opinion, as far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned we have to take into consideration a number of unique characteristics brought about because the industry has no direct relationship with the consumer but works through professional persons, doctors. The advertising is directed to the doctors. The doctor writes out a prescription for the consumer, this patient, who has no choice concerning what kind of drug or product he should get. He takes the prescription given to him. He goes to the pharmacist and the pharmacist again has no choice whatever. If a brand name is mentioned he has to supply a drug of that particular brand. If a generic name is mentioned he follows the prescription in that regard also.
Since these circumstances prevail, I believe there must be established a crown corporation for the production, sale and introduction of ethical pharmaceutical preparations. It should provide them at cost. In this way we could ensure at least that government agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, which uses a large amount of drugs, or the Department of Defence Production, the northern health services and other departments and branches of the federal government would be able to use pharmaceutical preparations produced under government auspices at a great saving to the public. We could also establish under this crown corporation a sales and distribution organization to provide drugs to provincial authorities at the lowest possible cost for distribution to hospitals and for the care of the needy and the sick, as well as to old age pensioners, who have difficulties enough as it is, inasmuch as the Prime Minister backed out of the promises he made to them in 1957 and 1958 to provide drugs for them at the lowest possible cost. Unless this government or any other government is willing to recognize the basic fact that the pharmaceutical industry has the consumer at its mercy and that there is only one agency, namely, an agency established by parliament, capable of protecting the interest of the consumer, then the consumer will continue year after year to be gouged, robbed of

his dollars and to be uncertain whether he is in fact receiving a pure and efficacious product.
I do not wish to discuss the question of the purity of these drugs and the nature of the advertising through doctors, which is another field, but if this government had any concern for the price which the consumer has to pay for ethical drugs and preparations it would immediately remove the 11 per cent tax presently imposed on them. This tax is almost directly responsible for Canadian consumers having to pay the highest drug prices in the world. This is a fact which, I consider, has been established by the Kef-auver committee. I believe it has also been established by the restrictive trade practices commission in its study of this matter, documents concerning which were tabled the other day by the Minister of Justice. Surely if this government had a proper degree of concern for the welfare of the citizens of this nation, one of the things in which it would become directly involved would be the elimination of the 11 per cent tax thereby assisting, in some small way, to reduce drug prices. If the government had any concern whatever about the bad effects of monopoly control because of patent controls in the drug industry it would engage in the field of direct licensing in order to ensure that monoply position does not exist merely because a foreign concern in the United States holds patents controlling our drug industry. It is a fact that almost without exception every single, solitary patent issued under Canadian patent laws in recent years for tranquilizers and antibiotic drugs has been issued to United States or other foreign corporations, even though they have subsidiaries in Canada. In effect this puts control of our drug industry and the welfare of our people into foreign hands outside the country.
In summary I think the marked failure on the part of this government to concern itself with this question of drugs is significant. Because of the degree of publicity which developed in connection with a particular report of the director of research and investigation, and only for that reason, the restrictive trade practices commission and the minister agreed that hearings should be held in public. The afterthought on the part of the government following a lot of adverse publicity about the attitude of the government to the question of drugs was that it might be advisable to hold public hearings "to get us off the hook". But all the time the government knew full well that it intended to do nothing, which is an attitude in keeping with the general attitude of this government on other matters for so many years. It intended to do nothing about the welfare, the

health and the interests of the Canadian people. Leave it to free enterprise, they say. Maybe that is why the government is holding up the Clark report and why the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not yet completed his study of that document. Possibly he believes free enterprise will find a solution. We remember how in 1957 and 1958 the Prime Minister was almost obscenely in haste to have this commission established. Out of this we got the Clark report which, ever since then, has been languishing in a bottom drawer in the office of the minister of health and welfare.
That document concerns the health and welfare of the people of this nation and the neglect shown of it is an indication of how little regard the government has for these things.
Without getting into the question of national health schemes in this regard I merely want to point out that the Prime Minister with his propensity for putting things off, for procrastinating, and acting like an ostrich in respect to most issues, in appointing a royal commission is doing nothing more than providing a gimmick to cloud over the basic issue of health needs in this nation and to assure that the Prime Minister will be able to go around the country at election time stating how he appointed a royal commission to study something that does not really need further study. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues want to conduct an election, the next or any other, on the basis of free enterprise versus democratic socialism, then I think they will not be telling the truth, when they gloat about free enterprise, if they do not compare what they say with the way in which they have treated the general consumer and general public in the last three or four years. They have given only casual, if any consideration, to the needs and desires of the people of this nation and have concerned themselves only with the blackening of the names of certain public servants in order to ensure that they get their own way.


Mr. Regier:: I understand that we are now asked to vote interim supply to the government of the day. If the Prime Minister is to be taken at his word and if, in the light of decisions arrived at in the other place, he is now going to go to the country with an appeal to the people of Canada, then our party of course will be immediately prepared to grant interim supply.


An hon. Member:: You are responsible people.


Erhart Regier: Yes, we are responsible people.
If there is going to be an appeal to the people of Canada on the basis of the dare
Interim Supply
that was put by members of the other place; if there is going to be an appeal to the nation at all, when we will be most happy to grant whatever interim supply is necessary in order to carry on the normal business of government in the interval until a new parliament is able to meet. However, if the government is now asking for interim supply without any intention of appealing to the people of Canada to render a verdict on the record of this government then we feel we must oppose a request of this kind at this time, because the people of Canada in 1957 and again in 1958 were given very high expectations indeed.
Granted, it was the Liberal government that brought us into this mess with conditions which cause most Canadians very serious concern, but the Conservatives under the leadership of our present Prime Minister assured the people of Canada that they had the answer. What a horrible disaster this assurance has now turned out to be.
I am old enough to remember the assurances given the Canadian electorate by, I think an even greater orator in 1930, the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. He stated he would resolve all our problems and blast his way into the markets of the world. I can well remember a meeting in the Third avenue United Church in Saskatoon where all the front seats were reserved for the unemployed who were given a special arm band. Well, we ended up in 1935 with more unemployment than we had in 1930.
Upon looking at the accomplishments of this government from 1957 until 1961 I would say their record is no better than the record of the Conservative party under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, in those comparable years from 1930 to 1934. I hope this government is not going to impose upon the Canadian people one more year of Tory rule. I hope we are able to persuade this government to go to the country now and not wait until the end of their term of office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erhart Regier: I say this without any political considerations in mind but only because I have the welfare of the Canadian people at heart-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: I know how difficult times were under the Bennett administration, following which the Canadian people finally got rid of that previous Conservative government. Today we do not have a government of elected representatives of the people, but a one-man government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erhart Regier: I am informed by reliable authorities that the budget was concealed, that

Interim Supply
its contents were known only to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and that the rest of the cabinet was denied access to it.


An hon. Member:: That explains a lot of things.


Erhart Regier: The rest of the cabinet was not even asked to approve of it. The members of the government had to wait, as I had to wait, until budget night in order to discover what "John and Don" had in mind for the rest of us for the present fiscal year. We have noted many other actions which reinforce the allegation that we do in fact have a one-man government and not a government where there is collective responsibility on the part of 20 or more men.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, our international prestige has very definitely declined. Anyone who has attended the meetings of the United Nations over the past number of years has had regret-


An hon. Member:: You never attended.


Erhart Regier: Yes, I have been there for the past three years.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: It is six o'clock.


Erhart Regier: After listening to the reports of the delegates of other nations to the United Nations, it is obvious that the government of this day is responsible for the decline in our international prestige.
Mr. Chairman, would you call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for the dinner hour I had indicated that if there was going to be an appeal to the country we would be most happy to vote interim supply but that if there is not going to be an appeal to the electors of Canada the government of the day in my opinion is unworthy of a vote of interim supply. I indicated that the electors of Canada had very high expectations in 1957 which were continued into 1958 and, as happened once before in my lifetime when the people of Canada elected a Tory government, the people have been horribly disillusioned. The Tory government in the period from 1930 to 1935 hung on to the very end. They were in office for five years, and I pleaded with the government to spare the people of Canada the agony of a five year term on this occasion.

I also contended that in effect we do not have a government as ordinarily understood under our system but that we have rule by one man. I spoke of external affairs and I indicated that our prestige in the councils of the world is now lower than it has been-


Mr. Nesbitt:: What do you know about it?


Erhart Regier: -for many a long year. We all know that our economy is sagging. I was interested to read in the press only yesterday that the head of the Canadian chamber of commerce is advising us to pull up our socks and is saying that unless we do so next winter is going to be even worse than last winter for many millions of our citizens.


David James Walker: Why?


Erhart Regier: Because of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Rising unemployment.


Erhart Regier: Rising unemployment, as the hon. member for Essex East says in so ably assisting me, and also because all the economists I have read are predicting a downward curve from the present upswing, which I admit, about the end of October or the beginning of November.


David James Walker: That is what you are hoping for.


Erhart Regier: No, I am not hoping for this.


David James Walker: Honi soit qui mal y pense. You are as ignorant as Paddy's pig.


Erhart Regier: The whole essence of my speech is to needle the government into some action in order to have an upswing in our economy that will continue throughout the next winter and for the years to come.


David James Walker: It is good there are not more like you around here.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister was overruled in 1959 and 1960 by the Minister of Finance.


Erhart Regier: However, I am afraid that the actions of the government to date have revealed that they are not going to be responsible for an upswing in our economy-


David James Walker: Did you consult with your assistant, the hon. member for Essex East?


Erhart Regier: -but rather that these economists are going to be found right in their forecasts-


David James Walker: Oh, nonsense.


Erhart Regier: -that next winter will be even worse than last winter. I have already referred to a speech made only a few days ago by the head of the Canadian chamber of

commerce. We have a sagging economy. All Canadian business knows it and the lack of confidence in our government-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. There seem to be several other debates intervening during the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. Webb:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did I understand the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to say that the communists were proposing this?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The words of the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac do not indicate a point of order.


Erhart Regier: I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just risen on a point of order that there is a considerable difference between economists and communists but maybe he does not realize the difference between these two types of people. We contend that not only have we a sagging economy but that the taxation policies of the government are-I cannot think of a better word-plain stupid.


David James Walker: What was that again?


Erhart Regier: S-t-u-p-i-d, simply stupid. That is a very good interpretation of the policies of this government.


David James Walker: What does your tie represent, son?


Erhart Regier: My tie is red and I hope it will remain red for as long as I live. Red is the colour of reform, the colour of revolt.


William Moore Benidickson: Liberalism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Liberal
colour.


Erhart Regier: I hope I will never be found wearing a blue tie which means reaction and a do-nothing approach.


David James Walker: Your assistant from Essex East agrees with you.


Erhart Regier: I say that the taxation policies of the government are simply stupid. This government, like the ostrich, is burying its head in the sand with respect to policies on foreign trade.


David James Walker: What was that?


Erhart Regier: They are going around the world with a big club over their shoulders. They are now attempting to brow-beat even the government of the United Kingdom. I notice that their henchman, the Ottawa Journal, had an editorial the other day appealing to the government to please use a very big club on the United Kingdom-
Interim Supply


David James Walker: I would like them to use it on you.


Erhart Regier: -to prevent the United Kingdom from joining the common market. We say that this government ought to wake up and realize that there are economic and trade blocs being formed all over the world. If we insist on burying our heads in the sand we will be left out in the cold. We will indeed have been found to have left all our eggs in one basket.


David James Walker: Take your head out of the sand, then.


Erhart Regier: I appreciate the interruptions of the Minister of Public Works.


David James Walker: I am glad you do.


Erhart Regier: I think he is a very brilliant man.


David James Walker: Thank you.


Erhart Regier: I also know he only got into this house on the bandwagon and I believe he will go out when that bandwagon has been thoroughly discredited.


David James Walker: Speak for yourself.


Erhart Regier: I believe that this government has reached a new low in its relationships with other levels of government. I believe that this government's activities are a disgrace to the concept of our desire to celebrate, before very long, our 100 th anniversary as a nation.
I believe that this government has led us to a position where we have an unprecedented level of national debt. An unprecedented percentage of the national income now has to go to pay the annual interest charges on our national debt. We know that we have unprecedented levels of unemployment in this country. We are miles behind most modern nations in our social security. Our nation has become a happy hunting ground for monopoly interests and, despite our Combines Investigation Act, Imperial Oil announced the other day, with all the effrontery at their command, that the retail price of gasoline in Ontario and Quebec is going to be increased by one cent per gallon. At the same time, Imperial Oil in British Columbia attacks me in newspaper articles claiming that they have nothing whatever to do with the establishment of retail prices of gasoline. Hon. members of this committee know that the day before yesterday our newspapers carried a dispatch indicating that Imperial Oil was increasing the retail price of gasoline in Ontario and Quebec by one cent per gallon.

Interim Supply
Our nation has developed into a happy hunting ground for monopoly interests. The hon. member for Skeena spoke most effectively about monopoly interests in the drug industry. Monopoly interests prevail in many fields in which the Canadian people are interested.
We have a so-called national defence department which offers no defence at all for the Canadian people. It is a farce from a to z. Our Canadian defence expenditures have no relationship whatever to the defence of the Canadian people. It is a tragedy at best. We have inadequate protection for our fishermen and our national health measures are a disgrace compared with those of other nations. Even so-called relatively backward countries like Mexico have a comprehensive national health plan. My mother who is now 79 years of age lived in Europe as a young girl and even in her day she had to pay a fee each week which entitled her to complete medical coverage. We, in Canada, are away behind the rest of the civilized world in this respect.
If we think of our basic industry, agriculture, we realize that there have been handouts to the people in that industry. I suppose that with the drought on the prairies there will be a lot more hand-outs, and perhaps there will have to be. Fundamentally and basically, however, we have to resort to handouts because we have not a government in office that recognizes the basic needs of agriculture, namely, in the words of the Prime Minister when he was a spokesman for the opposition, parity not charity. This government is continuing the old Liberal policy of hand-outs to the farmers, if and when electoral demands are urgent.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask what is the objection to the government's drought relief policy in the drought stricken areas of the prairie provinces?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Again because of the hubbub in the committee the Chair was unable to grasp the point of order. The words that did come through to the Chair did not seem to indicate a point of order. I would ask the committee to abate its various conversations so that the words of the hon. member may reach hon. members of the committee and may reach Hansard.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Erhart Regier: I want to thank you very much for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I realize that truth hurts and that there is a very keen desire to rise on points of order when a few basic truths are enunciated. We have in office,

and this is very important to us, a government that has completely failed to show any appreciation of the importance of the civil service of Canada. Without the civil service our government and all law and order in our nation would be hopelessly lost.
We have had an announcement by the Prime Minister that unless the other place does so and so, an election may be called. We, in our group, would welcome an election, despite the fact that in the early weeks of that election campaign we would be having the founding convention of the New party. Nevertheless, we would welcome this election because-


An hon. Member:: The New party is not founded yet?


Erhart Regier: The New party may not be founded officially as yet, but I wish to assure the hon. member that in the past number of years there have been thousands and thousands of Canadians who have met in every major city of Canada and who have given some thought to national problems. We will have a consolidation of the thinking of the grass of the Canadian people, which is something that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives nor the Social Credit party have ever had. Our appeal is going to be a people's appeal that is going to have a real influence on the Canadian electorate.


Mr. Creaghan:: What has this to do with interim supply?


Erhart Regier: Interim supply involves the life of this government. Anything I have to say concerning the life of this government is appropriate at this particular stage. We say that unless this government is willing to go to the people it is unworthy of interim supply. In the first place we feel that we do not have a unified government. We have a divided government. We have a couple of ministers in the cabinet who unfortunately have to share a desk but who are divided on the issue of the use of nuclear arms by Canadian forces. I have already indicated that most of the cabinet was denied access to the contents of the budget until it was presented in this House of Commons. *


An hon. Member:: Where did you get your information?


Erhart Regier: We also have the admission of the Minister of Finance that he released the budget to a non-Canadian before it was released to this House of Commons. According to our traditions this would have called for his immediate resignation; but not so under a Tory government in Canada.


David James Walker: That is untrue.


Erhart Regier: In the United Kingdom-


An hon. Member:: What is the hon. member talking about?
Another hon. Member: Donald Fleming.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
hon. member is now being interrupted by members of his own party and by members on the opposite side of the chamber. I must ask the committee to hear the hon. member as best it can and to restrain itself.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, you had better keep those hon. gentlemen opposite silent.


Erhart Regier: We had a budget leak.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Skeena was one of those who was bursting in upon the hon. member who has the floor. I am asking all hon. members to hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Frank Howard: I only interjected because of blabberings from the other side.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor.


Erhart Regier: In reply to the leader of the official opposition the Minister of Finance admitted that a non-Canadian had been supplied with certain basic information as to the budget. In Britain a minister of finance only made an indiscreet remark on his way into the Commons on budget night. However, because of this one small indiscreet remark having to do with the tariff on beer the minister of finance in the United Kingdom was forced to resign. Yet our Prime Minister refers to this allegation of mine and says he hopes that it will receive the contemptuous reply it deserves. Our Prime Minister ought to be the last one to refer to the word "contemptuous".
We have procrastination on the part of our government on many vital issues. They cannot make up their minds on many problems that vitally affect our people in the field of external affairs. We say that at least 1 per cent of our gross national production ought to be devoted to the economic aid to the underdeveloped countries of the world. We believe this would not only help foster world peace but would assist in the restoration of the economic health of our own community. We say that NATO as now constituted and as now operating is becoming more of a threat to world peace than a guarantee of world peace. In the field of disarmament we see no action on the part of our government to supply any leadership whatsoever. If anything, we have hanging over our heads a threat that we may very shortly have greatly increased expenditures in the field of national defence.
90205-6-507
Interim Supply
Our civil defence program, so-called, is a farce. Anybody who attended or who has any working knowledge of the recent operation known as "Operation Tocsin" knows that millions of dollars are going down the drain without any useful result. We have higher tariffs, higher interest rates and an uncertain dollar value. We appreciate the reduction of the Canadian dollar on the international scene but we deeply regret the uncertainty that is attached to it. Canadians do not know whether this is going to cost the taxpayers $100 million or $500 million this year. Canadian exporters have no guarantee or no assurance as to what the value of the Canadian dollar is going to be. The government has left the matter up in the air. We also have a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty as to the money supply. In the documents attached to his budget and in the budget the Minister of Finance admits that he will have to borrow in the money markets in this current fiscal year a sum in excess of $2,600 million. Yet he does not tell us how he proposes to raise this money. Admittedly $1 billion is in obligations that are maturing. The holders of bonds might well buy new bonds. However, the grand total is approximately $2,600 million. Is he going to start the printing presses rolling? He has in effect rid himself of the governor of the Bank of Canada who is opposed to an expansion of the money supply beyond the appropriate level. The Canadian people are therefore left in the dark as to whether the government intends to start the printing presses rolling or whether it intends to borrow all this money and thereby increase interest rates in Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not wish to take up much of the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but there were one or two remarks made by the hon. member who has just spoken which I feel must be replied to. First of all, one of his remarks concerning the role of Canada in the field of disarmament. As I understood him, the hon. member made some remarks to the effect that Canada had taken no leadership in this field. I think most people in Canada are fully aware of the magnificient role the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken in attempting to lead the other nations of the world in this field. Last year about this time, after negotiations had been broken off in the ten nation disarmament committee, it was the personal initiative of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that put a resolution through in the meeting of the disarmament commission of the United Nations insisting that the major powers get together

Interim, Supply
and discuss ways and means of carrying on negotiations on disarmament. Canada for several years at the United Nations-and I have some knowledge of it; I have been vicechairman of the delegation there for several years

has taken a lead on each and every occasion to try to get the major powers together again and to see if some arrangement can be made to work out some disarmament agreement. When the hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam rises in his place in this House of Commons and makes these insinuations about the Secretary of State for External Affairs I think they must be answered. I might add that if he has acquired his information on this subject during the times that he has attended at the United Nations, I find that very amazing indeed, in view of the length of time he was there and his status when he was there.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: If I may, I should like to make a comment, although just a brief one, on what the hon. member for Oxford has just said. Unlike the hon. member for Oxford I do not have in my background the benefit of long distance telescopes in order to be able to ascertain some of the more detailed things. I would point out to him and to other hon. members that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, contrary to the distortion made by the hon. member for Oxford, made no insinuations against the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam was talking about this government, not the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he made those remarks.
In the field of disarmament this government, the hon. member for Oxford or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, bearing in mind the total concept of the need for disarmament, have done nothing of which to be proud. This government has reason to be proud of one of its members, a fellow British Columbian, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because of what he has attempted to do in promoting discussions on disarmament and attempting to promote disarmament. They have reason to have admiration for the hon. gentleman who holds that ministerial post because of his efforts in this field. But this government and hon. members of this house should know full well that the government of Canada is defeating the attempts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the field of disarmament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Poppycock.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says "Poppycock". Let me carry on and explain.


William Heward Grafftey: You need to explain.


Frank Howard: I will explain when I feel like explaining, not when the hon. member insists upon it. I think every hon. member of this committee knows full well-and this has been expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-that so long as the people's republic of China stays outside of these negotiations there is not going to be any disarmament, unilaterally or any other way.
This is a government which has consistently refused to give this question the recognition it deserves. This is a government which has continued to ride along on the coat tails of the United States when it comes to the question of recognizing the people's republic of China, or red China, or the government of the mainland of China, or however you wish to classify it. We can talk until doomsday about disarmament and neither the Soviet union nor the United States, each one doing it individually, in a unilateral way, or by agreement, is going to reach any agreement or move toward disarmament so long as China is a nation outside of those discussions. China is a nation that has one quarter of the world's population within its boundaries. It is a country which is a growing military power. It is a country which has received, so we are told, a limited amount of guidance and assistance from the Soviet union in certain technological matters. It is a country, so we are told by people who are reputed to know about these matters, which within a decade or less will be nuclear power. If the government believes that the Soviet union and/or the United States, separately or by agreement, are going to engage in disarmament while there is a nation whose borders embrace one quarter of the world's population, which is a growing military power and is going to become a nuclear power, then this is a government which is not moving toward the field of disarmament with the full force with which it should be moving.
If this government believed implicitly and clearly in the questions of peace and disarmament it would back the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the fullest extent and would recognize the fact that there is a growing military and economic power in China, and that this power should be in the disarmament discussions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has himself said that China must be a part of those discussions. Yet he belongs to a government which refuses to take any concrete, definite, firm steps toward recognition of that country.

It is in this sense that I say this is a government which is not giving the full support it should give to its Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is the essence of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was saying.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena I should perhaps add by way of explanation that in the disarmament plan presented to the disarmament committee at Geneva about a year ago, the western plan in its second stage envisaged participation of all militarily significant states. I think this successfully answers the point made by the hon. member for Skeena.


Mr.. Howard:: Would the hon. member tell us what the first stage is?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It would take some time to go into details. There were several stages. The plan presented by the west at that disarmament committee was presented before the Soviet union walked out. These plans are a matter of record, and the hon. member or anybody else who is interested can easily obtain them.


Frank Howard: If you related to them you would defeat your own argument.


Erhart Regier: I have not completed my remarks and I think they should be completed. I indicated that if this government is prepared to go to the country we will be very happy to grant them interim supply, but unless they go to the country they are unworthy of receiving interim supply.
I have especially in mind the attitude of the government in the matter of income tax. We say there are many loopholes, well known to this government, which exist in the Income Tax Act. We have repeatedly appealed to this government to plug those loopholes, but the government has not acted. I am now speaking personally and not on behalf of my own party, but I should like to see all exemptions for charitable contributions abolished. I believe that if I want to make a contribution to my church or to my favourite charitable institution I should be prepared to do so without wanting to cash in on any benefits which may be available under the Income Tax Act. I have received many complaints on this subject, and there are many leading and responsible Canadians who feel that the public treasury is being rooked annually of hundreds of millions of dollars because of these particular concessions.
I believe the government has failed and is unworthy of interim supply. I believe it has failed to adequately protect the public treasury. We say the Income Tax Act ought to be 90205-6-5074
Interim Supply
amended. There ought to be increases; there ought to be reductions. We have long favoured an increase in the level of exemptions allowed under the Income Tax Act.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has put forward arguments which more properly should be, and probably were, made in the debate on the Income Tax Act which was recently considered by this committee. I think perhaps brief references are in order in making his point, but there should certainly not be a full scale debate on a topic which has been previously debated this session.


Erhart Regier: I understand your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is most reasonable in the light of recent debates that have been held. However we also feel that this government is unworthy of interim supply unless it is willing to go to the people because of its arrogant attitude in the matter of international trade. This government is guilty of violating at least the principle, if not the letter, of GATT by device after device, session after session. The spirit of GATT has been broken by this government. They have been increasing tariffs on each and every possible occasion. I will admit at once they have not always done it by direct methods.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the hon. member a question? I am genuinely surprised, in fact, I am amazed to hear what he has just said, because I have believed, and I have been told, that our reputation in the matter of the observance of GATT is almost unrivaled. I think that if the hon. gentleman is going to make statements of that kind he should give chapter and verse for them. I am convinced that he is wrong and I think he should not make statements of that kind unless he can give us the evidence.


Erhart Regier: The only evidence I can call are the repeated statements of the Minister of Finance. On each and every occasion when he has amended the Customs Tariff he has announced that this is designed to increase employment in Canada; in other words, an increase in tariffs in order to protect, as he sees it, Canadian industry. The minister usually accompanies his announcement that tariffs are to be increased on a limited number of items with the statement that there is to be a decrease in the tariff on even more items. But we have to consider what items are involved in the increases and the decreases. The decreases may well have nothing to do with our international obligations.

Interim Supply


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit me to say that I think he has completely destroyed his own argument by those observations. My understanding of GATT is that it is open for members to negotiate with each other and to come to an agreement within the four corners of GATT whereby certain tariffs may be altered. There is give and take. Certain tariffs are raised and certain tariffs are lowered. I think what the hon. gentleman has just said is a confirmation of what I believe, namely, that we have operated within the four corners of the agreement. I think the hon. member should take back what he said about our disregard for GATT because I think it was absolutely wrong.


Erhart Regier: I am absolutely unwilling to take back my basic allegation because I am sure that if the party to which the hon. member for Greenwood belongs goes to the country it will attempt to prove to the Canadian voter that it has protected Canadian industry by increasing tariffs here, there, and everywhere.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Within the four corners of GATT.


Erhart Regier: I will not agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that this has been done within the four corners of GATT. I believe the Canadian record in this regard is almost as bad as the record of the United States, and the record of the United States government in observing the spirit of GATT is very bad indeed as we Canadians have good cause to know because we have had to suffer the effects of many of the major violations on the part of the U.S.A. Our government seems to pursue a merry course, independent and in isolation. Let the rest of the world form economic trading blocs; let the rest of the world get together in groups and abolish tariff barriers-we Canadians are going to steer our own course; we are even going to increase the walls which surround us, by the back door method if by no other method. We predict that this will be disastrous to the health of the Canadian economy. I am unwilling to advocate at this moment that we should affiliate ourselves with one economic bloc or another, but I do say we have to consider what is happening in the world and that it is disastrous for Canada to isolate herself and to become, in effect, even more exclusively dependent for our economic welfare on the level of economic activity prevailing the other side of the 49th parallel.
This government was elected on a declaration that we ought to take a few of our eggs out of that one basket and place them in a few other baskets. But ever since 1957 this government has done absolutely nothing

to make this country any less dependent on the United States economy. The government and its supporters cannot point to a single instance where, by legislation or otherwise, they have attempted to distribute our eggs into more than the one basket.
We say that this government is undeserving of interim supply because it lacks a national transportation policy. Oh yes, it has set up royal commissions on this subject and investigations on that. But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how can we deal with the problem of the railroads of Canada without also considering trucking, shipping, air lines and all other modes of transportation? We have no national transportation policy. True, we have resolved our railroad problem for the time being. We have swept it under the rug until the end of this year. I can well understand why the Prime Minister may want an election this fall: It is because round about the end of this year he will again be faced with the ugly problem which is presented to us by the national railroads. All we have done so far is to sweep this under the rug and it may well be an election will be held before we have to face this difficulty. What we need is a real royal commission to consider transportation in all its aspects rather than a royal commission investigating only one phase of national transportation. We in this group say that national transportation involves a public utility and that sooner or later we shall have to reach the conclusion that public utilities ought to be publicly owned.
We have no national policy on energy. We have conflicting interests. We have an ineffective national energy board whose terms of reference and whose powers are so limited that it is unable to deal adequately with the work assigned to it, because it is forbidden to explore other fields of energy.
As I mentioned yesterday, this government is unworthy of interim supply because it is turning back the clock of Canadian national development. I am not going to pursue that subject now, except to say a word or two on the utter failure of this administration to develop a national capital of which we can all be proud. Ottawa is a city which is magnificent in many respects, but everything of magnificence in this city is here as a result of the national capital commission. We have slums side by side with splendour and I believe the time is long overdue, especially since we are going to celebrate a hundredth birthday two years hence, for much more aggressive action to be taken on the part of the government.
We have a government which does not recognize the need of national growth in the economic field so as to provide for full employment. We say that full employment can

be obtained in Canada and that it is essential to national prosperity. We also say that until plans to this end are able to take effect no one in Canada should have to suffer because, through no fault of his own, he is unable to earn a livelihood. In the early days of Canadian history anyone was able to take an axe and the gun, go out into the wilds and acquire his basic needs. That day has now gone. Today people are living in apartments and are paying relatively high rents. They are completely helpless in obtaining employment. It is no longer up to them to decide whether or not they shall work. Other people have the exclusive power to decide that. If these individuals cannot work all we can do for them apparently under this government is provide unemployment insurance and, when that runs out, a small degree of welfare hardly sufficient to meet the monthly rental. That is not good enough. The government of the day promised the people something entirely different when they last went to the country. For this reason we should like to see them again go to the people. I am sure the people will not have forgotten the promises made in 1958.
The government has completely failed to introduce an all inclusive and comprehensive social security program. In the field of portable pensions we heard a few words during the budget speech to the effect that the minister is going to look into the existing provincial and private pension schemes in an attempt to see whether he can arrive at some mutually satisfactory arrangement. As long as this government is going to depend on private pension schemes in Canada it will have failed in the field of social security. The government must bring forward a pension scheme which is portable under federal government supervision. In order to do so I realize there must be co-operation among the provincial and federal governments. It cannot be done by the federal government alone. We heard during the budget speech that the government intended to look into the existing private schemes operating in the various provinces to see if some measure of portability in respect to pensions could be achieved. I suggest this is inadequate on the part of the government.
Mr. Chairman, we feel that this government lacks both ability and determination to resolve the social economic problems of the Canadian people. We believe in expansion and progress, and we believe success in this field is beyond private programs. We are not so sure that possibly the promises made in 1958 did not outline the proper course, but from then till now it has become obvious that the follow-up on the part of the government on behalf of
Interim Supply
the people has been inadequate. Indeed, we believe this government is responsible to the nation as well as to the individuals of this nation. We believe this government has responsibility to world peace and progress in that direction. We realize that it has failed there too.
I will admit that the Liberal party during 22 long years finally led us into the mess in which we arrived in 1957. However, the Tories claimed they had the answer to the situation. We maintain that only a party which is free, with members of parliament who are free to express their personal opinions without being in hock to campaign funds will be able to give good government to the people of Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the resolution carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed by the great eagerness on the part of members of parliament to go home. I think it is important that we should illustrate some of the reasons why they are anxious to go home.
In the last few weeks we have been involved mainly in discussions regarding the banks, bankers and banking problems. This is something we should have expected a Social Credit representative in this house to precipitate. We have been continuously amazed by some of the things which have happened. We are at the present time amazed as a result of some of the things which have happened in the last day or two regarding the banking situation.
The latest rumour I heard is that the former governor of the Bank of Canada has been offered the chairmanship of the international monetary fund, and that one of his first jobs will be to call upon the Canadian Minister of Finance to justify the position taken in relation to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. Of course, we also hear the story that Donald Gordon is being replaced and recalled to the bank where he was formerly the deputy governor to take over the duties of the governor. These are all interesting suppositions. I suggest there will be more rumours as days go by.
I had hoped that the Prime Minister would be in the chamber in order to give us the benefit of a statement of fact in this regard, because it is the Prime Minister who will be appointing the new governor. We should like to know if it is going to be Donald Gordon because he in turn will be replaced by someone else. I presume that individual will be my friend and colleague from Port Arthur, or one of the other applicants for the job who are not nearly as well qualified.

Interim Supply
It is very interesting to see that the Minister of Finance has not been with us today. I do not know what his absence means.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: He has been here more often today than you have.


William Arnold Peters: I just did not happen to see him, in that event. Mr. Chairman, I believe the people of Canada are going to pay very close attention to the position in which the Minister of Finance now finds himself in relation to the British parliamentary system.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak much longer along this line because I believe that basically the fight is between the present government and the official opposition. I suggest both those parties have had their day in court. The opposition have been fortunate to find that some of their colleagues have been able to justify the existence of the Senate itself. This was of interest to me because I have always been of the opinion that the Senate could not be reformed but only abolished. I am interested in what the Prime Minister intends to do. I am very interested in this aspect of the situation because for the first time since I have been a member of the House of Commons the Senate has expressed its opinion and has stood on its own feet. There is no point in discussing what the Senate did or why it did it. However, if we are going to the people we must have a program covering a diversity of things. The Canadian people are going to be unhappy with what has happened within the last day or two. No one likes to see an underdog trampled upon. I think they have been ashamed as a result of the Prime Minister standing up in this house threatening the other place. I am pleased the Senate took the stand it did and I hope it results in an election. It is for this reason that I say this. In my opinion the Prime Minister of this country is not a big enough man to run the whole country. He obviously needs a cabinet-


David James Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member on his own admission has been conjecturing about many things, the successor to the head of the Bank of Canada and one thing and another. Now he is giving his conjecture about the Prime Minister. I take it this is his own vacuous opinion and his opinion only because it would be just as right for me to say that I heard a rumour that the hon. member was going to drop dead but I fear it is somewhat exaggerated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The matter raised seems to be more in the nature of debate than a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It should not be dignified by the term "debate".


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that I hope the hon. member is not clairvoyant. If this is a premonition born of his imagination I hope it proves to be incorrect. I can assure the hon. member that I have been scared of this too and I have been paying my insurance regularly so things will not be nearly as bad as they might otherwise be. In my opinion, and I think this opinion will be shared by the majority of Canadians, the Prime Minister is not a big enough man, no matter who he is, to be completely responsible for everything. I suggest that it was the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance, who interfered in the situation respecting the Bank of Canada. We have already had proof that there was no difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the head of the Bank of Canada. It is only a personal opinion but I presume that the Prime Minister did not like the way he parted his hair or maybe there were other reasons why he did not like him so he had to go. I suggest that the Canadian people are not going to be interested in this kind of development.
The parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs rose and made a contribution tonight.


An hon. Member:: The poor man's Donald Fleming.


William Arnold Peters: He may be considered by some to be the poor man's Donald Fleming but I would suggest he is the rich man's Donald Fleming. Probably he is a lot better off than the Minister of Finance, but that is only conjecture. He got up and pointed out some things but he did not point out that all hon. members of this house and every Canadian citizen who has really thought about the matter have agreed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and we have been proud of the job he has done. We also know that before the present minister took over the portfolio the Prime Minister handled that department.
We also know that Canada has degenerated so that it is no longer a first or second power in international affairs but a very poor one that is not given much credit at all. It is never certain whether we are for armament or for disarmament. One minister may get up and say that we are in favour of armament. Certainly the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom we have supported has not done so but there are others who are suggesting that we should increase our contribution to NATO and continue under the NATO banner when we know that under NATO there are nuclear arms which all of us have said are not a good thing. It is very difficult to equate these two things because if

the Secretary of State for External Affairs were allowed to have his way this would not be a fact.
I think the Canadian people are going to be very interested in this election. It seems to me that the Diefenbaker government will not be nearly as popular as it was before. It also seems to me that unless this government sits down and does some thinking it will not have been reborn. It has been said that I belong to a party that is going to have a convention and become something else. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian people did not buy a Conservative government. They bought the Diefenbaker government because they thought it was different and lately they have realized how different. It was without a doubt an odd-ball among unorthodox governments if there has ever been one.
We belong to a party, Mr. Chairman, that is going to develop a policy that will, I am sure, be the culmination of discussions that have gone on in every community and every organization which we have had the opportunity to interest. They have discussed our program. Our program will be a program of the people and I am quite sure that most of us will be in a position to give it wholehearted support. We hope that the government will be interested in calling an election on the basis of this kind of program.


William Moore Benidickson: The program is not known yet.


William Arnold Peters: They are in the position, if they wish, to fight the election on Senate reform. I am interested in going home from this place tonight with the hope that the Prime Minister was being honest with the people when he said that if the other place did not do so and so he would have to go to a higher court and there would have to be an election. I hope that is exactly what he does because I am interested in solutions for unemployment. We are interested in solutions for such things as portable pensions. We have heard the Minister of Finance talk about helping the provincial governments to get into this field. We think that the federal government should move into this field right away and hope and expect that the provincial governments will follow.
As far as agriculture is concerned, maybe there is nothing wrong with agriculture but I think something should be done to solve some of the problems. We have had such reports as eggs selling for 15 cents a dozen. This does not happen in my part of the country which obviously means that we should
Interim Supply
remove the regional basis from the stabilization act and apply the act across the country so that no farmer will get only 15 cents a dozen for eggs.
We believe that marketing legislation is necessary on a planned basis not only to handle grain. The government is to be congratulated for the efforts it has made through the wheat board to sell grain as that board has done for other governments. We believe that the same thing should be done in order to establish markets for milk, cheese, butter and other commodities from the sale of which our farmers are not getting a decent standard of living. I will not talk about all the other problems that agriculture has. Certainly we have a calamity in western Canada. This situation has developed because the Liberal government would not do anything. The Saskatchewan river dam should have been built a long time ago and if it had been in operation now it would have solved the problem for many thousands of farmers in western Canada. Now all we can do is to help the farmers in some way.
I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Let us bring some of those farmers to my area in northern Ontario. The hay on many of the farms there has not been cut for quite a number of years. The municipalities own many of them and they would be quite willing to rent equipment to the farmers so they could cut the hay. They could then ask for government assistance to transport the hay to the west. Let us offer them something good and have them do something for themselves as well. We will co-operate and I am sure that if the government gives leadership this will be of assistance to them.
One of our greatest needs is something about which the government has never done anything, the establishment of a department to handle industrial development. In northern Ontario as in the maritimes and other depressed areas of Canada-they may not like the word "depressed" and there may be a better one-they are not capable at the present time of providing employment for the people who live in those areas and we believe that a department must be set up to help them, as was done in England, and to give consideration to the moving of industry from overcrowded places like Toronto to areas that are much more in need of industries than such cities are. We believe in economic planning and this means planning for our industry and our communities. There are many communities in the country that are now pleading for government aid, leadership and assistance in order to do something about this problem. These, Mr. Chairman, are some of the election

Interim Supply
issues to which this government has not faced up as yet, but to which they will have to face up.
We are interested in something else. During the last election campaign we heard this government talk about their interest in the development of Canadianism. They wanted us to buy Canadian, produce Canadian and develop Canadian things. I believe we will hear more about this during the coming election campaign. We also believe in this policy. We are surprised, however, when we find that the Minister of Finance is trying to stablilize the Canadian dollar by buying and selling United States currency. Good heavens, can you think of anything more silly than that when we have gold in this country which could be held in reserve and would be a much better method of stabilizing our Canadian dollar? Let us hold more of our gold so that we can stabilize our own currency within our own country and not have to borrow or buy United States dollars in order to keep the Canadian dollar at par. This may be a line of argument about which we will hear a great deal more.
I thought the Conservative party haa always been interested in stabilizing money. I always thought they were the strong currency party, and I thought they believed in the stabilization of money. On the other hand, we have heard rumours recently about the Minister of Finance asking the banks to lower their liquid assets by 2 per cent in order that the government could get the money to pay the farmers the $200 million in cash advances. Let us at least get enough gold reserves in this country and let us pay for that gold so that we will revitalize the great gold mining industry. We should set a price of $50 for that gold and not worry about the United States. It is all very well for the Department of External Affairs to worry about the United States, but let us be Canadians and let us start worrying about ourselves. Let us build up our own country on the assets we have, and we have many of them.
One of the second greatest assets we have in this country is our labour. We are not going to be a strong, wealthy country until we provide employment for every Canadian who wants to work. This is not being done now. I suggest these are some of the things that are going to be election issues. There are quite a number of other issues that we will be raising in this election campaign. I only hope that this promise of an election is not going to be another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises. This is really an obligation to the people of Canada. I believe he has an obligation, too, to those people in the Senate who answered him in kind. I hope, Mr. Chairman,

that this is not going to be another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises about which we have heard so often in the last four years.


John Ross Matheson: Does the hon. member know that according to a Canadian press report which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on May 16, 1957, Mr. Diefenbaker at Carman, Manitoba, called for reform of the Senate so it would not "blindly follow the government's dictates" and strengthening of the power of parliamentary committees to obtain information? Does the hon. member know that?


William Arnold Peters: I did not know that, Mr. Chairman, but I am not surprised by my ignorance because I have not followed this subject very closely. The party I represent, and with which I have had some association for a long time-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What party was that?


William Arnold Peters: The C.C.F. party. I hope the hon. member who asked the question has had as long an association with his party as I have had with mine. The C.C.F. party has always felt that we could not reform the Senate, it had to be abolished. Let me cite an example, Mr. Chairman. There is a gentleman sitting in the front row of the government benches who is over 75 years of age. In my opinion, this gentleman has more brains than all the backbenchers put together. One of the senators with whom I have had a good deal of disagreement and whom I have not supported, is now 84 years of age. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot use age as a criterion for reform of the Senate. If this is not the reform that is suggested, and I am only saying that it might be because of what has happened to some of the judges of this country, then before we leave this session the Prime Minister should tell us the kind of reform he advocates.
I was pleased to hear the question raised, Mr. Chairman. I was not surprised, though, because I knew the Liberal party was not interested in getting rid of the Senate. They had thirty years to do this. They have not much interest in reform. The Conservative party, therefore, must have been the ones who were interested in reform. I think the public will be very interested in the arguments that they put forward on Senate reform, an issue upon which we are going to be fighting a national election very soon.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I have been thinking over the rights of parliament, Mr. Chairman. I have been advised that the hon. member for Niagara Falls is going to be crowned a princess on Saturday. She will be crowned Princess Ya-Go-Da-Dia-Se, which means in English "She speaks for others". I am much

concerned about one or two aspects of this honour. In view of the attitude of the former Canadian government toward Canadians accepting titles, would it be a violation of Canadian law if the hon. lady accepted this title? I wish also to know whether, in view of her elevation to royal rank she will be required to vacate her seat? If she is not required to vacate her seat, would she have to re-sign the roll in view of the change in name and title? I rise on this question of privilege because it has been concerning me for a few minutes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise for a few moments at this particular time-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Are you on the question of privilege?


Hazen Robert Argue: No. I rise to bring before the committee a grievance which I hope the Minister of Labour might consider. I see he is in the chamber and will undoubtedly consider the remarks I have to make. I am dealing with this matter at this time because there is the happy prospect of the house rather quickly adjourning and because the situation to which I shall refer has been deteriorating in recent days and may result, although I would hope not, in a very disagreeable strike from the standpoint of the employees, the company and the public. I refer, of course, to the current dispute between the Canadian air lines flight attendants association and Trans-Canada Air Lines. This issue has been raised in the house on orders of the day by myself and the hon. member for Skeena as well as others.
Although the minister has taken an interest in this subject there has not been any hopeful indication that this dispute is likely to be resolved amicably within a short time. The request of the employees' association for an inquiry into certain allegations has not been accepted by the government. A conciliation board, and its report, very often are helpful in arriving at the settlement of such a dispute. We have had some experience in this kind of recommendation with regard to another very major labour dispute in this country of some months ago, namely that between the non-operating employees of the railways and the railway management. The government some months ago failed to give, in our opinion, adequate support to the recommendations of the conciliation board which had been accepted by the employees. But none the less, after an interval of some months in which the public felt a railway strike might be imminent, the issue was settled on the basis of the conciliation board report.
In this dispute things have been following an almost identical pattern. A conciliation
Interim Supply
board was set up. A majority report was made and, as far as two particulars are concerned, one of the members presented a dissenting report. A number of issues are involved but the issues in main dispute consist of additional pay because of the flight of high speed aircraft, the attendant inconvenience to the employees involved, the additional work involved, the additional amount of time required off the aircraft in order to make up a certain number of hours of actual employment.
The employees presented their case asking that one minute be added to each hour of time spent in the air for each additional ten miles of speed of the aircraft in excess of 300 miles an hour. The majority report of the conciliation board recommended a one-minute addition for each hour of service of employment in the air for each additional 25 miles per hour speed in excess of 300 miles per hour. Hence the employees, by this majority report, would receive 40 per cent of the amount they had requested.
They had also requested a general 15 per cent increase in pay. The conciliation board report was favourable to a 5 per cent increase in pay retroactive to October 1, 1960.
There seems to be a good deal of evidence that the company have really not bargained in good faith, and that they have taken steps which would suggest that they are endeavouring to recruit alternative employees or strike breakers, as they are very frequently called, with which to replace the employees involved in the dispute and that this kind of activity-and I think this is a serious charge -has been engaged in while the conciliation board was considering its report and certainly before the report had been made public. It is the feeling of the employees that they have been subjected to a great deal of intimidation, and they are therefore asking the minister to make an inquiry into this particular allegation.
I have in my hand a copy of a teletype dispatch sent out by the management to all T.C.A. stations prior to the report of the conciliation board. By reading this teletype dispatch I think I can point out exactly what the employees have in mind. The dispatch reads as follows:
The company has been attempting to negotiate a new contract with the flight attendants association since last summer. The major point at issue has been a "jet speed" clause which would result in approximately a 40 per cent increase in wage costs tor flight attendants on DC-8 aircraft apart from the across the board increases demanded. Such a clause is unprecedented in the industry and is totally unacceptable to the company. The associations' bargaining representatives, however, have been adamant in their refusal to modify the specific demand in any way. As a result, an

Interim Supply
impasse was reached. The matter was referred to a conciliation board, and the report of this board is expected momentarily.
It had not yet been received.
It is the law that following the receipt of a conciliation board's report by the Minister of Labour in Ottawa, a period of seven days must elapse before it becomes legal for a union to take strike action. The company very sincerely hopes that such a situation will not develop. It is determined, however, that should the situation come about, it will continue to operate all its services, and it is therefore obviously essential that it immediately take whatever preparatory steps are necessary to insure that this is possible.
One of the needs will be to provide the minimum necessary substitutes for those flight attendants who may decide to strike. It is desired to do this within the company by drawing personnel from supervisory ranks and other non-union employee groups. A course of training has already been worked out which will qualify such employees for limited flight attendant duties. It is obvious that if the company is to protect its essential services, sufficient numbers of company employees are requested to act as flight attendants for the duration of any strike. Volunteers will be posted to stations at Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. If they are posted away from their homes they will be on full reasonable expenses for this duration of their special assignment. If they are posted to a station at which they are normally based, they will be relieved of their present duties and will be on stand by for flight service following the training. It will not be necessary for these employees to undergo special medical examinations, to secure uniforms or to procure special dress. All employees will be provided with a special identification badge and their duties will require them to work ax any time within a 24 hour period and in some cases with very limited notice. Their normal salaries will be paid for this period plus $5 per day for each day or part thereof spent flying.
In the interest of keeping the air line operating, and in keeping everyone who is not on strike on the payroll, will you please solicit volunteers immediately from the following ranks: secretarial, stenographic, clerical, managers, sales representatives, supervisors, and any other employees who fall within the non-union group and who can be spared from the day to day operation of the air line. If necessary, consideration can be given to replacing the employees released for temporary flight attention duties with office overload or similar service. Male or female personnel will be accepted from any age group regardless of whether or not they would normally qualify as flight attendants. Would you please take action immediately and forward an initial list of names, classification and location by teletype directly to me within 24 hours of receipt of this teletype bearing in mind that personnel may possibly be required to be positioned by next week. On receipt of these names further instructions will be issued with respect to date and place of assignment as circumstances require.
It is signed "L.R."
Mr. Chairman, I think this demonstrates that the company has gone to no end of trouble to recruit persons, irrespective of their medical condition, without respect to their age, and beyond the normal type of qualifications that are necessary for flight attendants. It has been suggested, and I think rightly so, that the whole safety factor by the management has been thrown out the window in this hurried endeavour to recruit

strike breakers amongst the other employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines. This has been sent out before the conciliation board report has been received and it has been suggested that by so doing the company has failed to bargain collectively in a responsible manner.
Because of this situation Robert Smeale, the business manager of the Canadian air lines flight attendants' association, and others have asked that the Department of Labour make an inquiry into these kind of activities to see to what extent the company has engaged in them and to ascertain whether or not this kind of course is in keeping with the normal public safety that should be provided to passengers on T.C.A. aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, as I said when I commenced my remarks, I raise this question only because this session is likely to be adjourned in a short time, because the situation with regard to this labour dispute is serious, and in the hope that the minister will reply and will use his good offices to the end that a fair and reasonable decision may be arrived at in the interests of the employees, the company and more particularly the general public.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the minister is using his good offices in this dispute and I wish to thank the hon. member for his observations, suggestions and advice.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution is carried perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief comment.


An hon. Member:: Brief?


Frank Howard: During the latter part of the day we have placed a number of matters on the record and have made a number of suggestions which we hope the government will consider in those leisure summer days between now and when we reconvene, if we reconvene. If and when we do reconvene we hope the government will bring these matters forward in the form of legislation in order to give effect to our proposals and so take steps to protect and advance the interests of the people of this nation.
We can only wonder, in view of the earlier inflammatory statements by the Prime Minister, just what he has in mind with respect to some recent activities in the other place. We wonder whether or not this indecision on the part of the Prime Minister, for which he is noted, is because he has not yet decided which date he will put upon the undated but signed letter of resignation that the Minister of Finance signed on the day he entered the cabinet. We also wonder whether the Prime Minister is deciding how much time will elapse after this signed but undated letter of resignation is dated before he decides to appoint the Minister of Finance, in order to

save face all the way round, as the governor of the Bank of Canada. If this is the reason for indecision, we can understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Flynn in the chair.

["I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:\nGovernment House Ottawa, July 13, 1961\nSir:\nI have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Holland Locke, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 10.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.\nI have the honour to be, sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nE. Joly De Lotbiniere Assistant Secretary to the Governor General\nA message was delivered by Major C. H. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:\nMr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.\nAccordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.\nAnd being returned:\nMr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:\nAn act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.\nAn act to incorporate Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Convention of Canada.\nAn act respecting The Canadian Council of The Girl Guides Association.\nAn act to incorporate The Acadia Life Insurance Company.\nAn act respecting The Canada Permanent Trust Company.\nAn act respecting the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux in Canada.\nAn act respecting Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.\nAn act to incorporate General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada.\nAn act respecting Penitentiaries.\nAn act to amend the Financial Administration Act.\nAn act to amend the Criminal Code.\nAn act to amend the National Energy Board Act.\nAn act to amend the Trust Companies Act.\nAn act to amend the Loan Companies Act.\nAn act respecting The Canadian Legion.\nAn act to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder).\nAn act to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.\nAn act to amend the Railway Act.\nAn act to amend the Excise Act.\nAn act to amend the Customs Tariff.\nAn act to amend the Excise Tax Act.\nAn act to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.\nAn act to amend the Income Tax Act.\nAn act to authorize the provision of monies to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1961, to the 30th day of June, 1962, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.\nAn act for the relief of Edel Haimes.\nAn act for the relief of William Paschal Hayes.\nAn act for the relief of Mathilde Marcelle Mathieu.\nAn act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962."]
Gordon Minto Churchill: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the sum of $1,045,379,927.94, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before this resolution is carried I wish to ask a factual question of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I should have asked this question in committee of supply. Would the parliamentary secretary assure us that a fraction-and would he also tell us what fraction it is, because I have not had time to look it up-of the special supplementary estimate for Cape Breton is included in this bill?


Richard Albert Bell: There is a fraction, Mr. Chairman. It is seven twelfths.


William Moore Benidickson: The item being originally in the last special supplementary estimates.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes. It is seven
twelfths.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, would the parliamentary secretary advise us very briefly what means the government is intending to employ to obtain the necessary revenue now about to be voted, in case ordinary receipts are inadequate.


Richard Albert Bell: The usual means, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-123, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1962.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1.
['The usual means, Mr. Chairman.']
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the bill with which we are going to
Private Bills
deal has been presented to the members of the committee. It was agreed yesterday that we would defer debate on the particular bill which has been handed to us. I am sure that the unnumbered bill relating to possible agreements between the federal government and the governments of the provinces is not the bill that should have been distributed.


Jacques Flynn: That matter is being corrected, I understand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: More confusion.


William Moore Benidickson: I simply rise to obtain an assurance from the parliamentary secretary who, I know, has given study to the drafting of this bill which has only come into our hands at this moment, that the measure, in its wording, is in complete conformity with the tradition on interim supply and that there are no gimmicks or hidden notes in it and that there is no item connected with the estimates of 1961-62 involved in the schedules to this bill which are completely to be passed, or that we shall not have an opportunity to discuss when we resume this sitting perhaps after the recess of this particular question.


Richard Albert Bell: On the basis of the assurances given to me I have no hesitation in saying to the committee that this is in the standard and traditional form of interim supply. It contains none of what the hon. member refers to as gimmicks; none of the items is voted in full, and the passage of this bill will in no way restrict the discussion in committee of supply on a subsequent occasion.


William Moore Benidickson: In other words, on the resolution stage we were dealing with simply fractions of less than the maximum of twelve twelfths.


Richard Albert Bell: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Robert Jardine McCleave: The house seems to have wound up the business with which it was to concern itself today. I have to make an unusual appeal. I hope the house will be good enough at least to listen to me in patience and with some understanding. Perhaps the house may even consent to take

Private Bills
action along the lines I shall propose. I represent the sponsor tor 356 divorce bills from the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland. Somebody may have said "shame", but as a Nova Scotian I am not without pride in trying to be of service to fellow Canadians in other provinces.
For four months now, Mr. Speaker, I have tried both in this chamber and in the other chamber, running up and down these stone stairs, to try to get some agreement among people in all parties with different points of view to settle the divorce question, if the divorce question can be settled in parliament without offending the feelings of those in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. I think I should immediately make it perfectly plain that while there may be winds of change in the divorce field I have seen evidence of none of those winds of change from the two particular provinces concerned. Distasteful as it may seem to some of us, we do have to consider divorce bills in parliament. After four months of what I consider hard work, I regret that at this moment I am not able to report general agreement on how to alter our present procedure with regard to divorce or, at least, not general agreement to the extent that it will not hurt some people. I think of two people who may feel they are hurt if we adopt the report of the committee on rules and procedure. I would prefer, if possible, to avoid the hard feelings which must accompany even a step which seems as judicial and fair as that. I do not wish to take the time of the house unduly this evening, Mr. Speaker, but my proposal is this. There are 356 cases. The best opinion I have, after consulting everybody who has an interest in this subject, is that between 12 and 15 cases are of the contentious variety. Some of them have been contested in the other place. Some are going to be contested in this place. Others, while they were uncontested in the other place, should be the subject of further examination in the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house. That was obvious after examination by myself, the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Timiskaming and other hon. members. We know the names and numbers of those cases. It would be a simple matter to take those 12 or 15 cases and refer them to the miscellaneous private bills committee.
It is now 20 minutes after nine. We could have that chore done by 9.30 and we could have passed some 340 other cases and carried out a duty owed to the people of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. I ask all members of this house to do this humane thing on behalf of those who have petitioned Her Majesty. I ask them to take this course after
[Mr. McCleave.l
consulting their hearts, their minds, and their consciences. This is the only way in which these people can obtain relief. They have petitioned Her Majesty and we are the human agents here who can say: yes, you may have that relief, or, no, you shall not.


Frank Howard: I am not sure what the request is. Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax would indicate what the request is.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes. I will make the request very specific so that even the hon. member for Skeena may understand that request. The hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming have between six and a dozen cases which they wish examined. Let me have the names of those cases. They can bring down their files in five minutes. We can take the dozen cases which have to be examined and all the others can be passed by 9.30.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Halifax, junior or senior, I do not know which, was permitted to make some remarks preliminary to his request and I hope I shall be allowed the same latitude in that regard.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax on placing himself in the position of being the defender of rights of people in substitution for a government which is a bit of a jelly fish in this regard, one with no backbone to deal with the matter properly.
Mr. Speaker, the gratification that the hon. member for Halifax oozes all over himself makes me a bit sick because we had discussed this earlier, and the hon. member for Halifax is now double crossing us in the approach that we agreed upon.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There has been no double cross on the part of the member for Halifax or any other member of this house in regard to the matter of divorce. There has been no double cross whatsoever.


Frank Howard: I say there has been a double cross and you are the party in charge of it. I will name the others as well if you wish.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it proposed that the house now rise for an interval of time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax could be considered by the house now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's suggestion would of course require unanimous consent. I take it from what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena that unanimous consent will not be forthcoming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word or two in regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no scope here for debate. If unanimous consent is forthcoming I shall be pleased to put the question to the house. Perhaps the hon. member will indicate whether he intends to give consent. I take it that no matter what he says now unanimous consent will not be forthcoming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There was some discussion this afternoon in regard to a request that came for the hon. member for Halifax, and I do not think it has been properly put to the house. The hon. member suggested that there was some agreement among the parties regarding certain divorce bills appearing on the order paper. In these cases it was proposed that there would be an annulment rather than a divorce granted. I understand there are four or five cases of this nature. This group is in agreement with the hon. member in respect to those four or five cases where the scientific evidence has been presented. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I understand that unanimous consent would be forthcoming. I think his suggestion in this regard would be of interest to this group if it were reworded.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested there would be no objection to proceeding with the four or five cases of annulment among the divorce bills. Does the hon. member for Halifax wish to take that course?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that course if I am forced into it. Since there is not unanimous consent in respect to the 350 divorce cases, against my instincts I have to salvage whatever I can out of the wreckage caused by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Frank Howard: What a foul, slimy approach.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes me to go into a debate and pursue it into his public and private life in respect to remarks such as he has just made, I shall be glad to oblige; but the winds of change will sweep him from this chamber.


Frank Howard: The member for Halifax has promoted all of this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not propose to allow remarks of that kind to blight the last hour of the session. If there is not an honourable agreement to be reached the matter is closed.
Business of the House


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, there are four annulments in respect of which all parties had agreed, but one was a contested case before the committee of the other place and it is the usual practice that contested cases must go to the committee on miscellaneous and private bills, so that in all conscience I can move only three of these annulment cases at this time.
The house in committee on Bills Nos. SD-101, SD-107 and SD-265, Mr. Flynn in the
chair.
Bill No. SD-101, for the relief of Edel Haimes-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-107, for the relief of William Paschal Hayes-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-265, for the relief of Mathilde Marcelle Mathieu-Mr. McCleave.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the bills carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of Bills Nos. SD-101, SD-107 and SD-265.
Motion agreed to and bills read the third time and passed.
BUSINESS	OF	THE	HOUSE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the agreement that was reached some time ago when the other bills were to be debated, if we could not reach agreement- and I refuse to negotiate the divorce bills further-I hereby give notice of a motion that when the house resumes the bills be placed in their proper order and listed separately on the order paper.
BUSINESS	OF	THE	HOUSE


MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J.	G.	Diefenbaker (PrimeMinister): Mr. Speaker, on	this, the	157th
day of the longest session, up to this moment, I move, seconded by Mr. Churchill:
That when this house adjourns today it stand adjourned until September 7, 1961, at 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon, provided always that if it appears to be satisfactory to Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Royal Assent

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, while awaiting word from the Senate with regard to the passage of the last bill, may we rise to resume our sitting at the call of the Chair?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we suspend this sitting to meet again at the call of the Chair to be signified by the ringing of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 10.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, July 13, 1961
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Holland Locke, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 10.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly De Lotbiniere Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. H. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
An act to incorporate Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Convention of Canada.
An act respecting The Canadian Council of The Girl Guides Association.
An act to incorporate The Acadia Life Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Canada Permanent Trust Company.
An act respecting the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux in Canada.
An act respecting Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.
An act to incorporate General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada.
An act respecting Penitentiaries.
An act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act to amend the National Energy Board Act.
An act to amend the Trust Companies Act.
An act to amend the Loan Companies Act.
An act respecting The Canadian Legion.
An act to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder).
An act to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.
An act to amend the Railway Act.
An act to amend the Excise Act.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to authorize the provision of monies to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1961, to the 30th day of June, 1962, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act for the relief of Edel Haimes.
An act for the relief of William Paschal Hayes.
An act for the relief of Mathilde Marcelle Mathieu.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.


[Stage Direction]
It being forty-two minutes after 10 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order, until Thursday, September 7, 1961.

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


Mr. Taylor: 1.	Have complaints been made that government departments have lodged plans in Edmonton and Ottawa, but not in Vancouver, when calling for tenders on work in the area of the Alaska highway, Yukon Territory, and Mackenzie river delta?
2.	Would the minister consider lodging construction plans in Vancouver when filing plans elsewhere?
Answer by: Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	The British Columbia branch of the Canadian plumbing and mechanical contractors association wrote to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources about this matter on June 9. A similar letter dated June 14 was addressed to the Prime Minister by the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines.
2.	In answering these letters, it was explained that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has very few tender calls of any significant size in the areas concerned and those that there are relate mainly to the purchase of prefabricated buildings. It was pointed out, however, that the department had followed the practice for some time-and would continue to do so- of lodging plans and specifications with the Vancouver district office of the water resources branch.
In addition to departmental work, there are also projects carried out on our behalf by the Yukon territorial government. The commissioner of the Yukon Territory has been asked to ensure that when he lodges plans and specifications for tender calls in Edmonton, he also lodges them in Vancouver.



MOVEMENT OF CEREALS, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER HARBOURS

Mr. Bourget: 1.	Which harbours on the St. Lawrence river are used almost exclusively for the movement of cereals to foreign markets?
2.	What has been the quantity, in bushels, of
the cereals exported from Quebec harbour during the following years: 1956,	1957, 1958, 1959, and
1960?
3.	What quantities of cereals have been exported during the same years from the following harbours: Montreal, Sorel, Three Rivers, and Baie Comeau?
4.	On what basis has the government established its policy of maintaining the ratio of cereal shipments from Quebec harbour at 9 per cent or 10
Questions
per cent of the quantity shipped through all other harbours on the St. Lawrence river?
5.	What has been the quantity of cereals, in bushels, delivered for local consumption from cereal silos situated in the following harbours: Montreal, Sorel, Three Rivers, Quebec, and Baie Comeau, for the years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960?
6.	What is the storage capacity of the cereals silos situated in the following harbours: Montreal, Sorel, Three Rivers, Quebec, and Baie Comeau?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Agriculture):
1. The only port on the St. Lawrence used almost exclusively for the movement of cereals to foreign markets is the new bay port of Baie Comeau. Additionally, the export movement at Sorel and Three Rivers accounts for the bulk of the grain handlings at these ports. At the remaining ports domestic shipments in a normal year will represent a sizeable proportion of total handlings.
4. There is no set percentage of grain allocated for export from each port. Generally, export shipments depend on the grain and grade of grain available in the elevator for export after allowing for domestic needs, whether berths are available at the time of presentation of ocean tonnage and the wishes of the buyer as to the port of his choice.
Answers to Questions 2, 3, 5 and 6 are contained on the attached table.
Domestic Export shipments shipments Total (millions of bushels)
Montreal
Licensed capacity: 17.5
1959/60 ....	27.3	74.5	101.81958/59 	26.6	88.7	115.31957/58 	21.1	90.1	111.21956/57 	21.6	85.5	107.11955/56 	21.0	105.5	126.5
Sorel
Licensed capacity: 3.0
1959/60	.... 1.0	17.9	18.91958/59	.... 2.6	21.2	23.81957/58	
4.4	17.4	21.81956/57	.... 3.4	13.1	16.51955/56	
2.2	15.6	17.8Three	Rivers	Licensed capacity: 6.8	1959/60	.... 1.5	11.9	13.41958/59	
1.4	13.9	15.31957/58	8	14.1	14.91956/57	
1.1	11.6	12.71955/56	7	14.0	14.7
Questions
Domestic Export shipments shipments Total (millions of bushels)
Quebec
Licensed capacity: 6.0
1959/60	
15.4	10.0	25.41958/59	
14.1	11.9	26.01957/58	
10.6	11.6	22.21956/57	
10.1	11.0	21.11955/56	
9.8	15.7	25.5Baie Comeau	Licensed capacity:	11.9	1959/60	
Nil	1.1	1.11958/59	ft	Nil	Nil1957/58	ft	ft	ft1956/57	ft	H	ft1955/56	M	ft	ft



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION OFFICE MOVE, B.C.

Mr. McLennan: 1.	What was the reason for moving the farm credit corporation office from New Westminster, B.C., to Kelowna, B.C.?
2.	Where is Kelowna in relation (a) to the centre of the province (b) to the largest agriculture production area?
3.	How many employees found it necessary to resign their positions on account of the office being moved?
4.	What percentage of the employees of the New Westminster office were displaced, or resigned, by the move?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Agriculture):
1. The farm credit corporation office was moved from New Westminster, B.C. to Kelowna, B.C. to provide improved service to loan applicants and for economy of administration.
As shown in the following statement, sixty per cent of the loans and loan applications in British Columbia are in the interior of the province.
Lower Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, Pemberton and
Coastal Area	Interior
Past: Loan accounts on books, March 1959 464	683
Current: New loans, 1959-60 63	93
Future: New applications, April 1960-Sept. 15, 1960 42	92
Nine of the corporations field offices in British Columbia are located in the interior of the province as compared to four in the Fraser Valley and Vancouver island. It is more advantageous and economical to supervise these from Kelowna than from New Westminster.
2.	(a) Kelowna is approximately 350 miles southeast of Vanderhoof which is considered the geographical centre of British Columbia.
(b) Most of British Columbia's agricultural production comes from that portion of the province lying between Cranbrook in the east and New Westminster in the west and from the international border to just north of Kamloops. Kelowna is situated almost exactly in the centre of this area and is well served with road communications to each of the corporation's field offices within this general agricultural area and the more sparsely settled agricultural areas in the north and northwest of the province.
3.	Two.
4.	33 per cent.



END OF VOLUME VII


[Stage Direction]
90205-6-433£

[Stage Direction]
QUEEN*S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1961﻿6857
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 22, 1961