1961-09-19

TABLING OF COMMONWEALTH ECONOMIC


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the communique issued at the close of the commonwealth economic consultative council meeting held in Accra, in both English and French.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ACCRA-INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED STATEMENTS BY CANADIAN MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has now received the texts of the speeches made at the commonwealth meeting in Accra by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


John George Diefenbaker: I have received a copy of the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I have not yet received those of the Minister of Finance. I think it would be most appropriate that as soon as they return an opportunity should be given for them to place before the house what they said.
I may say in this connection, having tabled the full text of the communique, that reading the communique will, I think, put in proper perspective the statements that were made. The strongest guarantee of the future of the commonwealth is its capacity to face the facts in a straightforward manner and to do something about them. The various commonwealth members spoke very freely about the situation. Indeed, the frank views put forward by Canada and the other members of the commonwealth did not in any way seem to have been considered out of place by the United Kingdom.
I might point out in this connection that Mr. Maudling is reported to have implied in London on his return from Accra that after the preliminary discussions had taken
place, or words to this effect, then consideration would be given to the convening of a prime ministers' conference. I want to get the exact words of the press report:
The meeting had shown considerable support for a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers.
And Mr. Maudling is quoted as saying:
I think it is very likely that there will be one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. While I thank the Prime Minister for tabling the communique, is the Prime Minister aware that the chancellor of the exchequer, who was the head of the U.K. delegation at Accra, said the other day that he did not feel the communique itself fully represented the tenor of the discussions at that meeting; and is that not an additional reason why the texts of the speeches in so far as we are able to secure them should be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that in the communique-and communiques are always accepted by all those who participate- these words appear, and I think they are the answer to the Leader of the Opposition:
Paragraph 7: Representatives of the United Kingdom reviewed the various reasons that had led them to make the application.
Paragraph 8: All other commonwealth representatives expressed grave apprehension and concern regarding the possible results of the initiative taken by the United Kingdom. They reaffirmed the value and importance they attach to traditional commonwealth trading arrangements under which most foodstuffs, raw materials and manufactures enter the United Kingdom free of duty from commonwealth countries with, in most cases, preferential advantages; and other commonwealth countries make reciprocal tariff concessions. The benefits of these arrangements accrue to the United Kingdom as well as to other commonwealth countries.
Then comes paragraph 9:
Most commonwealth countries questioned whether the United Kingdom with its other international and domestic obligations could possibly secure in the proposed negotiations an agreement which would protect commonwealth interests adequately and effectively.
I think a general reading of the communique-I have not picked out selected portions-would indicate that there was a high degree of unanimity among the countries represented at this conference, pointing out the serious difficulties which entry into the common market might have not only on the economics of the commonwealth but also on its political constitution.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the great importance of this subject, will an opportunity be provided the house to hear the government's views in detail and to discuss the same?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to the suggestion of the hon. member.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if in the statements made by the two ministers representing Canada at Accra either hon. gentleman referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister himself, following the latter's return from the prime ministers' conference in the summer of 1957, when he gave his blessing to the common market?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the news story appearing in the Times of London on Monday, September 18, 1951. One sentence therein reads as follows:
Canada, Mr. Fleming says, wants no change in the existing pattern of trade. It suits him just the way it is.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether this statement attributed to the Minister of Finance represents the policy of the government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that apparently was not a statement by the minister. That was a press comment on a statement allegedly made by the Minister of Finance.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister say whether he has received a personal communication from President Kennedy requesting permission for United States strategic air command planes to land and refuel at Canadian air bases?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no such communication has been received.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister in recent weeks receive a personal letter from President Kennedy in respect to nuclear policy for Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, personal letters are not revealed, and my answer to the previous question is not to be taken in any way as an approbation of the suggestion inherent in the question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate what the policy of the Canadian government is in respect to these matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. gentleman who asked the question knows that matters of policy of that kind are not customarily declared in answer to oral questions before the orders of the day.



APPEARANCE OF DEPUTY COMMANDER ON TELEVISION PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked some days ago referring to the participation of Air Marshal Slemon in a television program, I think in New York, with General Kuter?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, senior officers who accept public speaking engagements in which they deal with general defence policy are requested to submit the text of their speech to me prior to delivery.
Air Marshal Slemon appeared with General Kuter, the commander of NOR AD, on an A.B.C. television network program entitled "Issues and Answers" on September 10. The program was one of a series of public affairs presentations by the American Broadcasting Company and dealt with the functioning of the NORAD combat operation centre.
The questions addressed to Air Marshal Slemon were in general factual and the answers given contained material previously approved and in no way dealt with our defence policy as a whole. Air Marshal Slemon did comment on the recent tracking of the Russian space shot containing Major Titof and stated the fact that the astronaut crossed over Canada a number of times in his earth orbits. Air Marshal Slemon stressed the fact that it was of the utmost importance that we should be able to keep track of such flights, and he stated the opinion that this required a maximum effort on the part of NORAD.
I am entirely satisfied that it was quite unnecessary in this case to obtain my prior approval and permission.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Will the minister say whether this is a change in policy, to allow Canadian serving officers

to submit to questioning with respect to defence matters? If so, are members of this house to be afforded the same privilege?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in many
instances when press men or in some instances businessmen interested in defence construction or manufacturing and other members of the general public visit defence installations at various times they are given briefings in regard to the operations carried on, and they ask questions which are answered by responsible officers there for that purpose.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Everywhere except in the House of Commons.



FN RIFLE


[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 National Defence. The minister will recall that last week when going over his departmental estimates a question was asked about the withdrawal of FN rifles for a $1 million modification. He advised the committee, as reported at page 8384 of Hansard-


Some hon. Members:: Question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -that the modification was required because of some difficulty with foreign ammunition. As found on that page, on two occasions he said that with the ammunition made in Canada there has been no difficulty whatsoever. Would the minister care to comment on a news report which appeared in Friday's edition of the Winnipeg Free Press and which contained the following statements-


Some hon. Members:: Question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. lady resume her seat until order is restored? There seems to be a certain amount of protest about the question, and I have been asking myself whether the hon. member has been asking simply for a verification of the press report. It sounded at first as though she were reopening a debate which had occurred earlier. However, if the hon. member has a question, perhaps she would put it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to comment on the report which indicates that the trouble is not with foreign ammunition, which has only been used in the rifles by Canadians in Germany, but rather with Canadian ammunition which is the only ammunition used here in Canada, as reported in the press.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to comment on a report which I have not seen. I made a statement in connection with this modification when the estimates were being considered, and that statement stands.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wish to ask a question supplementary to the one I directed to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister care to comment on the further report that the army said the trouble could be solved by matching rifles with their breechblocks, thus sacrificing the most important point of the FN rifle, namely interchangeability of parts?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think I should point out that this business of reading long extracts from newspapers and asking ministers to comment on them is out of order, as you have already pointed out on numerous occasions to hon. members on the opposite side of the house. In the second place, these various comments by newspaper writers in connection with this matter in most cases are not based on any real knowledge of the matter.
In order to put an end to this sort of thing I propose, as a matter of fact, to take a party of newspapermen down to the arsenals branch which makes the modifications and which made the rifle, and also out on the range in order to show them exactly what the situation is and how the rifle works. Following that I hope there will be no more misapprehensions about the rifle.


Mr. Ricard:: You had better take the Grits.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister take a few members of parliament along with him so they may listen with interest to the minister's observations to the press?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to take the hon. member along, because he needs information more than anyone else.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him what progress is being made by the royal commission on transportation, and when we might expect the second volume of the report and recommendations of the commission. The Prime Minister will remember that when he spoke during the

Inquiries of the Ministry debate on this matter some time ago he indicated that the second volume was awaited. I should like to know what progress is being made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have no information at the moment. In view of the question I shall ascertain the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer an earlier question asked by the hon. gentleman. The information asked for was when volume II of the report of the royal commission will be available. Since the question was asked I have had placed before me a letter directed to the clerk of the privy council, in which the commission advises that volume II of its report will be available in the fall and volume III, which will consist of special studies that the commission has conducted or caused to be conducted in order to assist the investigation, will follow shortly thereafter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edgar Fournier (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Canadian National Railways are now experimenting with imported concrete railroad ties?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to get in touch with the management of the railway. I shall answer this question tomorrow.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked him when the house and the country might expect the appointment of directors of the Canadian National Railways to fill the vacancies which have occurred and the new appointments which are to be made. The Prime Minister was good enough to say that would be made known in accordance with the statements made by the Minister of Transport when his estimates were brought before the house.
I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Transport indicated that they would be made known when the legislation authorizing these appointments

received royal assent. The question I put to the Prime Minister now is this. The estimates of the Department of Transport have been before the house on several occasions. I was wondering whether there was any other date at which the Prime Minister would indicate these appointments would be made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that when consideration of the estimates is resumed there will be an answer to that question.
(Translation):



REPORTED IRREGULARITIES RESPECTING ELECTION OF SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister any comment to make regarding the statements made by Messrs. C. A. Faucher and Roger Perri, former members of the Quebec liquor board police, who stated in court recently that they performed political work in the constituency of Bellechasse during the federal election of 1958?


Mr. Paul:: They worked for Bruneau also.


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, even though I think this question is out of order, I am glad that it was put to me. This is how the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Pettigrew, cleared up the matter yesterday morning, September 18, 1961:
The court: during the week end, my attention was drawn to a Montreal newspaper report concerning the testimony of a former Quebec liquor board police member, C. R. Faucher, of Rimouski. That was at the sitting of Friday, September 15, during the Lemire investigation.
Sunday morning, after mass, I got a copy of that newspaper and I asked the stenographer to transcribe Faucher's testimony for me. Here is one of the questions the crown attorney, Mr. Bienvenu, asked him: "While you were a member of the liquor board police force and especially since 1951 and 1952, did you ever participate in election campaigns?"
Answer: Participated-that is in 1957-
The court: I insist on this date, 1957, and the witness continued:	"In 1957, that is before	thefederal elections. I	was sent on	a trip	in Bellechasse. Mr. Cote called me in and told me: You will meet doctor Poirier in St. Damien. Put yourself at his disposal. He said that you were to meet him there. Pick up a certain nurse by the name of Normandin in front of the Chateau Frontenac and go to the hotel where the doctor lives in St. Damien de Bellechasse. The next morning, the doctor told me that the only thing I had to do was	to drive the	nurse	who	waswith me. She was	going to the	health	units	run
by the nuns-

The court: Other questions by Mr. Bienvenu.
Question: If it was not an election campaign.
Answer: She went to give some medical aid She told me, when the trip was over, that she had gone to see the sisters to get their vote for Mr. Dorion. I just say what she told me I did not go in with her. End of the answer.
The judge continues and I am still quoting from the shorthand notes:
"And I, as judge, immediately stated, as it was my duty to do, that such evidence was only hearsay, that such proof was illegal, and I added that the nurse had to come herself to give evidence in that connection.
Now this newspaper states the following, and the judge quotes:
"A witness gave evidence in the court of the sessions of the peace yesterday according to Saturday's newspaper during an investigation with regard to the former liquor police chief Rosario Lemire in the 1958 election."
By the court: That fact is not correct.
And the judge continues the quotation:
"And the reverend sisters of the religious orders of Bellechasse had been solicited to vote for the Progressive Conservative candidate, Mr. Noel Dorion."
By the court: What is inaccurate, it is the year 1958. You are aware of the fact that a question of justice is involved, as I have said, and as I say again: the judge is not a partisan for one side or the other. I am here simply to discharge my duty, to see that justice is done, and that my inquiry is carried on in a legal manner.
Now I blame this newspaper for having mentioned 1958. Was it deliberate? Was it done by in-advertance? The witness did not say 1958, he said 1957. Now, in 1957, Mir. Dorion was not a candidate in the Bellechasse riding. I mention here, and it is public knowledge, that when he was elected it was the first time and it was in 1958.
And the newspaper printed a large enough heading for its report.
And the judge quotes:
"Nuns urged to vote for Mr. Dorion". This, despite the fact that I have declared that such evidence was illegal and only hearsay. The newspaper could have mentioned the evidence given by the witness but it should have added that such evidence was of such a nature that the judge could not take it into account. And you know that when someone occupies a position such as Mr. Dorion's who is a federal minister, such statements are liable to cause him rather considerable prejudice ... I thought I had to make a rectification, 1 don't know if we can call it that, but this goes to show you that we want justice for everyone and if, by any chance, it happens that something is reported inadvertently that is not quite in order, and would be of such a nature as to cause prejudice to a private individual, I should make the same remarks I just made in connection with Mr. Dorion. I would do the same for a labourer and for a tradesman.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for the trouble he took in answering my question and for the statement he just made. All things considered,
I am sure that he will have no objection to answering a supplementary question.
90205-6-538
Inquiries of the Ministry Is he in a position to tell the house that he had no personal knowledge of the participation of some Quebec liquor police officers, including Messrs. Rene Mercier, C.A. Faucher and Roger Perri, in the 1958 election campaign in Bellechasse?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister replies, may I say that the question which the hon. member asked the other day and the question today, as I understand them, relate to matters outside the administrative responsibility of the minister. They are rather in the nature of a question of privilege, or an accusation against a member of the house in his personal conduct, rather than the sort of thing which should be dealt with on the orders of the day. I think hon. members perhaps recognize that. As the matter was raised, it was only proper that the minister, who was involved by the report to which the hon. member for Laurier referred, should have the opportunity to make a personal explanation, but 1 do express the opinion that this is not a subject to be pursued on the orders of the day because it is not a matter of administrative responsibility.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the object of the question is not to pursue the matter on the orders of the day, but I would have thought as the minister himself-


Mr. Graffiey:: Mud slinging.


An hon. Member:: Smear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members would like to have this matter cleared up, and the way to do it is to give attention.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have thought the minister would be the first one to want to clear it up, as he has attempted to do on two occasions. He has made a lengthy statement, for which I thank the minister, and as he has done that my supplementary question-


Mr. Walker:: More smearing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He wants to throw more mud.


Lionel Chevrier: -was along the same line.
I simply asked the minister to comment on a statement. Your Honour has indicated by your statement a moment ago that these matters are extraneous to the proceedings of the house; but they are not in this sense, that the whole of the elections act and all the duties and responsibilities under that act fall within the jurisdiction of the minister. The question I put to the minister was a simple one, and I should hope that Your Honour would allow the minister to reply since he was about to do so when Your Honour interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: As the matter has gone this far, I do not wish to prevent the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry from answering the question if he wishes to do so. However, I express the opinion that this question is not properly raised as a question before the orders of the day. It might be raised on a matter of privilege if any charge is to be made against a member, and it can be dealt with in the usual way. As a question addressed to the minister in his ministerial responsibility, it seems to me that it is out of order.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me whether the request by Mr. Whitfield for permission to prosecute under the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act has been granted. In reply may I say this. Mr. Whitfield wrote to me in May. No formal request was made for permission to prosecute in the manner prescribed in the act. Nevertheless the matter was referred to the officials of the Department of Labour. They subsequently referred it to the Department of Justice for an opinion on several aspects of the case. An opinion has now been received, and this in turn is being considered.
There are a number of ways in which Mr. Whitfield's rights in this matter can be determined. One method would be by recourse to the courts. There is also provision for a preliminary investigation by an officer appointed by the department, depending on whether the matter is considered to be one arising out of the Fair Employment Practices Act or one arising under the fair wages and hours of work legislation.
These matters are now in the course of study by my officials and when a determination is reached, appropriate action will be taken.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will Mr. Whitfield be kept advised of the progress of that study within the department, in connection with this matter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Whitfield will be advised of the decision.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont asked me a question, as follows:

Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has sent or will send a protest to the Cuban government against the suppression of religious rights and freedom, indicated by the dismissal of a number of the clergy?
The Canadian embassy in Cuba has now confirmed that nine Canadians were among the Roman Catholic priests expelled from Cuba, who sailed on Sunday night for Spain on board a Spanish vessel. Neither the Canadian ambassador nor the Canadian consul was able to obtain permission to visit the Canadian missionaries before their forced departure. The Canadian ambassador secured an interview with the acting minister of foreign affairs yesterday, in the course of which he expressed the Canadian government's concern over the arbitrary deportation of Canadian citizens to a third country without any notification or explanation, in a manner so precipitate as to deny them an opportunity to make even a minimum of personal arrangements or to communicate with the embassy.
A further report on these representations is expected today, and when this is received I shall inform the house of any further developments in this very regrettable incident.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week I asked the Prime Minister whether he could make available, so they could be printed as an appendix to Hansard, any additional letters that had passed between him or other members of the government and members of the provincial governments with respect to the tax-sharing legislation. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is yet in a position to make that correspondence available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have to frankly say that I have not looked into that matter since the question was asked. However, I shall at once ascertain whether further communications have passed between the provinces in question and the government, and will advise the house later.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of Bill No. C-127, respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oilawa West):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted I wonder whether the Prime Minister proposes to say anything further at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish these remarks to be considered as reopening the debate. In view of the discussion yesterday I do not think it is necessary for anything more to be said at this time. Yesterday there was a general review and a very full and comprehensive discussion of the subject. Many hon. members have views they would like to express, and naturally the house would be glad to hear them, but I feel that no particular purpose would be served by a further discussion at this time.
When the house is in committee the bill can be discussed item by item and we can consider points raised by hon. members that deserve attention. The general purport of the bill has been placed before the house, and further questions can be asked at the committee stage. The hon. gentleman assisted considerably in that connection yesterday.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the resolution preceding this bill was before the committee of the whole there was evidence of a remarkable degree of unanimity on the part of hon. members of the committee as to the subject matter dealt with in this legislation. I think that is a wholly desirable situation, and I hope it continues throughout the six years until the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada is celebrated. It is a matter of some regret to me that the bill itself was not made available in the distribution office until approximately ten o'clock-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I find it difficult to hear and I am sure other hon. members have the same difficulty. Would those who have independent conversations to carry on please do so more moderately or retire to the lobby.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I was remarking, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of regret that the bill itself was not available for distribution until this morning. I believe it came into the distribution office at about ten o'clock. I myself was able to obtain a copy when the bell rang summoning the house to meet.
In any event, I do not propose to obstruct the bill on that account. I do wish to express the thought that this legislation is of such a nature, since the subject matter is not controversial, that possibly it would have been improved had the bill been able to stand on the order paper for some considerable number of days so it could have been circulated to interested organizations across the
90205-6-538J
Canadian Centennial
country. The Canadian centenary council, whose minutes were referred to yesterday, is a remarkable collection of organizations throughout Canada. I am sure they would have been interested in this bill and in its form. Had it been possible, in relation to the business of the house, to have presented the resolution in time so the bill could have been circulated throughout the country, we might then have had the benefit of the views of these interested bodies.
Since that is now not possible or practicable in view of the stage we have reached in the session, I hope the bill will be viewed as one to which amendments can be readily brought forward by the government if, in the light of the months that lie ahead and the experience as it develops, it is thought that such amendments are desirable. As a matter of fact yesterday, when we were celebrating what was to the Prime Minister, I hope, a very happy occasion, his birthday, I had hoped he might have learned the art of handling legislation in such a way and acquired such genius in handling the house that he would have thought about these techniques and reformed. I hope that from his birthday of yesterday he will reform with regard to his technique in presenting bills to the house for consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the degree of agreement yesterday was most attractive.


George James McIlraith: So did I, and I hope we will preserve it in this matter. However, I hope the Prime Minister will reform himself in his method of presenting legislation, because this legislation is of such a nature that the views of the various bodies comprising membership in the Canadian centenary council would have been helpful, I think, to the government and to all of us.
In any event, I do not propose to do other than concur in the second reading of the bill.
I must confess that my reading has been rather rapid and my study of it, therefore very superficial. As I understand the principle involved it is the setting up of an administration to carry out this important function and that principle is one that surely must commend itself to all hon. members of the house. Perhaps I could leave the matter there. There may be some questions to be asked at the committee stage. However, I think on second reading the principle, as I discern it from a hasty reading of the bill, is one that will commend itself to the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr
Speaker, we expressed our views on the resolution yesterday. As far as I am concerned I have nothing further to say with respect to second reading of the bill, except that we

Canadian Centennial
support the spirit and purpose of the bill and will have a few questions to ask when it is being considered in committee.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Now that we are discussing this bill on second reading I have two ideas which I should like to put forward. It seems to me that this centennial celebration will provide us with an opportunity which we have not had for a hundred years, and which we may not have again for another hundred years, to take a great leap forward in building national unity. Unity is the strength of every nation, and should be the prime goal of our national development. If we are to achieve complete national unity it seems to me that we must learn to appreciate one another, and learn to appreciate the contributions which the various provinces have made to Canada as a nation in addition to the contributions which the various racial groups have made to our culture and our economy.
Yesterday the Prime Minister put forward the idea of a train which could travel from one part of Canada to another carrying visible tokens of our heritage. I think that is an excellent idea, and I should like to see it developed to the point where the Prime Minister or those responsible for organizing that train would see to it that prominently displayed were exhibits making it clear what have been the contributions of each province and each ethnic group.
As reported at the bottom of page 8467 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
As Canada is a country on the threshold of an exciting tomorrow, the centenary should serve as a launching pad for new triumphs in our second century.
Earlier in the debate he recalled that this should also be a time of national stocktaking and of rededication to the future. In this connection I should like to put forward the idea that it also affords a splendid opportunity for establishing minimum standards of public service for all Canadians. This would probably mean setting up another committee to determine suitable standards. I do not think the task of such a committee would be an impossible one. We have, for example, already agreed on certain standards of health, so many hospital beds for each thousand people, and I think if we started from there and worked out, say, miles of paved roads, per thousand people, standards of education-so many classrooms per thousand students-and so on we should have the minimum standards which we could make our goal for all Canadians during the next hundred years.
This does not mean that everyone would have to be pulled down to the common level, but I think if those standards were determined Canadians would be shocked to see what wide
[Mr. Herridge.l
variations exist as between one part of Canada and another, and even between different parts of the same province. I think this is something we would want to eradicate in the course of the next hundred years, and I hope the Prime Minister will consider setting up a committee under this legislation to determine suitable minimum standards of public service which might be made common for all Canada, and which might be the goals toward which we can work in the future.


John Ross Matheson: Speaking very briefly on Bill No. C-127, may I respectfully offer the suggestion that one centennial project in particular would be useful to Canadians and to our friends all over the world. I have in mind an ambitious production on the part of the national film board.
A few days ago I was in Toronto, and there I saw a motion picture called "Windjammer" which recorded a cruise of the Norwegian training ship Christian Raadich. I was impressed by the fact that after watching that film for two hours one almost wished to be Norwegian. The Prime Minister has frequently referred to the richness of the ethnic groups we find in this country, and I think he prides himself on the leadership he has taken in bringing this heritage to the fore. Certainly our former governor general did a great deal in this direction.
It seems to me that if the national film board could plan ahead and produce a great motion picture accompanied by original Canadian music by some of our finest composers, a picture which would introduce our Eskimo population, our native Indians and all the other ethnic groups we have in this country, a significant contribution would have been made toward the celebration. Such a fdm would include our old pioneer stock as well as the people who have come recently from Europe bringing with them so many colourful traditions and customs. It would also include passages illustrating our varied scenery; I have in mind the thousand islands region, the Rockies and other Canadian scenes. A picture of this kind would present Canada to every country in the world, and we could afford to export copies free for distribution abroad.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May
I speak briefly with respect to a view which has been expressed by many individuals in my riding. It is a view which is shared not only by many who were born in my riding but by others who have since come there to live. As is known to most hon. members, Niagara Falls is one of the most popular tourist areas of the country. Not so well known, however, is the fact that this area has rich historical associations. In and about the area from

Niagara Falls to Fort Erie were fought battles as significant in their way as the battle of the plains of Abraham.
I think no Canadian who has visited Quebec City can fail to be stirred by the magnificent monuments there to the two fine peoples who were the founders of this country. The peace, the dignity and the beauty of the surroundings, wedded to the recollection of all we have been taught about the battle which there took place, cannot fail to be impressive. Anyone visiting that spot would feel the beginnings of Canada.
I suggest that the same should be true in Niagara, where there was a struggle between forces from the south who sought to have that part of Canada made part of the United States, and the British troops, Canadian militiamen, the Canadian people who had settled in that area and the Indians of our country who remained loyal to the crown. Unhappily some of the great battles which were fought there, such as the battle of Lundy's lane, have never been properly commemorated by a national park. In fact, in Niagara Falls there are only a small monument and some poignant graves of the fallen on both sides. Each year there has been a commemorative service. Until recently it was held only by Canadians but two years ago, for the first time, Americans were asked to participate. Last year, for the first time in 157 years, an American was asked to give the address.
This is, historians agree, one of the bloodiest battlegrounds on the North American continent. It has been said by historians that more blood was shed on that land, proportionate to the size of the population and the number engaged in the struggle, than was shed at Gettysburg. Most hon. members have visited Gettysburg and will know the feeling that comes to one when visiting there, a sense of seeing the roots of that country's struggle for existence.
It is unhappily the fact that the area which comprises the Lundy's lane battle ground is largely built over with commercial establishments and two fine churches. There is virtually nothing to remind either the residents of the area or the millions of visitors who come to that part of the country that here a stand was made for freedom, and that that part of Canada was held for what later became this great dominion.
I urge upon those who are to serve on this commission the need to commemorate in a tangible way some of the great battles that have significance to Canadians in our emergence as a nation, with a view to paying a tribute in this way to those who went before us, and reminding all who come after us of
Canadian Centennial
the beginnings of our nation when we celebrate its hundredth birthday a few years hence.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow along the same line as what was said by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, and to bring to the attention of the house some historical facts pertaining to the area I represent.
I heartily support the Prime Minister's bill to establish a commission to ensure that Canada's centennial will be properly celebrated. As we look to the future toward a greater Canada for those who will follow us, it is important that we pause to look at our past and examine what has been done in days gone by which laid the foundation for the greatness Canada has achieved as a nation today.
In my riding there is the old town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, where the first government of Upper Canada was established many years ago. It also played an important role in the defence of Upper Canada during the war of 1812. In that town today we have several fine churches, some of them dating back to those early days. We also have Fort Missis-sagi and a number of other old, historic buildings. We have in that area the makings of a splendid old colonial town similar to Jamestown in the United States if it were properly preserved, which I think it should be.
As recently as Sunday last I attended a ceremony at Niagara-on-the-Lake to unveil a plaque in memory of Colonel John Butler, who formed Butler Rangers who played a great part in the preservation of the Niagara peninsula as part of Canada. They also did outstanding work at the time of the American revolution in piloting refugees from the United States to Canada. We therefore have in the Niagara peninsula an historic town and many fine old buildings. As part of our centennial preparations across Canada leading to our celebration we should give serious thought to preserving for posterity what is left of those early, trying times.
It is true that the Ontario government through the Niagara parks commission has done a great deal to preserve places of historic importance in the Niagara peninsula, but there is a great deal more to be done. At the Niagara camp training grounds there are approximately 900 acres of land much of which is going to waste at this time. With that amount of land and the buildings I mentioned the remains of a colonial town could be preserved to commemorate those stirring days in Canada's early history. I urge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to give serious

Canadian Centennial
consideration to preserving what remains of the historic colonial days in the Niagara peninsula.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Canadian centenary council will be continued in the form indicated in the report of its first annual meeting and, if so, how it will be related to the administration created by this measure.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian centenary council is, of course, a group of private institutions that have joined together for the laudable purpose of ensuring that the fullest possible representations will be made in connection with the celebration of the centennial. There will be nothing in this legislation to in any way circumscribe the activities of that organization. It will naturally be expected to give its views and make its recommendations, as I know it will be desirous of doing.


George James McIlraith: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. I think it is highly desirable that the activities of this council be continued and that it be permitted to make as valuable a contribution as it can.
I take it that it is the intention under this legislation to have the national conference on Canada's centennial co-ordinate all the activities, or is it envisaged that the two bodies, the council and the conference, will each deal directly with the administration?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, the conference will be representative of all parts of Canada. Two representatives each will be named by the several provinces, and in addition representatives will be appointed from all the interested segments of the Canadian population. I should think that in the choice of membership of this conference regard would be had to a liaison with the institution through which it has been voluntarily set up and which has done very excellent work in laying the foundations for the centennial. I would hope that this work will continue and that there will be representation on the conference and also that degree of co-operation which would assure that the work that has already been done will be made available to the national conference and to the Canadian people as a whole.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I did not make myself clear in the second question. What I was seeking to find out was whether the

Canadian centenary council would be brought into direct liaison with the administration set up in the bill before us, or whether its relationship would be through the national conference. That was really the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, as a
matter of fact they have been included in the relationship, and these organizations have been working together and exchanging their points of view.


George James McIlraith: As I understand it, the conference as such has not been created yet. The national conference provided for by the legislation has not been created.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true enough. The officials of the privy council have been in constant consultation and have exchanged views with the organization in question to which the hon. member referred, as well as with Canadians as a whole, which brings me to the point he raised on second reading. He asked whether every opportunity had been given for representations to be made. I might point out that on October 4, 1959, at Assumption University in Windsor, I referred to the one hundredth anniversary and said this:
It is the Intention of the government of Canada to communicate with the provinces shortly to secure their views and ideas. My hope is that each province will set up an organization, out of which a national committee will be formed-with representatives of all the provinces of Canada, of church and religious bodies, of cultural organizations, of business, labour and agriculture, and all the elements of Canadian life-to make and coordinate appropriate plans for national celebration. His Excellency the Governor General has graciously agreed to lend his patronage to this tremendous undertaking. I am asking my fellow Canadians everywhere to contribute suggestions for an overall plan.
I asked at that time also that Canadians in all parts of our country make available their representations. Then again, on May 19, 1960, I invited Canadian citizens to send in their suggestions as to how Canada's centennial might best be celebrated. This invitation brought about a healthy response and, as I said in introducing the resolution, I have been very encouraged by the degree to which interest in laying the foundations for a successful centennial is being shown by our people everywhere.
As the hon. gentleman knows, representatives of the privy council who are working on this matter have been in communication not only with the organization to which he referred, which is a voluntary one, but also in general with the provinces and various municipalities across the country, many of whom are taking a new interest in the sense of history and are making their contribution in their several communities to preserving

Canadian Centennial
those things which are of historic importance These questions were asked by the hon. and a part of the warp and woof and the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. The traditions of Canadian history.	Prime Minister answered as follows:


George James McIlraith: In referring to his speeches the Prime Minister omitted his announcement to the House of Commons which was along exactly the same lines, and which was made on February 4, 1960, as reported at page 713 of Hansard. At the conclusion of the announcement he spoke about meeting with the representatives and premiers of the several provinces. He said:
Following this meeting the government hopes that working arrangements and groups can be formed to carry on the initial plans.
My question has to do with the staff devoted to this purpose. Has the government been able as yet to gather together the nucleus of staff for this administration, or is that something yet to be done?


John George Diefenbaker: That has yet to be done. Members of the privy council have been acting on it. Dr. Hodgson has taken a particular interest in the matter, but there has been no acquisition of staff directly for the purpose.


George James McIlraith: I have another question which perhaps I can pursue at this time. A question was asked in the House of Commons on April 17, 1961, concerning some announcement in the press. I want to make reference to it because there seems to be confusion on this point, and I think it important that it be clarified now. The reference is in Hansard of April 17, at page 3706. The Prime Minister will see that the question was asked by the hon. member for Timis-kaming and was based on a newspaper report concerning the appointment of the well-known publicist, John Fisher, to the staff of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went on to say that Mr. Fisher would "commence his duties as a special assistant with particular reference to preparations that are to be made in connection with the centennial to which we are all looking forward." Then he added this:
While I am on my feet may I say that when the formal appointment is made, the suggestion that he will receive more than $10,000 a year is completely unwarranted.
I assume this has reference to something in the press release that I did not see. Then on June 7 a question was asked, as appears at page 5968 of Hansard. It was a formal question on the order paper, and reads as follows:
Have any persons been brought into the government service for the purposes of preparing for Canada's centennial?
If so, who are these persons, and what are their specific duties?
The answer to both parts of this question is no, not yet.
There was a further reference to the subject some time later to which the answer was no. The point I want to clear up is this. The Prime Minister will see that the answers are capable of being partially in conflict, or at least confusing. What I am seeking to point out is that Mr. Fisher was brought here for this purpose. Is it intended to appoint him, or has he been appointed for this work up to this time? What is the situation? Can the Prime Minister enlighten us, if he feels free to do so?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fisher was appointed a special assistant in the office of the Prime Minister in succession to an earlier appointee who retired. In view of the responsibility which rests upon the Prime Minister in connection with the centennial one of the things which are necessary in the Prime Minister's office is to have available the best equipment and the best equipped persons in the various fields of responsibility. I think the house and the country as a whole recognize that Mr. John Fisher has a knowledge of Canadian history and its traditions unexcelled by anyone else who comes to mind at the moment. That recognition is generally accepted, and among his duties as a member of the Prime Minister's staff is to make available his ideas in connection with the centennial, and to assist the Prime Minister in his relations with the various organizations that have been set up in connection with the centennial.


George James McIlraith: Is it envisaged that this work will be done in the Prime Minister's office outside of the administration?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


George James McIlraith: There is one more point I want to raise. Prior to the election of June, 1957 some steps had been taken in this regard, including the meeting of a committee. I have not been able to get any report of its proceedings this morning, though I have talked with some who attended the meeting. I have had some conversations with regard to what took place at the meeting, but I do not think it would be desirable to put them on record. The meeting was held between certain ministers and the leader of the opposition at that time. I also have not been able to fix the date.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the hon. gentleman fix the year?



B536 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Centennial
George James McIlraith: I can fix who was leader of the opposition. It was the former leader of the opposition, before the present Prime Minister was leader of the opposition. In any event, this is my question. I take it that any work that was done is being gathered together and will be made available to the present administration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the information I have is that there is no record of any such meeting having taken place. I know the hon. gentleman is circumscribed by the considerations he has in mind, but possibly he could tell me privately who were present on the occasion. Whatever was done apparently is not known to the departmental officials at the present time.


George James McIlraith: I will be glad to give the Prime Minister any information I have as to that meeting. A start was made at that time, and I think his predecessor in the office of leader of the opposition may be able to enlighten him on the matter to some extent.
I have one more question regarding the method of appointment under the bill. All appointments are in essence to be governor in council or Prime Minister's appointments. I made some reference to this point yesterday, and I want to ask the Prime Minister a direct question. Is it his intention to make these appointments on an all-party basis, as obviously was the intention of the previous government at the time the first meeting was held on the subject?


Mr. Jones:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Saskatoon laughs.


Henry Frank Jones: I am laughing about your suggestion that there was in fact any meeting that took place while your party was in power.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Saskatoon has a great habit of interjecting improperly. If he has anything to say, he should do so with skill and dexterity.


David James Walker: Like you do.


George James McIlraith: As the Prime Minister has indicated in his remarks, the fact is that this is a subject matter of great interest to many people throughout the country and in and around the capital city, and has been over a period of years. I would hope that the perfection of the arrangements for this occasion will be such that they will be worthy of the commemoration of our hundredth anniversary and will serve for the next 100 years as a source of inspiration that will be remembered by all Canadian citizens. I would hope that

the approach will be a little better than that which the hon. member for Saskatoon and the Minister of Public Works have indicated by their interjections.
I am asking the Prime Minister what I regard as a proper question, but which he may or may not regard as proper. That is his privilege. Is it his intention in making these appointments to seek to make the celebration of this great occasion a non-party matter, as confederation was, or is it the intention that any other method will be followed? I think the Prime Minister will be the first to appreciate the point of that question.


John George Diefenbaker: I can assure the hon. member that the purpose is to bring together all Canadians. We do not try to write history on the basis of partisan considerations, and an endeavour to bring about Canadian unity on the basis of party is something I have always tried to avoid. With respect to the setting up of the organization in general, I might say to the hon. member that in order to ensure that all political parties will have representation, the appointments are to be made by the governor in council on the recommendation of the provinces. In all the appointments that are made I will follow the course that has been followed generally in connection with the Glassco commission, of assuring that, without regard to party considerations, the best men will be made available. That is the course I have in mind. That is the course I want to see followed. It is the only one that can be followed by any government with a sense of its responsibility for an event which is not a party but a national event, one which will give to Canada, I hope, an even larger place in the world internationally than she has today.


George James McIlraith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I think he has indicated what is needed in this organization. In my opinion his statement points up what is needed in better form than I was able to put it in the remarks I made in asking my question. I am glad it was the Prime Minister who made the statement. I hope that the minister who interjected earlier was listening carefully, because I think the Prime Minister has approached this matter in the proper way in making that kind of statement. To me at least it appears that this occasion will be a much greater one than many of here seem to realize at this moment.
As I said yesterday, the Prime Minister quite properly asked for unanimous support for the resolution. I should like to express my

Canadian Centennial
appreciation of the general tenor of the re- parties and all groups concerned. That co-op-marks made yesterday, and I conclude by ex- eration will depend upon information, con-pressing my appreciation to the Prime Min- tinuous contact and the maintenance of con-ister for his remarks in answer to my stant interest by all groups, no matter how question.	small.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Staff.
George James McIlraith: This clause deals with the appointment of officers and employees. Can the Prime Minister indicate when he expects to be able to appoint the commission and have it in operation as a working administration?


John George Diefenbaker: That has not been determined yet. However, having regard to the vastness of the problems that will be faced I am most anxious to have it under way as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Administration agent of Her Majesty.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Paragraph 1 of this clause provides as follows:
(1)	The administration is, for all purposes of this act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.
Then paragraph 2 provides as follows:
(2)	Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the administration may, on behalf of Her Majesty, enter into contracts in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the administration.
This being in effect a crown corporation, can the Prime Minister explain why it is necessary to have included these words "or in the name of the administration"? I thought all contracts were held in the name of Her Majesty under those circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: I think this is a clause or section that is found in other statutes. It makes possible a greater degree of expedition. While the contract would be in the name of the administration, it makes possible the signing by the administration without the formalities that otherwise would be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Objects of administration.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make an observation or two on this clause, which provides for the objects and powers of the administration, inasmuch as I am keen on this aspect of the matter. As I said yesterday, co-operation is essential for success in the development of these plans to the satisfaction of all 90205-6-539
In essence, the administration will have to develop unusually good public relations to a type somewhat different from those that are required for business, political parties or other types of organization. Without a doubt this bill lays the foundation for the building of plans for the centennial celebration, a great deal of which we will learn as the administration proceeds with its plans and so on. Ideas will flow from many quarters, many groups, many areas and so on. However, I start with the question of information. Contact with even the smallest group is essential to success. To give information will promote inspiration which will in turn develop the necessary co-operation.
I trust that the public will be kept informed by press releases or by other means of developments from day to day so they will not feel that this is only something that is being originated in Ottawa and that this is a bureaucracy administered in Ottawa-and of course that term is used most unfairly in connection with many of our government bodies-but that every organization of persons, as I said before, no matter how humble and no matter how small, will feel that they are taking part in these arrangements. I suggest that we should also interest our university students and our school teachers, and that teachers should be informed of developments and be provided with information which they can give even once a month or once a quarter in order to inform their classes of what is being done, of course, in a way that is satisfactory when you are dealing with young people.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-National centennial fund.
John Whitney Pickersgill: While clause 10 makes provision as to the custody of the funds and so on, I notice that it does not actually appropriate any funds. I thought the Prime Minister might tell us whether it was contemplated that at the present session a special supplementary appropriation would be brought in so the work of the commission and the administration could be started at once.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the solicitude of the hon. gentleman in that connection. However, my information is that there is no intention to bring in a supplementary estimate at the present session. I understand that the organization as it is will not require it, and that we shall have it brought in in the regular way in a subsequent session.

Canadian Centennial


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would then not be possible, unless there was a warrant, for a salary to be paid to the commissioner-


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -until money was appropriated by parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From what the Prime Minister has said, I understand that unless a commissioner was appointed who was a member of the public service and in receipt of a salary in some other context, it would not be possible to start this administration until an appropriation of funds has been made in the next fiscal year, or subsequently in this fiscal year at the next session of parliament. Is that correct?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 14-Administration deemed charitable organization.
George James McIlraith: Clause 14 is quite important if it is envisaged that private persons will make contributions to the administration for this purpose. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would elaborate on the degree to which he intends the administration to make an appeal to members of the public to contribute by way of gift or bequest for this purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: This provision, of course, as the hon. gentleman knows, is inserted for the purpose of assuring that if bequests particularly are made for the laudable purpose of the centennial, normal provisions with regard thereto will apply. I hope that businesses and organizations across the country will interest themselves in this matter, for after all it is for the benefit of all Canadians, and that they will feel constrained to make contributions. I can think of nothing more beneficial to Canada than for companies, corporations and the like to make available their contributions not only to the building and the strengthening of the centennial but more particularly, arising therefrom, to a greater sense of unity and a greater realization on the part of the Canadian people of the destiny to which all of us look forward for Canada. This provision is made in order to enable such assistance to be given, as well as to provide the opportunity for philanthropically minded individuals in their wills and testaments to make provision for this purpose.


George James McIlraith: May I ask this question in connection with persons making bequests in

their wills for this purpose. Has the Prime Minister had the provincial succession duty acts looked at in order to ascertain whether the provincial tax legislation is of such a nature as to exempt such bequests? I think he will appreciate the fact that quite often there is a real problem in drafting wills where you have a situation in which a gift or bequest may be exempt from tax under federal legislation but not exempt under provincial legislation. Such a circumstance could throw the balance of the will out in such a way as to mean that the intended bequest is never in fact made; it is never put in the will.
Has the Prime Minister pursued that point, and if he has not, would he have one of the officers of the appropriate department do so?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that matter has not been looked into. It is a matter of importance, as the hon. gentleman indicates, and it is one of those matters that I know will be looked into earnestly by the provinces where they agree on the necessity of making their succession duty acts conform with the provisions of this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-National conference on Canada's centennial.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a question on clause 17, Mr. Chairman. 1 am interested in this in what perhaps the Prime Minister may regard as a rather pedantic way. This is the first time I recall a provision ever having been made for appointments to be made by a minister-I think it is a very good idea myself-rather than by the governor in council. I am not criticizing this provision in any way whatsoever; I wish to make that quite clear. However, I am just wondering what kind of instrument the Prime Minister will use for the purpose. We know that when appointments are made by the governor in council there is an order in council. I wonder what the legal instrument of appointments would be; whether these appointments would be gazetted or what other method, apart from publicity in the press, would be used to give them validity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman was not being pedantic. That was an exhibition of a searching examination based upon his experience as clerk of the privy council and his knowledge of constitutional matters. I have not given thought to this matter. I imagine that when appointments were made there would have to be confirmation by an order in council. I think that would be the proper course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope the Prime Minister's ingenuity or the ingenuity of the clerk of the privy council would be such that this would not be necessary. The Prime Minister had a passion at one time for not having too many orders in council, a passion that I share, I might say. When I was clerk of the privy council I found an unnecessary number of orders were passed, and the number was very substantially reduced. I think this is a good precedent. I hope it will be continued because it does seem to me that, particularly if the Prime Minister is the minister designated, it should be possible to devise some instrument which would make it easier to do these things and cut out some of the red tape.
I suggest that the Prime Minister ask the staff of the privy council office to see if they cannot devise some instrument which will make passing purely formal orders in council quite unnecessary. Of course the Prime Minister will be aware that in the case of the appointment of ministers, such an instrument was devised some years ago because it was considered inappropriate to appoint ministers by order in council.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Objects of conference.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have one very brief observation to make in connection with clause 19. I understand the Prime Minister is anxious to complete this matter, so I will make it as brief as I can. The conference referred to is the national conference on Canada's centennial, and clause 19 purports to set out the objects of the conference. I must say that clause 19 does not express those objects in as nice a way as they might have been expressed.
I hope the Prime Minister will take a look at the clause in the period before the next session and see if he cannot find a more adequate way of expressing the objects of the conference, because they are going to serve as the guide for the work of the conference. As far as I am concerned, I do not think the importance of the conference can be overstressed in making this occasion a great success. I think this clause does something less than adequately express the objects of the conference. Perhaps the Prime Minister would look at it and bring in an amendment if he sees fit. I should be very grateful if he would do that.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall do so, Mr. Chairman. Of course the clause was drafted by 90205-6-539J
National Housing Act
the legal officers of the crown after consultation. There are occasions when we who belong to the legal profession are blamed, condemned or even worse for creating sections that are difficult of understanding, that are replete with a multiplicity of words, exceptions and provisos. This clause 19 is a model of simplicity.
Mr Mcllraiih: It is not very inspirational.


John George Diefenbaker: It may not be ensconced in the beauty of language that the hon. gentleman would like to have, but it has clarity.


George James McIlraith: Put some inspiration into it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 26-Expenditures.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on clause 26 when it is read in conjunction with clause 10. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us if what is contemplated is a separate vote for the purposes of the conference, or whether the moneys will be-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it is a separate vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a separate vote distinct from the vote for the administration?


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Depuly Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank hon. members of the committee for the expedition with which this bill has been passed and the care and attention given to it by those who have participated.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


David James Walker: the second reading of Bill No. C-128, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.

National Housing Act


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: 
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was saying that one of the first results of the fiscal policy of this government was to increase interest rates. The government should now try to reduce them, particularly for housing. If and when the government takes such action there will be, of course, thousands of Canadian home buyers left holding the bag with blanket mortgages on their homes bearing an interest rate of 6J

per cent. Their homes will not be readily saleable because cheaper mortgages will be available at such a time.
Yesterday the Minister of Public Works praised the 6f per cent 35 year mortgage. He said that not too many of them had been taken. Just imagine what a 35 year mortgage means to a man who takes it when he is a little over 30 years of age. If he is fortunate enough not to fall ill or encounter other misfortunes he may be lucky enough to have it paid off before he reaches the allotted span of three score years and ten. The old age pension might be used to finish paying it off, but if he does not live some member of his family will have to pick up the tab and continue the payments. If the owner of one of these houses bothers to add up the amount of money he has paid over the years he will find that he has paid about twice its original value. He then owns an old house by the time the mortgage is discharged. This problem is brought about by the high interest rate of 6J per cent. The point is that interest rates should not be so high as to require a 35 year mortgage on any house.
Recently I saw an advertisement in a Montreal newspaper which offered for sale a nine year old house with a mortgage that bore an interest rate of only 5i per cent. The 5J per cent interest rate caught my eye, because I can recall some years ago in this house the Minister of Finance and other hon. members of the Conservative party berating the former government on the ground that 5J per cent was an unjustifiably high interest rate for housing.
The Minister of Public Works always seems happy to announce a large number of housing starts. This means that a great many more buyers are caught in the trap of paying high interest rates over the years. Certainly long after this government has been gone-but not easily forgotten-many thousands of Canadians will continue to pay monthly tribute to its memory, and the home purchasers will be in the vanguard of that throng.
Another feature of high interest rates on mortgages is this. After a man has put his name on the dotted line and purchased a home this tends to keep him put, to render him immobile. He is frozen in one position, and in all likelihood will continue to live in the same house on the same street in the same town for the rest of his life, unless he is willing to sell at a financial loss. That is not so true in the early years when he only has the down payment as an equity, but as the equity builds up it is more difficult to dispose of the house, to find a buyer with a sufficient amount of money to enable the
National Housing Act
original purchaser to recover his down payment and his equity in the building. As I have said, this equity is difficult to finance under the present system. The trouble is that at the present time buyers do not have sufficient money to finance this equity, so they are forced to buy a new house under a mortgage bearing an interest rate of 6f per cent.
Another problem is that some areas are overbuilt. I know of some areas containing empty homes that would be suitable for anyone who wished to buy, yet other homes are being built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation financing and these entail mortgages bearing an interest rate of 6f per cent, all because of the lower down payment.
The question of financing the equity in older homes should be given consideration by the government. Under the present system of financing we do not make the best use of existing houses. I have known several people who have been required to move, sometimes to another town some distance away, because of a job transfer. I have known people who required a larger house because of an increase in the size of their family. These people have been unable to derive from their homes a sufficient equity to purchase new homes. The government should give consideration to this and other related problems. I am in favour of the government advancing money for housing, but it should be made available at lower interest rates.
The hon. member for Nipissing said yesterday that during the last year of office of the previous administration there were 380,000 housing starts, and that only $65 million was taken from the public sector, the rest being taken from the private sector. I have heard the Prime Minister say that his party was for free enterprise. Well, the public sector of the economy has put up $924 million in order to finance only 30,000 more starts. The private sector of the economy has been treated well by the Minister of Finance. Government securities reached a high price and this lessened the interest of investors in housing mortgages. In order to provide our people with enough money to build houses the government was forced to put a great deal of money into these projects. They now provide those long term mortgage loans by borrowing on the short side of the market. Most of the money required for the long term mortgages is constantly being churned about in the short term market, and this costs a lot of money. This is the main reason mortgage money is at 6J per cent today.
When he replies the minister might give us some figures on the repossession of houses by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and by any other agency holding mortgages

National Housing Act
guaranteed by the government. It would be interesting to have those figures, particularly in respect of the length of occupancy on the part of the house owners.
Yesterday the minister referred to the money advanced in connection with sewage treatment projects on the part of the municipalities. I know some of those projects have gone ahead. I agree that we should clean up our lakes and rivers; I think it is a very good thing. At that time the minister said that money would be advanced to the municipalities at a price very little above the cost to the government. I ask the minister now how much money has been advanced to the municipalities, and what interest rate is being charged.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I find the first clause of the bill before us very interesting, and this applies particularly to the residents of northern Manitoba, the area which I have the honour to represent. There are one or two things that I should like to point out. However, at the outset I should like to say that congratulations to the minister and to this government are certainly in order for the tremendous interest they have shown in housing requirements over the last four years. Each year we have seen increases in the amount of money available for house building, and I think I would be quite safe in saying that new records in house building in Canada have been set in three of the last four years.
However, there are one or two problems remaining in regard to money available from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act. In this respect I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the minister. First of all, I am quite interested in clause 1 of the bill, the purpose of which is to increase from $1.5 billion to $2 billion the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I know from experience that one area of Canada is handicapped to a great extent in its desire to get approval of those loans by individual home owners. I refer particularly to the new area in Manitoba known as Thompson, which is the site of the new International Nickel development. I am sure the minister is aware of this situation because I brought it to his attention previously.
When house construction started at Thompson, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation lent money to individual applicants provided, of course, that the International Nickel Company guaranteed those loans. Until recent months this worked out fairly satisfactorily, because most of the people going into that area were employed by International Nickel, and the mining company was

not at all reluctant to guarantee those loans. However, since then the town has developed rapidly and people are moving in to supply the goods and services which are necessary in a town of this size. They are anxious to build houses, but they are not on the payroll of the mining company. The mining company is now reluctant to guarantee loans for anyone other than its own employees.
As I say, I am sure the minister is aware of this, but owing to the tremendous development in Thompson and other places in the north I think a special look should be taken at this problem and special consideration should be given to those areas. At Thompson there is every reason why we should have faith in the future of the development. When you see an individual company go into an area and invest possibly up to $200 million of its own money to build the first fully integrated nickel producing plant in the world and supply the services for a well planned town, schools and things of that sort; when you see this followed up by private enterprise in the form of small industry, shopping centres and all the requirements for a well planned town go in, I think there is every assurance that this industry will be located in that area for a long period of time. I can recall the president of the company, Mr. Gordon of New York, saying at the opening that as far as they were concerned they intended to remain in that area forever. The establishments which have been put up certainly bear out the fact that they intend to stay for a long time.
If we are to fully justify our faith in the north and our plans to develop the north, special consideration should be given to places such as this and to the private individual who wishes to go in and build a home for himself and his family. I also believe that when you see a town of 400 to 500 houses built in the last year and a half, with another 200 or 300 houses under construction at the present time and something in the neighbourhood of 500 to 600 new lots opening up next year, this certainly warrants greater consideration from the department and from Central Mortgage and Housing than is now being shown.
I realize, of course, that some sad experiences have developed in the past in certain one industry towns. However, as I said before, if we are going to justify our faith in the north I think special consideration should be given. I say this because not only this government but governments of the past have more or less gone on record as having faith in the north and have recognized the need to show special consideration through

the northern allowances which they have paid to government employees stationed in the north.
Many people who go there find that building costs are greater than in any other part of Canada. I might say at this time that I understand Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has experienced some difficulty in these areas because of permafrost. I know that at the present time officials of the national research council are looking into this factor to see what other types of buildings might be more desirable in these localities. However, in the case of Thompson I understand that only eight or nine out of the 450 to 500 houses that have been built are more or less coming apart at the seams as the result of permafrost. In only eight or nine cases has the sad misfortune occurred of running into trouble because of permafrost.
There are other such places in the north in each of our provinces, and there are localities in my area other than Thompson which are having difficulty in getting loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation simply because I believe it is considered that a one industry community is perhaps not the best place to invest too much money. However, in listening to the hon. member for Welland I noticed he said that in his area houses were very difficult to sell from the point of view of the owner getting his equity out of the sale. I think the situation not only applies to the north but possibly applies to many other parts of Canada. Some of these other parts of Canada are not experiencing difficulty in getting loans. Therefore I respectfully request the minister to ask the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to take a further look at these communities in the north and give the fullest possible consideration to a loosening of their policy to allow the individual home owner to secure a loan through these facilities.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to speak from his own seat in accordance with our practice, except by unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the house is agreeable to hearing the hon. member.


John Ross Matheson: I thank hon. members. In spite of the kind indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker, I will return to my own seat.
We have been interested in hearing the extent to which the government has engaged in housing, and in my opinion the question that confronts us at the present time is,
National Housing Act
what is the future of this development if it continues in the direction and to the extent that it has in the past months and years? Often the question is asked, if I bought a home for $15,000 what would it be worth five years from now? There is a very useful study of housing contained in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, September 16 last under the title "Renting or Buying? How Costs Compare". I should like to read one short paragraph from the article:
An $800 down payment is needed under the National Housing Act to purchase that $15,000 house. Your monthly mortgage payments, including mortgage insurance fee, will amount to $97.97. Add $700 a year ($58.33) for taxes and maintenance costs. This makes your total monthly payments $156.30. By 1986 these payments have amounted to $46,890 to pay for and maintain that $15,000 bungalow.
The writer of the article indicates that the house buyer at the present time would be paying more by buying a home than he would by renting, projected over a 25 year period. At the end of that period, of course, he has the house. In the other case he has not risked the investment of $15,000 and he has nothing but the next month's rent to pay. It is also indicated in an article on the same page that on the average a house constructed under the National Housing Act today costs the buyer $1,012 more than the $13,366 it cost in 1956. The conclusion appears to be evident from the study that home prices are remaining stable but the value of money is changing.
I simply leave this word of caution with the house. We know that in our smaller towns and cities it is extremely difficult to sell real estate today even if it is very highly mortgaged and requires only a small equity to transfer a property. While there is much reason, of course, to assist people who need homes, I hope that the minister, with his wise and broad knowledge of the law to which he sometimes refers, will bear in mind the implications of this projection. Certainly this does not sound like private enterprise to me.


Mr. Speakman:: Before the hon. member resumes his seat, would he tell the house in what area taxes and upkeep require this rather unbelievable amount?


John Ross Matheson: I have read from the
Globe and Mail, which is published in Toronto. I am not familiar with the tax rates in that city but I can assure the hon. member that even in the smaller towns in Ontario, in places such as the one in which I reside, taxes and maintenance of this amount are not unusual.


James Stanley Speakman: Thank goodness I live in western Canada.

National Housing Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have very few remarks to make, but I do want to express my support for this measure, which increases the funds available for housing in general, university buildings, assistance to municipalities in connection with sewage disposal and for research. I am sure that the measure has the support of all members of the house.
However, I wish to make one or two suggestions. First of all I wish to support the representations of the hon. member for Welland with respect to the necessity of a reduction in interest rates. If one reads the history of housing in most western countries throughout the years, one will find that in relation to the interest rates in many other countries, ours is an extremely high rate of interest. If it is not feasible at the present time, I would ask the minister when he replies later to tell us whether consideration is being given to the provision of better homes for persons below a certain income by applying some bonus or write-off system, such as that which has been so successful under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act. Good housing is essential in order to build good communities and a strong nation. I think we would be fully justified in extending a write-off provision, similar to that under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act, to those building houses for their families below a certain income level and below a certain house cost level.
I should like the minister to say whether any consideration is being given to that matter. I think the state is fully justified in subsidizing that type of housing in order to meet that type of need. We subsidize a good many other things which I believe are not as essential or as urgent as housing.
In view of the response we have had from municipalities in my constituency, and conversations which I have had with others, I suggest that the present regulations with respect to loans for the building of sewage disposal facilities are rather stringent, in that they apply only to main trunk line sewers and things of that sort. Those regulations might be quite satisfactory for the cities or the towns and larger municipalities. However, owing to the nature of the installations, I have been informed that the regulations are somewhat too restrictive to allow smaller municipalities, especially incorporated villages to take full advantage of the act. I would ask the minister when he replies to tell us whether consideration is being given to changing the regulations, in view of the representations made by various municipalities and organizations.
Then I just wish to say a word or two about the promotion of more building in the
[Mr. Speakman.l
smaller communities. There has been more of it in recent years. At this point I might say that I have no criticism to offer of the senior officials or local officials. As far as the local officials in my constituency are concerned, I know they are doing a very good job. I repeatedly hear extremely favourable comments.
Another thing that assists a local official in doing a good job is taking part in local activities. That factor accounts in part for the success of the local official of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who is at the present time stationed at Trail. He has shown an interest in the community. He is active in several worth-while community organizations. That activity and that interest are of great assistance in his public relations and in the good will he builds up in the community. He is doing an excellent job, and I take this opportunity to say so.
I do not think we have taken advantage of the smaller communities to the fullest extent possible. I am not blaming the officials. I think the situation arises largely from lack of information or lack of understanding, especially with regard to the provision of houses for persons who are retired or who particularly want to live in these smaller places. I suggest that some further consideration be given to promoting more building in smaller communities. When I say "smaller" I mean villages with a population of 1,000 and up, in some cases unincorporated. I am thinking now of several in my own constituency which are unincorporated, having a population from 500 to 1,000, a good little fire department, their own water system and everything else. They are very frugal people and they do not become incorporated because by not doing so taxes are kept down. Their insurance rates are normal. They provide splendid opportunities in the way of sites, living space and things of that sort, for persons who wish to retire and for those who like that type of life.
In order to overcome that lack of information, I suggest it would be a good idea if officials located at various centres made themselves available, when it was possible to do so, to visit those smaller communities and have a talk with a representative organization such as a chamber of commerce, a trade union, a Rotary club or a women's institute. I may say that there is nothing like talking to women to get action, as well as inaction. I have found that to be so from my experience in life. I make those suggestions as I think more should be done to utilize the facilities of our smaller communities, which offer such splendid opportunities for certain types of persons wishing to build.

I am very glad to see this increase in the amount available for research, as this is a continuing development. Circumstances change. I think in particular more research should be directed to the possibilities, the opportunities, and the needs of the smaller communities throughout this country. This is all I have to say at this time. The other matters I wish to mention I shall take up in correspondence with the genial minister.


John Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on one clause on this bill, namely the clause which provides for loans to build dormitories for students at universities. I think this is an extremely important addition to the National Housing Act regulations, which was brought into effect last year and which apparently is going over very well.
At the time the regulations were brought into effect last year I raised the matter of loans for the building of dormitories for student nurses, graduate nurses, hospital aides and interns in hospitals. I have been associated with the board of governors of our hospital for a good many years, and I am well aware of all the problems in connection with getting funds to provide these facilities. Perhaps the minister has had no call for that kind of assistance; however, I feel that it is an extremely important matter.
It is true that both the federal government and the provincial government make available grants for building dormitories for student nurses. However, there is nothing in the way of loans for accommodation for graduate nurses, and the grants for accommodation for student nurses fall far short of the money that is required. In the newspapers the other day I noticed a statement to the effect that graduate nurses stood about lowest, in the matter of average income, of most professional people. That is a very unfortunate situation, because they also require good accommodation adjacent to the hospital. In order for a hospital to keep graduate nurses, interns and nurses' aides, it is important that they have housing facilities with which to take care of them. I strongly recommend to the minister that he give particular consideration to this financing. I think it is just as important as it is to help finance dormitories for students in universities.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate general support for the general principle of this bill, and in particular for those clauses which provide for programs of sewage disposal and dormitories for universities. I am prompted to reply at this time to some remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. The hon. member took great pride in the
National Housing Act
amount of public funds the government is making available for housing. It seems to me this is a very strange position for a member or a party to take which prides itself on its support of private enterprise. The success of our housing program surely does not depend upon the amount of public funds invested in it. The success of any housing program must necessarily depend upon the number of houses built and whether the houses that are built are of a type that meets the needs of the people.
My hon. colleague from Nipissing yesterday, and the hon. member for Welland again today, put on record the fact that in the last three years of the Liberal regime approximately 380,000 houses were built for an expenditure of $65 million of public funds, while the last three years of the present government 415,000 houses have been built for an expenditure of $900 million of public funds. It seems to me that this tremendous increase should be a cause of disquietude. No doubt the government would not invest the money if it did not have to do so, particularly at a time when we are running into heavy deficits. The fact that this money for residential housing is of necessity taken from the public sector raises the question whether free enterprise is really alive to its responsibility to the people of Canada in this regard.
The success of the program depends not only upon the number of houses built, but also upon whether they are the right kind of houses. I was interested in a comment made over the radio this morning by a commentator, I believe it was Mr. Campbell, in which he pointed out that the number of houses being built is far in excess of new family formations. If this is a fact, then one must conclude that the extra houses are being built to replace old houses. I am sure anybody would agree there is a place for public funds in our housing program, but I believe the proper use of public funds is to provide houses for people in the low income brackets, or for those people who will perhaps have to live all their lives in rented accommodation. For them we should be supplying low rental housing.
When the minister replies I should like him to tell us what kind of houses have been built in the last few years with the $900 million that has been spent. Are they expensive houses in the $15,000 to $25,000 bracket, or are they cheaper houses for people with smaller incomes? In my own province we are particularly interested in houses for people in the low income group. I had a special interest in a housing program for fishermen which was announced some time ago but which I believe did not prove to be very successful.

National Housing Act
I do think we should take a good look at where our present housing policy is leading us. It is all right, of course, to provide houses when they are needed, but if our housing program is determined by the necessity to create jobs, then a make work housing program in my view is not compatible with a proper policy for housing. I do hope the minister will give us some indication as to the type of houses which have been built in the main out of the public funds that have so far been expended.
Many hon. members have referred to the high interest rates and the effect these rates have on a person who is taking out a mortgage on a new home. We all hope it will be possible to reduce these interest rates. However, I do not think anybody who looks at the situation realistically can feel that this is going to happen in the very near future, because these high interest rates are a product of our present system. If we are really going to do anything about it we will have to do something about the system that produces these high interest rates. To my mind there is something radically wrong when a person who buys a $15,000 house has to pay $30,000 or $35,000 before he actually owns it. Housing is a necessity, and we should be ingenious enough to work out some system to provide housing for people without imposing upon them this tremendous financial burden.
I ask the minister to see to it that when this new commission that is going to inquire into our financial system is set up they take a good look at this problem and see what changes can be brought about in our whole financial system to correct the present situation.


Mr. Jack Wratten (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a moment to support very strongly the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Lincoln that some funds for nurses' homes should be made available from the funds we are now talking about. Those of us who are connected with hospitals know what a difficult job it is to finance nurses' homes today. While the provincial and federal governments make very generous grants, the balance of this money has to come from the municipalities. In Ontario today we have the hospital services act, and a person can enter any hospital. Where the municipality keeps up a modem hospital with every facility it has a tendency to draw patients from other municipalities. This means that the burden of the expenditure to put up these nurses' residences has to fall upon the municipality.
The way things are today, with taxes and so on, it would be a great boon to the

municipalities if we could finance the balance and have it paid through the differential the hospitals receive as between private and semi-private rooms, because the only income of a hospital in Ontario today is the difference in cost between private and semiprivate rooms. I know that in our own case it would be a great help to us if we could have a loan to put up our nurses' residence and pay it off on a 20 or 30 year basis under the National Housing Act.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: regret that unfortunately I had to miss the introductory remarks which were made with regard to the bill now before the house. However, I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the minister who sponsors this measure. It comes to my mind partly because on looking at the Ottawa Journal today I find that one of the main headlines says "Walker Predicts Boost in House Construction".
The policy endorsed by this group has already been expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West, namely that any money is good money that goes into the construction of homes for ownership by the citizens of Canada. However, I should like to ask the minister if, when asking for additional money for home construction-a request which we are going to support-any thought has been given to the existing regulations under which the affairs of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are administered. I refer in particular to cases where homes have been built with money invested on behalf of the people of Canada, and the property has been returned. I think it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money to authorize additional funds, whether under the National Housing Act or under the veterans legislation, if homes already built under subsidy with the taxpayers' money are to be left vacant.
I think there is need for the minister to take a close look at the situation which exists in the city of Vancouver, for instance. It was only because of circumstances over which I had no control that I was not able to leave the city of Vancouver until yesterday, but I can tell the minister that in all the time I was there, whether in home or in hospital, hardly a day passed when I did not receive a telephone call or a letter asking whether I, as a member of the House of Commons, knew where there was a house to rent for $55, $60 or $70. I had to say no. At the same time not three dozen blocks away from where I live-not in my constituency but in the adjoining constituency-there are homes financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which have been vacant month after month. I checked directly on this matter. They are for sale. Why should we be asked

now to authorize additional funds when the taxpayers' money has been spent on homes in the city of Vancouver which are lying vacant, although people are crying for a place to rent at a rent they can afford to pay? I know the answer. The answer is, because of the regulations under which those particular homes were built.
I raise this point at a time when we are being asked to vote another $500 million for home construction. If homes are being held by C.M.H.C. for sale which cannot be sold, then surely in the name of heaven we could rent them to our people at rents they could afford. To me it was heartbreaking to have to say "No" day after day when I knew that only a few blocks away from my own home there were these houses, owned by the government of Canada, which had been vacant for months. It made me, if I may put it this way, almost as heartbroken as I was coming from Vancouver to Ottawa yesterday in a government owned plane when I was told that some of the most wonderful food in this world was going to be thrown into the garbage pail when we arrived in Montreal, because that was the regulation. Cheese cake not cut, the finest cheese and everything else was to be thrown away because that was the regulation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: I only want to say that this is similar to government owned homes being held for sale and not rented. They too are being wasted. I know the minister cannot do anything about that waste of food, but perhaps he could do something about the waste of housing. If he cannot sell these homes then surely he could make them available to the people who want to rent them. We shall vote him all the money he likes for housing, but let us have the homes occupied when they are completed, not standing vacant.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to say a very few words at this time. We have had several opportunities this session to discuss the subject of housing, so it is not my intention to speak for any undue length of time today. Yesterday I tried to outline the situation as I saw it. As I said at that time, we are in agreement with the principle of the bill.
However, I was very disappointed to notice that government spokesmen were again trying to create the myth that nothing was done in the housing field under Liberal administration, and that a housing utopia has been created under the present administration. I quoted figures again yesterday showing that in the last three years we were in office slightly fewer than 400,000 homes were built.
National Housing Act
In the first three full years of this government's administration, 1958, 1959 and 1960, slightly over 400,000 homes were built. I also pointed out that we were required to put in government funds to the extent of $65 million, while this government for comparable results had to put in $924 million. I observed yesterday that this was a strange example of free enterprise. Spokesmen for this government are always happy to suggest that they are the champions of free enterprise. I know that some hon. gentleman opposite perhaps misunderstood what I said yesterday. I simply wanted to point out that this was indeed a strange example of free enterprise.
I also wish to refer to a statement which was made yesterday by the minister. He tried to get some mileage out of the fact that in the United States this year housing starts are up by only 3 per cent, while in Canada they will be up to a greater degree. We are, of course, all very glad that housing construction will be up in Canada but, as is so often the case, a comparison between Canadian and United States figures is misleading. Housing in the United States had not been depressed in 1960 to the extent that it was depressed here in the same year.
We also regret that there was nothing in the minister's statement which leads us to be encouraged to hope for or expect any early reduction in National Housing Act interest rates. Apparently no government action in this direction is envisaged in the near future. It is known that we on this side have always deplored the increases in costs that are a direct result of high interest rates. This subject was dealt with very ably by my friend the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) and I need not repeat the points he made. I wish to point out, however, that a reduction of 1 per cent in the interest rate on a $12,000 30 year mortgage would mean a saving of approximately $2,300 in the cost of a home. Surely this is deserving of serious attention on the part of this government.
We regret too that the legislation contains nothing that will reduce the high cost of housing. As hon. members know the legislation merely seeks to raise the ceiling on loaning under the existing legislation. It is also a source of regret that there has been no liberalization of the legislation to bring in any new groups of Canadians and particularly those in the lower income bracket who are denied the benefits of this act.
In that vein I should point out that in 1960, 92 per cent of the borrowers under the N.H.A. had an annual income of $4,000 or more. It can be seen that the action taken

National Housing Act
by the government scarcely meets the requirements. Certainly it tails to meet the objectives initially established by the act which was designed to assist Canadians in the lower income groups purchase their own homes. As I said, the present measure deals only with increasing the permissive ceiling.
I close as I began by saying that while we have some reservations about giving the government this much elbow room in what might well be a year preceding an election, we are in agreement with the basic principle of the bill.


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


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members of the house for the constructive criticism they have offered as well as for their praise of the terms of the bill. I wish to assure hon. members that the suggestions they have advanced, with the best of good will I know, will be given careful and thorough consideration.
To the hon. member for Vancouver East who through no fault of his own was unable to be here yesterday may I say this with respect to the Vancouver figures about which he received telephone calls while in hospital. I shall deal first with N.H.A. approved loans, that is loans under the act where the loan is made by an approved lender and guaranteed by the government. As at the end of July, there were 20 unoccupied homes; under N.H.A. direct lending, there were 60. In other words 80 N.H.A. homes in Vancouver. That is not a large number when one considers that in the city of Vancouver alone 3,011 homes were started in the first six months of this year.


Harold Edward Winch: Why are you keeping them vacant?


David James Walker: I would not suggest that a total of 80 homes out of the thousands of houses in Vancouver represents a large percentage.


Harold Edward Winch: It means a great deal to 80 people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David James Walker: If my hon. friend wishes to ask a question I invite him to do so at the conclusion of my remarks and urge him not to engage in a running commentary. It must be obvious even to the hon. gentleman that a total of 80 out of the vast number of homes in Vancouver represents a very small percentage to have vacant at any one time. I assure my hon. friend that these homes will be and are being filled up. Not everyone

is as efficient as the hon. gentleman wishes them to be. I know my hon. friend wishes to have the facts. The existing homes will be occupied and as homes become vacant they will be filled. In the light of all the facts I think the situation in Vancouver is remarkable.
The hon. member for Welland for whom I have the greatest respect appeared to complain that there have been made available mortgages extending over periods as long as 35 years. The point I sought to make with respect to 35 year mortgages is that if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in its wisdom feels there is need for a mortgage of that kind one is extended. I might point out that very few have been extended. I understand that less than 100 have been made available.
With respect to the ordinary mortgage, mortgages extending over periods of 25 or 30 years, there is no restriction on the home owner. He does not have to maintain that mortgage for the full period and is free to pay it off at any time, after holding it for a three year period, simply by paying a bonus of three months' interest. Where could one find anything more conducive to saving than an N.H.A. mortgage? If a mortgage is not paid off it is because the owner does not wish to pay if off or cannot afford to. How much better it is that these people with mortgages which they can pay off over a period of 25 years should be living their years in comfort in beautiful, modern, utilitarian homes rather than living the way they used to at that period when the hon. member first became a member of parliament at which time, in many instances, they lived in degradation in hovels.
We have a new concept of housing. It is the little man this government seeks to assist. It is the little man who interests the Prime Minister-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ahem.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Essex East subscribes to what I am saying, I know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has a cold.


David James Walker: We are interested in seeing the little man live his life in comfort and if possible in happiness. To that end we are-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


David James Walker: At the conclusion of my remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question which is very relevant to what, he has said?


David James Walker: At the end of my speech, yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to ask the minister if he was discriminating against the hon. member for Nipissing in talking about the little man?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I never engage in personal remarks. I have great admiration for the hon. member for Nipissing. I do not feel that remarks such as those are appropriate even though I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has wide latitude in this house.
I beg the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to forgive me for not permitting him to ask his question initially. Had I been aware it was such a brilliant question I would have immediately yielded the floor.
The hon. member for Welland stated that in the United States the interest rate has been dropped twice within recent months. I hasten to point out that the result has been that private funds are drying up in the United States, creating a serious situation. A demand for housing is now building up in that country and cannot be satisfied because private funds have dried up. With the reduction in the interest rate this field is no longer attractive as an investment for private funds.
In the United States mortgages can be sold at a discount. Some of these mortgages which have been reduced by one half of 1 per cent are now selling at 94, 95 and 96 cents on the dollar, the latter figure being the average.
The original cut in the interest rate has been more than overcome by the fact that the mortgage is now being sold at a discount and in the final analysis the interest rate is now higher than it was before.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) asked about foreclosures. I know the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is also interested in this. As of September 2, 1961, the claims on the fund which would result from over-all completion of a foreclosure, on the approved loans have numbered only 428. On the direct loans through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation 262 claims have been paid. In other words, a total of 690 claims have been paid under this insurance fund although, as I have indicated, close to a quarter of a million loans have been made. Therefore, when the hon. member for Welland cries aloud at the havoc being wrought on the poor unfortunate person who has bought our houses, being induced to do so by the blandishments of the Minister of Public Works, may I say that they are not doing too badly when out of that number only 690 claims have been paid.
National Housing Act
I should like to say a word also about the point made by the hon. member for Welland who I thought was here yesterday. He claimed that there were too many vacant houses. In this assertion he was joined by many other hon. members. The fact remains that in February of this year there were 4,913 vacant dwellings, whereas in August of this year-and these are the latest figures we have been able to collect-there were 3,902 vacant dwellings. In other words, in a period of six months there was a drop of a thousand in the number of vacant dwellings in spite of the fact this tremendous building program has been carried on in the meantime. This all indicates that there is no overproduction in houses at the present time owing to the policy of the government which refused to have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation make any loan to any builder for speculative purposes. No house can be built by a builder with a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation unless that builder has a buyer who has signed a contract to occupy and pay for the house.
Many other points were made; perhaps they might be referred to when we take up the questions in some detail in committee. May I say a word about the remarks of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland). I say he has retreated from the stand he took yesterday. If he has not, let him explain it. Is he saying now that we should not continue to make loans in the way that we are making them; that we should cut down on making direct loans for the building of public housing? I will take my seat if the hon. member would like to answer those questions.


John Richard Garland: The minister can easily find out what I said if he will read Hansard. The report is very clear.


David James Walker: I have read Hansard. It seems abundantly clear that the hon. member who represents the official opposition has indicated that in the opinion of the official opposition this government is making too many direct loans to enable Canadians to own their own houses.


John Richard Garland: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a completely false statement.


David James Walker: If the hon. member can read to me any part of his remarks which indicates that my statement is false I shall be glad to hear it. Here are the horns of the dilemma on which the hon. member for Nipissing, the spokesman of the official opposition, finds himself. He says, let us have a lower interest rate, which means that if we have a lower interest rate we will have less private lending

National Housing Act
for housing and therefore fewer housing units unless, when private lending drops out as it did in 1959, the government steps in even further than it has up to the present time. This year, with an interest rate of 6f per cent, the government will be lending $300 million, or 40 per cent of all N.H.A. direct loans.
The moment the interest rate is cut private lending dries up. There is not enough private lending even at 6J per cent. You cut the interest rate, you cut the private lending and the government has to participate to the extent of more than the $300 million it anticipates it will be participating in this year. Therefore, if the hon. member for Nipissing is correct and we should have lower interest rates the result must be greater participation. On the other hand, and out of the other side of his mouth but with absolute sincerity and with a certain amount of good nature, the hon. member says that the government should have less participation. There is no question about that. He said it.


John Richard Garland: That is not correct; that is not what I said.


David James Walker: I have read it twice. The hon. member can correct me if I am wrong. How are you going to get more private lending unless you raise the interest rate even higher than it is at the present time. Or this may be the solution of my hon. friend: he may feel there should be a real shortage of government funds and a real shortage of private lending so that we would not have enough mortgage lending to supply the very real demand of the Canadian public for new houses. Take your pick. What does the hon. member mean?


John Richard Garland: Will the minister permit a question. Does not his government even at this late date accept any responsibility for fiscal and monetary policy and does he not agree that it is entirely responsible for the high interest rates in this country.


David James Walker: I know my hon. friend would like to drag a red herring across the trail of this housing debate but nevertheless let us just keep to the subject.


John Richard Garland: Why not answer the question.


David James Walker: Ask Mr. Coyne; he will answer the question.
If, as my hon. friend from Nipissing suggests, there should be lower government participation, then there must be more private lending. If there is to be more private lending-and up to the present time private lenders have lent only 60 per cent of the public demand for N.H.A. loans-then we shall have to raise the interest rate above

6| per cent; in order to get more lending we must raise the rate. Surely even my hon. friend does not want us to raise the rate above 6J per cent. On the other hand, if he wants less mortgage funds then, of course, fewer houses are going to be built. You cannot have it both ways. Either you lower the interest rate, with less private lending resulting and more government lending taking place or in the alternative, and my hon. friend suggested this, with less government lending you must have more private lending plus a higher interest rate or the final result is less housing.
We have had a very remarkable year this year for this reason. All construction except in the field of housing-and the figures went in yesterday

was down very materially. Housing has led the way in all construction, we suggest, for the benefit of the Canadian public, for the benefit of the little man who wants a house, and at the same time it has afforded employment in N.H.A. fields of
120,000	man years of work.
If we obey the suggestion of most hon. members of the opposition that we should lower interest rates, what is the situation going to be? I recall it as a nightmare. When I became the minister in August of 1959 the interest rate had been set at 6 per cent and the rate had become unrealistic because the interest rate on bonds had gone up, as my hon. friend knows, with the result that a rate of 6 per cent was unattractive. So far had the interest rates on bonds gone up that even the banks withdrew. They would not lend any money at 6 per cent and loans by private lenders just dribbled out.
One of the things that I am perhaps responsible for was the government offering to take the place of private lenders in 1959 in order to keep housing going and afloat. We disliked raising the interest very much so we kept it at 6 per cent. As a result the government had to enter the field of direct lending that year to the extent of $343 million until, as the hon. member said the other day, we finally exhausted the amount allocated by parliament and were not able to get a new bill before parliament in time.
That is the kind of situation that I dread seeing happen again. I should certainly like to reduce the interest rate and just as soon as I can get advice from the experts which makes it appear to me to be feasible we will reduce the interest rate. We are very anxious to reduce the interest rate. However, with the experience in 1959 involving an unrealistic rate which I have related and with the experience of the Kennedy administration at the present time, which arbitrarily reduced the interest rate by half of 1 per cent with ensuing tragic results, I say to the

hon. member for Nipissing and all other hon. members that, much as we would all like to reduce interest rates, it is not possible to do so at this time. If we can bring down the interest rate on long term federal bonds and on other securities of a like nature, we will reduce the interest rate on mortgages just as soon as that happens. Let me say to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) that if in the meantime people do not want to pay for 25 years and they are industrious, as I know the hon. member for Welland has been all his life, they can pay off the whole or any part of the capital sum at any time after a period of three years by paying a bonus of only three months' interest.
The clauses in the bill are four in number and they are very simple. 1 will be most happy to attempt to answer any questions that arise when we are in committee. I do not want anything I have said today to be taken as an attempt to try to show up anyone. I am simply trying to explain the very difficult problem of housing which occupies more of my time than public works and the national capital commission put together.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Advances out of C.R.F.
John Richard Garland: I should like to ask the minister two or three questions at this time. Can he say what is the largest number of houses financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in any one subdivision in the last 12 months?


David James Walker: I have no idea, but we will be glad to get that information and send it to the hon. member.


John Richard Garland: The minister has his officials in front of him now and perhaps he could tell me whether there would be any instances where more than 50 loans were made in one subdivision in the last 12 months?


David James Walker: Yes, there would be.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say how many projects would have benefited to the extent of more than 50 loans and where they are?


David James Walker: We will put a staff together to find that information and give it to the hon. member.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell us the value of the mortgages that have been sold to the chartered banks this year by C.M.H.C.? I think the minister referred yesterday to a total of approximately $22 million in mort-
National Housing Act
gages that were sold in the two offerings that were made, one in June and the other in August?


David James Walker: I would think there were very few, though I understand there were some. The banks have the opportunity to lend money at 6 per cent at any time. They do not have to charge 6| per cent, but even with that privilege they have not seen fit to make very many loans because it is not an attractive rate to them.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps the minister misunderstood me. How many mortgages did the banks buy, if any, in the offerings that were made in July and August?


David James Walker: We do not have that information and it would be very difficult to obtain because, as my hon. friend knows, some firm, institution or lending company could buy them and then sell them to a bank. We do not know exactly where some of these mortgages end up.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell us how many mortgages with a 35-year amortization period have been taken out since the legislation was changed last November?


David James Walker: Could the hon. member ask another question while we are looking that up?


John Richard Garland: I will be glad to defer to someone else.


Chesley William Carter: Has C.M.H.C. a regulation which states that in a subdivision at least half of the lots must be 50 feet in width? If this is so, in view of the fact that in metropolitan areas the price of land is from $100 to $110 a foot, can this regulation not be modified? While the minister is replying, will he also reply to the question I asked yesterday about including family allowances in income with respect to low rental housing?


David James Walker: I understand that of necessity C.M.H.C. is forced to include family allowances as income because in a great many of our subsidized dwellings we have people in the lower income brackets who are unable to afford the normal rent for the accommodation they are receiving and a great deal of their income is made up of receipts from various welfare sources. It is therefore deemed expedient to include family allowances as well. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Chesley William Carter: Yes. The other question I asked was about the regulation with respect to 50 feet frontage.


David James Walker: Oh, yes. There is no minimum of 50 feet frontage. Also, as the hon. member

National Housing Act
who is interested in the situation in Newfoundland knows, the $5,000 house which we had and which we thought might have some success, has not caught on at all.


Frank Howard: In closing the debate on second reading, I guess as ministers are wont to do from time to time, the minister held out the prospect of a possible decrease in interest rates if interest rates in other fields could be lowered. I wonder whether at this stage he could give the committee any indication of what advice he might have in this regard with respect to a lowering of interest rates. Is it considered to be a possibility in the near future or is it perhaps wishful thinking more than anything else?


David James Walker: I find it a bit difficult to forecast that matter. That is more a question for the Minister of Finance. The treasury bill rate, for example, went down for a short time and we thought this situation was going to be all right or that it was a good indication. Then it flattened out again. It is difficult to say what will happen this late fall. I would hate to prognosticate. However, we are certainly keeping a sharp lookout.


Frank Howard: I know that the Liberal party has advocated the lowering of interest rates on home building loans and has attached great blame to the ministers and the government for having raised them a while ago to 6f per cent. It is an admirable thing to advocate the lowering of interest rates. However, it seems strange to me, coming as it does from a party which, when it was in office and when Mr. Harris was minister of finance, did exactly the same thing with regard to interest rates on N.H.A. loans by raising them up to 6 per cent. I believe that that was done in 1956 or 1957. I am not sure of the time. They used precisely the same argument that the minister used for raising interest rates to 6f per cent, notably that maintaining it at the level at which it was prior to its being raised to 6 per cent-I forget what it was then; I think it was 5| per cent or 5 per cent or something of that nature-it was in fact drying up money from private sources for investment in the home building program.
That is precisely the argument the Minister of Public Works has used for raising the interest rate to 6| per cent. If I read his words correctly, he said that if private funds declined even more than they have declined at the moment, the possibility exists of raising interest rates again in order to make it more lucrative for private investors to invest their money in home building loans. It therefore seems to me that when the Liberal party, with the political philosophy or economic philosophy it has, talks about lowering interest rates and how it is going to do

it, I think it is talking through its hat if it maintains the economic philosophy it has.
The Minister of Public Works is more direct and open in this matter. At least he says, now that he is in office, that he or his government has relatively little to do with interest rates, that they are influenced by private organizations and institutions outside of the regulation of government itself, and that therefore it is those factors and those forces in the financial field outside of government and outside of parliament which are really forcing interest rates up and that the government can do relatively little about the matter.
I just make that passing comment in order to say that if either of those two parties, namely the government or the official opposition, are advocating lower interest rates, they have in effect, defeated their own argument by attaching themselves to the economic ideology which they have adopted.


David James Walker: May I say that it is better than having no ideology at all. The New Democratic party obviously had no statement on housing at their convention.


Frank Howard: That is not right, Mr. Chairman. If the minister had had that intense interest which he should have had in political events in this country, he would have found out that the statement he just made a while ago is incorrect, as are many other statements in this field.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to add a brief comment. The N.D.P. starts off with a clean slate in just about every field. I hope that God will let me live long enough to see its members try and get some achievements, other than the sort of speeches they have been making since they came here and since the new party was founded.
(Text):


William Hector McMillan: I should just like to ask the minister about the secondary mortgage market. What is the amount that has been sold and what is the price obtained? For instance, what was the yield to the buyer?


David James Walker: I will look the matter up in my speech yesterday and give my hon. friend the page number and line number. I just cannot lay my hand on it at the moment. However, I referred to the matter yesterday.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


Robert Simpson: Before the clause passes I wonder whether the minister can give some indication whether further consideration will

be given to the question I raised about the unavailability of loans in the northern communities.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for Churchill for raising this question. It is a great problem. Thompson is being developed by the International Nickel Company. After all, when a company wants to gamble on developing a mine in the north country, one can naturally expect that the company and not the Canadian people should bear the risk involved in building houses. Hence, after our experience in Elliot Lake where some of the houses were guaranteed by the companies and some were not guaranteed by the companies, we are now seeing to it that any houses that are built in that area are guaranteed by the International Nickel Company, if they are for their employees.
Their attitude has been that International Nickel is interested in building up a townsite there and if any houses are to be built they should guarantee them, because if they are so certain of the future of the town they should have enough faith in the venture to guarantee any houses that are being built. If they have not enough faith in it, certainly the Canadian people should not be asked to bear the risk, because after all, all this money we are lending comes from the Canadian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister how the government makes the distinction between building houses in an International Nickel development in Manitoba and building a railway for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in northern Alberta?
Surely the minister would admit that the same consideration for the taxpayers should apply in the case of the railways as applies in the case of providing the first necessity of people, namely housing. That concern for the little man, whatever he is, that the minister was sobbing about a little while ago does not seem to be very well borne out by this contrast between the huge amount of money the taxpayers were asked to risk in the bill before us last night-


Mr. Fulion:: Why were you not here to vote on that bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and this hard-fisted attitude with regard to people's housing.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I noted that the members of the official opposition and in fact all hon. members of the house were in favour of the Pine Point railway except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
National Housing Act


An hon. Member:: He was behind the curtain.


David James Walker: Yes, we saw his head protruding from behind the curtain. He did not take any part in the vote. Now he is able to get up like a big, brave man in the House of Commons and make this suggestion. Nevertheless, we are getting along very well in Thompson and the International Nickel Company has so far stood behind every house that has been built up there.
Does that please my hon. friend, or is he displeased? Does he feel we should not insist that International Nickel should guarantee these houses and that the Canadian taxpayer should guarantee them instead?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is very good, of course, because he has had a great deal of experience, in putting words into other people's mouths. We heard the words the minister put in his mouth-


David James Walker: You put your foot in your mouth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and we put the correct interpretation upon them and realized that he had also put his foot in it.


James Ross Fulton: You are a little late.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister chose to make an unnecessary and gratuitous personal reference to the fact that I was not present for the vote last night. I am very glad he did because I think another reference was made in an oblique way by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I am only too happy to tell the minister that I did not bother staying for that vote. I was not behind the curtain. I was at home before that vote was completed watching the splendid film on Newfoundland which was shown by the C.B.C. for an hour, and which I think was worth a lot more than a totally unnecessary vote taking up the time of this house when everyone in the house had indicated that they were in favour of the bill. But this is characteristic of the way in which this government has wasted the time of parliament ever since we met last November.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, just before this clause obtains the approval of the committee I should like again to ask the minister to take a further look at the situation which I have brought to his attention. I think it is all very well to say that the International Nickel Company should have faith in their development, but I am not here pleading for the International Nickel Company; I am pleading for the people who are going into

National Housing Act
that area to make their homes. A good portion of these people are not going to be employees of the International Nickel Company.
I think we must adopt a policy not only for Thompson but for other places in the north. I can see the logic in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation feeling that some of these places are to their mind not too good a risk, but the north must be developed and as the years go on these new developments are going to come into being. We must find a policy which will allow people going into these areas to take advantage of the facilities of corporations such as Central Mortgage and Housing.
Many of the people who are going in there are staking their future on it. They want houses, and I think they should be given the opportunity to make application and have their applications approved, whether they are guaranteed by the mining companies concerned or not.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, 1 will be glad to look into this matter further. The hon. member for Churchill is a very conscientious person.
(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Would the minister tell us if he has received projects of urban redevelopment from the authorities of the city of Montreal? Would the minister give us the information now?


David James Walker: Yes, we have received two of them.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the minister say if those projects are part of an over-all program for the city of Montreal or separate projects not included in an over-all plan for the city?


David James Walker: We have not yet received an over-all plan; these are separate projects. (Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1
carry?


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to say how many instances there have been where more than 50 loans have been made in one particular subdivision in the last year.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, we will have to dig through our files right' across Canada for that information, and we shall be happy to do so.


John Richard Garland: That will not be necessary, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister could say how many mortgages have been sold in 1961 in the United States by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


David James Walker: None, Mr. Chairman.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, because of the eloquent reply in French of the Minister of Public Works I wish to congratulate him. I should like him to specify whether the projects asked for by the city of Montreal were in the east end or in other parts of the Montreal region. Was this specified in the plan?


David James Walker: The southwest part of Montreal.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, could the minister say what percentage of mortgages has been placed to date in 1961 with borrowers earning more than $4,000 a year. What is the information to the latest date that the minister might have available?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, as reported at page 8488 of Hansard for yesterday, the second paragraph, I pointed out that this year so far 36.3 per cent of National Housing Act borrowers have had annual incomes of $5,000 or less. The hon. member wishes the figure in relation to an income of $4,000?


John Richard Garland: Yes, my question had reference to an income of $4,000 and over. I wanted to see the trend. Last year, according to the minister's own figures, 92 per cent of all the mortgages placed were placed with borrowers earning more than $4,000 a year.


David James Walker: The hon. member fails to point out that people with incomes of less than $4,000 are fitted into federal-provincial projects or subsidized housing when we can do so, but even there they are in apartments. People with such incomes feel they cannot afford to buy dwellings in urban municipalities. They prefer to live in apartments.


John Richard Garland: Is it not a fact that they simply cannot comply with the regulations of C.M.H.C. as far as income is concerned?


David James Walker: If they can get a house small enough and a lot cheap enough, they can comply. The hon. member knows the regulations in connection with that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Limits on payments out of C.R.F.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will recall that we had some discussion on the last occasion he introduced, an amendment to the housing act early this session when provision was first made for loans for university residences. I wonder if he could tell us now how many of these loans have been made and how many students will be accommodated as a result of them. Could he also place on record in Hansard-if he has not got the information

now a later date would be satisfactory-a list of the institutions to which loans have already been made and also a list of all the institutions which are eligible for these loans?


David James Walker: Yesterday I gave all this information and put it on record with the exception of the institutions to which loans were actually made. I think the hon. gentleman also asked for a list of the institutions which have applied.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will recall, perhaps, that last year we had a good deal of discussion on this point. There was some misunderstanding about which institutions were eligible. I am sure that has all been cleared up in the meantime. I do not want the minister to read the names out, but if he would indicate either today or at the first opportunity which institutions qualify and place on record in Hansard a list of those institutions which are eligible, and also a list of those to which loans have already been made, I should be grateful.


David James Walker: I shall be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4.
William Hector McMillan: I had an inquiry from two municipalities and they want to know what interest rate would be charged on these loans for sewerage projects. The minister did not give the amount yesterday-he said it would be very little more than the government paid. I wonder if he could tell us now what interest rate is being collected on money paid out already in respect to sewerage projects.


David James Walker: It is 5f per cent.


John Richard Garland: The minister will recall that there was provision in the legislation which was the subject matter of this clause for 25 per cent of the capital and interest to be forgiven if the project was completed by the end of March, 1963. Did the government give consideration to the extension of this date when they were considering this amending legislation?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Chairman, because this incentive was given in order to alert the Canadian people, the municipalities and the town councillors to the urgency of this great problem of pollution and sewage of disposal; it was intended as an incentive to get them into the plan and, in addition, to improve the employment situation. The provision has been very successful and a great deal of employment is being created.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Civil Service Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave, now.


David James Walker: the third reading of the bill.
Bill read the third time and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, September 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-71 respecting the Civil Service of Canada- Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Chown in the chair.
Gordon Campbell Chown: When the committee rose last night we were considering clause 7 of the bill and an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Ottawa East.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I have promised the parliamentary secretary not to take too much time to express the ideas I might have on this matter.
First of all, I must say that I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). I think it would not be too difficult for the government to grant civil servants the right to negotiate, for we have already granted the same right to the employees of certain crown corporations, such as the C.N.R., the C.B.C., and some provinces have even done the same.
The Quebec government, for instance, recently granted, in the case of the Quebec hydro commission, the right to hold direct negotiations between the commission's representatives and those of the employees association. I cannot see why the people who are directly engaged in government service, in the various departments of the federal administration, are treated in a different manner from those who work for crown corporations. Employees in various government departments serve their country and their fellow citizens just like those who are with the commissions and crown corporations, either federal or provincial.
Some people oppose recognition of this right which is fundamental in my opinion for government employees, on the grounds that this would open the door to possible strikes.
It is true that a strike of public service employees or civil servants could cause considerable prejudice to the general public and, in some areas, could even deal a hard blow to the country's economy.

Civil Service Act
However, I do not feel that civil servants want to strike and this is not only my personal opinion, because my statement is based on a brief submitted to the special House of Commons committee by the civil service association of Canada. I would simply like to quote paragraph 69, 21 of that brief:
(Text):
Another dissenting opinion is based largely on the premise that a strike could not be tolerated in the government service. We strongly emphasize that the strike is not now, nor ever has been an issue. Government employees, with some very minor exceptions, do not wish to strike. Rather we prefer impartial arbitration as a method of resolving differences.
(Translation):
I would also like to quote in that regard a paragraph from a study by Mr. S. J. Frankel, entitled: "Arbitration in the British Civil Service", on page 211 which reads as follows:
(Text):
Looking back over 35 years it is clear that arbitration has made a decisive contribution to the development of reasonable and harmonious staff relations. In a society that accepts the full implication of trade unionism it is extremely important that no large body of employees should feel that it is in an inferior position merely because its employer happens to be the state. In a sphere of public activity where the strike would be regarded as disproportionately disruptive, if not intolerable, arbitration seems to offer a fair and reasonable alternative.
(Translation):
There is another objection some people have against the right to negotiate. They say that it would infringe on parliament's authority and supremacy. Here again, the civil service association made a very specific suggestion as shown at page 22 of the brief I mentioned a moment ago, and I should like to read paragraph 73 on the same page, it reads:
(Text):
In the light of the long established and zealously guarded traditions of parliamentary supremacy under the British system, any fears that negotiation and arbitration would in any way invade or lessen parliament's right are completely unfounded. As a safeguard against any possible threat to the supremacy of parliament, the British long ago settled any question of constitutional concern through the acceptance by all concerned of the following formal agreement:
"The establishment of Whitley Councils (i.e. direct negotiation) cannot relieve the government of any part of its responsibility to parliament and ministers, and heads of departments, acting under the general or specific authority of ministers, must take such action as may be required in any case in the public interest. This condition is inherent in the constitutional doctrines of parliamentary government and ministerial responsibility, and ministers can neither waive nor escape it".
(Translation):
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the rights and the authority of parliament and of the

representatives duly elected by the people, are well protected.
As I just said, the United Kingdom found a solution to this problem a long time ago, and I feel that we cannot accuse the mother of parliaments of being unconcerned with the rights of the representatives of the people. New Zealand and Australia have followed its example.
If a disagreement arises between the employer, who is the government, and the employees of the government, this is what happens: in most cases, the employer, having considered the requests made by the employees, establishes himself as judge in the dispute which has arisen between the two parties. While he is the employer, he sets himself up as judge, and I am of the opinion that this situation is completely abnormal.
I believe that the right to direct negotiations should be granted to the association of employees. A conciliation board, independent from the civil service commission, should be set up and, if a conciliation board is not desired, a standing committee of the house could hear the representations following the negotiations, the whole matter being submitted for the approval of parliament, should it be deemed necessary.
It is an honour and a privilege, it is true, to work for one's country. These civil servants of Canada, as many foreigners have stated again and again on various occasions, are second to no other civil service groups in other countries of the world. However, this honour and privilege of dedicating one's life and efforts to the service of one's country should not put the civil servants in an inferior position in relation to their fellow citizens who have taken up employment in private industry.
The government of Canada is one of the largest employers in the country. Hence, it is its duty to set an example for private enterprise not only by maintaining its already cordial relations with its employees, but also by granting them the right to direct negotiations with their employer, and the right of appeal before a conciliation board.
I know that this cannot be accomplished overnight, but I ask the government to reconsider its stand on this problem, so that, at the next session, employees of the federal government can be placed on an equal footing with employees in private enterprise.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we naturally support the amendment placed before the committee. As is well known the C.C.F. has consistently advocated bargaining rights for employees not only in the public service of

Canada but of the provinces as well. In previous sessions and again this session I have placed on the order paper bills designed to give employees in the public service the right to bargain collectively and to have to a degree a say in the determination of their destiny, in bargaining and in reaching collective agreements with their employers.
It may be that the ideas we proposed are not acceptable in detail and as expressed in previous debates there may exist some disagreement concerning methods and concepts. However, I shall concern myself solely with the principle of the right of employees in the public service to have, as far as possible and practical, the same rights granted to employees in industry and in crown corporations.
We welcome the support latterly given to this concept by the Liberal party. We wish hon. members of that party well in their endeavour and hope that jointly we can convince the government that collective bargaining for employees in the public service should be established.
We should be concerned with equality of treatment among Canadians. I do not think that we can or should differentiate between employees engaged in different types of endeavours. All should have equal rights. A great deal of dissatisfaction develops in the public service of Canada and of various provinces because there is a relatively narrow channel through which those employees can find relief with respect to their particular grievances or to their concepts and ideas of what should be their wages, hours of work and working conditions. I suppose it is possible, and it has been done, to refer to what has occurred in other countries and what has been the experience in another part of Canada with respect to this matter, but I do not know whether that would buttress the argument any more than it has been reinforced at the moment. If we retain the concepts of equality of treatment and attempt to work toward that end we shall be accomplishing far more than we shall accomplish by quoting statistics, figures and systems which may exist in some other parts of the world.
Some years ago the parliament of Canada decided by the enactment of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act that employees working in industry and in crown corporations would have certain rights and freedoms, one of which was the right to band together for their mutual protection within a trade union of their choice. This we think should extend and apply to the employees in the public service of Canada, and it does. There is that right of forming associations, organizations or unions of employees within the public service, and they have the advantage of that.
Civil Service Act
The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act also states that if the employees can show to the labour relations board that a majority of them are members of a particular union, that union is entitled to receive a certificate of bargaining authority. We think this should be the law applicable to the employees in the public service also and there should be equal treatment there.
In industry and in crown corporations the employees have the right, through their bargaining agent, to sit down with their employer and bargain collectively for a collective agreement. We think that in this regard there should be equality of treatment, and there should be freedom of opportunity of individual groups within the public service to do the same thing and have their employer, the crown, sit down and bargain with them.
We think the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act says that an employee shall not be subject to pressures and manipulation by his employer. We think that should be the approach to the problem of the employees in the public service; that they should not be subject to having to go with cap in hand and consult with the Minister of Finance or with anybody else on what should be their just, fair and equitable wages, hours of work and working conditions. We think these things and agreement on them can be reached by the process of open, sincere and honourable collective bargaining between organizations representing employees in the public service and the government itself, or a representative group of the government, just the same as exists in industry and in corporations, and this is the thing that we should like to see.
In so far as strike action is concerned, we feel that this is one field-perhaps it, is the only field-in which there should be a difference of attitude and policy in existence, and that in the public service of Canada there should not be the right to strike. Perhaps this is the attitude of the vast majority of people in the public service of Canada. We think there should not be that right to strike, to use the withdrawal of their ability to work as a final means of obtaining a collective agreement such as exists and takes place from time to time in industry and in crown corporations. We think that in substitution therefor there should be the right of arbitration, the right of employees concerned, through their respective organizations, to present their statistics, their arguments, their reasonings and their briefs to a tribunal and the right on the part of the crown to present arguments, statistics, and so forth on behalf of its proposals and the right of the employees of the public service of

Civil Service Act
Canada to receive a decision by arbitration if necessary as to what should be contained within a collective agreement and what should be their wages, their hours of work and their working conditions.
We think it is unfair and certainly neither in keeping with the spirit which we had when we enacted the bill of rights, nor in keeping with the spirit which is contained within the words of the bill of rights, to have upwards of 130,000 employees in the public service of Canada placed in a category of being in fact second class citizens as compared with the rest of the people of this country.
If this government believes in what it believed when it enacted the bill of rights I think it is time to extend that degree of decency and equality to people in the public service of Canada.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.
(Translation):


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add but a few words to what previous speakers have already said about this amendment.
In reading over again the proposed amendment, which is found on page 8023 of Hansard of July 13, 1961, I note that it contains important elements, which are in keeping with the development of rights and freedoms in Canada, particularly in regard to employees.
I have already had the opportunity of taking a stand on that matter, at a civil servants' meeting held in Sherbrooke last year, and I should like to repeat today my attitude towards that problem. I consider that, in the field of rights and freedoms, there has sprung up, as from a valve, a quite natural and logical explosion, a bill of rights, introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), which, actually, has given substance to everyone's needs before the law, and to the prerogatives of all Canadians, regardless of class-but I see in this amendment, as I said, absolutely essential elements which are in keeping with the development of our labour code, and with our social evolution within the present Canadian context.
I have already taken a stand publicly on the matter, in Sherbrooke, and I do so today in the House of Commons, in favour of collective bargaining for civil servants, in order that they may be on the same footing as other workers in private enterprise.
However, I find that in the amendment, as introduced, one reservation is lacking, and that is why I find it incomplete.

Therefore, I should like to point out, as I did in Sherbrooke at that meeting of government employees, that personally-right or wrong?-I am firmly opposed to any kind of strike. Of course, I am in favour of negotiations, I am in favour of arbitration, but I am opposed to the right to strike for government employees, because I want to ensure efficiency in government operations and security for all.
In the last decade, we have but too often heard of groups of government employees calling a strike at some crucial moment, in certain countries, thereby placing their government in a very dangerous position economically and even threatening public security.
That is why I would have liked a more complete amendment whatever the machinery that would make government employees give up the right to strike. Having met over 400 government employees with whom I discussed the matter in the eastern townships, last winter, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that all were in agreement and energetically demanded the right to negotiate and to arbitration; but they all felt also that the right to strike should be given up.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, just a word to reassure the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who just sat down. He said that he discussed the matter with government employees in his district. I can tell him that we, in the committee, met the spokesmen of all the civil service employees and that they do not want the right to strike. The only group which asked for that right was that of the postmen, whereas, the others were flatly opposed to striking.
I entirely agree with the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and the same situation exists in the province of Quebec, where civil service employees are not given the right to strike. I think civil servants should not be given this right. But, if arbitration is granted, they will never be tempted to call a strike, because we must keep in mind that those employees are in a class different from that of industrial workers, and their problems can always be settled to better advantage by discussions in the House of Commons. I therefore think that they would be satisfied if they did not obtain the right to strike. Indeed, they have no intention of availing themselves of this right, even if it is not prohibited by law.
(Text):


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two. More than once in this

debate the words "second-class citizen" have been used. I want to comment on that for a minute. I point out first of all that civil servants of their own motion have indicated that they do not wish the right to strike. For that I applaud them. Second, may I say that I have had a fair amount to do with civil servants through working with them and I have always enjoyed our association. I have always felt that we were working together in the public interest and that there was something in the quality of their employment which did not exist in any other kind of employment that I knew. While I am not going to say more about the use of the phrase "second-class citizen", I regret its use very much. I feel exactly the opposite about civil servants, and I say with deference that I hope that those who have been using that phrase will abandon it.


Frank Howard: I should like to comment with respect to that matter. I am one of those who have used the phrase "second-class citizen". I think the hon. member for Greenwood perhaps misunderstood my application of it. I hope he did. At no time have I considered that employees in the public service are second-class or any other than first-class citizens, together with all other people in this country. What I said was that by virtue of denying these people the opportunities and the rights that exist for other employees, as other clauses in the bill will also indicate, we are in fact treating them as second-class citizens by saying that they do not have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities with other citizens of our country. My use of the phrase was not for the purpose of designating civil servants as second-class citizens but I say that this is in fact what happens when we deny them the rights that other people have. These words have been used on a number of occasions during discussions I have had with employees in the public service who consider they are treated in this way by the government, but I am not applying these words to civil servants as a class of people.
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: I should like to add a few words to what the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) said earlier to the effect that the group of civil servants which asked for the right to strike was the postal workers group. I take the liberty of pointing out that if the postal workers associations have come to that conclusion, it is because of all civil servants, postal workers are about the worst treated at the present time.
When the Post Office Department's estimates were under consideration, I mentioned a great
Civil Service Act
many reasons why postal workers were complaining, criticizing and asking for better working conditions.
When an association or a group of citizens is desperate, it is not surprising that at one point they should ask for the right to strike. I shall come back to this matter when we discuss the provisions relating to leave.
I should just like to give you an example to illustrate what the situation is. What should we think of the fact that postal employees lost their statutory leave because it fell on a Saturday or a Sunday, or that seasonal and part-time postal employees were compelled to pass examinations even though they were working only two, three or four hours a day? What should we think of the explanation which was given at the time, namely that since they were getting the same pay boost as regular employees, it was only fair that they should pass examinations?
Under the circumstances, they asked-and rightly so, in my opinion-for annual leave just like regular employees. That request was also turned down on the grounds that leave with pay is not calculated according to the salary earned.
Those are only a few of the reasons I put forth when we were examining the Postmaster General's estimates, to show that if there is a group of civil servants which is being unfairly treated by the present government, it is definitely that of postal employees.
(Text):
Amendment (Mr. Richard, Ottawa East) negatived: Yeas, 10; nays, 42.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could raise a point of order. I do not do so to be objectionable about the matter but because the same thing has happened before. I do not wish to mention any hon. members by name but I noticed, as I am sure other hon. members did, that during the time the vote was in progress at least four members entered the chamber. It is my understanding that this is contrary to the rule and I think the rule should be observed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I thank the hon. member for Skeena for bringing this to the attention of the committee. This is a true interpretation of the rule and those hon. members who are starting the bad practice of entering the chamber after the vote has been called should desist in the future if they will, please. Shall clause 7 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: On division.
Clause 7 agreed to.

Private Bills


Gordon Campbell Chown: It being five o'clock, I do now leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of public and private bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bills SD-1 to SD-100 inclusive, SD-102 to SD-106 inclusive, SD-108 to SD-264 inclusive, and SD-266 to SD-356 inclusive.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I have detected that there may be some thought in the house that unanimous consent can be secured to proceed with the bill with which we have just been dealing in committee of the whole rather than proceed with those matters to be dealt with in the private members' hour. I do not know whether that is the unanimous view.


Frank Howard: Perhaps under other circumstances it might be the unanimous view but at this time there are other members of the C.C.F. who have made arrangements, because of the intervention of private members' hour, to be elsewhere and who also have an interest in the bill which we have just been considering. I think perhaps at this time it would not be possible to be unanimous.


Mr. Speaker:: The first item stands pursuant to the order made by the house, notice not having been given to print the bills.
Order stands.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 8, 1960, consideration of the motion of Mr. Peters for the second reading of Bill No. C-7, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it seems as though we were perhaps starting on a new session rather than continuing one which started a year ago as normally bills of this nature-or at least, this has been the experience in latter years-have not too often come up for resumed debate. This matter was entered into quite extensively on December 8 of last year and I think a worth-while and fairly full discussion took place by members who were interested in the principle contained within the bill.

Naturally, as is the case in discussing bills of this nature which emanate from and are in the hands of private members, there was some degree of difference of opinion with respect to some of the provisions contained in the bill. However, I know that the government is in a very amenable and conciliatory mood these days. After this bill receives its second reading we may perhaps be able to straighten out some of these differences of opinion at the committee stage of the bill and then wind up, on third reading in meeting the wishes of the majority of the members of the house.
The design of the bill itself to me is to bring the law-I should not say the statute law because there is none as such-in circumstances relating to divorce in Canada as a whole into conformity with some social facts of life which exist today and which, in my opinion, have existed for some period of time. At the moment the law of divorce, with the exception of that in the province of Nova Scotia, states that the grounds for divorce are adultery and adultery only. In essence that is the situation that exists. However, I think we are all fairly well agreed that while adultery may be the grounds for divorce, it certainly is not, in the great bulk of cases, in the first instance the cause of a marital breakdown and the reason for people seeking to obtain a divorce. There are other factors which go into breaking up a marital relationship. I refer to such things as lack of a full and complete faith, alcoholism, wars, increased travelling facilities and the like. All of these things have their impingement, in my opinion, upon the marital structure and tend perhaps to make marital relationships a bit strained.
However, adultery is the only reason one can use in order to satisfy a court or parliament that a particular marriage should be dissolved. I am certainly not going to get into an argument with anybody as to the percentage or the degree of perjury that takes place before the courts or before parliament. I think this is an argument which does not lead to any end. However, in some cases, or in some instances, the law itself and the requirements of the law either force a person or a couple into an adulterous relationship which did not exist previously, or into perjury or collusion in order to meet the test demanded by the law, namely, that adultery took place between a couple of people.
I think the maintenance of the fiction that adultery is really the cause for divorce is not too sensible in itself. By making that action the sole and only reason or ground upon which a marriage can be dissolved, I think a tendency is created to say that the

marriage relationship rests almost entirely upon the question of intimate relationships between the husband and the wife or, in fact, to say that marriage rests almost exclusively upon the question of amicable sexual intercourse.
We know that is not the case. We know that there are many other factors which go into making up a happy married life and into making and preserving a married relationship and the marriage itself. I think many of these other factors are forgotten in the desire to maintain adultery, as is the situation at the moment, as the only ground and, by reasoning the only cause for divorce.
As it stands now, the law does not take into account, give any relief to, or open the door to those people who find themselves in some circumstances which I intend to relate in a moment or two. For these people who, through no fault of their own in many cases, find themselves in difficulties there is no solution having regard to their marital relationships.
Let us consider an instance of desertion in which, for argument's sake, let us say the husband deserts his wife and family, if there is one. If that husband cannot be found, as is the case in many instances of which I know, the wife is maintained in that position of being married yet single at the same time She has no recourse to the courts in order to have dissolution of that marriage, even though her husband may have vanished and his whereabouts have been unknown to her for many years, and even though she is unable to find him.
I think each of us desires the company of others. In many instances women and men will find themselves attracted to some other person of the opposite sex. They are then placed on the horns of a dilemma. They ask themselves the question: What should my relationship be with this other person? Should it be one of just casual acquaintance or should we become more closely associated with each other? They say to themselves: If we do so, we shall have to do so without the benefit of a marriage being performed as one of us is already married and is unable to obtain any relief. There is no relief either in instances of extreme cruelty, alcoholism coupled with cruelty, or dissipation on the part of the husband of income which should be used for the upkeep and the welfare of his wife and family. There is no relief in sight for that particular woman except perhaps that of suing in the court for maintenance; and in many instances this procedure does not work out too satisfactorily. Others with habitual criminal tendencies and the like bring to mind other instances of one part or one half of the marriage being unable
90205-6-540
Private Bills
to find any relief whatsoever in the eyes of the law in so far as trying to straighten out their marital relationships is concerned.
Some people might say that this bill, if it were enacted, would in fact tend to make divorce easier and therefore tend to corrupt our present morals and tend to destroy as an institution marriage itself. However, I do not think this is the case. I think, as I said, all this bill is designed to do is bring our present divorce laws into keeping with social facts and what I think should be social conscience in this day and age.
I would refer to the statitistical information which developed in England after the passage of their matrimonial causes act. Reference to this statistical information is not to say that the same thing would apply here, of course, However, if I recall correctly from memory, I think they discovered that after the grounds for divorce were brought into keeping with the social facts which existed at the time, it did not in fact destroy the marriage system. It may have dissolved particular marriages by giving grounds for the dissolution of marriage, but if I recall the figures correctly, over a period of time 75 per cent or 80 per cent of those who were divorced at one time subsequently married again and stayed that way. This tends to show that while a marriage may be dissolved, it does not mean that the parties concerned stay single for the rest of their lives but they do find other partners and the marriage contract is entered into again with somebody else.
The bill does not primarily deal with divorce itself, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and other hon. members. It places a certain degree of emphasis upon the question of reconciliation and gives to the judge hearing a particular case the right to adjourn, to refer the parties to marriage counsellors, to clergymen or other people of similar standing, in the hope that divorce action can be forestalled and that the marriage will remain intact. In this way it is hoped to find some mutuality of desire on the part of the parties to continue in their original way in their married life without dissolving the marriage.
I do not intend to enter into the relative grounds of this argument, but it has been mentioned and I am sure we all feel there is a degree of hypocrisy which arises out of our present divorce laws. There is a certain degree of dishonesty and perjury. I am quite sure this is well known to members-at least some-of the legal profession. I am sure it is quite well known and understood to exist in so far as the courts are concerned. This is in no way casting reflections on the courts or

Private Bills
members of the legal profession. It is well known by private detectives and I am sure we as legislators have knowledge of it. It does exist to a certain extent. It is also known to the general public, certainly to those who have become involved in divorce actions in a direct way as one of the litigants.
This bill, of course, would not eliminate perjury, collusion or dishonesty in the presentation of cases before the courts. It is not designed to do that. However, I think it would tend to cut it down because it would recognize desertion, cruelty and the like as other grounds for divorce.
Again, if I recall correctly some statistics emanating from Great Britain after the passage of the matrimonial causes act in that country, all but about 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the divorces were granted for either adultery, desertion or cruelty. These are perhaps the three major complaints and grievances that exist at the present time in society. As I say, this bill would not eliminate that; it would only tend to cut it down and bring the law itself more in keeping and on a more equitable footing with what in fact exists in society today.
I was being a little facetious earlier, Mr. Speaker, when I said we could straighten out some of these difficulties in committee of the whole, because I do not think we are going to get that far. I do not think this bill will receive passage this session. I do not think it will come to a vote, although I should certainly like to see it come to a vote. But with our forces disseminated the way they are, we would not even be able to call a vote if we got that far. I can say that at least in this one instance our party is unanimous today.
However, some day I am quite sure that a bill containing the principles contained in the present bill will be passed and endorsed by a parliament of Canada and will be introduced by a government of Canada. We all know that to some degree bills and legislation tend to lag behind public need and public demand. This is not always the case, but it is the case in some instances. Legislation tends to lag behind public demand when it is of such great importance as to create major differences of opinion based on fundamental beliefs and ideals.
That is the case in this instance. I think in this connection we must respect the feelings and desires of everyone in the country and we must come to the conclusion that it will be some time yet before the parliament of Canada does get around to passing a measure such as this. But some day it will occur and I think that when the statute law of Canada reflects the social matters, principles and ideas contained within this particular bill

it will be appropriate to pay a very great tribute to the hon. member for Timiskaming who drafted, developed and primarily conceived the ideas and concepts contained in this bill. We should pay a tribute to the hon. member at that time for having the courage to bring forward such a far-reaching measure as this bill.


John Smith: 
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: First of all I wish to approve of the last sentence expressed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I think it would be most reprehensible, having in mind the fact that these people have come to the ultimate seat of justice in this country seeking what they feel is an appropriate remedy, if they were denied that remedy at a time when they may have no other recourse. I do hope that before we conclude our deliberations in this chamber this will be done.
I also wish to associate myself with what the hon. member said with regard to those who participated in this debate on December 8. This was one of the debates which, I think, brought out a very high quality of contribution from the members who spoke. I think there has been great diligence shown in doing research work. I think there was sincerity and honesty displayed by all those who spoke at that time and I think that, like the debate having to do with capital punishment, without in any way disparaging other debates, it was an indication of the heights to which hon. members can rise when there is a deep social problem involved and corrective measures may well be required. As to that, I think there is no doubt.
I can recall many years ago in a northern town included in the district where I practised my profession one week when I participated in three murder trials each of which involved a husband and wife. In each of these cases the situation might well have been cured by the ability to obtain a dissolution of the marriage. I think it is a drastic way to have to get a divorce, to use a shotgun, but this was my experience many years ago and I have never forgotten it. I recall that after the war when I resumed my practice I was shocked by the large number of 90205-6-540J
Private Bills
applications from people seeking dissolution of their marriages. I think it was probably the experience of many members of the bench and of the bar, that these were the result of too hasty marriages. But it does underline the fact that there is a very real and serious problem. Those who read history can establish that when you see the disintegration of our family life you may then see the deterioration of the civilization in which it was produced.
There is a very interesting series of articles appearing in Life magazine-and I think we can take wide latitude in dealing with this particular subject matter. I happened to pick up this magazine last night and I commend the reading of this article to all members. It deals with the entire question of marriage and divorce. Contributions come from trained sociologists and people who have had a great deal of experience in conncetion with this problem. The article I picked up deals with what is probably one of the reasons for the multiplicity of divorces. I think that what the hon. member is trying to strike at in his bill is rather the effect than the cause, but this particular article deals with the question of courtship, which is related to marriage, and I am going to take the liberty of reading a few extracts. This is from Life magazine dated September 15, 1961, and I am reading from page 118. The article says:
Because there were no sociologists until recently to study and record such matters, the history of courtship is obscure. There is every reason to presume, however, that very few civilized people of bygone eras ever had as much freedom of choice as today's young Americans. To be sure, the people who did not count, like the serfs of the Middle Ages, having no property, no prospects and no real control over their own futures, mated casually and often without benefit of clergy. But the lords in the feudal castles were much more careful-for ever since men first began accumulating property, rank, social prestige and pride of lineage, they have tried to preserve and augment these acquisitions through marriage. The rulers of ancient Rome would never have thought of letting a daughter marry a commoner. The Capulets did not even want their Juliet to fool around with the Montagues' Romeo.
And again, with respect to arranged marriage:
Thanks to a thousand overromantic novels, plays and movies, it is commonly thought of as an attempt to force a lovely and innocent young girl into the arms of some disgusting old lecher who has slipped her greedy father a couple of thousand dollar bills-a situation calculated to make any good American's blood boil... Yet in weeping for all the poor girls forced into marriage against their will in other countries, Americans may have been wasting their sympathy. Dr. David Mace, executive director of the American Association of Marriage Counselors, says in his "Marriage East and West" that many of these downtrodden victims of the arranged marriage have not seemed to mind at all. Indeed, young women from the Far East, observing western courtship customs for the

Private Bills
first time, have often wound up feeling sorry for the American girls who have been feeling so sorry for them. The idea of being forced to go out alone into the open market, and to preen and flirt in the hope of attracting a husband, strikes many Oriental women as terribly undignified and demeaning.
I hasten to add that I am not adopting this particular philosophy. I just offer it to the house as an indication of the problem that is now being considered carefully by many thoughtful people.
I say to the hon. member for Skeena and to the sponsor of this bill that I have grave doubts as to whether the legislation which they propose will do anything other than regularize divorce by opening up more avenues for divorce, a situation which they cannot ever hope to cure.
This bill is difficult to deal with on second reading because I believe it involves a variety of subject matters. There are a number of principles on related matters all brought together within the four corners of the bill. Under those conditions I assume I might be granted some latitude in dealing with the principles of the individual proposals which are incorporated in the proposed measure.
In the first instance it seems to me there is a real jurisdictional question which is thrown out by the principles contained in this bill. The argument was developed in this debate when the bill was first before us for consideration, that the British North America Act divided between the provincial legislatures and the federal government certain aspects of marriage and divorce. Item 26 of section 91 of the British North America Act gives to the federal government jurisdiction over the question of marriage and divorce. Section 92, on the other hand, gives to the provincial legislatures the power to deal with the solemnization of marriage in the province. I have had no opportunity to examine the records and debates at the time the fathers of confederation enacted their agreement and the reason for this division is obscure to me. I do not think any real arguments can be made about it.
I suggest that this government has been diligent under the leadership of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in securing certain reforms in connection with the constitution, including the repatriation of the British North America Act and including consideration of the question of the delegation of powers and of certain other changes in our constitution. This might well be a subject which could be placed on the agenda at a federal-provincial conference.
When he participated in this debate on a previous occasion the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) gave what I think was his legal opinion when

he said that so far as the province of Quebec is concerned the entire jurisdiction might well fall squarely in the lap of that province. I think the hon. gentleman went a little far in making that statement but the questions of marriage, divorce and the solemnization of marriage do appear to be related. It may be that the people in certain areas, districts and provinces, hold certain views about these problems. If a conference were held at which these questions could be discussed freely and openly the conclusion might be reached that the matter is one which could be dealt with by a change in the British North America Act which would have the effect of giving back to the provinces the entire jurisdiction in this field. I do not say I adopt that view but it is something that might well be considered.
The problems concerning jurisdiction are in my opinion underlined when we come to read the bill. We find so many areas where there is likely to be a multiplicity of litigation. If the bill were to be adopted as it stands I can readily see that the courts of this country would be flooded with litigation. Some of it would go to appeal and in many instances two or three years would require to elapse before there could be a final determination by the ultimate court, the Supreme Court of Canada. I throw out that suggestion for consideration by the house.
For example, I shall deal with one of the principles involved in the portion of this bill relating to the question of domicile which creates a genuine problem. The sponsor of this bill suggests that there should be a Canadian domicile. That might be all right but a practical problem would necessarily follow. In the case of a couple living in Ontario, the husband might seek his recourse in the courts of the province of British Columbia. Under such circumstances, what would happen if the parties continued to live in Ontario? What about the question of enforcement of the order of the court? What about the questions of alimony, support for and, maintenance of the children and custody of the children? A definite problem would arise of which we cannot rid ourselves simply by saying we will establish a Canadian domicile in divorce to make it possible for those seeking dissolution to go to the courts of any province. I believe that would create many more problems than it would solve.
Clause 6 of the bill sets out a large numbei of grounds which would enable a court to dissolve a marriage. Some of those listed are already grounds for dissolution. Contrary to what was said by the hon. member for Skeena, unnatural conduct and bestiality are at present grounds upon which the courts will grant divorce. Did I hear the hon. member object

to that statement? Possibly I did not. In any event I can assure the hon. member that that is the case and that the courts have on many occasions granted dissolution of marriage on such grounds.
In the case where a party had been guilty of gross cruelty in the first month after marriage, I think it would be monstrous to suggest that it should be tolerated for longer than a month and it should not be necessary to demand that the marriage persist for a further period of one year before dissolution is granted. I think that is wrong and improper. Some of the other grounds set out in clause 6 might be deserving of consideration but I certainly could not lend my support to legislation which opens up, as this bill seems to, so many avenues for dissolution of the sacred contract of marriage on such flimsy grounds.
We come now to the question of procedural matters under the B.N.A. Act. The provincial legislatures have authority in connection with the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts including the procedure in civil matters in those courts. In reading the bill we find that a conflict arises immediately. This measure suggests there should be attached to the courts a conciliation process and it goes far in outlining in detail precisely how the court should operate, how the judges should act, what procedure should be adopted and so on. At first blush I should be inclined to think that this is an infringement of the powers of the provincial legislatures to deal with the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts.
On the question of evidence, recently several legislatures in western Canada have amended their evidence acts so as to permit certain types of evidence to be given in divorce cases which, under the Russell case in England, had not been permissible before. Clause 11 of this bill which we are considering makes certain evidence permissible. I would have grave doubts whether this clause is not ultra vires, having in mind authority given to the provincial governments.
There are many other aspects of this bill that I could deal with and possibly if at some time the bill gets into committee those matters can be considered in detail.
Before I conclude with this particular aspect of the matter I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). They have made themselves masters of this subject. I would think that since after the next election it is most likely they may be seeking other employment they may well put to good use the knowledge they have acquired and might collaborate in writing a book which could well be
Private Bills
known among the members of the legal profession as "Peters and Howard on Parliamentary Divorce". I would look forward to the publication of such a book.
Speaking seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a problem here. I do commend those who have participated in the debate. I think this is something with which we will have to come to grips. Anyone who examines statistics with regard to this question of the break-up and dissolution of marriages must feel that remedies must be sought, but I think we will have to go farther than simply attempting to deal with the results, and we might better turn our attention to some of the causes.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the subject before us today, involving as it does the question of statistics of married couples and how the problem of divorce can be resolved, is one on which I should like to speak with extreme diffidence. In my opinion there is nothing that can so arouse the enmity of the ordinary man in the street, so arouse the emotions of such a broad range of people as to consider lightly the processes by which or the reasons for which that state of matrimony may be dissolved. For instance, I should like to quote from page 614 of Hansard, where the remarks of the hon. member who introduced the bill may be found. In the lefthand column we find the following:
We have received hundreds of letters, and very few of them have been opposed to broadening the grounds upon which divorce is granted. While I would not go so far as to suggest that, in a political sense, this would be dishonest, I do suggest that it might not be politically sound. Surely a member of parliament does not have to listen to every crackpot in his particular riding.
I am sure that on reflection the hon. member will not say that everyone who disagrees with his bill, certainly with the manner in which it is presented, is a crackpot. On reading this over I sometimes wonder whether the hon. member believes that those who are opposed to broadening the grounds for divorce must themselves be crackpots. Certainly the manner in which the bill is presented, the wholesale recommendations contained therein and the extent to which the grounds for divorce have been broadened lead me to believe that the hon. gentleman who introduced the bill is at least most impatient of the views of those he believes hold marriage to be much too sacred. As we know, there are probably represented in this house various opinions on how sacred are the bonds of matrimony and to what extent they may be loosened by any action of this house in easing the manner of getting rid of them.

Private Bills
The hon. member who just preceded me touched on a very valid point when he suggested that perhaps we should be giving greater thought to the grounds of divorce. There was also his point on the ease of entering into the bonds of matrimony. An examination of the laws of various European countries will show that in most instances certainly getting married is not the simple task it is here. In certain countries it involves very definite compliance with the canons of church law and long drawn out legal procedures. It usually ties in the question of property settlement and the ways in which the wife shall share in her property. All this, Mr. Speaker, is merely an illustration of the fact that matrimony is a subject that cannot be taken lightly. The fact that it has perhaps been entered into too lightly in this country leads to the rather more furious search for the means of getting rid of it.
The hon. member who introduced this bill made another remark in his speech that I could not quite agree with. At the top of page 613, in the left hand column, he said:
We have felt that the House of Commons cannot rule efficiently on divorce petitions, and are concerned about cases of this type and their effect on the work of the house and the other place as well. It seems to me that members of parliament and members of the other place, many of whom were formerly members of parliament or are public spirited citizens, do not have the ability to judge these cases and in most cases they do not have the inclination to act as a judicial body.
I think it would be most unkind to consider passing the bill before us today on the ground that members of the other house do not have the ability or the inclination to deal adequately with the problems presented to them. It is my opinion that most of the members of the Senate committee dealing with divorce are retired or still practising members of the bar. Before they came to that Senate committee most of them had had many years of experience in divorce matters. Certainly, over the last few years, considering the number of divorces that have been handled by that house, any member of fairly long standing on that committee is likely to be one of the most qualified by way of experience in Canada for dealing with divorce. I submit therefore that to suggest they are not qualified is to overlook the facts completely. If we are to take away from the Senate the duty and obligation of looking into and in effect trying these cases, certainly we should not let it be said that we did it on that most unkind ground that they are not capable.
The fact of the experience of the tribunal trying cases of divorce has been brought home to me very forcibly. I believe that if we examine closely the cases tried by the Senate

we will not find there any lack of attention to them, any lack of willingness to examine the evidence carefully and closely. What appears to us sometimes to be very hurried dealing with these matters is not actually the case, I suggest, because with their experience, their knowledge of human nature and the number of cases they have handled they are able to see in a much better perspective and much more quickly exactly what is at the heart of any particular case presented to them.
As a lawyer I have handled many divorce cases and I have listened to many being presented. I have learned that experience and an older and wiser head can sometimes save a lot of time or point out some place where either I or the lawyer handling the case has missed a point. I recall having heard a case presented in the supreme court in Edmonton and the judge on the bench ordering that a copy of the transcript be sent to the Queen's proctor. This meant, of course, that the attorney general's department would be asked to look into the matter, to investigate the validity of the evidence given and to find out if perjury had been committed quite apart from the alleged adultery. I was amazed that the judge should so order in that case because to me it had seemed to fit the pattern. In my opinion the witnesses had appeared very honest and yet the judge, with far more years of experience, had detected a false note and had the matter investigated.
It turned out that a charge of perjury was laid and also one of suborning perjury not because adultery had not been committed but because the defendant's husband-this is where human nature and the peculiarities of personality come into the picture-who had been willing to give his wife evidence of his adultery apparently decided that he did not have the nerve to stand up in court and persuaded a friend of his to get up and say that he had been present on this particular evening and had witnessed just enough to satisfy the court. Investigation by the police proved that the friend had not been there at all that evening although it did come out that the act complained of which constituted grounds for the divorce had in fact been committed. Only the peculiarity of the personality of one man caused this divorce to go astray in the courts. I have cited this case merely as an illustration of the manner in which the experience of the tribunal can play such an important part and of how the manner and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances related can so often lead the court to discern the true from the spurious testimony.
As to the question of the grounds for divorce, I have had, as I am sure most hon.

Civil Service Act AFTER RECESS
members have, requests from people to do something about the grounds for divorce. Certainly I am not one of those who are convinced that no matter what happens a divorce should not be granted. I think it is necessary, and in fact on humanitarian grounds I feel that our present divorce law must be broadened a little. It does not hurt to remind hon. members of the extreme hardship that befalls a woman who has entered into the bonds of matrimony with as much care and forethought as anyone in the community and who has in fact chosen a very good husband when later the man suffers some slight injury which affects his mind and he becomes incurably insane. Certainly it is hard for this or any other body to say that it is right that this woman who has suffered this misfortune must stay married forever to this man.
I can well understand the argument of those who say that you marry for better or for worse, that medical science, good as it is, is still not an exact science, that there is no such thing as a hopeless case and that this is an instance where the woman should have a little more faith and patience. It is a little hard to follow that argument too far if the woman has children to raise. Certainly under today's conditions it is hard enough for a husband and wife both of whom are working to raise, feed, clothe and educate a couple of children. For a woman who is still married to try to run a house and earn a livelihood for her children and to be faced with such a situation with no hope of relief until the children grow up is, I think, being so strict that we should yield to the argument that this at least we must correct.
In my opinion there are many causes for divorce listed in clause 6 of the bill for which strong arguments can also be advanced, but I was struck by one thing. The causes for divorce set out in the bill include nearly all the causes for judicial separation that now exist. I do not know whether it is a case of experience, good planning or just good luck, but if there is one thing which I wholeheartedly support it is that I would much rather see a divorce than a separation. If these grounds are good enough to break up a marriage by means of a separation, they should be sufficient grounds for a divorce. I think that the most unsatisfactory method that we have in this country today for dealing with irreparable differences between husband and wife is to give them a judicial separation. They are neither married nor single and in nearly all cases the financial results are most regrettable.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-71 respecting the civil service of Canada-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)- Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Governor in Council to fix. (Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I think that section 11 could be greatly improved if it were drafted as follows:
The governor in council, after consultations, negotiation and agreement with the representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees of the crown, shall recommend to parliament to establish rates of pay for each grade and establish the allowances that shall be paid in addition to pay.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that yesterday, when I dealt with section 7 as amended, I made a mistake. I said that employees did not have the right to recommend on their own that a study of projects be undertaken. Following the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), I must change the statement I made yesterday. I find that this right is actually included in the proposed amendments. I had taken my information from another source, because I note that section 7 reads as follows:
The Minister of Finance or such members of the public service as he may designate shall from time to time consult with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees with respect to remuneration, at the request of such representatives-
Therefore, I erred yesterday evening and I feel that to be in conformity with the amendment which was proposed to clause 7, we should amend clause 11 as follows:
The governor in council, after consultations, negotiation and agreement with the representatives-
Just as it seems to be in clause 7-
-with the representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees of the crown, shall recommend to parliament to establish rates of pay for each grade, and establish the allowances that shall be paid in addition to pay.
This somewhat changes the clause since it would be parliament, and not only the government, which would have the final say in the matter. In my opinion, it is always better that such problems should be passed upon by parliament instead of by the government only. That is why I move the following amendment-

Civil Service Act
(Text):
In English the amendment would read as follows:
Clause 11 should be replaced by the following:
"The governor in council, after consultations, negotiations and agreement with the representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees of the crown, shall recommend to parliament to:
(a)	Establish rates of pay for each grade, and
(b)	Establish the allowances that shall be paid in addition to pay.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad the hon. member for Hull took the occasion to correct the impression he left last evening. It is typical that he did so in such a gracious way tonight. The amendment he has just moved was not one which was raised in the special committee studying this act. Consequently it was not submitted to the detailed study to which so many other amendments were submitted in that committee. I have had only the briefest opportunity of reviewing this amendment but as a result of my review I should like to submit to my hon. friend and to the committee that by the amendment he has just moved he would place the rates of pay for each grade in the civil service and the establishment of allowances in the greatest possible strait-jacket. Desirable perhaps though his objective might be, it would in practice be totally impractical.
The hon. gentleman seeks to have the governor in council in each case recommend to parliament the establishment of rates of pay for each grade; thereby parliament becomes in each case the final arbiter. There can be no salary adjustment, no change in the rates of pay for the various classifications until it has been approved by parliament.
I am sure my hon. friend does not seek to have civil servants suffer, as they would, for a long period of time until parliament could get around to dealing with the matter. May I submit to my hon. friend, whose great concern in this matter I know so well, that the objectives he has in mind are well covered by clause 7 and would perhaps be impeded by the amendment which he now proposes. May I suggest to him that in this amendment he would reach a final objective which I am sure would be undesirable to his constituents, and I am certain it would be to mine. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I have to ask the committee not to adopt the amendment of the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton just said this amendment would bring about delays. I do not know of any longer delays than those brought about by the government when the civil service

received the last increases in salary. The consultations started over a year before and it took it over six months to implement the increases.
If the recommendation of the governor in council were brought before parliament I do not think it would mean more delays. I think it might force the government to consider the whole matter in bulk instead of taking one group one month and another group another month. I really believe it would be an advantage, and it was also recommended by the civil service federation on page 6 of their brief.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 32.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 11 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On division.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Carried on division.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 19-Establishment review. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have here another amendment; it is in conformity with the requests submitted to the committee and the government by civil service staff associations.
Clause 19, as it reads at the present time, provides the following:
The governor in council may from time to time review the establishment of the departments and may, after considering the recommendations or representations of the deputy head, delete positions from or add positions to the establishment of the department.
First of all, I feel that this puts too much power in the hands of the deputy heads and not enough in those of the commission. Now, it is the deputy head who recommends to the department reduction or increase in establishment. I think that this system is not absolutely advantageous since several deputy heads, even with the best dispositions, are often led to make mistakes.
Therefore, that is why, without any further ado, I move the following amendment, that clause 19 be amended as follows:
The governor in council shall request the civil service commission to review the establishment of departments at least every three years and may after considering the recommendations or representations from the deputy head and the civil service commission, delete positions from or add positions to the establishment of the department.
(Text):
The amendment reads in English:
That clause 19 be amended to read as follows:
19. (1) The governor in council shall request the civil service commission to review the establishment of departments at least every three years and may after considering the recommendations for representations from the deputy head and the

civil service commission, delete positions from or add positions to the establishment of the department.
That is, at least every three years.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, this amendment has two features. The first was considered in relation to another clause of the bill, I think clause 6, namely whether a mandatory injunction should be placed upon the civil service commission to review the establishment of departments every three years. The view which was taken in the special committee was that such a mandatory injunction would probably result in reviews only every three years, whereas in the normal course of events the reviews might well be more frequent. The committee, after giving rather detailed consideration to this matter, decided not to establish such a particular and detailed procedure. I hope this committee of the whole will adopt the same view as that adopted by the special committee.
The second feature of the amendment is that in respect of the recommendations which are to be made for establishments of the departments under clause 19, not only shall the deputy head be responsible but the civil service commission as well. I think the hon. gentleman has overlooked the position which the civil service commission occupies with respect to other clauses of the bill, and in particular clause 16.
I personally am satisfied that the bill has achieved a basic structure where you will have the proper co-operation of the deputy head and of the civil service commission. It must be remembered that under the new structure of the bill it has been sought, in accordance with the principles of the Heeney report, to leave those managerial functions to the deputy head and to leave recruitment and the other functions which are of a special nature and the responsibility of the civil service commission under the commission itself. I hope we will not insert in a clause such as clause 19 an intermingling of the kind I think my hon. friend proposes of the functions of the deputy head and of the civil service commission. I think if we do we will depart from what was the basic intent of the Heeney report, which is basically the text of this bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I really believe that we should give more power to the commission and less to the deputy heads. This is what I told the committee every time I had the opportunity to state my point of view. They could call upon the deputy head concerned to submit the report, but instead of submitting the report to the governor in council right away it should go through the commission and then the commission should make its report to the 90205-6-541
Civil Service Act
governor in council. I do not believe there is enough power in the hands of the commission and I believe there is too much power vested in the deputy heads. That is the reason I brought in this amendment to subclause 1. I shall have another amendment to move to subclause 2.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have not read this amendment over carefully, but I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Hull. I agree in principle with what he is trying to achieve, namely the vesting of greater power in the commission. I do not think we should leave such great power in the hands of the deputy minister and on this account we shall have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: yeas, 7; nays, 41.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 19 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: No. There is subclause 2. I shall not discuss the matter at any greater length, because it involves the same principle. I want the commission to have the responsibility instead1 of the deputy heads, and so I move that the clause be amended to read as follows:
(2) For the purposes of this section, the deputy head shall submit to the civil service commission and the governor in council a plan of organization and such further information or material as the commission or governor in council may require.


Thomas Miller Bell: 1 have pointed out to the committee that this, really, is covered by clause 6(b) which was carefully discussed in the special committee and upon which the committee took the opinion of the draftsman. I venture respectfully to submit to the hon. member that what he suggests would be contrary to the structure proposed in the Heeney report. I think it might be well if I were to read section 26 of the Heeney report which deals with this subject:
In our view, the present division of responsibility between the commission and treasury board for determining the organizational structure of departments involves unnecessary duplication and inhibits ministers and their deputies in the management of their departments. It is the deputy minister who, subject to the direction of his minister, is and should remain responsible for the efficient performance of the functions allocated to his department. Consequently, in our opinion, the deputy head should have a major responsibility for determining the organizational structure best suited to meet the department's needs. On the other hand, over-all control of the service in this respect must clearly be exercised by the government, and each department must operate within such functional, financial and staff restrictions as the government may set.
May I point out to the hon. member for Hull that it is the commission which has the exclusive right to classify in accordance with clause 16 of the bill. The power to establish and the power to classify must always be

Civil Service Act
considered as co-ordinate-that word is possibly not the exact word for which I am looking, but it expresses the point well enough. Without one, the other cannot operate. The structure set out in this act was very carefully considered by the committee; it is one under which there will be true co-operation between the deputy heads and the commission.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is exactly what I am asking. I am asking that the deputy heads should report to the civil service commission and not to the governor in council, because I think the commission should be in a position to know everything that is going on in the department. The hon. member for Carle-ton claims this comes under clause 16, but that does not deal with the same thing. This clause deals with the reorganization of the department. The other is concerned with the classification of certain posts. It is not the same, and if it were so similar why did the government place this clause 19 here? That would not have been necessary if it were covered by clause 16. It is none too clear. This is not a literary affair which we are discussing now, and when a thing is not clear, why not repeat it so as to introduce more certainty than there is at the present time.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 8; nays, 45.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 24-Appointment by deputy.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Here again I think there is too much power vested in the deputy heads. I think the law would be very effective without this provision. Neither the law of 1918 nor the recommendations of the Heeney report would support such a clause as this.
I therefore move:
That clause 24 of Bill No. C-71 should be deleted from the act.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, this suggestion was carefully discussed in the committee. There is a provision in the present act, and a requirement for such emergency powers. I ask the committee to uphold the clause.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The vote will be on the clause per se. Shall clause 24 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: On division.
Clause 24 agreed to, on division.
Clause 25 agreed to.
On clause 26-Probation.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I think the
present legislation provides that anyone

having been promoted may be dismissed during the probationary period. That is a real threat to the security of the civil servants.
I am sure that, in this matter, the civil service associations do not see eye to eye with the government and the majority of the committee. I therefore move that subsections (1) and (2) of clause 26 be renumbered (2) and (3) respectively and that a new subsection (1) be inserted, as follows:
26. (1) Any appointment made under sections 22, 23 and 25 of this act (Bill C-71) shall be subject to an appeal from any civil servant who considers that he was deprived of the opportunity to qualify for the position where the appointment is made.
Rightly or wrongly, some employees sometimes think that they are discriminated against. If they are granted an appeal, then, they can prove why they think they are right. If the appeal is lost, no one can be blamed.
When recommendations come from department heads, they sometimes meet with small difficulties. We have seen it happen in the past and it will happen again because men are sensible to flattery, and that can bring about small problems. That is why I am proposing that amendment.
(Text):


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I have had a little difficulty in following the purport of my hon. friend's amendment. The actual intent of section 26 is to enable the reduction of the probationary period. I really fail to understand how anything in that section can relate to the appointments made under section 22 which are appointments from within the public service, or to those made under section 23 which are also made within the public service; or to those made under section 25 which relates to appointments made in special cases. With respect I suggest there is much confusion in relation to this proposal.
May I say to the hon. gentleman that generally speaking the attitude I took in the special committee was one of broadening to the greatest possible extent appeals under all circumstances. One of the great virtues of this bill is that it places appeals on a regular basis and in a position they have not enjoyed before. I think the addition of the hon. member's proposal to section 26 would result in virtually a confusion between appeals and the probationary period which I submit have no similarity or affinity.


Alexis Pierre Caron: My hon. friend has made reference to the probationary period but I point out that there is a specific reference to the appointments being made within the public service. Let us take an example. A man who is appointed is on probation for six months.

If for any reason the deputy head does not like him he can make a report against him and the employee will not be accepted. The employee should have a right of appeal in such cases against the decision of the deputy head.


Thomas Miller Bell: What my hon. friend does not seem to understand is that he has been referring to section 23 which deals with appointments from outside the public service and with section 25 which may or may not deal with appointments outside the public service. He is putting in a clause which I venture to suggest confuses the issue and I ask the committee not to support it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I believe it is very clear. A person with a special skill may feel he is being denied an appointment and in that case I feel he should have a right to appeal.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 10; nays, 47.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 39

Delegation to deputy head. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, according to reports the associations submitted to me, I believe it would be possible to substantially improve section 39 through certain amendments.
In its present form, this section still presents certain dangers. In fact, the deputy head is still the one who exercises the powers delegated to him by the commission, and I feel that the insuperable difficulties we have in the civil service, and that we have had almost from the beginning, have to do with promotions, salary increases, or the holding of a job because of deputy heads who have excessively bad dispositions.
Therefore, I move the following amendment:
(1)	That section 39 be changed to subsection 1 and that the following subsections be renumbered (2) and (3) respectively.
(2)	The commission shall review the exercise of any power it has delegated every two years, or each time there appears to be any abuse, and indicate to parliament in its annual report the details of such a review.
(3)	The commission shall suspend forthwith the delegated authority for exercising or performing its powers or functions upon evidence of abuse of such authority, and it shall not restore such authority until it is satisfied that another offence shall not be committed.
Mr. Chairman, it is precisely in order to avoid such abuses that I move this amendment.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: The question is on the amendment.
90205-6-541J
Civil Service Act


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I
thought that the amendment had a rather familiar ring to me, and I do find it is one which the hon. gentleman moved in the special committee. It was discussed in some detail as may be found at page 398 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee. If the committee as a whole wishes to pursue the matter it will find a rather learned discussion of the situation by the distinguished chairman of the civil service commission. The result of that discussion was that the special committee decided not to give effect to the particular amendment to which the hon. gentleman refers.
My view at that time, and the view I would take in the committee of the whole tonight, is that the power contemplated by clause 39 is one which would be delegated very rarely and, once delegated, would be reviewed very sensitively by the civil service commission. I think it must be clear-it is an elementary legal principle-that the power to delegate includes as well the power to withdraw the delegation. Therefore, the commission has the power, if they see that the delegation has not been satisfactory, to withdraw it. I am certain that any civil service commission, responsible as it is to parliament through its annual report, would be most sensitive to see that the delegation was properly exercised and, in being so sensitive, would see that there could be no conceivable abuse.
I would hope that the committee of the whole would take exactly the same attitude as that taken by the special committee in the rather lengthy discussion commencing at page 398 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary and his explanations had a familiar ring. I can see some merit in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hull.
This clause provides that:
The commission may authorize a deputy head to exercise and perform any of the powers or functions of the commission under this act in relation to the selection of candidates for a position.
I listened carefully to what the parliamentary secretary had to say to the effect that the commission would extend this power with caution, and would review it. But, in my opinion, even with the best intentions on the part of the commission, injustice could prevail and go on for some time before it was even detected or suspected. On that account I can well understand the hon. member for Hull suggesting some amendment to the clause.
The wording of the suggested amendments is somewhat clumsy. I am not sure that they are put in the best form or that the best

Civil Service Act
phraseology is used to achieve the end the hon. member for Hull has in mind. I must say I think this is rather an overriding clause and makes it possible for injustice to be done without being detected possibly for some time.
People are human, deputy ministers as well as anyone else. Therefore, while I am not certain that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hull is the best type of amendment to meet the situation, because I believe in its spirit and purpose I intend to support it on that account.


George James McIlraith: Before the question is put I would point out to the committee of the whole that clause 39 reads:
The commission may authorize a deputy head to exercise and perform any of the powers or functions of the commission under this act in relation to the selection of candidates for a position.
The language used is the widest language that can be used in describing the powers or functions of the commission in relation to the selection of candidates for a position. Whatever may be said about the amendment, it is certain that the clause as it stands is expressed in overwide language.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 10; Nays, 53.
Clause 39 agreed to.
On clause 40-Order of preferences. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I think that over the years there has been, unintentionally perhaps, discrimination against those who joined the forces to fight overseas but who, for some reason or other, and often because of the requirements of the Department of National Defence, were never able to get there.
Those people, who enlisted with the intention to get into the fighting line, but who remained in Canada-and I know several of them-because of their special abilities and because they were needed here, now are absolutely deprived of all special benefits granted to veterans.
I appreciate that those who went overseas should benefit from the terms of this legislation as they did under the old act, which is identical, but I think we should add some special provision with regard to those who did not get overseas, giving them some privilege over other candidates who were not in the services.
To this end, I thought of an amendment which would probably give us a chance to do justice to those who enlisted to fight overseas

but who were detained in Canada against their will and their intent because their services were required here.
I move therefore, that clause 40 be amended to read as follows: After paragraph (b), add subparagraph (i) as it exists now, and which reads:
(b) those who are veterans and who do not come within the provisions of paragraph (a), or who are widows of veterans, shall be placed, in order of merit, on the list immediately following the candidates, if any, mentioned in paragraph (a);
That subparagraph (i) be added, which is the very provision we are dealing with:
Those who are veterans but who have served only in Canada shall benefit from an additional 5 per cent on the examination and shall be placed in order of merit.
(Text):


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, this deals with a very difficult and very sensitive problem. As one who is not a veteran I have some trepidation in dealing with it, but I have had many problems with respect to this particular situation. The submission I would make to the committee of the whole is this. In respect of these matters the house has generally taken the opinions and the views of the standing committee on veterans affairs. On different occasions that standing committee has made a study of this question and it has been the view of that committee that the provisions of the existing Civil Service Act should remain. I believe it is because of the respect which the special committee on the Civil Service Act had for the standing committee on veterans affairs that the special committee adopted the same attitude.
When this matter was examined by the government, and it was examined with very great care, the position taken, according to my understanding, was that there should be no change in the existing act until such a change had been recommended by the standing committee on veterans affairs. I believe that is a sound position for the house to take. If there is to be a change at any time in such covenants as have been entered into by parliament with the veterans who served overseas, I would hope that they would be made upon recommendation of the standing committee on veterans affairs.


John Ross Matheson: Is there any reason why veterans in receipt of a pension-I presume it means a disability pension-include only those who have served in world war I or world war II? It seems to me that this provision is going to become progressively out of date. Surely we have veterans from the Korean expedition, perhaps some from Egypt and possibly some from Africa, and maybe there will be others. Is there any rational

explanation of this special exception? I am not questioning it; I am simply asking for information.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think that perhaps complexity of draughtsmanship may be the cause of my hon. friend's difficulty in relation to this matter. The situation is covered, I think, by subclause 3 of clause 40 where there is reference to the Veterans Benefit Act. Under the Veterans Benefit Act veterans of the Korean war are covered and therefore are brought within the ambit of this provision. As lawyers my hon. friend and I may think that is complex draughtsmanship but because of the fact that this particular section has stood for so many years it was the view of the draughtsman, I believe, that it should not be changed fundamentally.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the point of view of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. The amendment I have moved does not affect at all the status of veterans who served overseas. It simply gives a slight advantage in the case of those who enlisted with the intention of going overseas but never had the chance to go. The amendment will not affect other veterans at all. It just gives an additional 5 per cent after the examination has been passed to those who remained in Canada, but those who were overseas have the usual green light. They have the preference over everyone else. The amendment does not change the law in that regard. I do not see why the government cannot accept the idea that a little something should be given to those who intended to go overseas but could not do so because the Department of National Defence ordered them to remain in Canada for the duration of the war. I do not understand why this amendment cannot be accepted when it does not change in any way the status of those veterans who served overseas.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say a word about what the hon. member for Carleton has said. He has been reminding the committee that the special committee has dealt carefully with these things. I should like to add that, having been here for a good many years I know the veterans affairs committee has dealt year after year with the rights and privileges of veterans. In my opinion no committee has taken its duties so seriously and has been so anxious to be sure to do not only what was fair but perhaps more than fair to those concerned. For that reason I am content to vote against the amendment.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is there not a danger that the veterans affairs committee might have forgotten those who enlisted to serve throughout the world but were kept in Canada? They could have forgotten about them because
Civil Service Act
generally speaking when we refer to veterans we have in mind those who served overseas. The others were in the services but we do not think of them in that way. The amendment simply affords a little recognition of the services they rendered by enlisting to go and serve throughout the world. If they pass their examination they may get 90 per cent and the amendment would give them an additional 5 per cent and the chance to be first on the list. It will not affect in any way those who served overseas or the status of anyone else. The purpose is simply to recognize the service of those who enlisted to serve overseas but were kept in Canada against their will, and there are many of them.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 57.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 45-Appointments from list. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, at the recommendation of the civil service association- and I think they are right in doing this because there is a certain inconsistency in the present wording of the bill-I propose the following amendment:
That clause 45, subclause 2 should be amended by deleting all the words coming after the word "list" in line 9-
(Text):
In English it would read as follows:
That clause' 45, subclause 2, should be amended by deleting all the words coming after the word "list" in line 9 to the end of the clause.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 57.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
On clause 47-Language.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, this is a most interesting question and a very significant one. Delegations have come to the committee to speak about the advantages of bilingualism. Nobody can deny that those advantages are infinitely important in the federal government service.
I do not think that anything has been proposed which would be likely to promote the study of both official languages of this country. The civil service should try to offer some special encouragement in order to incite those who are now in the civil service and want to be promoted, and even those who

Civil Service Act
want to enter the civil service, to make an effort to improve their knowledge of both languages.
I know that the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) suggested that the civil service set up some courses to enable those who are now working in the civil service, and those who want to enter that service, to prepare themselves by a better training in respect of bilingualism.
I shall not go as far as to ask for an absolute preference for bilingual people, though I believe that we should in all fairness, do so, because we need them more than we think.
Of course, in some cases, bilingual employees are asked for, but in others, they are forgotten. I remember that, not very long ago, a superintendent for the post office in Ottawa was not required to be bilingual, though he was responsible for the post offices in the ridings of Pontiac, Gatineau, Hull, Papineau, part of Labelle, Argenteuil, and part of eastern Ontario. Yet, the great majority of the population in those districts is French Canadian.
The needs of bilingualism were disregarded. I am not blaming this government more than any other. This situation has obtained for a long time. But it is high time to correct it.
That is why, in order to have some incitement, I move the following amendment to clause 47. Clause 47 will become section 1 and the following section 2 will be added. It reads as follows:
47. (2) At the time of competition those candidates who can establish that they possess a sufficient knowledge of the two official languages of Canada shall benefit by an added 5 per cent over all other candidates and shall be placed in order of merit.
(Text):
In English the amendment reads as follows:
That clause 47 in the bill become subclause (1) and that the following be added as subclause 2:
47 (2) At the time of competitions, those candidates who can establish that they possess a sufficient knowledge of the two official languages of Canada shall benefit by an added five per cent over all other candidates and shall be placed in order of merit.
(Translation) :


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to share the views of my friend from Hull about section 47 of the present act.
Past experience has shown that a statute can lend itself to various interpretations. Therefore, if the wording is so flexible as to leave it to a high official to judge the degree of bilingualism of an employee, I think that some categories of employees run the risk of being forgotten or overlooked in favour of

others-they are very few, but they might be important-who may be prejudiced against a certain group of citizens.
I must say that the present government has made serious efforts to improve the knowledge of the French language in the civil service.
However, as far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hull is concerned, I wonder if the proposed formula is accurate enough for preference to be limited to the candidate who has obtained 5 per cent more marks because he speaks French and English. In my opinion, the knowledge of one of the official languages of the country should represent a higher percentage of the marks.
In my opinion, the government would do well to rewrite this clause so as to give it more teeth, so as to make it more accurate. It should definitely and absolutely provide that preference be given to candidates who are truly bilingual.
As for the degree to which a person is bilingual, that could be the subject matter of another amendment which would recognize the value of bilingualism. The civil service commission could be entrusted with the task of establishing a certain scale.
As far as I am concerned, I approve the principle of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hull, and I commend my hon. friend for his idealism.
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: No clause of the act has had more careful and detailed consideration than has this one. It is a difficult and sensitive one. The language of the draftsman has been most carefully chosen in order to try to achieve an objective which will be sensitive to national unity. I should like to point out to the committee that in the first instance the old act, in section 17, required the language only of the majority of the persons in the local office with whom that person was required to do business. In other words we start from the premise that the existing situation is the local office. The new act deals not only with the local office but with the department. In that sense it is a departure from what has been the precedent in the old act.
I wish to submit to the committee that there are two extremely important tests and that these tests have been expressed in carefully chosen language. The first test is:
-sufficient to enable the department or local office to perform its functions adequately-
The second test is this:
-to give effective service to the public.

As I have said, that is language which was most carefully considered and which was designed to meet what is unquestionably a most difficult problem. My submission to the committee is that this is a problem for administrative as opposed to legislative action; that in legislative action it might well be that you create a strait jacket which will not achieve the purpose the hon. member for Hull professes to have in mind. If the purpose can be achieved within the limits of these two tests by administrative procedure, that is something which I am sure would meet the wishes of all hon. gentlemen of the committee. Therefore my suggestion is that those two tests are sufficient and, because of the careful consideration given to this matter, ought to be adopted by the committee.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word or two in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hull. I think it is a good amendment; I think it is very sound.
Throughout this country we have a great and growing need for people, not only in the civil service but elsewhere, to be able to speak the two languages. I think anything to encourage this, such as is suggested in the amendment, is very worth while. I see no reason why this should be a drawback in any way, shape or form and I can think of many, many cases in which this would be a decided asset. I think it is a very sound amendment and I support it fully.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I followed very closely the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton. The amendment which is now proposed does not in any way change what is the law. I think what we have before us at the moment is better than we had before, but it is not quite enough yet because it does not give the incentive to those who would be interested in learning the two languages. The additional 5 per cent on their remuneration would encourage people to learn the secondary language and would not change the bill as it is now.
It would be an incentive to those who may be interested in learning the secondary language if they could earn more by reason of so doing. I do not blame a person who does not need it and who does not learn the secondary language, but if people have an incentive to earn something out of it, they will do so. This is the reason for placing this amendment before the committee. (Translation):
And I would agree with the hon. member who had the floor a moment ago that what I propose is not momentous, it is but a speck
Civil Service Act
of dust in the universe. But I am convinced that we must not effect changes overnight. We should start from this speck of dust and quietly eliminate that laziness of the mind from which we all suffer, once the necessity of two languages or the intellectual superiority gained through the knowledge of two languages is understood. We learn a second language when we feel the need for it. Such an attitude would encourage civil servants to study a second language more assiduously since this would give them a chance for promotion in the civil service. This is why I moved this amendment.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 43.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 47 carry?
Clause 47 agreed to.
On clause 48-Probationary period.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether subclause 2 of clause 48 means an additional year.


Richard Albert Bell: Not more than an additional year. It may be for any period up to a year.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether it would not be better to simply change the wording to read:
-extend the probationary period of an employee, but the period of the extension shall not exceed one year-


Richard Albert Bell: I do not think so. By first answer may have been incorrect because subclause 1 covers a period of one year, or such longer period as the commission may establish. Consequently subclause 2 requires this rather complicated language in order to cover the second eventuality of such longer period in excess of one year.
Perhaps I may express it this way. If under subclause 1 the commission established a period longer than one year, then under subclause 2 the extension could be for such longer period as is covered by subclause 1. I hope that is intelligible to the hon. member for Leeds and to the other hon. members of the committee. I am not sure that it is to the hon. member for Carleton. However, I am advised that I am quite right.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask another question. Is there not a disadvantage in a person being a probationary employee indefinitely? Even if it were for a limited period of perhaps two years, would that not be more desirable than something as vague as this? I am asking

Civil Service Act
the question why something so curiously vague should be in the bill at all?


Thomas Miller Bell: Because of the really very great variety of positions in the service I think the hon. gentleman will agree that there has to be the type of probation that is provided for here. While in its generality there is what perhaps may be described as vagueness, in relation to the particular employee there is none. That particular employee will know that his period of probation is "x" months and consequently he knows that he must meet the standards of efficiency during that particular period of time.
I think the real test of the clause is to relate it to the individual, and in relation to the individual it has no vagueness.
Clause 48 agreed to.
On clause 49-Rejection.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, it seems that the same question of the extraordinary powers vested in the deputy heads is always at issue. That situation seems to have existed at all times and the great danger of giving too much power to individuals has been demonstrated. This is why I move the following amendment:
That clause 49 be amended by adding the following subclause:
(2)	An employee who feels he has been wronged may appeal the decision.
Subclause (2) becomes subclause (3).
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Mr. Caron moves:
That clause 49 be amended by placing subclause (2) as (3) and by adding the following subclause:
"(3) The employee who believes that his rights have been encroached upon can appeal the decision."
Amendment negatived: yeas, 11; nays, 51.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the
amendment lost.
Clause 49 agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we proceed any further, I wonder if we could have copies of the bill in both official languages. There are no English copies.


Richard Albert Bell: Copies of the bill have been available in both languages for several months. Everybody has had them.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am advised by the Clerk that the bill has been widely distributed in both languages and that no other copies are immediately available.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has now received a copy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have received a copy from my member.
[Mr. Matheson.J
On clause 50-Tenure of office. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, clause 50 introduces something which is extremely peculiar. Section 50(1) reads as follows:
The tenure of office of an employee is during the pleasure of Her Majesty, subject to the provisions of this and any other act and the regulations thereunder, and, unless some other period of employment is specified, for an indeterminate period.
Now the peculiar point is in subclause (2):
Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit or affect the right or power of the governor in council to remove or dismiss any employee.
I feel that the government here is assuming powers that are slightly too discretionary. It seems to reserve to ministers or to the governor in council the power to ignore everything else in the act and, at their own discretion to dismiss whoever might be recommended to them for dismissal.
I feel it is not normal to include such a provision in the bill; I therefore move that clause 50 be amended by the deletion of subclause (2).
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Mr. Caron moves:
That clause 50 be amended by deleting subclause (2).


Richard Albert Bell: I shall have only
two or three statements to make in connection with this amendment. This particular subclause is merely a preservation of the over-all prerogative of the crown. It is in the existing act and it was never repealed-[DOT] a provision that nothing should impair the power of the governor in council to remove any deputy head, officer, person or employee. This subclause merely carries on that provision.
I think it is significant that the maintenance in this bill of this particular subclause which the hon. member seeks to delete was approved by all three members of the civil service commission who appeared before the special committee as witnesses. It is also significant that no representations of any kind were made in relation to it by any of the civil service staff associations. I think the hon. member is well aware of how carefully in clause 60 new provisions have been set forth dealing with dismissals and the right of appeal. This particular provision merely preserves the over-all prerogative of the crown, one which I am sure will not at any time be abused. In view of this I shall ask the committee to reject the amendment.


George James McIlraith: The subclause as it now stands reads:
2. Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit or affect the right or power of the governor in council to remove or dismiss any employee.

This appears on first reading to be very wide in its language and undoubtedly it is, but I do not see any way of restricting that right-one which I hope will never be abused, though in accordance with the language as it appears in the bill it certainly could be abused. But I do not see any satisfactory way of restricting that right. It seems to me that a government has to be held responsible for the administration and the discharge of its duties and that in line with that responsibility there must be this power of dismissal.
I recall a situation which developed in this country some 15 years ago in which this power was of real value to a government. I am not aware of the provision ever having been abused. It seemed to me as I listened to my colleague moving his amendment that the circumstances in which this provision might be required were not fully understood, and I wonder if he would not consider withdrawing the amendment. I am not altogether happy with the language as it now stands, but I have nothing better to suggest.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have now heard something about the reason why the provision was placed in this bill, and I think I can accept the suggestion of my colleagues not to present this amendment if that is the wish of the committee.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The amendment is dropped by consent.
Amendment dropped.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 54 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 55-Order of laying off.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I wish, now, to move an amendment which was suggested by some of those who appeared before the special committee.
(Translation):
Subsection (1) of this section should be reworded as follows:
(1) Where two or more persons employed in positions of the same general grade in any unit of a department are to be laid off, or where one person is to be laid off and there are other persons holding positions of the same general grade in the same unit of the department, the commission shall list the persons holding positions of the same general grade in an order of lay-off according to merit and seniority, and such persons shall be laid off in order beginning with the person lowest on the list.
Subsection (2) remains as it is now in the present bill. I further propose that the following subsections (3) and (4) be added:
(3)	The deputy head must give written notice to any person whom he intends to lay off, as soon as possible before the date on which such lay-off is to come into effect and, under any circumstances, no less that thirty (30) days before that
Civil Service Act
date. This notice must also inform the employee of his right to appeal before the commission within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the notice.
(4)	In the hearing of an appeal against the selection of those who are to be laid off, the commission can take or require to be taken any steps which it deems appropriate.
(Text):
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 13; nays, 49.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 59 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 60-Notice of dismissal recommendation.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Here again, this concerns the extraordinary powers that are delegated.
Because of the extraordinary powers that are always conferred on the deputy head, the person responsible for a branch, we cannot deny that he has certain responsibilities and, accordingly, certain rights, in such cases where this official could cause prejudice through his decisions, I think that a right of appeal should be granted.
Therefore, I move the following amendment to section 60: That subsection (1) be amended by the addition after the word "decision" of the following words:
"and of his right of appeal".
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I have no criticism of the objective which my hon. friend has in mind. Certainly I think every person who may be dismissed ought to know of his right of appeal. But I have not the slightest doubt that they will in fact know of it. This problem was carefully considered by the special committee. The reason the special committee did not adopt the suggestion, as I recall it, was that it would be necessary for the draughtsman to go through the act completely and in every case where reference was made to a right of appeal insert in the section an indication that notification must be given the employee. Otherwise, by principles of interpretation, where this was not in fact inserted in the section there would be grave difficulties.
If my hon. friend were to press this point the only thing that could happen would be that the clauses would be held up and would require to be referred back to the draughtsmen. I do not think this is a practical problem, quite frankly. I say to the committee that every dismissed civil servant is going to know on his dismissal that he has a right of appeal. Civil servants know that this is a new right of appeal which is being granted and spelled out in the legislation before us.
I hope we would not delay the passage of the measure by having to refer back to the

Civil Service Act
draughtsman so that each section might be contemplated in the light of the principles of interpretation of which I have spoken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has just given the most eloquent argument that could possibly have been given in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Hull. This bill is not one of those casual amendments that are made to legislation from time to time. This is a complete review of the Civil Service Act, the first that has been made for many years. If as the parliamentary secretary has stated this amendment commends itself to him in substance and it is merely a matter of taking a little time to see that this important statute which is the charter of the rights and obligations of public servants is properly drafted, it does not seem to me that that kind of delay is the kind to which there should be any objection whatever.
I feel that the parliamentary secretary should consider very carefully accepting this amendment and if consequential changes are necessary they should be brought forward so that the committee could examine them. It is all very well for the parliamentary secretary to say that the employees will know what their rights are in this matter but if it is such a big job for the draftsman to go through this bill in order to ascertain that it is properly drafted-and he is an eminent lawyer- how is a clerk grade I, if they are still called that, or a messenger expected to know precisely what his rights are?
It seems to me there should be no doubt that the employee will know precisely what his rights are when it is proposed to dismiss him. In the most moderate way possible I urge the government to accept in principle at any rate the amendment moved by my hon. friend, and if there are other consequential amendments to bring them forward to the committee so that we may be absolutely sure that these people whose livelihood it is suggested is going to be taken away from them will be told precisely what their rights are.
The parliamentary secretary and I were in the public service at certain stages of our lives. Probably we did know what our rights were although I must confess I was never very sure of mine. I have known of cases in the past where employees did not in fact know what their rights were. They never had it explained to them. In some instances, through the efflux of time they were unable in fact to exercise the right of appeal. If this happens even once in a decade it is too often. It should not happen at all because of the failure on our part as legislators to put a clear obligation on a deputy head to ensure that these rights are adequately safeguarded.

I am not seeking in any way to be contentious about this but I think my hon. friend from Hull has brought forward a logical amendment soundly based in law and common sense and that it would be in the general interest to accept it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I find myself in complete agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I do hope the parliamentary secretary will give some consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hull, particularly in view of what I thought was an extremely moderate and constructive approach to this question by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Richard Albert Bell: I can only say that the special committee, which was representative of all parties in this house, gave very careful consideration to this particular point. They consulted the draughtsmen of the bill and they took his opinion in relation to it.
My hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate says that I agree with the amendment. Perhaps I would have to say that the attitude I took was that I had no serious disagreement with the amendment at all but I would suggest, first, that it is unnecessary and, second, it would involve serious delay in the passage of the bill and I would ask the committee not to pass it.


Frank Howard: On this question of whether it is unnecessary, I think the parliamentary secretary is over-simplifying things when he says it is not necessary. I do not want to go over the same ground that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate covered with respect to whether or not individuals within the public service know their rights. But I have had some experience in this, having spent some time in the trade union movement where day after day and week after week it is a question of dealing with a collective agreement that might exist. Even in those circumstances, where there is a continual campaign of attempting to acquaint members with their rights under collective agreements, after months and months of discussions of this sort of thing, there are still many employees in industry covered by collective agreements who do not know what their rights are. Surely in an institution such as the public service of Canada, where this sort of educational program and discussion and policing of a collective agreement do not go on, we can expect there will be a higher percentage of people who will not know what are their rights.
Even an individual who fails to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits receives a notification from the commission, and on the notification which says he is disqualified he is told he has the right to appeal within so

many days and he can be represented by a union or anybody else. There is an explanation of what are the rights of an individual even in an unemployment insurance case. Surely it is necessary to have this sort of indication in this clause. If the parliamentary secretary or anyone else says that it would really take up too much time to protect the rights of the individual in this country, I think he is perhaps stretching the reasons for objection a little too much.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word. I was impressed by what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, but I also feel that the chance of anyone suffering from not knowing what his rights are is so infinitely remote that I am prepared to go along with the decision made by the special committee after serious consideration. This is a day when appeals are in the air and we are all Philadelphia lawyers, and I just do not believe the amendment is necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the amendment is put I should like to make one more appeal to the parliamentary secretary. I recognize that he is not a minister. But I would even go so far as to say that since we have a Conservative government I rather regret that he is not a minister, not in our party interests but in the interests of the country.
As I say, I recognize that he is not a minister and that it would be rather embarrassing for him to make a decision on this point off the bat here in the committee this evening. But it does seem to me the point is of sufficient importance, involving as it does a subject very dear to the heart of his leader, namely human rights, that I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he let this clause stand and that we go along with the rest of the bill-


An hon. Member:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and that we do not seek to rush a matter where human rights may be involved and, in my opinion, are involved, but that we take a few minutes tomorrow after the government has had a chance to look at this and at what the draughting problems are. If they come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding these arguments, they want to go ahead, of course they have a majority and I do not think there will be a filibuster. I am just expressing my personal opinion, but I think that in a matter of this kind, where we want to be non-partisan, where we want to do what is right and fair, the course I am suggesting to the parliamentary secretary is one which I am sure would commend itself to him.


Richard Albert Bell: The blandishments of my hon. friend, coupled as they were with
Civil Service Act
a particular type of kiss which he administered, perhaps may be attractive, and perhaps I would succumb had this not been the subject of deep consideration by the special committee. The special committee having considered it, and having discussed it with the draughtsmen, I venture to suggest that the committee as a whole ought to adopt the clause in its present form.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The question is on the amendment.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 52.
Clause 60 agreed to.
On clause 61-Partisan work prohibited.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make on clause 61 which has to do with political activities. This clause is most objectionable to us. I believe the present section of the act, section 55, deals with the substance of political activity and political partisanship. While section 55 is restrictive, in so far as political activity is concerned, nevertheless it does allow a modicum of political freedom in that in so far as I interpret it-and others have given it the same interpretation-the prohibitions contained therein, in so far as engaging in partisan work is concerned, are confined to the period of an election. I would say that refers to the time between the issuance of a writ and election day. Section 55 does not prohibit an employee in the public service from participating in political activities or from belonging to a political party at times other than during the period of the election. I see the parliamentary secretary looking askance at me. I wonder whether I am talking about the right section.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes.


Frank Howard: Perhaps it was only a look of disagreement.


Richard Albert Bell: Only to indicate that I see very little difference between old section 55 and the present clause 61.


Frank Howard: Those were the hon. gentleman's remarks in the special committee as I understood them, Mr. Chairman.
To my way of thinking clause 61 is a complete removal and denial of political freedom and political expression except that the right of the individual to proceed to a polling booth on election day to cast his ballot as he sees fit is protected under the Canada Elections Act. Apart from that this clause removes or emasculates any political expression that the individual might have. At one time within the federal public service, and I suppose in the various provinces of Canada as well, there used to be some connection between

Civil Service Act
employment and political affiliation. I gather that was some years ago. Since the advent of employment by merit and appointment by the civil service commission after competition with other candidates, the sphere of political interference with respect to employment in the public service has lessened. Consequently the degree of restriction on the activities of such employees in the political field should also be lessened.
I think this clause of the bill is directly contrary to our concepts with regard to the expansion of political freedom and the extension of political democracy and also directly contrary to the trend which I understand is taking place in other countries in the world toward extending political freedom and the right of political expression and participation to employees in the service of various governments. As I look at the situation, I would say that no employer or individual who pays the wage or salary of such a person should have the right to dictate to the employee what his activities should be outside the period of time for which he is being paid. We would object to this most strenuously in private industry. If industry in paying wages to an individual attempted to tell him how to vote or how not to vote, what meetings to go to, what party to belong to or to prohibit him from belonging to any party, we would object to this as being an unconscionable act on the part of private industry. Yet we are being asked to do substantially the same thing in this clause. We are being asked to say that an employee in the public service of Canada cannot engage in any political activity, period, apart from casting his ballot on election day.
In my opinion this is contrary to what we consider to be the concepts of the bill of rights which refers to the inherent freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly. As I read this clause, there is no inherent freedom of speech so far as an employee of the public service of Canada is concerned. He cannot express his opinions on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, the legislative assembly of a province or the council of either one of the territories.
Under paragraph (b) of subclause 1 the employee is also prohibited from receiving or in any way dealing with any money for the funds of any political party and he is liable to be dismissed if he does so. By virtue of this clause in the bill an individual employed in the public service is denied the right to be a member of a political party, simply a card carrying member, and is also prohibited from contributing financially to a party. Regardless of the denial of the rights of freedom of expression, he is denied that

right. He is even denied the right to subscribe to a publication of a political party, and the clause can be stretched to the extent that he would be denied the right to purchase books published by or promoted and sold by political party agencies. He is perhaps even denied the right to contribute by tossing 50 cents or a dollar into the hat when it is passed at a political meeting because of the prohibition of contributing to the funds of any political party. He may have the right to think, but there is some doubt about that.
Surely we should not be thinking of placing restrictions of this type upon individuals in this day and age just a year or two after we enacted the bill of rights ensuring and enshrining forever the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We should be moving in the other direction in granting these freedoms, rights and responsibilities instead of moving to deny them and to make these people nothing more than units in the public service of Canada. I think this clause should be amended, and the gist of the amendment I intend to move is such as to indicate that we also think there should be some restrictions on such activities.
We say that a person in the public service should be prohibited from engaging in political activity or working on behalf of the election of a candidate during his hours of duty because he is being paid for the work he is performing. We also think that an employee in the public service should be prevented from using property of Her Majesty or of the crown, such as letters, stamps, automobiles or other facilities that may be available to him as a public servant, to advance the cause of any political party. Apart from that, outside his working hours he should have the same fundamental rights and political freedoms as everyone else has in this country. Therefore I move:
That clause 61 be amended by deleting therefrom subclause 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"1. No deputy head or employee shall during his hours of duty engage in partisan work, or at any time use any money, materials, facilities or other property of Her Majesty
(a)	in connection with any election for the election of a member of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the council of the Yukon territory or the Northwest Territories, or
(b)	in connection with any form of political activity."


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I must indicate at once that I cannot agree with the amendment offered by the hon. member for Skeena. As I read his amendment, it simply provides that a civil servant must devote the time during which he is employed to the work for which he is hired and the second part provides that he must not commit theft.

Surely that is not what the hon. member intended by the amendment, and I am quite sure it is not. If he will look at it again he will notice that it is in the form of preventing a civil servant from using his hours of duty for political party work. Surely he is hired to use his hours of duty for the work of the department and if he is not doing that he is breaking his terms of employment.
As for the second part, which provides that he must not use money, materials or other property of the government in connection with party work, surely he has no right to use government property for his own purposes. That is elementary. It seems to me that the amendment does not express in language the idea that the hon. member was seeking to put forward. As I understood his idea, it was that any prohibition against a civil servant taking part in partisan activity should only apply during his hours of employment. That is my understanding of the position he took.
The old section 55 of the act and the new clause 61 of the bill are, as I read them, in substantially the same language. They are different in form but they are designed for the same purpose. Perhaps it is well that we should read clause 61. It is in these terms:
61. (1) No deputy head or employee shall (a) engage in partisan work in connection with any election for the election of a member of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the council of the Yukon territory or the Northwest Territories: or
(b) contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for the funds for any political party.
(2) Every person who violates subsection (1) is liable to be dismissed.
This clause in the bill and its predecessor in the act have been relied on by the civil servants as a protection to them and indeed they have been a useful protection to them through the years. The subject was dealt with in the special committee. There I expressed the idea that my understanding of the interpretation of the words, "engage in partisan work" was that they did not prevent civil servants from actually attending a public political meeting, although I believe that very few of them do so. However, I see nothing in that language which prevents their doing so.
Then I went on to deal with the matter of paying membership fees to a political party. To me it seems that once a civil servant has paid his membership fee to a political party, he has then taken an active step on his part indicating his partisan interests, and similarly if he is collecting funds for the party. In that case, in my view, he has put himself in a position in which his interest as a dues paying member of a political party may be in conflict with his duty as a civil servant; and I take his duty as a civil servant to be
Civil Service Act
to carry out the administrative processes in his particular class of work according to the policies of the government of the day and enacted by parliament, as the case may be. Surely it is a protection to the civil servant that he is not permitted to be put in a position in which his interest is in direct conflict with his duty. As I read the clause and as I have understood it over the years, my observation has been that it has been reasonably effective and that it has accomplished the objective of protecting the service. I should hate to see anything done that would bring civil servants into a position in which they are either in conflict with the duties which they are expected to perform as civil servants or in which they can be reasonably suspect of being in a position in which their personal interest conflicts with their duties as civil servants. My hope would be that nothing would be done in that connection that would bring about such a situation.
There is one other aspect of this matter that concerns me and it is something new that has arisen since the matter was considered in the special committee. The prohibition in clause 61 is with regard to a civil servant engaging in partisan work in connection with the election of a member of the House of Commons and other legislative bodies enumerated and with respect to contributing, receiving or dealing with money for the funds of any political party. There is no prohibition with respect to a civil servant engaging in partisan work in the civil service in connection with a political party which does not have members seeking election to the House of Commons. It is a strange anomaly that has arisen only once to my knowledge, or in one case that I have ever heard of. If he takes care not to contribute funds to that particular party or not to receive or in any way to deal with funds, he is as free as he can be to advocate in an active way the political philosophy he has in mind and to take part in partisan activities. I do not think that sort of thing was ever intended. I think it is purely a case of its never having been thought of.
As the committee and the parliamentary secretary will appreciate, there was the case to which I am referring, namely the case of the Nazi who was a civil servant and who was actively participating in the work of that party, with its many ramifications. This situation is wholly inconsistent with our ideas with respect to a civil servant taking part in partisan activities. Yet not a thing could be effectively done with him under this section. There may be other remedies. It is a rather interesting case. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary whether any examination has been made of that situation since this

Civil Service Act
clause was before the special committee. If so, what conclusion, if any, was arrived at concerning the matter?


Richard Albert Bell: Just to answer the last question of the hon. gentleman may I say this. So far as I understand it, no special examination has been undertaken of the provisions of this act having regard to the particular employee and the particular incident to which he refers. The situation with respect to that particular employee has not been related to this section. I am sorry but I cannot give my hon. friend the particulars. May I simply say to him that, with respect to his other remarks, this is one of those occasions on which I agree wholeheartedly with my neighbour and friend.


William Heward Grafftey: There is just one thing I should like to bring out. The hon. member who immediately preceded me in speaking seems to have a set of facts much more clearly in his mind than I have them in mine-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not unusual.


William Heward Grafftey: -with respect to engaging in partisan work under clause (a) of clause 61. What I mean is this. There are many ramifications in connection with what the hon. member said as he went through what he felt constituted partisan work to elect a member of parliament. However, the fact is this. We all know very well that the constitution of every political party states that the people who are members of an association must abide by the constitution of that party which is dedicated to electing as a member to the House of Commons or the legislature, as the case may be, somebody of the particular political colour represented by that party. Do I understand the situation correctly? I really and sincerely feel that this is something with regard to which we would be performing a useful function if we clarify it right here and now. For instance, in my own particular riding may an immigration officer appear publicly at a political meeting and have his picture appear in the local press, let us say, with the executive of a political organization? Is this procedure contravening this article? If it is doing so, may I say it is something that certainly happens in my riding as it might happen in the ridings of other hon. members.
I must say that I quite agree with the hon. member who preceded me in speaking, that this is something that is not clear in the minds of civil servants in particular, the public In general, and perhaps even members of parliament, although I do not know that. We all know that partisan activity or work is involved when we attend political meetings. After all, what are we doing at a political meeting? Are we just sitting there and passing the time of day? No, Mr. Chairman; we are

there organizing to elect candidates of our choice to political office, provincially or federally. I think possibly the hon. member who preceded me has helped to muddy the issue there. We all know very well that is what is involved. May an immigration officer appear publicly at a political meeting, and have his picture in the press supporting a political party? This happened recently in my area. I should like to have an answer to that question. I do not think the hon. member who preceded me has given the answer.


Richard Albert Bell: I should like to say only this. As I understand the situation, there is certainly no restriction upon any civil servant with respect to appearing at a political meeting. However, at such a meeting he has no right, under the existing legislation, to express his views in support of or in opposition to those which are being expressed at that particular time. I mentioned in the committee the incident that occurred many years ago in connection with a customs appraiser in Montreal who went to a Liberal meeting. At the Liberal meeting he interrupted and shouted, "Hourra pour les bleus!" He was immediately thrown out, so he went across to a meeting down the street and there shouted, "Hourra pour les rouges"!" He was thrown out of there and ultimately he was thrown out of his job, although subsequently he was reinstated.
I say that in my own riding political meetings could not be held were it not possible for civil servants to attend such meetings. But for servants to take an active, participating, organizing part would in my opinion-


George James McIlraith: Or be photographed in the way described by the hon. member.


Richard Albert Bell: -or to permit himself to be photographed in the way described by the hon. gentleman, would be improper under this particular clause.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one comment on the question of being photographed at these political meetings. When one considers the words, "engage in partisan work", I think common sense is a pretty good guide. If a man goes to a meeting and happens to be photographed in the body of the meeting, that is not likely to attract much attention; but if he has himself photographed with the executive of a party, I think in common sense that is getting very near engaging in partisan work. He is really aligning himself with a party.
I thought the hon. member for Ottawa West described extremely well the reason for this prohibition. It seems to me that when we use general words about the bill of rights and say that every man must have his rights, we have

to take time off to look at the essentials of the situation. I think all of us realize that when a man is in the civil service, where today he may be working as, say the agent, for want of a better word, of one party one week and a week later he may be the agent of another party, he has to maintain a certain aloofness from both parties.
As I understood it, that was in effect what the hon. member for Ottawa West said, that a man had to maintain an independence which does not apply to any man except one who is engaged in the business of government. When he is engaged in the business of government it seems to me there are certain limitations, which the hon. member for Ottawa West described so well, which inevitably apply to him.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of recapitulating any of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Skeena. I endorse them wholeheartedly. I should like to add, however, that I do not think you will find one newspaper across this country from coast to coast who does not at one time or another cry out about the apathy of the voting public of this country.
We are now being asked in this committee to legislate or to create apathy by statute. We are the greatest single employer in this country and we are ordering by statute all our employees to be apathetic as far as taking an interest in political affairs is concerned.
I realize the parliamentary secretary illustrated what may have been a humourous incident which happened in Montreal regarding the "bleus" and the "rouges", but I should like to give an example of what happens when there is neither a "bleu" nor a "rouge" government in power. In the province of Saskatchewan at the present time there is a civil servant still employed by that government who is sitting as a Liberal member of the opposition. He is drawing his indemnity as a member and also his pay as a civil servant when he is not sitting in session in the legislature. Apparently this has worked out very well so far, so I do not think this bogey that we have heard about is at all worth while.
I think this is something we have built up in our own minds. I worked for some 11 years as a civic servant, which is very similar to being a civil servant; it is a first cousin to a civil servant. Civic employees are not supposed to have any political beliefs, but they have them. They are not supposed to express them, but I called their bluff. I think if we spend time here legislating that the largest group of employees in this country shall not have the same rights as any other
Civil Service Act
employee in this country, we had better take another look at just how democratic we are.
If they are working on political affairs to the detriment of their job, there is a legitimate complaint and they should be reprimanded or dealt with. But once they have done the job they are being paid for, during whatever time they have left, be it on their evenings off, their days off or their holidays, they should have entirely the same rights as any other Canadian living in this country.


Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, I am rather concerned about this particular clause. For clarification I wondered whether this matter could be dealt with. As the hon. member for Greenwood has said, common sense should be used. I quite agree with that. I quite agree that key civil servants should not be taking an active part in politics.
However, there are many mail couriers throughout Canada who refrain from taking any active part in politics because they are afraid they will lose their positions. Mail couriers are today obtaining the job by low tender; it is not a matter of belonging to a political party, yet they are civil servants.


Richard Albert Bell: No, they are not civil servants.


Clarence Adam Milligan: They are afraid of taking any part whatsoever in political meetings because complaints might be made. I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary this question: if they attend a political meeting, can someone complain and are they liable to be removed from that position?


Richard Albert Bell: I think I should say that a rural mail courier is not a civil servant. He is not governed by this act; he is an independent contractor. As I recollect, a very clear statement was made by the Postmaster General to the house on this subject. He made it clear that when the courier was not engaged in the actual duties of delivering Her Majesty's mail he was not subject in any way to any infringement of his political rights. '


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary may think that the Postmaster General made a very clear statement, but I remember we asked the Postmaster General why the same rule was not applied to public works contractors who, when they are engaged in building a public building, are still allowed to take any part in politics they like without any interference from the government.
Of course, this matter is quite irrelevant to the bill. As the parliamentary secretary has said, these mail couriers are independent contractors, but this usurpation of power by the Postmaster General, with no statutory

Civil Service Act
authority behind it, is something that, having been raised by the hon. member, I think ought to be condemned.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ottawa West spoke about the amendment as though it meant a civil servant should not loaf on the job or become a thief on the job. We start from the premise that a person has some rights unless they are taken away from him. In my opinion, if this amendment were adopted it would mean that a man has all the political rights and freedoms except when on the job during working hours, and he ought not to use public property in order to engage in this sort of activity. A man maintains those rights unless they are removed, and to this extent the amendment is clear. In effect it removes those rights during working hours and so far as the use of someone else's property is concerned. I cannot follow the reasoning that employees in the public service must not belong to, or support, or indicate any preference for a political party other than that which happens to be in office. This is the reverse of the coin of the argument as given here. Apparently it is all right to be a Tory when the Tories are in office, or a Liberal when the Liberals are in office, but you cannot be a Liberal when the Tories are in office or vice versa.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


William Heward Grafftey: Poppycock.


Frank Howard: "Nonsense" seems to be the favourite word of some hon. members. But let me follow this through. What, in fact, is being said is that the political convictions of the government in office must filtrate through the entire structure of the civil service.


William Heward Grafftey: Irresponsible ballyhoo.


Frank Howard: That seems to be a favourite expression of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: It is the first time I have used it-the first occasion.


Frank Howard: Well, it properly expresses his general attitude. If the hon. member disagrees with me, I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will confirm what I have to say. The implication here is that the political complexion of the government in office should filter through the entire structure-that everyone should be neutral politically which, in effect, means agreeing with the political convictions of the government in office. This seems odd to me. Apparently it is all right for the wife of a public servant to be a member and supporter of a political party but it is not all right for the civil servant himself to be so. Apparently it is all right
[Mr. PickersgillJ
for him to have what sympathies he pleases, even though they may be politically contrary to the government in office, but he must not not express them. He can vote, but he cannot join a political party and express views which are contrary to those held by the government in office.
This situation was dealt with in the United Kingdom to some extent through the Whitley council. Though the system which exists over there is not on all fours with the amendment before us tonight, it is in part. In the United Kingdom they have a horizontal division among employees in the public service. Some have complete political freedom-the right to campaign and the like-while others, because of the positions they hold near the top of the administrative ladder, as it were, are prevented from participating in politics in this way because it is felt that their close connection with ministerial activity and authority might create difficulties. Perhaps there would be some sense in our following this line. Let me read a passage from a pamphlet published by the United Kingdom Information Service, Canada, dated January, 1959, called "The British Civil Service". I am reading from page 23 of that publication with respect to the Whitley council as follows:
The government accepted a scheme under which about 62 per cent of the whole civil service (i.e. industrial and non-industrial, in all about one million people) are completely free from restrictions, about 22 per cent are free, subject to ac-aceptance of the need for discretion, to take part in all activities except parliamentary candidature, and 16 per cent remain debarred from national political activities. As many as possible of this last group who wish are given permission to take part in local government and political activities in the local field.
There is this further information:
Any member of the group is completely free of restrictions who intends standing for parliament must resign his appointment before nomination day. If he is not elected to parliament he will, on application within a week of declaration day, be reinstated in his previous capacity. If he is elected, he will be entitled to return to his post provided that:	(a) he ceases to be a member after an
absence not exceeding five years; (b) he had not less than ten years actual service before his election; and (c) he applies for reinstatement within three months of ceasing to be a member.
This is the system which exists in the United Kingdom, a system under which about 62 per cent of the civil service, presumably those in the less responsible administrative posts, have no restrictions placed upon them and are completely free to engage in political activities and to express their political ideas without fear of dismissal or reprisals. It is immaterial whether or not their political views and activities are agreeable to the government in office. So the Whitley council whose recommendations were accepted by

the government, felt that the views expressed by the parliamentary secretary, by the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Ottawa West and others who have spoken about the need for political neutrality and the need for commonsense and discretion in these matters, applied, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned to only some 38 per cent of the civil service, and even some of those were allowed to have a modicum of political freedom subject to discretion as it is here called.
Surely we could easily follow an arrangement of that kind. If it is not agreeable to give complete freedom of political activity and expression, as is proposed in this amendment-I am not too attached to it-then certainly we could devise a proposal which would give some political freedom to people in the lower groups and, in doing so, really take a step toward granting wider political freedom to some individuals.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 3; nays, 53.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 61 carry?


Frank Howard: What we are seeking to do here, if I read the clause correctly is, in effect, to prohibit some employees in the civil service from engaging in partisan work in connection with elections to certain offices while allowing them to engage in partisan work in connection with elections to other types of office, notably municipal councils. These are not mentioned here and I assume, therefore, that there is a right to engage in partisan activity on behalf of candidates for municipal office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or even against them.


Frank Howard: We know that in some parts of Canada the communist party enters candidates for municipal offices. I am not saying that any member of the civil service would do so, but if he cannot work on behalf of a candidate for a responsible political party is he being put in a position of deciding to work on behalf of a candidate for the communist party in a municipal election? This is precisely what it allows.
(Translation):
In this day of Yom Kippur, when the Jewish religion imposes severe fasting upon its adepts, to expiate their sins, I have agreed to stand in for the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) who is unavoidably absent, and I move in his name the following amendment:
(Text):
That the following proposed amendment be approved by adding to section 61, subsection 1, the following subsection, to be known as (b) immediately after subsection (a), to read as follows:
Civil Service Act
"be a member directly or indirectly of any political party or group in Canada or elsewhere which is known to directly or indirectly advocate discrimination between people because of their race, colour, creed or religion."
And that the present subsection (b) be altered to be known as subsection (c).


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, we have already added in section 33 for the first time a non-discrimination clause. It is the first that has appeared in the Civil Service Act. This represents a step which I am sure met with the unanimous approval of all hon. members of the committee. I think under the circumstances the hon. member's amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment (Mr. Caron) negatived: Yeas, 10; nays, 43.


Frank Howard: May I explain that I did not vote on the amendment because a copy was not available to me and I could not follow the rapid reading of it. Section 61 says that no employee should engage in partisan activity. Let us determine the exemptions to this. What people employed in the Canadian public service are free to engage in partisan activity and therefore contribute to political parties and so on even during working hours?
An employee is defined as a person employed in the civil service. In the definition of the words "civil service" it is explained that the reference is to positions in the public service, and certain exceptions are set out. A member of the civil service commission, for instance, can engage in partisan political activities, contribute financially and do whatever he likes. The Clerk of the House of Commons, the Clerk of the Privy Council and of the Senate and the secretary to the Governor General are not to be prohibited from engaging in this type of activity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are all deputy heads.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Therefore the first part applies.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that. I am throwing in everyone I can.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Including many who are not there.


Frank Howard: Reference is made to prevailing rate positions. I am sure these are not deputy heads. The annual report of the commission for 1960 indicates that as of September 30 there were 24,172 prevailing rate employees. I assume these are the people referred to in the definition section as holding prevailing rate positions. If that is the case it means there are that many people in the public service who can participate in this type of activity in or out of working hours. I wish to know in what class are

Civil Service Act
salaried employees not under the Civil Service Act? I refer to page 34 of the annual report for 1960 where reference is made to this.


Richard Albert Bell: That would refer to the national research council, the defence research board and several other organs of the public service as opposed to the civil service.


Frank Howard: They would be free to engage in political activity, I take it?


Richard Albert Bell: I am not passing an opinion on that. We are dealing only with the act relating to the civil service. While doing so I do not wish to give an interpretation in relation to others who are not within the civil service.


Frank Howard: Presumably they are not prohibited by virtue of the provisions of this statute from engaging in political activities.


Richard Albert Bell: It is correct to say they are not prohibited from doing so by virtue of this bill.


Frank Howard: They may be prohibited by some other measure, but that is another matter. Certainly prevailing rate employees are not. Reference is made to some 3,000-odd persons described as ship officers and crews who are classed with government railway and ship employees. There are approximately 25,000 people employed in the public service who in my estimation may engage in political activities because they are exempt from the prohibiting clause.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
On clause 63-Annual leave.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to move an amendment but I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that there are thousands of employees who are part time employees and who may work three or four hours a day, for instance, in the Post Office Department. These people never have a leave of absence or a holiday. This has been complained about in the house more than once and each time the ministers in question said they would inquire and see if the situation could be remedied.
I referred to a girl who worked for four years in the unemployment insurance office in Montreal without a holiday. She was denied it because it was said she was not a civil servant. There is something wrong somewhere over there, and the parliamentary secretary to the minister should look into the matter to see what can be done. In the
[Mr. Howard.)
big offices in Montreal and Toronto there are thousands of employees working under like conditions who never benefit from any holidays whatsoever in the year. This situation should be corrected. It could be corrected easily if the government would look into the matter.


Richard Albert Bell: I understand the Secretary of State is inquiring into the matter, and I will make a special note to speak to him about it.


Mr. McIntosh:: I believe there is a clause in the existing act which states in effect that every employee will be granted one and a quarter days leave for every month worked, not to exceed a certain number of days in any one fiscal year. I think the clause is quite clear and there are no exceptions to it in the act. However, when it was put into practice it was found on several occasions I know of that there are regulations or treasury board minutes which supersede the intent of the act. In subclauses 2 and 4 of clause 63 there are these two phrases "as may be prescribed by the regulations" and "subject to the regulations".
I was very interested in what the hon. member for Greenwood said about common sense governing these acts. Unfortunately, apparently the hon. member has not come up against cases such as the rest of us have where common sense is not taken into consideration by officials of those departments. They go by the written rule. The point I am objecting to is that when the regulation becomes more powerful than the act itself a second look should be taken at the regulations, or certain restrictions should be put in them. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to advise us whether under this new clause a civil servant, if he were employed for 11 or 12 months, would be entitled to the full three weeks vacation in any one year, or whether, as it is at the present time, he would be entitled to leave for only six months. Is this the intention of the clause?


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder whether my hon. friend's point is not covered by subclause 3 which reads:
No employee shall be granted vacation leave unless he has been employed in the civil service for at least six months.
I do not know that I can give my hon. friend a detailed answer in relation to any particular civil servant or say that the civil servant who has been employed for 10 months and three days is going to have three weeks leave. I think there has to be some type of apportioning of it. I am personally not familiar with the regulations which have existed. I shall be glad to look into it. If my

hon. friend has any complaints in relation to it I shall certainly see that they are drawn to the attention of the commission and of the governor in council when the regulations are being studied and promulgated.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If the employee were employed for seven months would he be entitled to half a year's leave or any leave at all?


Richard Albert Bell: I of course cannot speak of what the situation may be in the future. Perhaps I can get some advice as to what the situation would be at the present time. My understanding is that he does not earn leave in respect of the first six months of service. He starts to earn leave after he has completed the six months of service and it accumulates from that period on.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In the face of what it says in the existing act, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could give us the authority for his not getting leave during the first six months.


Richard Albert Bell: My understanding is that there is a treasury board minute based on the recommendation of the civil service commission to that effect. I confess I have not myself seen that document and I would not wish to give any opinion in the House of Commons in respect to it until I had an opportunity personally to study it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The parliamentary secretary would not give an opinion as to which is the more powerful, the act or the treasury board minute?


Richard Albert Bell: I would have no doubt of that. As far as the act is concerned it will always govern and the treasury board minute will prevail only if it fails within the four corners of the act.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 68-Regulations.


Frank Howard: I shall skim through clause 68 quickly. Paragraph (o) provides that regulations may be made for the selection, appointment, conditions of employment and remuneration of employees performing duties of a casual, part-time or seasonal nature, notwithstanding anything in the act. Are these employees within the meaning of the definition of employees in the definition section persons employed in the civil service?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes; my understanding is they are employed within the terms of the act but because of the very special nature of the employment, whether it be casual or seasonal, those special regulations do have to
Civil Service Act
be set up, regulations of a type which would not be applicable to the year-round civil servant.


Frank Howard: May I have the distinction that is drawn, if there is one, between a casual, part-time or seasonal employee and a prevailing rate employee? Is there a difference in that regard between a casual, part-time or seasonal employee and an employee on a prevailing rate?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, I am advised that there is a technical difference between a casual, part-time and seasonal employee that has been a well recognized one. I would be glad to send my hon. friend a memorandum setting forth in detail the distinctions that there are.


Frank Howard: Are there distinctions between those people and prevailing rate people, or are they prevailing rate positions? I refer to the casual, part-time and seasonal employees.


Richard Albert Bell: What we are speaking of here are positions which are established pursuant to the Civil Service Act for casual, part-time and seasonal workers. They have nothing to do with the prevailing rate establishment which, as my hon. friend, knows, is something which is under section 2(l)(b), which is entirely outside the terms of the act. This is for the casual, seasonal or parttime classifications established under the act itself.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
On clause 71-Ministerial staffs.


George James McIlraith: This clause deals with
ministerial staffs and the part about which I have some remarks to make has to do with the appointment of executive assistants or private secretaries to a minister to the regular civil service after they have served three years as an executive assistant or private secretary to the minister. The provisions now governing this situation are found in section 61 of the present act and I will read part of section 61. Subsection 1 deals with ministers appointing private secretaries. Subsection 2 reads in part as follows:
...in the event of the minister or other member of the government, oar leader of the opposition for whom he is acting as secretary, ceasing to be a minister or member of the government or to be the leader of the opposition, as the case may be. the said secretary shall thereupon be appointed to a permanent position-
And so on. The new clause corrects certain difficulties that were found to exist in the act as it now stands but it made one change with which I want to concern myself at the moment. There is no longer any requirement

Civil Service Act
that the secretary or executive assistant can only secure this right to be appointed to the regular civil service when the minister ceases to be a minister. It seems to me that provision should be continued in the new legislation. In my view the dropping of that limitation on the right of appointment was an error and can lead to a situation that will be demoralizing to the service without achieving any real purpose in meeting the needs of executive assistants and private secretaries. For that reason I want to put forward an amendment that will have effect of retaining the limitations in that respect in the new clause. I therefore move:
That paragraph' 3 of clause 71 of the bill be amended by adding after the word "minister" in line 27 thereof the following:
"if the minister for whom he is acting as executive assistant or private secretary ceases to be a minister or becomes a minister of another portfolio."
It will be seen that this preserves the former limitation in that respect.


Richard Albert Bell: In view of the hour I should like to say very briefly that I do not think there is anything I can add to what I said in the special committee and on second reading, and I hope that the committee will not adopt the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) negatived: Yeas, 10; nays, 46.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 85 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to C inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I report the bill?
(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: I have noticed that nothing in the bill before us gives the French Canadians the assurance of a proportionate representation at the higher level of the civil service.
It would have been desirable to insert a clause to this effect in the bill.
I therefore ask the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Bell) whether he could not take this opportunity to put into concrete form the sense of justice that has always been
shown by the government, by writing a clause to that effect into an appropriate section of the bill.
(Text):
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now by leave.


Frank Howard: Next sitting of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Frank Howard: I have been asked to request that it should be next sitting.


Richard Albert Bell: Because of the importance of the bill I would hope that the hon. member would permit third reading tonight.


Frank Howard: I promised some of my confreres that I would attempt to ensure that third reading would be on another day.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house. It being 10.30-



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you recognize the clock, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare-it is rather hard to find a minister in the house-what the government proposes we should go ahead with tomorrow and the rest of the week.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, despite what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate says, there seem to be several ministers in the house. The business for tomorrow will be estimates, the Department of Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue, privy council and legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the estimates continue in that order for the rest of the week?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the intention as of now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it intended to call the Civil Service Act for third reading as the first item tomorrow?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would expect so. I really cannot commit the government but I would expect that third reading would be the first item called tomorrow.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, September 20, 1961