1967-02-17

EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, no matter how far down the line that authority may be delegated this morning. I should like to put the question in this way. In view of reports from Washington that the Central Intelligence Agency has been financing students or student groups on campuses both in the United States and in foreign countries, does the government have any knowledge that any of the more than 3,000 United States students attending Canadian universities are financed directly or indirectly by the Central Intelligence Agency?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no such knowledge that I am aware of, and I expect this is true of all members of the government. However, I would be glad to refer the question to the other departments to confirm that.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Acting Prime Minister have the matter investigated to assure us that the espionage division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has refrained from similar activities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker. I think I can give assurance on the other point as well, but I should like to inquire before doing so.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask if he can inform the house whether his department or the office of the superintendent of insurance is drafting legislation to amend the Insurance Act to overcome the

difficulties that North American General Insurance experienced.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I had a meeting with the association of general insurance companies, at which time we exchanged views on possible amendments to the act. These amendments are still under consideration, and I hope in due course to be making some proposals to the house.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question. May we expect the amendments to be presented some time this year? I realize it may not be possible to do so before the end of this session, but some time this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can say without equivocation it will not be during the present session. I hope it will be possible in the session that will begin after the end of the present session.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the British white paper on defence that was issued yesterday which forecast the withdrawal of 25,000 British NATO troops, can the minister tell us whether there was prior consultation with the Canadian government with regard to this new policy of the British government? Likewise, would the minister also tell us whether this is going to affect our own commitments to NATO.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the British government had extended the courtesy of advising us in advance that they intended to announce this policy, and the matter is being studied here. I cannot say what our attitude might be. I expect this proposed policy will not have any immediate effect on our plans so far as NATO is concerned, but this, of course, would have to be studied by the government.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of
13156	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence whether Canadian representatives on NATO supported or opposed the British proposal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indicate what position we might have taken in respect to this, but I think I can say in fairness and without doing any disservice to the normal channels of communication that anything which weakens the solidarity of the alliance and which would, until such time as a political settlement is effected in Europe, make it more difficult to keep this group of nations working together in a common cause would give us reason for some concern.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I should like to ask him whether the government has a report available in regard to the bombing of the Yugoslav embassy buildings.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been dealt with in the house by the Prime Minister, and I would prefer that it be left in his hands.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice, but in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman is not here I will address my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering the educational crisis developing in the province of Quebec and the chance of a general strike in that province, I would ask the government and the Prime Minister whether they would consider the possibility of intervening under section 93 (4) of the British North America Act; or alternatively would they consider disallowing the Quebec bill No. 25 under the disallowance provisions of the
B.N.A. act?
Mr. Ricard:: The hon. member favours anarchy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister may want to take this question as notice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

DEBATES	February 17, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: -but for one thing, my understanding of the situation is that the bill to which the hon. gentleman refers has not been passed, so the question becomes hypothetical.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Following the protest by the Quebec premier and the statement made in the house yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), has the Secretary of State ordered that an investigation be made about the refusal of the
C.B.C. to allow Hon. Marcel Masse to take part in the program "Tirez au Clair"? Does the minister intend to inform the house later about the result of that investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is exactly the same as the one asked yesterday and I must take it for granted that it will be answered in due course.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Acting Minister of Transport has been given his voice I wonder whether I could direct to him the question that I posed yesterday.


Hon. John N. Turner (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked whether I would be in a position to make a detailed announcement about the matter of safety at sea and manning scales of ships.
I can say to him that there was a meeting last week in Vancouver on these subjects, as he knows, and it was agreed at that meeting that all parties would deal with the towboat industry as soon as the laker project is completed. The laker project is proceeding; the draft in relation to lake vessels is well advanced and will be distributed to those concerned on both sides of the industry for comment. I expect that this will be done in the next few weeks.
February 17, 1967


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the clarity of the answer I wonder if I could direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask if he would not make the Acting Minister of Transport permanent in this position.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should attempt to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to have to disappoint the Acting Prime Minister.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is to the Secretary of State. In view of the recent resignation of Dr. Richard Glover, director of the National Museum, is the minister able to say when this important structure will be built?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a supplementary question on a question that has been refused. Perhaps he would ask a separate question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the Secretary of State and relates to the earlier question asked. I suppose it is more a related than a supplementary question. In view of the frequent criticisms of political interference and difficulties involving the National Museum, does the minister contemplate setting up some form of inquiry, that we may be relieved of the continuing resignations in this particular area?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any such complaint or criticism, at least during the term of my stewardship. I am informed Dr. Glover resigned, as has been suggested, mainly because it has not been possible to go ahead with the building. When he first came, he had been given an undertaking that the building would be constructed at an early date.
I do not know of any unrest such as my hon. friend suggests. Indeed my information from my staff is that there is no unrest.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. MacDonald (Prince): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if it is contemplated, in connection with the unrest which I think is recognized by most people except the minister, to include further parts of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development within the Department of the Secretary of State. I am thinking particularly of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER U.S. DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received any representations recently from organizations or persons asking that the question of recent proposals for the increase in power in the United States at Grand Coulee dam, from 2 million kilowatts to 9.2 million kilowatts, be referred to the appropriate committee?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The only person from whom I received such representation is the hon. member himself.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it government policy to allow into the country immigrants from Europe who have been guaranteed farm work on arrival?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Who have been guaranteed farm work? I did not hear the last part of the hon. member's question.


George Robson Muir: I am referring to immigrants who have been guaranteed farm work on arrival in Canada.


Mr. Marchand:: Mr. Speaker, this is general policy. Simply because a person has a job in Canada does not mean that we accept that person. Other conditions are set out in the law.
13158	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining [Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom my question should be addressed; I should probably direct it to the government house leader, for it deals with an historical event that had not taken place since 1926, when the Meighen administration was defeated.
My question is as follows: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), after a virulent speech against a motion, voted in favour of the said motion, I should like to know whether it is the house leader's intention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: -to initiate procedures to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Order, please. The question is out of order. The hon. member cannot reflect on a vote of the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-170 respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Mr. Benson:: Several months have passed, Mr. Chairman, since the house gave second reading to this bill, No. C-170, an act respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada and to the related measures, Bill C-181, an act respecting employment in the public service of Canada and Bill C-182, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, and referred them to the special joint committee for the purposes of study and report. My brief remarks at this time relate to all three measures, and it is not my intention to speak on clause 2 of the other two bills.
The special committee under the joint chairmanship of hon. Senator Bourget and the hon. member for Ottawa East has applied itself with great diligence and patience to a very important task. I am sure I voice the feelings of all the hon. members of this committee when I express the gratitude of hon. members to this special joint committee for the study they have given all three bills.

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
Previously the committee had reported on an act to amend the various superannuation acts, and has now had referred to it the matter of pensions paid to retired civil servants or their dependants. However, this latest reference to the committee is not in any way related to this legislation or to the reports made by the committee arising out of its consideration of these bills.
The reports of the committee on Bills C-170, C-181 and C-182 are set forth at pages 1259 to 1281 of Votes and Proceedings for February 3, 1967, where all amendments recommended by the committee are to be found. In addition the committee has ordered all three bills reprinted as amended, and these are now in the hands of all hon. members.
The committee held many meetings. Representations were heard from all associations and organizations representing civil servants, and from the central labour bodies and other interested groups. I think it can be said that the fullest hearing has been accorded to all those who have an interest in the public service. A great deal of effort has gone into the drafting of these measures and into the studies associated with their preparation. To this effort the committee has added its own very careful and very thorough study. I thank the hon. members of this house and those of the other place for their thoughtful work and the contribution they have made to this legislative program.
I know hon. members would want me to extend a special word of thanks to the joint chairmen. The proceedings took place in an atmosphere of calm reflection and deliberation. This is to the credit of the chairmen, its members and this parliament of ours. I believe there was no other interest in the minds of all hon. members except the interest of the people of Canada and their concern to ensure, as far as can be assured through legislation, that Canadians in the years to come would be well served by their public service.
I want to make clear now that the government is pleased to accept the amendments proposed by the committee to the bills. As we proceed in committee of the whole on the clauses of the bills those clauses will be called as amended, and I hope accepted, because in my view they strengthen the measures previously placed by the government before this house.
e (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. Bell (CarleJon):: Mr. Chairman, during my years in parliament few bills have
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
been presented to this house of more basic importance or lasting significance. Indeed, a more intricate and complex bill would be difficult to imagine.
The bill has had a most detailed study in the joint special committee, and in my view its passage through the committee of the whole need not be greatly delayed. The bill which has been returned from the committee is very greatly improved over that which was given second reading in this house. It is still far from ideal, and without doubt additional amendments and improvements will be required in the years ahead.
The immensity of the task of introducing a system of collective bargaining for the determination of pay and conditions of employment in the public service is well indicated by the statistics of total employment with the federal government. The latest available statistics were published in January of this year and are for July, 1966. Total employment with the federal government in July of 1966 was 372,890, of whom 223,850 were employed in departments or departmental corporations and 149,040 were employed in proprietary, agency or other federal corporations. It appears, therefore, that about 225,000 public servants are directly affected by this bill, and there can be no doubt that the pay and conditions of employment of the other 150,000 employed by crown corporations will be indirectly but very materially influenced.
The President of the Treasury Board has commented upon the work of the joint special committee. Personally I have never been a member of a committee which worked more harmoniously, more assiduously and with more complete freedom from political partisanship. That is as it should be. The public service of Canada is an immense credit to the nation. I suggest there is no public service anywhere in the world which exceeds the Canadian service in dedication, responsibility or ability, and there are many, many branches of the public service of Canada which are unequalled anywhere in the world in scholarship, accomplishment or achievement.
I am not generally in the habit of paying compliments publicly to hon. gentlemen opposite. Too often I have found such references to be treasured and used at the time of the next election. Nevertheless, I cannot in justice refrain from paying my respects to my friend of long standing, the hon. member for Ottawa East, for his role and attitude as Commons chairman of the joint special committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Public Service Collective Bargaining


Thomas Miller Bell: His intelligent guidance of the committee, his firm, dignified but pleasant presiding manner made work on the committee a pleasure, and I thank him for it.
I only hope it may help to win for him the long overdue reward of moving his office to the east wing of this building where he may join the Senate chairman. I can say that because I think it would make the role of the party to which I belong much easier in Ottawa East.
The magnitude of the committee's work is best illustrated by the fact that during some 39 sittings a total of 182 amendments were made to the bill, as I count them. I think this must be something of a parliamentary record. Of the 182 amendments, I calculate 49 are of substance and greatly improve the bill originally presented to the house. A better justification for the committee system could hardly be found.
Much of the credit for the improvement in this bill belongs to those who presented briefs. Those briefs were studious and informed. Those of the staff associations reflect great credit upon the calibre of the leadership and research qualities of these organizations. The assistance of such distinguished public servants as Dr. George F. Davidson, Arnold
D.	P. Heeney, Q.C., Mr. J. D. Love and Mr. P.M. Roddick was invaluable.
Despite this, Mr. Chairman, I remain unconvinced that the government has chosen the wisest course in the presentation of this bill. In my view a better and a wiser course would have been to undertake a complete revision and modernization of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the inclusion therein of a separate part reflecting the different circumstances in the public service. The closer the provisions for collective bargaining in the public service are brought to provisions for the private sector, the better it will be for both, I am convinced.
There is no doubt that without substantial amendments the I.R.D.I. Act would not immediately meet the needs of the whole public service, though it might well apply to the post office as it does to crown corporations today. But the act, that is the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, is in my view out of date for the private sector and is in most urgent need of revision to conform to modern thinking in industrial relations. It would have been much better to revise that act and divide it into three parts; first, the general sections which would apply across the board to the public service and the private
13160	COMMONS DEBATES	February 17. 1967
Public Service Collective Bargaining sector alike; second, those provisions which by their nature are applicable only to the private sector under federal jurisdiction. The third part would be those provisions which by their nature are applicable only to the public service.
Several of the briefs before the committee made vigorous representations that an amended I.R.D.I. Act and not this bill should be used. Notable among these were the briefs of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the lithographers and the typographical unions. I have considerable sympathy with their submissions. However, the die is cast otherwise and I raise the matter only to say this. No doubt as a result of the study by the task force headed by Dean Woods a modernization of the I.R.D.I. act will be undertaken by parliament within the next two or three sessions, if not earlier. By that time there will have been experience with this bill. Its deficiencies will likely have been disclosed. At that stage I believe the government then in office should give careful consideration to the consolidation of the I.R.D.I. act and this bill into a new three part employer-employee relations code applicable in the manner I have suggested to both the private sector and the public service.
The success of the present bill, C-170, will be largely dependent upon the calibre and qualities of the public service staff relations board. I urge upon the president of the Treasury Board and the government to spare no pains to obtain as chairman and vice chairman persons of the highest excellence. Reports are circulating that the chairmanship will be offered to Professor Jacob Finkelman. I hope the rumours are true, because I believe there is no man in Canada more scholarly and enlightened yet more down to earth and practical in the field of employer-employee relations than Professor Finkelman.
Equally, Mr. Chairman, the initial stages of this legislation will require of the bargaining agents a high degree of responsibility and what I may describe as employer-employee statesmanship. Without it bickering, unrest and loss of morale in the public service could be the result.
A major improvement in the bill, without which I could not support it at all, was the complete revision made in relation to the time the bargaining agent must choose between compulsory arbitration or the alternative of conciliation with the right to strike. In the bill as originally drafted this election had to

be made before certification, a time when the election might well be mischievous. The new provisions permit the delaying of election until immediately prior to the commencement of negotiations, clearly a time when the will of the employees themselves is most likely to be known.
The committee was confronted with a grave problem in respect of the rather considerable number of employees in a managerial or confidential category who will be excluded from the operations of this bill. In fact these employees, numbering many thousands, would be in a less favourable position than at present, since they will be deprived of their existing right of consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Civil Service Act, without being brought under this bill and the provisions of collective bargaining.
The special joint committee has strongly recommended the establishment of an advisory committee on the model of the standing advisory committee for the higher grades in the public service in Great Britain. Before this bill clears committee, we on this side of the house will expect a specific and unequivocal commitment from the President of the Treasury Board that the government will establish such an advisory committee.
This leads me to submit that there is still a useful and constructive role for the national joint council. That council has many substantial accomplishments to its credit. I believe it can still perform a most valuable service for all public servants in fields not covered by collective bargaining; for example, superannuation. Before the committee stage of this bill is concluded we shall expect a statement of the government's intentions in respect to the future of the national joint council. o (11:40 a.m.)
Then, sir, I wish to draw specific attention to the recommendation to the joint special committee as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government consider legislation to continue the pay research bureau and to provide for the data collected thereby to be available to the bargaining parties under Bill C-170.
I have perhaps a paternal interest in this bureau, because one of my first acts on election to this parliament was to urge its establishment. I succeeded in this urging. It was first established in 1957 on the recommendation of the gentleman for whom I then served as parliamentary assistant, Hon. Donald M. Fleming, minister of finance. Despite some growing pains and some shaky techniques at
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
the outset, the bureau has been of tremendous value in the process of pay determination. I think it is most urgent that in the future there be impartial and factual research about comparability of salary and wage levels in the public service with equivalent categories in private industry. The results of this research, I submit, must be available equally to the bargaining parties. I ask the minister to give the committee an unequivocal undertaking that the government will carry out this recommendation of the joint special committee.
I believe it is of special interest to members of parliament that under this bill the staffs of the Senate, the .House of Commons and the library of parliament are excluded. The joint special committee has recommended amendments to the Senate and House of Commons Act, the House of Commons Act and the Library of Parliament Act to provide to these employees rights and advantages similar to those which this bill provides. I confess to some surprise that the President of the Treasury Board has not already arranged the introduction of such amendments to these three acts so they could be considered in association with this bill. I ask the minister to make clear at once the intentions of the commissioners on internal economy and of the government in this regard. The employees in this building must not be placed in a position less favourable than that of other public servants. I submit the amendments to the three acts should be introduced at once and enacted at this session.
During the hearings of the joint special committee the question was raised-and I pursued it-of the inclusion in the bill of a so-called conscience clause to permit the exclusion of those persons who on grounds of religious belief or training object to membership in a bargaining agency or to the payment of fees or dues thereto. It is true that the number of such persons is small, but there is a basic principle involved. In a number of other jurisdictions the matter has been settled by the inclusion of a conscience clause which would permit the objector to make a contribution to an approved charity of an amount at least equal to the fees or dues that otherwise would be payable. I do urge the minister to adopt the model contained in the Saskatchewan act of 1965 as amended in 1966. If he does not do so I propose to test the opinion of the committee of the whole by an amendment at the appropriate time.
Public Service Collective Bargaining
The most unfortunate by-product of this legislation is the red circling program. Without doubt collective bargaining requires a simplification and rearrangement of the 700 classes and 1,400 grades which there have been previously in the public service. But in reducing the number of classes to something like 70 the government has brought a grave injustice to thousands upon thousands of civil servants, and has created more unrest and loss of morale than at any previous time ever existed in the public service. I deplore the way in which the red circling was carried out. What I am unable to comprehend is how the Civil Service Commission can be so confident that its present reclassification program is correct, when all it does is overrule and set aside classifications made by that very commission in years gone by. How is it that the commission made so many mistakes-indeed, 10,000 mistakes-in earlier years but has now achieved infallibility? It is the ordinary civil servant who is being made to pay for those alleged mistakes on the part of the Civil Service Commission.
Again, I strongly suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that the only fair way to settle this red circling fiasco-and that it is-is to exempt incumbents completely and permit them to have and enjoy all the advantages which would have accrued to them had their position not been red circled. The reduction in classification would become effective when the position was next filled, when the successful applicant would accept the position with his eyes open.
Red circling is not the only headache there will be in the institution of collective bargaining. There will be other complications and other growing pains. No doubt this bill will require amendment from time to time. Collective bargaining will not create a new valhalla for public servants. But in this day it is inevitable and desirable. I intend to support this bill, with reservations in respect of certain clauses which I shall express when we reach them. My earnest hope is that under collective bargaining the government of Canada will prove to be a model employer, and that the enactment of this bill will accrue to the advantage not only of public servants but of all Canadians.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join the President of the Treasury Board and the hon. member for Carleton in extending to the hon. member for Ottawa East and his co-chairman from the other place my con-
13162	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining gratulations for the good temper they exhibited through many days of sometimes pretty sharp exchanges. I should like also, and I believe the hon. member for Ottawa East will approve of my doing so, to extend our thanks to the clerk of the special joint committee, Mr. Thomas, who by some miraculous accomplishment knew exactly what we had left out, what we had stood aside and when we came back to it and why. Without his services I am sure half the bill which is now before the house would have been lost somewhere under the tables of the special joint committee.
I should also like to pay a special tribute-not merely for politeness but for reasons which I will make clear in a moment-to the competence and thoughtfulness with which the officials of the Treasury Board and the Civil Service Commission presented their propositions to the committee and listened to suggestions from members of the committee. I should like to pay tribute particularly to Dr. Davidson and the two gentlemen who now are in front of the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Love and Mr. Roddick.
I pay this tribute, as 1 said, not only in politeness and out of a sincere appreciation of the work they did in the committee, but particularly because my experience has taught me that no matter what law you may have and what kind of collective bargaining scheme you may set up whether it will in fact work will depend on the aptitude, the generosity, tolerance, intelligence and competence of the parties at the bargaining table. I am persuaded that if the President of the Treasury Board lets his officials do the collective bargaining, the collective bargaining will be done in the right spirit.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
That is not to say that he himself might not have the same kind of spirit, but he was not before the committee. I am confident that Dr. Davidson and his associates will approach the collective bargaining process with a sense of their duty as representatives of the government and people of Canada, and with an appreciation of the collective bargaining process which augurs well for the success of the collective bargaining regime.


Mr. Knowles:: And the President of the Treasury Board is perhaps not as permanent as his officials will be.

DEBATES	February 17, 1967


David Lewis: My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre points out that the President of the Tresury Board is not as permanent as his officials may prove to be.


Edgar John Benson: Oh, just about.


David Lewis: I also want to say a word about the work of the committee. In recent months a good many members of parliament have indulged, as I have-this includes several members of the government and, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Hochelaga has written about it-in the exercise of calling for a revision of the rules and procedures of parliament in order to bring our work more in consonance with modern requirements. There was no better example, it seems to me, of one of the ways in which parliamentary procedures can be improved than the work of this committee and other committees on which I have served and about which I have been told. It has always seemed to me that when we sit around the table at a parliamentary committee meeting we become a great deal less partisan than we are on the floor of this house. In committee we tend to be much more concerned with the merits of the subject matter before us than with taking positions and stances that are intended for some kind of political projection.
I urge that we learn from the work of these committees and try to find ways of not only handing more important legislation to the committees but of ensuring that the work done by the committees is not repeated on the floor of this house and in committee of the whole, as has happened in the case of one or two bills. I have learned that in committee, much more than in the house it is possible to persuade the government to accept changes if one has reasoned arguments to support them. It is much easier, at least, than persuading them to accept changes in this chamber. I am confident that we can improve the work of this parliament a great deal by not only extending the functions of parliamentary committees but giving those committees powers which they do not now have and arranging our parliamentary rules in such a way that the work of committees, as I have said, is not repeated on the floor of this house.
I am not going to try to cover all the points of this bill. I think the minister was right, and perhaps he understated the position, when he said the bill had been improved by the special joint committee. In my view having taken, as he knows, together with my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Carleton
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
and other members of the committee a very active part in seeking changes, Bill C-170 as it now lies before the members of this committee bears hardly any resemblance in basic principle to the bill which the government originally presented. The changes which have been made are not merely changes of detail or procedure. In every case the amendments that were made, and which the government members on the committee accepted, let me add-the remark I am making is not partisan-were changes of fundamental substance, which now make this bill closer to a genuine collective bargaining bill than it was when first introduced.
Having paid a compliment to the officials of Treasury Board, let me now say something which may not be as complimentary to them.
I found in dealing with them in the committee that the original approach of the government and the officials had been to grant the public service employees collective bargaining but to fence it around in such a way that it really would be no more than a shadow of any real collective bargaining process. There was obviously a fearfulness on the part of the officials, which no doubt reflected the attitude of the government, that if there were full collective bargaining the whole thing would run amok, and they wanted to be sure there were limitations here and limitations there, with every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed in such a way that nothing would have been left for real collective bargaining.
It is therefore a great tribute to the officials and those who instructed them to say that when we were able to persuade them, in most cases, of the value of some fundamental change they later came back with wording appropriate to meet the request which was made. I repeat that the bill now before this committee is entirely different in basic principle from that which appeared before us on second reading. That is why, despite the fairly severe criticisms representatives of my party made of the original bill, we will support this bill and its companion bills with much greater happiness than we could possibly have done before.
I have still several very serious reservations about the bill. If committee members will permit me to refer to it, I would say that I had occasion to spend a day last Wednesday with a large group of representatives of the Public Service Alliance, postal employees and others interested in this legislation. I went over with them, so far as I could, some of the
Public Service Collective Bargaining matters that will be concerning them in practical negotiations on the basis of these bills. They informed me that Dr. Davidson and Mr. Love, as well as the President of the Treasury Board, had met with the group the day before.
I suggested to them, as I say to the committee now, that there are still some serious difficulties about this bill on which they ought to keep a very careful eye. If the practice shows that those difficulties are real, it will be the duty of this parliament to make the necessary amendments to overcome them. The first difficulty-and I do not put these forward in any order of importance-is represented in the clause now before the committee and on which these general statements are being made. The wording of the exclusions is still extremely broad. It will be easy for the employer to abuse his powers if he wishes to do so. It will be easy for the employer to seek exclusion to such an extent as to remove from the process of collective bargaining thousands of men and women who ought not to be removed from it.
I am very concerned about the breadth of the language in many of the subclauses of clause 2 of the bill. We discussed them at great length in the committee. If I may make a personal reference, I sometimes felt I was making myself an extreme nuisance to the other members of the committee by insisting and digging in my heels on a number of points in this clause, as in others. We made some important changes in this clause, but to my mind some parts of the clause are still far too wide.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
Whether the broad wording will in fact be a disservice to the collective bargaining process and to the excluded individuals will depend on the integrity and care with which the employer-in this case the government, or according to this bill, the Treasury Board -will seek to interpret the broad language used in clause 2.
I agree with the hon. member for Car-leton-he and I both raised the matter before the committee-that in view of the fact that literally thousands of public service employees will be excluded from the process of collective bargaining under the heading of managerial and confidential employees, it is of the greatest importance that the recommendation of the special joint committee that a special advisory committee be set up to deal with the government in relation to the terms
13164	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining and conditions of work of such excluded personnel be carried out by the government.
In order to ensure that the government would not use its usual language, namely "we will do it soon" and-"soon" is the most elastic word I have ever heard since I have been on the floor of the house, a word which may mean anything from one to 100 years-I moved that the committee unanimously accept a time limit on this recommendation specifying that the government is to establish this advisory committee within six months from the time these bills are passed. We will watch very carefully to see whether the government will in fact act within six months to set up this committee to deal with the thousands of excluded personnel as a result of the practical application of the bill now before the committee.
However, I am a great deal more disturbed about another matter which I asked members of the house to consider very carefully. We will not move any amendment to these bills on this point either at this stage or at any stage because we have reached the conclusion-and I may say that the people whom I met last Wednesday told me they agree fully with this approach-that the important thing is to get these laws into action as quickly as possible and with the least possible delay, so we may acquire a year or two of experience under these laws. If changes are necessary we will be able to make them on the basis of practical experience rather than attempting to foretell what may happen. My concern stems from the fact that a huge and important area of normal employer-employee relations is excluded from collective bargaining under Bill C-170 and its two companion bills, C-181 and C-182.
I am referring to the areas of classification, appointment, promotion, demotion, lay-off and release of employees. For example, the red circling fiasco to which the hon. member for Carleton referred would not have arisen if there had been collective bargaining on the question of classification. In every case with which I have had some experience where reclassification has taken place the union, if it was strong enough, was able to achieve the result which I suggested in a few questions to the President of the Treasury Board some months ago and to which the hon. member for Carleton referred in his speech this morning, namely that the red circle rates should not apply to incumbent employees. I suggested that the incumbent employee should continue to receive the old rate and all the increases
DEBATES	February 17, 1967
given to other employees, and that the red: circle rates should apply only to a new employee in the particular position affected. This is the only way to deal with red circling,, because otherwise the government is punishing an employee by unilaterally changing the understanding on which the employee accepted the job. This problem would not have arisen if there had been collective bargaining on classification.
I am very worried that the largest part of job opportunity and job security is excluded from collective bargaining. The reason we finally decided, after many hours of argument, to let it take its course and see how it works, and the reason we were given for the exclusion of this area from collective bargaining, was the desire to maintain the merit, system and to ensure that only the Civil: Service Commission, or the public service commission as it will be called, will have any authority in making decisions and setting, standards with regard to the merit system.
I was not convinced of that at that time and I continue to be unconvinced that it is impossible to bring these areas within collective bargaining and at the same time guarantee that the merit system will continue. I am unconvinced that it is impossible to wed the merit system to seniority, length of service and all the other aspects of job security sought by employees. I continue to feel certain that it would have been possible to do so, but the officials of the department and the representatives of the Civil Service Commission insisted that it was not.
Therefore we decided, and I hope the future will show it to be a wise decision, to let. it go for the moment and see how it will work in the next two years. However, let me reiterate to the President of the Treasury Board and to his negotiating officials that this is an area which worries the public service employee representatives more than any other section in the present bills. To give a simple example, they are deeply concerned that on Monday they may negotiate with the government and reach an agreement on a certain rate of salaries, and on Tuesday have that rate eroded by unilateral reclassification in the same way the-red circling has affected employees without the right of collective bargaining. This is-what has happened on many occasions in private industry.
Therefore let me be presumptuous enough-as to say to the President of the Treasury Board and his officials, as well as to the public service commission to be set up, that if

February 17, 1967	COMMONS
those bodies so apply the unilateral exclusive right of classification and appointment of employees, etc., as the law as it is presently worded permits them, and thereby irritate the public service employees, this collective bargaining process will be in danger the day after it begins.
I urge those in the government who are responsible for collective bargaining to make absolutely certain that every avenue of consultation, information, appeal and discussion be explored so the employees concerned are persuaded that they will not suffer as a result of this exclusive power in the hands of the authorities, and as a result of the exclusion of this important area from negotiation.
As I said on second reading of this bill, I continue to be worried about the powers given to the staff relations board and the numerous duties that have been laid upon it, those of certification, of deciding what is to go to conciliation after the negotiations have broken down, of dealing indirectly with adjudication, and a whole host of other responsibilities and duties. I still have a strong feeling that the board will encounter a great deal of difficulty in the practical working out of its functions. Since we were dealing with a field which had not been previously tried it was thought wiser, after drawing these difficulties to the attention of those responsible, to hang one's doubts on the clothes line for the next year or two and see how the staff relations board works out in practice.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre shares these doubts and reservations. I am still very unhappy over the lack of appeal open to an employee dismissed for alleged security reasons. The old section of the Civil Service Act was brought into a companion bill without, in my opinion, sufficient amendment. It is true that after some discussion a provision was inserted providing for a hearing, although the details of that hearing are not put into legislation. This is somewhat of an improvement. I still feel deeply unhappy, however, about the fact that anyone can be dismissed for any reason without being able to appeal to some independent body and have his day in court. We did not press this much further than the amendment we obtained, and which now provides for a hearing, in the hope that the cases will be so infrequent and the actions of the authorities will be so definite and well grounded there will be no injustice in fact.
Public Service Collective Bargaining
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the points I wanted to make. I want to deal with only one final point. After a great deal of discussion about political activities of public servants we were finally presented with a proposition the fullness of which is found in Bill No. C-181 but which leaves us in this party dissatisfied. I have never been able to understand, and I cannot understand now why, subject to certain exceptions, the public service employees should not enjoy the full political freedoms and rights that other citizens of the country enjoy. I just cannot understand it.
I was disturbed beyond words, Mr. Chairman, last Wednesday when I met with a group of the leaders of the public service of Canada and discussed this question of political rights. A leading spokesman said at that meeting that one of the reasons public service employees are not particularly anxious about political rights is not that they do not want them but that many civil servants are afraid that if they are given political rights some of their superiors will demand that they exercise them in a certain direction. Apparently there is a fear about this in the public service which must be widespread. I cannot say from my own experience that this is so, but it must be widespread or this particular gentleman who holds an extremely important position in one of the public service organizations would not have made that statement in the presence of 90 or 100 other leaders of public service employees.
I regret there is this fear amongst employees of the federal government that if they are given such rights some misguided superior, some irresponsible superior, will insist that they exercise those rights in the direction of one political party or another. I am not saying this merely to be friendly or courteous, but if that is the case I am sure it is not the fault of this government or the immediately preceding government, although I am equally sure it is the fault of governments in the past when patronage controlled appointments and promotions in the civil service. This tradition has persisted, and I think it is shameful that it should continue.
One of the ways to remove this fear is to give the people concerned full political rights, and give them protection. In some ways this bill does give protection against discrimination for exercising or failing to exercise political rights. I want to emphasize before
13166	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining this committee, as we had occasion to emphasize again and again before the special joint committee, that those of us who urge full political rights for public service employees are not saying the bill should require them to belong to a party or support a party. This is not what is before parliament or the public service employees. What is before us is the removal of an inhibition that the law previously contained. Civil servants will be as free to be just as apathetic about their political duties as the rest of the people of Canada so frequently are. There would be no compulsion that they exercise the rights which would be given. There would be provision merely that if they wanted to exercise them they could do so.
The proposal which was made to us and which is contained in Bill C-181, Mr. Chairman, contains one absurdity and one humiliation. The absurdity is that this proposal provides that a public service employee may make a contribution to a political party or attend political meetings but he is prohibited, not in so many words but in the total provision, from being a member of a political party. Later one finds he is permitted to apply to the public service commission for permission to be a candidate for a political party. I do not know very much about the constitution of other parties in this parliament, but I would be very surprised if the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the Social Credit party, the Ralliement Creditistes or the independent party, if there is one, were different from the New Democratic Party on the point that before you can be a candidate you must be a member. Certainly our constitution provides it. I am told the Conservative party constitution provides that, and I would be surprised if the Liberal party constitution did not have a similar provision.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I am prepared to agree, but I venture to suggest the hon. gentleman should confine his remarks to this bill. Some of us want to make speeches on the subject lie has been discussing, but we are waiting until the next bill is before us.


David Lewis: There is a reference to this matter in this bill. There is a reason for my speaking about it now, and that is that I may not be here when the other bill is before the
[Mr. Lewis.l
DEBATES	February 17. 1967
committee. I admit frankly it would be more in order to discuss the matter then, although I disagree it is not in order now. I will not be very long.
If a political party requires that before you can be a candidate you must be a member of that party, I should like someone to tell me how the right to be a candidate which is now being extended under certain conditions means anything, if the public service employee is not permitted to become a member of a political party. I hope before this bill leaves committee of the whole we will close the gap in this absurdity. If we really intend that public service employees have the right to be candidates under certain conditions, we will give them the right to be members of political parties. Otherwise the right to be a candidate is a sham and meaningless.
The other point I was going to raise, and I will do so very briefly, was that I still think it is absurd and humiliating that every public service employee, no matter how lowly his job, no matter how lowly his responsibility, must go to the public service commission for permission to be a candidate in a federal or provincial election. I could not see any reason for this humiliation when the special committee met and I cannot see any reason for it now.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Despite the reservation I have expressed, and subject to one or two amendments we shall try to propose in this committee of the whole, we are very happy with most of the very important changes that have been made in the bill. I trust that Treasury Board, the officials, the president of that board and the government will conduct themselves as employers in such a way as to make collective bargaining in the public service a reality and a benefit to the employees of the public service, to this parliament and to Canada.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, while not having had the privilege of serving on the committee that dealt with the legislation now before us I must say that, having watched the progress which has been made, and upon examining the bill before us which has been amended, reprinted and reported by the joint committee, can only be impressed by the tremendous amount of constructive work that has been done. For this the committee is to be commended; certainly the bill now before us is much more satisfactory than the original
February 17, 1967
one. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, we would express our appreciation of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has stated here today that it is the policy of the government to accept the various amendments which have been agreed to in committee.
I wish to speak on a very limited area of this legislation today. I believe that, apart from this general area, most of the amendments that have been made and which improve this bill meet with the approval of the members of this party. Nevertheless I am inclined to say something which I think is basically important about which the bill does not satisfy us, and in regard to which in my opinion there must be further amendments to strengthen the bill.
The hon. member for Carleton referred to the fact that he intends to move a conscience clause. May I say that we in this corner of the house will give our fullest support to such an amendment, because it is imperative that it be included in the bill. While the bill does set out very clearly the right of public servants to collective bargaining, unless this particular aspect is properly taken care of in this legislation I think this provision will work a very grave injustice upon many members of the public service and will thus be detrimental to the service itself.
It is in this vein that I should like to continue my remarks, and I begin by posing several questions which I think must be answered. What really is the meaning and actual scope of freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of religion as declared in the Canadian Bill of Rights? What is the result of allowing the employer and the union, the employee organization, to include in a collective agreement a provision which in effect intimidates and/or threatens and/or compels an employee to continue to be a member of an employee association?
I would further ask, Mr. Chairman, what protection does the government offer to civil servants who for various reasons, religious or political, cannot in good conscience join with and financially support a particular employee organization? Does it mean that one only has the freedom to do what the majority tells one to do? What does freedom of association actually mean as far as the bill of rights is concerned if compulsory membership in an employee organization is a requirement of this bill?
I would further ask whether the government intends to issue an order to all its
Public Service Collective Bargaining employers, its agencies, boards and commissions should this bill become law as it is presently framed, instructing them to safeguard Canadians rights to freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from coercion, compulsion, discrimination and intimidation. While this may seem to be a very minor aspect of this bill, Mr. Chairman, it is of vital importance to the well-being of all Canadians and to the perpetuation of the traditional way of life that we in Canada regard as so important.
I should like to refer very briefly in this connection to the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The preamble to the act reads:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
It was on this basis that the bill of rights was enacted, Mr. Chairman, and everyone in the house at the time voted in support of it. There are a few sections of this act to which I should like to make reference as they relate to this particular problem that the bill before us presents. Section 1 in part I reads as follows:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association:
That last provision is the one which gives me concern for this bill, Mr. Chairman. Freedom of association also carries with it the implication that there shall be freedom not to associate. It was former Governor General Vincent Massey who said:
Freedom always faces dangers. A free people remains free only through daily acts of courage. A nation's bravery in war cannot atone for timidity in time of peace. We deny our freedom if we do not speak when there is something to be said.

13168	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining
It is support for this thought that causes me to speak in this vein today. We want loyalty and dedication in our public service, and I believe we have it now. I would agree that we have one of the finest public services of any free country in the world. As Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Freedom breeds loyalty. Coercion always was the mother of rebellion.
I believe that if we are to preserve the loyalty and perpetuate the dedication that we have in our public service at the present time we must be very careful to enshrine in the legislation that we pass in this house basic freedoms which, in my opinion, would include the right of freedom to associate as well as freedom to dissociate.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I mention another thought in this regard. Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights says:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared,-
Section 3 says:
The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the Privy Council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether this legislation has been referred to the Minister of Justice, to comply with the section of the bill of rights I read. Unless we have the assurance of the Minister of Justice that the provisions of the bill before us are consistent with the bill of rights, we have failed in our examination of this bill.
I urge that before this bill is given final passage we refer it to the Minister of Justice. The bill of rights was passed; we support it as being right. This bill should be consistent with the bill of rights especially with section 3 of part 1 of the bill of rights. I ask that the present bill be referred to the Minister of Justice. We want him to see whether clause 8(2) (c) is consistent with section 3 of the bill of rights. It is vitally important.

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
I draw the attention of the committee to another important declaration of human rights. Last December I was privileged to be at the United Nations when the universal declaration of human rights was given final passage through the assembly. The United Nations had worked on this matter for 20 years, in draft form. It had been the basis of the agreement that each country made when it became part of the United Nations. I do not intend to go over the entire declaration of human rights; that is now part of the constitution of the United Nations in its final form. I merely want to refer to one or two sections. The preamble says:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ...
Whereas member states have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms-
Article 1 says:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Article 18 says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
1 mention clause 18 because it is a conscience clause, and relates to clause 8(2)(c) of the bill before us.
Article 20 says:
(1)	Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2)	No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
If this legislation compels every member of the public service to belong to a specific or specified association, it contravenes article 20 of the universal declaration of human rights.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? He refers to clause 8(2) (c); I take it he has it in front of him. Does not that clause protect the right of any employee either to join or not to join an employee organization?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, as I read the clause I cannot agree that it gives adequate protection to join or not to join. I am confused about one part of the clause. I do not want to become involved in a clause by clause
February 17, 1967
discussion at this time; that will come later, but the point concerning me is this. Clause 8(2) (c) says:
(c) seek by intimidation, by threat of dismissal, or by any other kind of threat, or by the imposition of a pecuniary or any other penalty or by any other means to compel an employee
(i)	to become, refrain from becoming or cease to be-
The next sentence which is very confusing says:
(ii)	except as otherwise provided in a collective agreement-


Edgar John Benson: "To continue to be."


Robert Norman Thompson: That is very confusing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member should read the rest of the sentence.


Robert Norman Thompson: I should be glad to do so. It says:
-a member of an employee organization, or to refrain from exercising any other right under this act;
We shall debate this in detail, but as I read this it does not in my opinion protect a public service employee who does not wish to belong to the public service organization specified in the collective agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not that very clause make it clear that even a collective agreement cannot compel an employee to become a member of an organization? The most a collective agreement can do is to guarantee that those who have already become members voluntarily shall continue to be members.


Richard Albert Bell: It does not cover the Rand formula.


Robert Norman Thompson: We shall discuss this in detail later. There have been a number of instances this past year, with respect to collective agreements which lead me to believe that unless these freedoms are spelled out more specifically than they are spelled out here we shall leave ourselves open to the very things I fear and to which I have referred. This matter may be debated more fully at another stage.
My answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is this. I do not think the clause does what he says it does. For that reason I drew the attention of the committee to the human rights declaration, and I now refer to article 23, which says:
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
Public Service Collective Bargaining of work and to protection against unemployment .. .
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
From this article I draw the inference that an employee also has the right not to join any such organization. That is the aspect I stress, and I want this bill to protect that right of not joining. Before this bill passes I believe hon. members should scrutinize it carefully to make sure it gives protection to public servants and enables them to join the association of their choice. There are one or two aspects of this question which I think will be adequately covered in the conscience clause, and we shall wait to see the amendment which the hon. member for Carleton has said he intends to move in this regard.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
There is precedent for such protection. One of the most far reaching legislative provisions in Canada in this field was passed in the province of Saskatchewan last summer. I refer to the Trade Union Act which was amended by a provincial statute in 1966 and became effective in that year. The hon. member for Carleton has already mentioned it. I would also point out that in the conciliation and arbitration act of 1954, New Zealand makes a similar provision. Likewise the Commonwealth of Australia includes a similar provision in its arbitration act. There is therefore definite precedent for including a conscience clause in this legislation.
I had not intended to refer to political activity as far as public servants are concerned, but the hon. member for York South mentioned the subject and I should like to make one or two statements with regard to it. I believe that within the bounds of discretion and good judgment no Canadian should be denied the right to take part in political activity. It is therefore important that we do not deny such rights to those who are engaged in the public service.
Importance attaches to the way in which this matter is dealt with in the bill, because it came to my attention last week that certain people presently in the employ of the federal government are being told they cannot hold their present jobs because at one time or another in the past they have been candidates in a federal election. If the committee wished, it would be possible to provide evidence of this. I am thinking specifically of cases where members of the farm credit appeal boards in the various provinces have been dismissed on the ground that they stood for political office

13170	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining in the past. This is not something that happened in the old days of patronage. This happened last month, and it is the kind of thing which cannot be tolerated.
On the other hand there is another danger in this regard. I received a communication last week from a gentleman in British Columbia who is currently a paid up member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He says that recently a P.S.A. convention overwhelmingly endorsed a recommendation to affiliate with the Canadian Labour Congress. In the December, 1966 issue of the Argus Journal it is stated on page 1 that affiliation with the C.L.C. will cost the Alliance 10 cents per member per month. Since the Alliance has over 100,000 members this means that about $120,000 a year will be funnelled out of the Alliance into the operation of an education program for the New Democratic Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member believe that?


Robert Norman Thompson: It is not a question of believing it; the evidence is here. Look at the Argus Journal of December, 1966 if you do not believe it. One listens to these platitudes about protecting the rights of the individual as far as political activity is concerned, but when that political activity means belonging to a public service association which requires its members through a compulsory check-off to make donations to one political party, I should like to know where the freedom is.


David Lewis: On a question of privilege, if I am in order; if not I will sit down. I should like to inform the hon. member that the statement he has just made is simply erroneous. The Canadian Labour Congress is not affiliated to the New Democratic Party. It makes no financial contribution to any political party, and it is understood under the constitution of the congress that this is the case. It is also understood in the Canadian Labour Congress as a whole that public service employee associations, whether federal, provincial or municipal, are not themselves to be affiliated to any political party. I might further point out that in the bill before us there is a provision which would decertify any public service employee organization which affiliated with us or sent money to a political party, and that this clause in the bill was supported unanimously by the special joint committee which, of course, included the two members of this party who were members of that committee.

DEBATES	February 17, 1967


Robert Norman Thompson: I am grateful for that statement, but I repeat for the record that in the December issue of the Argus Journal it is stated on page 1 that affiliation with the C.L.C. will cost the Alliance 10 cents a member. This man who has written to me says:
I strongly object to paying this 10 cents toward the education costs of a political philosophy of a socialistic party which I do not support in any way.
This is a simple fact, whether or not the hon. member for York South makes the statements he does, and I wish to make sure that public service employees are protected from this sort of thing. I shall not continue much further. I emphasize this point mainly because of my desire to make sure that the legislation does contain adequate protection for our public service employees, that the rights of individuals will be respected with regard to arrangements for association, and that the rights of minorities will also be protected. It is imperative that this legislation contain within itself recognition of the constitutional rights of civil servants to freedom of association and of religion, and that it guarantee to public servants freedom to join the organization of their choice, as well as providing that they will not be required to support any organization as a condition of employment with the federal government.
Having said that, I repeat that all in all this legislation represents a tremendous improvement over the original draft, and that we shall give our support to it, subject to the reservations I have made and our right to consider further amendments which may be made. We think the measure represents a tremendous advance compared with the situation which has thus far existed.


Mr. Chatterion:: My remarks will be brief. I too wish to commend the hon. member for Ottawa East and his parliamentary colleague from the other place on the manner in which they conducted the meetings of the committee on the public service. Even if I am patting myself on the back in the process I should like also to commend all the members of the committee on the manner in which they conducted the business referred to them by the house. The fact that so many amendments were accepted and agreed upon by the committee illustrates the attitude of the members of that committee. Let me pay tribute to the staff associations for the excellent service they performed for the committee in the briefs they presented.
February 17, 1987	COMMONS
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Before continuing my general remarks I should like to refer to a statement just made by the hon. member for Red Deer relating to membership as provided for in Bill C-170. Under this bill no one can force an employee by any means to either join or resign from an organization. Even the collective agreement cannot force an employee to join an organization. If the employee had been a member of an organization then the collective agreement can require him to continue, but even the collective agreement cannot force him to join. It can force him to pay dues.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question for clarification? What is the situation in respect of the payment of dues to these organizations?


George Louis Chatterton: Yes, as the bill now stands it does not prevent the collective agreement from requiring the payment of dues, but it does prevent any person from being made to join the organization. I wanted to clarify that point, which the hon. member for Red Deer did not seem to have clear in his mind.
In the very few moments left to me I should like to point out some reservations I have and which have been expressed to me by a number of people. These reservations relate to the provisions of this bill which will give the right to certain groups to elect to strike. In 1965 when the postal employees went on strike they had the general sympathy of the public, mainly because they had a justifiable grievance. However, I submit that if the postal strike had taken place last year the public may not have had the same sympathy for them because of the great number of strikes which affected the whole of the country last year.
A great number of people have expressed concern that by a government bill groups of public employees are to be given the legal right to strike. In my experience in relation to teachers, firemen and policemen who have been given the right to compulsory arbitration I have found they benefited very greatly, in many cases more than comparable organizations which had the right to strike. Let me express the concern of a great number of people regarding this right. I recognize that the governor in council has the right to declare that certain groups performing essential services will not have this right.
Public Service Collective Bargaining


Edgar John Benson: The ultimate decision as to groups or individuals necessary for the safety and security of the nation rests with the P.S.S.R.B., not with the governor in council.


Richard Albert Bell: It is not the nation, it is the public.


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


George Louis Chatterton: There is that provision, but postal employees may not be classified in that category though naturally we cannot assume that. There is some concern in this regard, and I would urge the bargaining agents who elect this course of action to use extreme caution because there is a feeling among the people of Canada about this right that is now being legally given to certain groups of public employees. I surmise that very few groups will elect this course, but just the same the legal right is to be given under the provisions of this bill.
Since remarks have been made about the other two bills, C-180 and C-182, I should like to express very serious reservations about the right of the public service commission to hear appeals. I am satisfied that the public service commission will deal with such appeals in a fair and equitable manner, but that is not the point. The principle that an appeal shall be made to the body which makes the decision in the first place is one which will create the feeling among people that they are not getting a fair deal. This involves the principle that it must not only be fair, it must appear to be fair. A great number of civil servants have expressed some reservation regarding the fact that any appeal from dismissal or demotion will have to be made to the body which made the first decision. I hope even at this late date the minister will consider a provision to set up some other tribunal to which such appeals can be made.
I do not wish to repeat some of the arguments presented to the committee, but civil servants generally are apprehensive about this bill because of the mix-up in reclassification and red circling. The majority of civil servants think of this bill in the same context as the bargaining bill.
Another part of the bill which disturbs me a little, and the minister should be aware that this may cause trouble, is that part relating to certification of bargaining units. It is true that the committee approved a very important amendment to the effect that the board will have the right to change
13172	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining the bargaining unit to the occupational group that is approved by the public service commission, but the effect of these artificially set up bargaining units will disrupt organizations that have performed a very useful service for many years. For example, the custom and excise officers' association has been actively serving its members for the last 30 years, and it is most unlikely that this association will be allowed to continue as the bargaining agent.
We will support this bill, Mr. Chairman. I hope that after a year or so of operation the minister will take another look at it. This is a new attempt to do by legislation that which has been done in Great Britain by use and custom. The minister should keep a close watch on its operation and consult frequently with representatives of the public service with a view to making changes as they become necessary to the efficient operation of this very complicated measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I call it one o'clock?


Maurice Rinfret: Pursuant to an order made on February 3, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at two o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-170. When the committee rose at one o'clock we were discussing clause 2 as amended and reported by the special joint committee on the public service of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is hardly necessary for me to take time to offer compliments to all those who have worked on this bill. The compliments were well expressed by those who spoke this morning. However, since every other member who has spoken on clause 2 has handed out compliments, were I not to do so it might be thought that I did not also feel the same way. Just about everyone except the parliamentary secretary to the minister has been complimented concerning the work that was done in the committee. 1 think he should also receive honourable mention. As a matter of fact I do not know what we would have done without him in those interesting moments during our deliberations when we wanted to know what "they" would agree to. We were never told who "they" referred to, but it was always uttered as

DEBATES	February 17, 1367
though "they" was spelled with a capital "T". He performed that role very well.
I suppose it could be said that I am doing what it might be expected I would do if I add one other name to the list. I think my colleague, the hon. member for York South, deserves mention particularly because of the way in which he brought his lengthy experience as a labour lawyer to bear on the work of the committee which dealt with Bill C-170, Bill C-181 and Bill C-182.
I should like to take another moment to join with those who this morning referred to what we have done with regard to this legislation as an outstanding example of the value of committee work. I think there is no question but that when Bill C-170 in particular was first brought in there were many misgivings about it in the ranks of the public service. I think, however, it is equally fair to say now that public servants generally would like to see this legislation as we have amended it put into effect and given a trial. As I say, this indicates the good job the committee was able to do.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I should like to remind hon. members present that the committee met under considerable difficulties. For example, such major pieces of legislation as medicare and the old age pension supplement were being debated in the house during the time our committee was in session, which meant that on many occasions we had to leave the committee room or suspend meetings because of interest on the part of members in debates taking place in the house. In case this is not recognized as the commercial that it is, it is a plea for doing something to the rules and procedures of this house so that committees can have an opportunity to sit and do a job on legislation at periods when the House of Commons is not sitting. If we could do as good a job under the handicaps we faced, I would say we could have done an even better job had we had fewer handicaps. I think this is a lesson that some day we in the parliament of Canada have to learn.
Speaking of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the public service of Canada, I am also glad that the President of the Treasury Board referred this morning to the fact that the committee is still meeting and dealing with an additional term of reference, namely, the pensions of retired civil servants. I hope it will not be very long before the committee agrees to and brings in a report on this question. I feel
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
confident that the committee will make a worth-while recommendation, and I trust that when it does the government will act on that recommendation with dispatch.
I agree with those who this morning said there might have been other ways to approach this problem, that we might have considered amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in such a way as to bring civil servants under the provisions of that legislation. I agree also that we might have given consideration to a separate regime for employees in the public service who would prefer to be under some other legislation than this. But I think it is fair to say the concensus now is that we have sufficiently improved this legislation that it is worth a try. I hope, therefore, it will not be long before it is in effect. In fact, I trust that the deadlines in the legislation itself can be maintained.
Having said that we did improve the legislation in a good many respects, even at the risk of repeating something to which reference was made this morning I should like to pinpoint perhaps the most significant improvement that was made in terms of making this a genuine collective bargaining bill. I refer to the change that was made in clause 36. That clause as it was first brought in required any employee organization that wished to be certified for collective bargaining purposes to indicate before it was certified which of two courses it would follow, conciliation with the right to strike, or binding arbitration. We felt it was most unfair to require this decision to be made in advance and also to be made with effect for a period of five years.
We heard representations about this matter, we argued about it back and forth, and without bothering to take time to say who should get the credit for what was done, the fact is that we now have in clause 36 a provision that says an employee organization, a bargaining unit, does not have to indicate the course that it wishes to follow as between conciliation with the right to strike, and binding arbitration, until it has given notice to bargain. It is also provided that, this choice having been made, it applies just on that one round of bargaining and the carrying out of the contract arrived at at that time. I think this is a very significant improvement and it highlights the fact that the bill has been improved. I have no hesitation in commending
Public Service Collective Bargaining the government for having agreed to this important change in the bill as well as to other changes that were proposed.
As my colleague the hon. member for York South has pointed out, there are still some weaknesses in the legislation and we hope that even yet we may get a small amendment passed here and there. If we cannot get that, we hope we will receive some fairly firm undertakings from the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the government of Canada as employer. As my colleague pointed out, some of the areas that still concern us include the exclusions that are in the legislation, both the exclusions as to subjects that are under collective bargaining and exclusions as to persons.
As I say, we would like to see improvements in the actual wording of the legislation, but if we cannot go any further in that direction we hope that at least we will have some pretty clear statements from the government. We also hope that another look may be taken at the clause in one of the bills that has to do with the rights of persons who have been dismissed. We recognize that a slight improvement was made but we think there is room for still further improvement.
In the field of the political rights of a member of the public service, we recognize that the place for any extended discussion of this matter is on one of the other bills. But in the meantime we hope the government will think about the difficult and rather ridiculous position in which a person in the civil service is placed when he is told he can become a political candidate in an election but at the same time is told that as long as he is a civil servant he cannot join a political party. It makes me wonder how the Prime Minister and a few others over there who were civil servants got the nomination of the Liberal party.


Edgar John Benson: They did not have to be members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The President of the Treasury Board says they did not have to be members. That is a strange way to run a political party-


Edgar John Benson: That is democracy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but I suppose it is what the Liberals call democracy, as the President of the Treasury Board says. If the Conservative party were run like that, my hon. friend the President of the Treasury Board could find
13174	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining himself a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative party without being a member of that party.


David Lewis: Maybe he is.


Edgar John Benson: Who knows? I might be yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At any rate, my colleague the hon. member for York South and I have agreed, on behalf of this party, that we had the major battle about this matter in the committee, and perhaps there is no point in our trying again to run the whole gamut that was run at that time. But we do hope that consideration will be given to this one point, namely, the right of civil servants to be members of political parties, even if you want to qualify it by saying "members where political parties require such membership in order to be candidates."
The question of the conscience clause has been mentioned several times this morning. Perhaps we can leave that question until the matter is actually before us. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, it seems to me that clause 8 (2) (c) very clearly protects the right of every public servant to join or not join an employee organization. It seems to me that clause makes it clear that if a person chooses not to join an employee organization he cannot be intimidated in any way; he cannot be dismissed or discriminated against in any way.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
My colleague the hon. member for York South has reminded me that even the reference in clause 8(2)(c) to the collective agreement having some effect on the provisions of that subclause makes it clear that the only thing which the collective agreement can provide for in this area is the maintenance of membership which has already been taken out. A person who was a member of an employee organization at the time when the collective agreement was reached, and whose membership in the first place was voluntary, can be required by the agreement to maintain that membership, but no person under any circumstances can be required to be a member of an employee organization. I think this is going pretty far when we consider the whole concept of the rule of law and of our obligations to the society of which we are a part.
The time for lengthy speeches on this first general clause, although it is clause 2, does not need to be extended. However, there are a couple of other points which I should like to

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
make, and I will address myself directly to the President of the Treasury Board. He said this morning when he made his speech on clause 2 that the government accepted-I took it he meant that the government accepted without any qualifications-all of the amendments that the committee made to the three bills. This is not surprising because, after all, all the amendments were passed unanimously. There were divisions of opinion in the committee which were resolved by recorded votes, but somehow or other we always lost on such votes. However, the point I wish to make is that the minister said clearly that the government would accept all the amendments that the committee made and which are now contained in the bills before us.
I wish he would speak with equal clarity and likewise without any equivocation with regard to the recommendations that the committee made. I am referring in particular to the recommendations which appear at the end of the report of the committee on Bill C-170. They are to be found on pages 1274 and 1275 of Votes and Proceedings for February 3, 1967. There are two recommendations about which I am concerned. The first is that within six months a special committee should be established to consider the position of those employees excluded from collective bargaining.
The minister will note that there is a special reference at the top of page 1275 of Votes and Proceedings to employees in the higher grades in the civil service for whom there is no provision under the legislation. I thought I heard the minister say to me across the floor that he will have something to say about that later. I am glad he will. But let me impress upon him that we would like just as clear an undertaking about that recommendation as we have been given about the amendments to the bill.
The other recommendation, which has already been referred to this morning by the hon. member for Carleton and perhaps by others, consists of two sentences which appear on page 1275 of Votes and Proceedings and which I should like to put on the record again. They read as follows:
Your committee has noted that the employees of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament are not included in Bill C-170 but are covered by other Acts.
Your committee recommends that consideration be given to the introduction of legislation to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
House of Commons Act and the Library of Parliament Act to extend to the employees thereunder advantages and rights similar to those provided public servants under Bill C-170.
It seems to me that the logic of that recommendation cannot be pushed aside. If the parliament of Canada has reached the point where it is prepared to pass legislation giving collective bargaining rights to all employees of all the departments of the federal government scattered throughout Canada, surely we should extend the same rights to our own employees here on parliament hill. We had a most interesting discussion on this matter in the committee. Various constitutional experts appeared before us, including our own parliamentary counsel, Dr. Maurice Ollivier, the law clerk of the Senate, Mr. Russell Hopkins, and others.
I think we agreed in the committee that parliament is a separate employer and that therefore our employees must be covered by other legislation than that which governs employees coming under the Treasury Board. Nevertheless, surely the principles in both cases should be identical, and I agree with the hon. member for Carleton who said this morning that he thought the minister should already have prepared legislation on this matter. As the minister knows, a day or two after the report was tabled I asked him whether the government was giving consideration to this recommendation. The answer was, of course, that the government was considering it. It has taken us a long time to get collective bargaining for civil servants in general and I hope it will not take us as long to get it for our own employees here on parliament hill.
I do wish to express our earnest hope that the minister will be just as unequivocal in the assurances he will give us about the recommendations contained in the committee's report as he has been with regard to the amendments that have been incorporated in the bills that are before us.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, consideration of Bill No. C-170, which has been dealt with in great detail by a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, has now reached the stage of examination in committee of the whole.
I took a modest part in the discussions of the committee, and I listened with great interest, along with my colleagues the members of this house sitting on the committee, to the numerous briefs submitted.
Public Service Collective Bargaining
I wish to congratulate those who accepted to make representations to the committee; these were, for the most part, very well prepared and made in a very capable manner.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
This is an extremely important step toward regulating labour problems in Canada, particularly with respect to civil servants. I agree entirely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a while ago, regarding employees on parliament hill.
Surely, special regulations should be drafted as soon as possible. We, the members of parliament, are particularly well placed to see the excellent work of these employees on parliament hill, in the House of Commons and in other related services, but we deplore the fact-and I can say this is a unanimous feeling-that there are no specific regulations protecting these employees whose services are so precious.
The act respecting relations in the public service of Canada raises many problems which have been considered and to which the house must find a solution.
I am sure further amendments could be made, and if they tend to improve the bill, I shall make it a point to give them appropriate consideration.
I would have preferred the government to go a little further at times, but this legislation is already a very big step in the right direction, for it gives civil servants certain rights that they never had before or that they had only by tradition, custom or, perhaps, through the government's kindness.
The government, which is the employer, has agreed at last to be treated on the same footing as its employees in the collective bargaining process. I would have been particularly pleased-and I am referring to clause 26 of Bill No. C-170-if the government had gone a little further with regard to recognizing the special interest of certain public service employees.
So far, the government has agreed to propose amendments and the committee has accepted them unanimously, but I hope it does not mean that the last word has been said.
However, the main reason I am rising to take part in this debate is that even though clause 26 does not go as far as my colleagues and myself would have wished, we hope that the Public Service Staff Relations Board, established under clause 11 and charged with
13176	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining the administration of Bill No. C-170, will exercise its powers in a very broad-minded way, taking into consideration present and future needs of groups of employees, so that certification may be granted to separate units having valid reasons for making such a request.
Clause 26-I hope to speak to this clause again when it comes up for consideration- grants this right at all phases of bargaining whereas, in the first draft of the bill, it could only be granted following specific representations made in the second phase. Therefore, I feel this is a great step forward.
I just want to put on record that the board must give a broad interpretation to clause 26 and clause 32, where the former does not apply. And, at this stage, I also wish to say a word about some initiatives.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the officials and members of the government who co-operated fully when the bill was being drafted and considered in committee.


Mr. Richard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to speak at length on this bill, but as one who has been the recipient of so many kind words from my good friends on both sides of the house, particularly my good friend the hon. member for Carleton, I feel I should immediately say "thank you" not only for the kind words but for the co-operation the chairman of the committee received during its study of the three bills. As I have said on previous occasions, I am not addicted to lengthy speeches, but I have always believed that legislation affecting the rights of the people, particularly civil servants, should not be approached in any partisan manner. I appreciate the fact that all who were members of the committee took the same point of view. I believe that is the reason these bills came back from the committee much better bills than they were in the first place. Members of the House of Commons from all parties contributed to making them better bills.
I agree with some of the previous speakers that these bills are far from perfect. However, they represent a new approach to public service employment and I hope that after a couple of years' experience we will receive further suggestions for amendments, as a result of which we will be able to create a better climate for employment and conditions of work for employees of the Crown. There were some real difficulties when we came to

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
study certain features of these bills. We were greatly assisted not only by the members of the committee but by those who represented the Treasury Board, the Civil Service Commission and those associations and organizations that presented such well-prepared briefs.
We have what I consider to be good legislation. It is revolutionary legislation and I hope it will be placed in the hands of competent, dedicated officials who will carry out their duties faithfully. At the same time I hope we will have the usual co-operation from the employees and that they will see to it they are represented by officers who understand the spirit and traditions of the civil service.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I did not come here to kill these bills. However, 1 should like to make one comment about what the hon. member for York South said this morning in connection with committees, though this has nothing to do with the bills. I think the time has come when the powers of committees should be enlarged so that when this house resolves itself into committee of the whole to consider a certain bill which has been reported from a standing or other committee less lengthy study will be required and more favourable consideration will be given to the decisions of such committees. I do not say this boastfully but I should love to see the day when at least on certain measures the chairmen of committees would pilot their own bills through committee of the whole. If this were done I think things would go a little more smoothly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8-Employer participation in employee organization.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, there are some problems here which are conditional upon an amendment I propose to move to clause 19. I think the minister is in agreement that clause 8 should stand until the amendment to clause 19 has been considered, and then we can return to this clause.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that clause 8 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clauses 9 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
February 17, 1967
On clause 19-Authority of board to make regulations.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, already today we have had some discussion of the so-called conscience clause. This question was discussed in committee, though not at any great length, but I do know that a great many hon. members have had a considerable number of representations from persons who, on grounds of religious belief or training, conscientiously object either to joining a bargaining unit or to paying dues or assessments to such unit. It seems quite clear to me that under clause 8 (2) (c) there can be no compulsion of any kind upon a person to join a bargaining agent. I think in that respect there is really no problem. However, this bill could contemplate, and indeed does contemplate, the use of the Rand formula whereby all those persons who are within a bargaining unit might be compelled by reason of a collective agreement to pay dues or assessments whether or not they are members of the bargaining agent.
In those circumstances, sir, I propose to move an amendment to this clause which would give the board the power to make regulations of general application to exclude such persons. The amendment I propose to move, copies of which I have in English and in French is as follows:
That clause 19 be amended by relettering existing subclause (1) (1) as subclause (1) (m) and by inserting a new subclause (1) (1) as follows:
(1) the exclusion from a bargaining unit of any employee where the Board finds that such employee objects on conscientious grounds based on religious training or belief to joining or paying dues or assessments to a bargaining unit, provided that such employee agrees to contribute an amount at least equal to the amount of such dues and assessments to a charity or charities approved by the Board.
The formula proposed in this amendment is one which has been used in other jurisdictions. I would point in particular to the trade union act of the province of Saskatchewan enacted in 1965 and amended in 1966. Under that legislation it is possible for someone who states that he conscientiously objects, on grounds of religious belief and training, to joining a trade union or to paying the dues of a union pursuant to the Rand formula, to contribute an equivalent amount to a charity or charities which may be approved by the labour relations board of that province.
What is contemplated by this amendment is that we should carry forward this formula
13177
Public Service Collective Bargaining into our legislation and give the public service staff relations board the right to enact regulations which would be in conformity with what has been done in Saskatchewan, with what has been done in New Zealand and also in a number of other places. There may be some hon. members who will say that this applies only to a very few people, that these people will get some advantage from the process of collective bargaining and therefore no attention should be paid to this question. I care not how numerous or how few these people may be. I believe that a distinct and basic principle is involved here. I believe that this continent owes a great deal to religious dissenters, and I believe that in accordance with tradition we should uphold freedom of worship.
I should like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I do not agree with these people at all. I suggest this amendment not because I am in sympathy with the point of view they represent but because I have the firm belief that they have the right to express that point of view. This is what I seek to uphold by this amendment.
I agree that this amendment needs to cover only the payment of dues and that there is probably ample protection regarding membership in clause 8(2)(c) of the bill. But there are a number of dedicated civil servants who will probably leave their employment rather than submit to the payment of dues to a bargaining agent. Therefore I urge the minister, under these circumstances, to leave the question within the discretion of the board All I am asking is that it be left to the board' to work out this difficult problem. If the minister agrees to do this I think the problem will be worked out in a satisfactory manner and that these people, who otherwise might leave the public service in order to assert their beliefs, may be saved.
I appeal to the minister to make this very minor concession. Let me repeat that I believe that religious dissenters have done a great^ deal on this continent. It may be that the views of present day dissenters in relation to this matter are right and that my views, which are directly contrary to theirs, are wrong. Nevertheless I insist upon their right to be either right or wrong, and I would ask that they be given the right of conscientious objection as provided by this amendment.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Order. For the guidance of the members of the committee,



February 17, 1967
Public Service Collective Bargaining 3 shall now read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell): That clause 19 be amended by relettering existing subclause (1) (1) as subclause (1) (m) and by inserting a new subclause (1)	(1) as follows:
(1) the exclusion from a bargaining unit of any employee where the Board finds that such employee objects on conscientious grounds based on religious training or belief to joining or paying dues or assessments to a bargaining unit, provided that such employee agrees to contribute an amount at least equal to the amount of such dues and assessments to a charity or charities approved by the Board.
Shall the amendment carry?
bargaining and in paragraph (c) the certification of bargaining agents for bargaining units and the hearing of applications.
I heard, a while ago, part of the speech of my colleague the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance). He referred to the problem which we consider crucial and which I feel comes under this clause of the bill and this amendment. I feel this problem should be covered, because it seems that general instructions have actually been given with a view to setting up on a national basis the bargaining units in some crown corporations directly answerable to the government.

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, like most of my colleagues, I listened with great interest not only to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) but also to those he made when the bill was first introduced. I must say that, generally speaking, I fully agree with him. I agree with his amendment and feel that it shows a broad-mindedness and understanding of certain human aspects which are all to his credit.
Allow me this digression: I hope he will prove as understanding when, in the preparation of legislation, we will deal with issues concerning language and race. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this is beyond the scope of the matter now under study. I am perfectly in agreement with the hon. member for I believe that according to the democratic system under which we live, we must thoroughly understand those people who, through religious convictions or conscientious scruples, cannot freely adopt or obey certain technical legislative provisions such as the one now before us.
So, Mr. Chairman, I shall support this amendment, and even at the risk of being out of order-although my impression is that this is conformable to the bill-I believe that this is probably a case where emphasis or insistence cannot hurt.
In any case, the amendment is related to this clause 19.
Something else worries me, Mr. Chairman. If I am out of order, do tell me, and I shall deal with it under another clause of the bill. I note that this board can set up regulations, for instance, concerning the determination of units of employees appropriate for collective
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this general principle has some merit and should probably inspire the board. However, certain natural laws are imperious and would seem to apply to particular situations which the amendment presented by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) attempts to cover; incidentally, the amendment has my respect and I intend to support it. These situations would seem to apply precisely to the grievances of a labour organization known in our province as the C.N.T.U. for instance, which cannot accept the establishment of bargaining units on a national basis, regardless of the aspirations of workers.
I therefore feel, along with many of my colleagues, that in such cases, workers should be given precedence over lawfully established boards; they should be the ones to decide who their bargaining agent will be and to which organization they will adhere. I think they should be the ones to decide, if we really believe in democratic freedom as pointed out this morning by the hon. members for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and York South (Mr. Lewis), and also by the hon. member for Carleton as concerns objections raised for reasons of conscience or religion. There could be other equally serious and sacred reasons different from those mentioned in this house and I feel that the C.N.T.U. has put forth a fundamental reason. Even though it is not recognized in all areas of labour and federal administration, the fact remains that some workers-I am referring here to Quebec workers but if I had the time, I could mention other cases-in other areas of the labour organization might very well have good reasons for not wanting to be assimilated in a national bargaining unit.
I would like to put on record at this stage a very serious concern which, in my opinion, is fundamental and worthy of respect, and
[The Deputy Chairman.]
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
which caused certain C.N.T.U. leaders to object to the decision handed down by a government body with respect to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation employees who, according to the board, must adhere to a national bargaining unit. This is one instance where a particular group of workers was forced to accept a bargaining unit which did not suit them.
I have no intention of introducing an amendment, but I want to call the attention of the hon. minister and all hon. colleagues who took part in drafting this bill in committee-and I would like to add my own voice to the chorus of congratulations they have received-to this apprehension on the part of a certain category of workers, which is symptomatic of similar representations which could occasionally be made by other groups. The worker should, in the last analysis, be allowed to choose his negotiating unit, not individually but as a group. If the worker represents a group which is sufficiently large and if arguments as valid as those already submitted are brought forward, namely that the interests of a group of workers in one province might be different at times from those of other workers in other provinces, it seems to me that this group should be certified and authorized to negotiate.
In any case, having made that reservation and having recommended to the minister to try to find a way to recognize the right of some workers to belong to a negotiating unit they have chosen and to select the negotiating agent who, in their opinion, can best look after their interests, I say that I fully support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Carleton, because it simply embodies a conviction as deep-rooted and as sacred as the one I have just mentioned.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the amendment presented to us is similar in content to matters that were considered carefully by the committee during its consideration of this bill. I should like to say that I cannot accept the amendment on the basis that the committee could have proposed such an amendment and it chose in its wisdom not to do so.
I should like to make it clear that nothing in this legislation will obligate or require any public servant to belong to an employee organization. Employees will be free to join employee organizations and will be equally free not to join them. No one's job can be placed in jeopardy because he refuses to
Public Service Collective Bargaining become a member of an employee organization, even though that organization has been certified as a bargaining agent and has entered into a collective agreement which provides benefits to all employees in the bargaining unit.
e (3:00 p.m.)
It is true that all employees in an occupational group may be included in a bargaining unit but that is simply to ensure that public servants who do the same kind of work will be treated alike when it comes to their pay and benefits. Without such a requirement equity could not be maintained.
This legislation does not permit a closed or union shop. No person will be obliged to become a member of an employee organization in order to secure employment or to retain his job in the public service. Although most legislation in Canada governing the relationships of private employers to their employees permits the parties to enter into collective agreements which require employees, as a condition of their employment, to be members of employee organizations that have won the right to bargain, this legislation would not permit a collective agreement to impose this kind of obligation on employees. This legislation will, however, permit the parties in bargaining to enter into a collective agreement which provides that all employees must contribute to the employee organization certified as bargaining agent for the employees who benefit from the contract, or to a charitable organization a sum of money equal to the membership fee. This possibility-it is only a possibility because I cannot say that such a provision will in fact be contained in a collective agreement-is based on the formula developed some years ago by Mr. Justice Ivan Rand for the express purpose of protecting employees from being forced to join employee organizations against their will, while at the same time recognizing that the union claim to financial support for the work it does on behalf of all employees in a bargaining unit is a claim which must be respected.
I cannot accept the argument that anything contained in this legislation will cause anyone to be "yoked together with unbelievers". All of us, in any community in Canada, must from time to time work together, go to school together, ride public conveyances together and, if I may say so, be taxed together with other members of the community who do not share our beliefs or hold beliefs that we do not share. This, it seems to me, is implicit in
13180	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining being a citizen. One of the virtues of good citizenship, a virtue firmly rooted in the teachings of Christ, is to show respect and tolerance for the beliefs of others.
I was interested to note in this morning's Globe and Mail-and I think it is very relevant to our discussion-a report of a recent comment on this subject by Mr. Justice Bora Laskin, whose personal contributions to improved and more productive labour relations in Canada have been many and of a very high order. He said, according to the report in today's paper:
Our society secures to everyone the right to adhere to a religion of his choice and to hold a self-determined political creed.
It does not, however, give liberty to insist on religious conviction or political creed or both in contexts which the law does not regard as relevant to their free enjoyment and as a ground for thwarting agreements binding on all irrespective of religious or political persuasion. This is presently the case in labour legislation.
I think I may say that Mr. Justice Laskin's views on this matter, as reported in the Globe and Mail, constitute a very eloquent expression of the government's position.


Mr. Bigg:: For the life of me I cannot understand why people in the public service should require unionizing of any kind. But if they are to be unionized we should give them at least the minimum protection afforded by the bill of rights.
As I read this bill it provides for compulsory acceptance of an organization as a bargaining agent. We know from the history of the labour movement in this country during the last 50 years that those who sit around the table and bargain with the employer, in this case the government do in the end control every facet of the lives of those who belong to the union, even to the point of their political affiliation. It is my understanding that once *this bill becomes law the organization will have the right of check-off by the government of the organization's dues from the wages of employees. At the rate of ten cents a month per employee this will mean that, having regard to the number of employees, a contribution of $120,000 a year will be made for affiliation.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I might say a word at this point. The amount of dues is a matter for the association concerned and the manner in which they will be collected is subject to bargaining. It is not determined by this legislation. Furthermore, as I have mentioned previously, the closed shop or union shop is forbidden under this legislation.

DEBATES	February 17, 1967


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Am I to understand that there will be no compulsory check-off of dues from a man's pay?


Edgar John Benson: There could be a compulsory check-off through an arrangement arrived at by bargaining but it is not provided for in the legislation.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This only confirms my suspicions. The bargaining will be done by the organization which represents the majority in the civil service. Those who do not intend to participate fully in that organization will be bound by the agreement made between the government and the organization. This organization will be affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress.


Mr. Walker:: We do not know.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This is in fact what will happen. We know it will occur. I take it that the $120,000 a year will be deducted from the employees' pay and paid into a central fund. So employees would be indirectly, if not directly, supporting a political party which might not be of their choice. Hon. members on our left talk all the time about freedom and the right to bargain in the civil service. Yet they say nothing about this arrangement for compulsory political participation in an organization in which civil servants may not believe. I know there is a prohibition in the bill against political contributions but I do not see how the conclusion can be escaped.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I should explain-and I am not trying to defend anybody-that the amount of dues required by the bargaining agent will, first of all, be determined by the associations themselves. In the second place, it is forbidden in the legislation that any of these bargaining agents should make contributions to political parties. Third, they may or may not wish to associate with the C.N.T.U. or the C.L.C. If they wish to do so they may pay fees accordingly but I should also point out that the C.L.C. as such is forbidden by its charter to make contributions to political parties. For this reason I do not believe that even indirectly money collected from civil servants will find its way to the aid of a particular political party. Incidentally, this matter was discussed this morning.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That is only one aspect of this situation and I am delighted to find out from the minister that this is so.
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
I am speaking for a specific purpose. This is perhaps the only opportunity we will ever have to philosophize on collective bargaining within the civil service. This is the place we can try to influence one another with regard to the principle of this measure.
I believe that collective bargaining within the civil service would be unnecessary if we in parliament did our jobs throughly. In the past we have allowed people like postal clerks to drop so far below the average standard of living that they felt forced into the collective bargaining field. Surely there is no better forum than the House of Commons to debate this collective bargaining measure because here we control the pay cheques of about one fifth of the Canadian people, either directly or indirectly.
One of our main jobs is to make sure that Canadians who work in the public service are adequately paid. I cannot help but think this whole question has arisen because we have failed miserably to do our job here. Are we really helping these people by passing a statute with guaranteed rights? The rights to be included in this statute will be both maximum and minimum. We are putting ourselves in a strait jacket by taking away one more of the duties of parliament. By putting the bargaining rights of the whole civil service under one organization I believe we are binding these people and certainly we are binding those who do not think it is necessary to belong to an organization in order to get a square deal from the government.
I think this amendment is only a half way measure but I intend to support it because I want individuals to have at least the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to join. There should be no compulsion in this regard either by threat of penalty or otherwise. Employees should have the right not to join and still perform their jobs in the public service. I am sure some of them feel that we in parliament will look after their rights. These people should have the right to stand aside and do their duty without any necessity of banding together.
This house has a universal duty to all citizens of Canada to see that their standard of living is as high as possible. We must assure them of a square deal. Surely civil servants would not need bargaining power of the type we are trying to provide through this legislation if they had the right of political association. Any restriction of civil servants in relation to an interest in politics is against the
Public Service Collective Bargaining bill of rights, and I speak from some years of experience.
I was employed in a branch of the civil service for 23 years during which time I was not allowed to take an interest in politics. As a matter of fact, in order to become a member of this house I almost had to declare myself a criminal, in the broad sense of the term. Anyone who disobeys the laws of his employer is a criminal in that sense and in some cases the penalties are severe. It should be the right and duty of every person to take an active interest in politics. Members of parliament should keep their doors open to all citizens of Canada and discuss with them their grievances and the welfare of themselves, their families and their community. We should no longer in this twentieth century, approaching our one hundred and first year, deny these people the right to discuss matters with members of parliament.
Some of the penalties now imposed on civil servants who take part in politics are very severe. For instance, they can lose their pension rights. I lost one third of my pension rights until age 65 because I dared take an interest in politics. I mention that only to indicate why I am interested in stopping this kind of thing. We cannot make our laws retroactive in the sense that we cannot undo the harm we have done. I beg hon. members to leave this small escape clause in the bill so that individuals who really feel it is against their principles to join an organization will have the opportunity of making that decision. Again I should like to thank the minister for indicating that civil servants' cheques will not be tapped.


Richard Albert Bell: Their pay cheques will be tapped.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The minister has just told me that individuals will not have to join an organization and that their pay cheques will not be tapped.


Richard Albert Bell: Under the Rand formula their pay cheques may be tapped.


Edgar John Benson: There is no provision for that in the legislation as such.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am quite sure that eventually their pay cheques will be tapped and in the end some of their money will find its way into the coffers of public organizations to which these individuals do not belong and to which they never intended to give the money.
13182	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining
I think this amendment is only a half way measure because an individual has to pretend to be a conscientious objector in order to obtain his fundamental rights. I do not deny anyone the right to put his neck into a noose but I very much object to making the noose and then forcing him to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question. In view of the fact that clause 8 (2) (c) makes it clear that a person cannot be forced to join an employee organization, and also makes it clear that the most a collective agreement can do in this area relates to the maintenance of memberships already taken out on a voluntary basis, will the minister indicate whether it would be possible for a collective agreement to force anyone to pay membership dues if he had not become a member on a voluntary basis?


Edgar John Benson: That is possible under a collective agreement but it is not in the legislation. The legislation does not prescribe it, but it would be possible if the Rand formula was adopted under a collective agreement and if the government's and the employees' representatives agreed to it.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Amendment (Mr. Bell, Carleton) negatived: Yeas 23; nays 41.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, at this point I wonder whether we might revert to clause 8 which we stood pending the consideration of clause 19?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 25-Review or amendment of orders.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, clause 25 is one which gives the board power to review, rescind, amend, alter or vary any decision or order. It seems to me that this is a very wide power which under conditions of natural justice ought to be exercised only after notice has been given to the parties who may be involved. This matter was discussed in the committee. The committee took a position different from that which I am now advancing.
I do not believe that unilaterally the board should have the full right to rescind any

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
order or decision without some notice to the parties involved. Therefore, sir, I propose to move that clause 25 be amended by adding the following words immediately after the word "board" in line 41, namely, "after notice to parties affected". The clause would then read:
The Board, after notice to parties affected, may review, rescind, amend, alter or vary any decision or order-
And so on to the conclusion of the clause. I think the reasons for the amendment are obvious.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with a matter which was discussed by the committee. I believe the decision of the committee not to amend this clause was based on the opinion given by people who are familiar with the operation of boards such as this that it would cause a good deal of delay in the proceedings of the board in dealing with particular matters if notice had to be given by the board.
Amendment (Mr. Bell, Carleton) negatived Yeas 17; nays 34.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 35 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 36-Specification of process for resolution of disputes.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, most of what I might have said on clause 36 I said when we were on clause 2, so I shall take only a moment or two of the committee's time. I think it is unfortunate that in the minds of a good many people collective bargaining immediately conjures up the suggestion of a strike. Collective bargaining does not necessarily mean workers going out on strike. In fact, most labour relations are conducted without strikes occurring. However, it was our view that, if we were to give public servants the right of collective bargaining, this right should carry with it the same privileges that are enjoyed by those who have collective bargaining in the private sector. We were disappointed, therefore, when the government brought in this bill in the first place, that although it provided for the right to strike if units wished it, it is provided also for compulsory arbitration and did so in such a way that if that course had been elected it was binding on the unit concerned for five years at a time.
However, as already has been indicated, the consideration of this bill has resulted in compromise and improvements. Therefore, since
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
in its present form the bill is that much better than it was when it was first introduced, we do not propose to move any amendment to this clause. Rather, I wish once again to say a word on behalf of the committee and commend the government for agreeing to the recommendation of the committee, which means that it is now not necessary for a bargaining unit to make its choice concerning which course it wishes to follow until it has given notice that it wishes to bargain and then its choice is applicable for just one time around. This is a tremendous improvement. It now gives public servants in their various groups and categories the right to choose whichever course they want to follow and in particular gives them the right to make the decision at a time when it will be meaningful.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As I said, I believe the committee did a good job in the amendments it made to clause 36 and those clauses which are related to it. I think the government is to be commended for accepting the committee's decision, as I take it the government does.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, clause 36 defines the process for resolution of a dispute, notice of which shall be given within a specified time limit, and I would like to quote here clause 2 (w) which reads as follows:
"process for resolution of a dispute" means either of the following processes for the resolution of a dispute, namely:
(i)	by the referral of the dispute to arbitration, or
(ii)	by the referral thereof to a conciliation board;
I would not want to give the impression that I am not joining with all those who have commended the parliamentary committee for drawing up the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have been rated by the press lately as being critical of those who criticize the government. For once, I have to join the concert of congratulations expressed to the government, which is something unusual in this house. I do not want to appear as though I am not joining the concert, but I would not want to delay the proceedings either by moving an amendment. However, I would like to repeat what I have already said in this house. It seems to me that the referral of a dispute to arbitration, or to a conciliation board, does not solve the problem, because if the dispute is not settled by arbitration or conciliation and if the union concerned does 23033-834
Public Service Collective Bargaining not want to accept the verdict of the arbitration or conciliation board, then their last resort is to go on strike.
The opinion seems to prevail in some circles that a strike is some kind of a picnic for the strikers and that workers should not be deprived of the opportunity to join in. And, as far as those who occasionally criticize strikes, and the over-indulgence in strikes, are concerned, they are often rated as being against labour movements and siding, in a mean and partisan way, with employers. I do not think that is the case, Mr. Chairman.
I have the utmost sympathy for the labour movement. In fact, at times in the past, I have even been on picket lines with certain labour movements engaged in what I thought were reasonable strikes. But, in my view, federal and provincial laws do not provide workers with a suitable mechanism to avoid a greater number of strikes. In too many cases, they are forced to resort to strikes, when they are dissatisfied with arbitration or conciliation. Workers should be given well-constituted labour courts-I am no talking about labour courts made up of laymen or biased people who are necessarily in favour of employers or employees-that would be objective courts of law

and I do not have time to deal with this matter this afternoon-supported by the experience of certain experts, such as statisticians and economists. Those people should be given machinery whereby ultimately they could resort to arbitration courts, particularly when it comes to public service, because most strikes in the public service are made at the expense of the common good and of the population as a whole, and they should be avoided by all means. And I think that workers, if they had their say, if a secret and free vote were called, would indicate that they are in favour of a labour court that would get them rid of that rash of strikes.
A strike is not a picnic for them. It might be that for the organizers. For them, it is funny and it increases their prestige; they have their picture in the newspapers. They are the saviours of the working class. But the worker who does not get any pay for two weeks, a month or two, while his wife has problems of a psychological nature at home because of that, he has had quite enough of that proliferation of strikes. And he is wondering why the government is waiting to create the machinery which will make the strike what it actually should be: a last resort in
13184	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining hopeless situations when all other means have been exhausted.
And I am wondering it there is not a serious failure on the part of the Liberal government or the provincial governments which are so slow in setting up what I call labour courts-they might be called something else, in the bill they are called arbitration boards. But that does not yet cover what I want to point out, that does not solve the problems in a sufficiently final way. The courts I have in mind would go much further. I will refrain at this stage of the proceedings from explaining to the committee my inner thoughts on that matter. But I say it, as I will on every occasion, because I have heard hundreds and thousands of workers, and even labour leaders, say how they are flabbergasted to see that the governments have not set up the required machinery so that, in the last analysis, they would not have to strike as the only way to solve their problems.
Besides too many strikes today are only a way to blackmail the governments concerned. I do not think that it is in the interest of the common good. As a matter of fact, even a large number of workers who are involved in those strikes are beginning to realize that public opinion has had enough.
I am not saying those things to blame necessarily the strikers who must fall into line when the movement gets under way. They undoubtedly realize that in most cases there is no other solution than a strike. On the other hand, because they are personally involved and their own interests or those of their families are affected, they feel that those strikes are costly in the end. And for whom? For those who go on strike. They become the first victims of such a strike and, in most cases, that strike does not bring them any tangible benefits.
Then, I wonder whether something should not be added in the legislation-again, such action might be premature on examination of this bill, since it appears to have gone through a long and complicated procedure, and I am under the impression that most of the members of the house do not wish to delay its passage-that the majority seems ready to try it for a period of one or two years, at the risk of having to introduce amendments next year. However, I submit that among such amendments, one should aim at creating, and this for the public service more than for any other sector, machinery capable of restricting as much as possible

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
occasions to strikes that are ruinous for the workers.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question before deciding whether I want to make further remarks on this clause. Can the minister tell me whether any other country in the world has a provision similar to clause 36 whereby public servants are given the right to strike, or compulsory arbitration, depending upon their election?


Edgar John Benson: So far as I know, Mr. Chairman, this provision does not apply to any other national government. However, I will seek further information.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I take it then that the minister is including Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand and countries like those which are fairly well advanced in social legislation.


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that there is compulsory arbitration in Britain. I am not familiar with the legislation in all the other countries.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 36 carry?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to strike the only discordant note in this chamber. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of his comments about setting up the proper procedure whereby labour disputes may be settled. But as he said, and I repeat, this is perhaps neither the time nor place to develop the thoughts that should be developed on proper procedures to resolve the conflicts that arise between management and labour from time to time. These are natural conflicts because each has its own position to promote and further.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I must say that although I did not participate in the meetings of the public service committee, not having been a member, and thus did not come into contact with all of the briefs which were presented there, I am surprised that the government is proceeding with clause 36 inasmuch as it has commissioned the Woods' Committee study on labour relations machinery and settlement procedures and is awaiting that report which will perhaps give guidelines for more modern labour settlement devices than we have had until now. There is an awakening interest throughout the country with regard to the settlement
February 17, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13185
of labour problems through labour courts and, if necessary, by compulsory arbitration. My information is that the methods used in Great Britain in settling labour disputes go only as far as compulsory arbitration. According to the minister's own words the government is blazing a unique and lonely trail in according the right to strike to public servants in this legislation. To do so before all avenues have been explored in the development of labour settlement machinery is a step that should be considered very carefully and I for one cannot accept it.
Under clause 36 an employee organization can choose whether it wishes to proceed by way of the conciliation procedure and then strike or, on the other hand, agree to compulsory arbitration. My experience of labour disputes has been that employees have obtained substantial benefits through compulsory arbitration. It has been suggested that the postal strike in 1965 was somewhat illegal, and while people go on strike regardless of any legislation the government is to be criticized for presenting legislation with which many people disagree. It is one thing to go on strike illegally but it is another thing to give people the right and the freedom to go on strike.
With all due respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, this legislation does not apply to the private but to the public sector. If we extend the right to strike with the left hand-I am speaking symbolically-a right which is not granted by any other country in the world, then surely on the right hand we can take a look at the privileges, benefits and security which compensate public servants for some of the restrictions.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Some of the provinces have given this right.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, but here we are talking about the federal government blazing the trail in a piece of legislation which perhaps other countries will try to emulate. We are doing this at a time when the whole labour machinery is somewhat unsettled. The province of Quebec, which is the province of the Postmaster General, has already had to face some of the pitfalls which can arise when constructive labour settlement machinery for public servants is not establisehd. I am not against public servants, or against their right to collective bargaining, but I differ with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he tries to equate the private sector with the public sector.
23033-834^
Public Service Collective Bargaining
Various references have been made to different clauses in the bill, which on the whole is a very modern and constructive one, but I am disappointed and surprised that there has not been a little more constructive criticism with regard to clause 36 which is unique. Perhaps it depends on the point of view, but the statements which have been made up till now have consisted of negative criticisms which have failed point out the pitfalls of clause 36.
It has been suggested to me that I should not worry about clause 36 because clause 79 is an overriding clause whereby the governor in council or the board can declare certain industries essential at certain times. Perhaps the minister will comment on this if my remarks are worth commenting on. On the other hand, it has been suggested that if people wish to go on strike they will do so anyway so let us put the right in the legislation. Frankly, I am against giving the right to public servants to strike through legislation. Compulsory arbitration is one thing but the right to strike is an unfortunate blazing of a new trail with which I cannot agree. I suggest that if we are to extend this right on the one hand we should review the privileges and benefits which public servants enjoy on the other and in this way perhaps balance the two because the security and benefits of civil servants may help to offset the restrictions. I do not think the same rules should apply in the public sector as in the private sector.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him a question in the interest of hearing from him further as to why he draws such a hard and fast line between the public and private sectors. If the hon. member is speaking about the public interest, is it not true that some work performed in the private sector is perhaps even more crucial than some work performed in the public sector?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree, but, as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres mentioned, we cannot proceed to debate labour settlement devices in all sectors of society. Perhaps I will say something with which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will not agree but it is my belief that there are some sections in the private sector to which I think compulsory arbitration should be applied. For example, the government is the arbitrator in rail strikes and air strikes, as it almost was in the longshoremen's strike in British Columbia.

February 17, 1967
Public Service Collective Bargaining


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit another question? Even though we may not agree as to what should be done, would he not agree that whatever rules or rights we lay down they should be the same for all people as people, whether they are in the public or private sector, and that any distinction which the hon. member would make would have to be on some other basis?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is my point to a degree, that people are people in different areas. In the public sector benefits such as the right to security are granted to employees. Let us consider teachers, a very topical subject right now. I think most school boards would like to give teachers the right to strike or to choose compulsory arbitration. On the other hand, this could be counterbalanced by compensating teachers through regulations with regard to merit pay. This is a very confusing and provocative subject and school boards have not quite resolved their differences with school teachers. These differences should be resolved by agreement.
However, in the public sector certain benefits are enjoyed which do not exist in the private sector. I think that first of all proper machinery should be set up to equate the whole process of the settlement of labour disputes all across the board and the balance should not be upset further by adding to various benefits given to the public sector, such as security, the right and freedom to go on strike which is given to the private sector.
It is not true in all cases that people in the private sector have the same security and benefits as those guaranteed under the public service statutes. Therefore the two sectors cannot be considered in the same way. One cannot treat them equally for one purpose and forget about their difference for another. I am afraid that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre attempted to imply that I am against people. I am the last one who should be accused of that.
I do not wish to hold up the debate on this bill any further but I wish to state that the government is blazing the trail on a new road and should be condemned for opening up this whole new area at a time when it is awaiting the Woods report which might throw new light on the whole subject. In the light of the history of this government, with its convolutions, its digestion of people and previous planks and platforms, it may change its mind in the next three years and realize the folly of its ways. As the minister has remarked,

this is a completely new area into which the national government is entering at this time.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The minister, I see, wants to say something, but my remarks will be brief. If you are going to extend this principle and try to equate people completely, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, then you should counterbalance it by trying to set up a procedure for public servants that will more nearly equate public servants with those in the private sector than is the case at the present time. As far as I am concerned, clause 36 has elements which are not in keeping with the times in this country and are not in keeping especially with the study the government has undertaken to try to resolve labour disputes. As the hon. member for Trois Rivieres said, let us get our procedure settled and not try to continue distinguishing or isolating public servants when we have gone so far in trying to revise their conditions of employment.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to correct some information I gave the hon. member at the beginning of his speech. I have now had an opportunity of looking up the information and I find that in France civil servants do have the right to strike. They have this right also in Sweden. In Great Britain, although they do not specifically have the right in legislation to strike, there is no prohibition. Indeed, they have had strikes and slowdowns-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They would not be allowed to strike in Great Britain now.


Edgar John Benson: -as my hon. friend has indicated. It is a basic question whether or not civil servants should be allowed to strike. The matter was studied in some depth by the government and by the officials the government has working for it before a decision was made. The decision was made that government employees would be given two paths, binding arbitration or retaining the right to strike. It is assumed also by the government that the vast majority of civil servants will choose binding arbitration. If binding arbitration works well, and I hope it will since this will be a major experiment in binding arbitration in Canada, it may be that the people who have chosen the right to strike will decide that binding arbitration is the better method.
My hon. friend mentioned that we are proceeding on this path while the Woods committee is studying this subject. I believe,
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
however, that it has taken long enough to get a bill for collective bargaining in the civil service into parliament and through the committee. We have been working on this measure for three and a half years. I believe it is time we presented the legislation to parliament and had it passed. If the Woods committee comes up with suggestions which vary a great deal from this legislation, then parliament has the right to change the legislation at that time.
Personally I am in agreement with giving civil servants the same rights as other working people in Canada, including the right to strike if they want to do so. We must bear in mind that if civil servants do ultimately choose to strike, then parliament has actions that it can take if they become necessary in the public interest. I suggest to my friend that he read the submissions of the postal group which was one group that wanted the right to strike. As I understand it, they stated they wanted the same right as other workers in Canada, the right to proceed to a strike, and if parliament then chose to tell them to go back to work they as good citizens would abide by the law. The postal workers said: Do not take away from us what we consider the strongest weapon of labour.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Hochelaga.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to answer the minister, Mr. Chairman, since he was answering me.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Hochelaga.


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, I was not a member of the committee which studied this bill, any more than the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Therefore, I do not wish to prolong the debate on this section needlessly. On the other hand, I have just heard remarks, from the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings as well as from the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) with which I disagree so wholeheartedly that I feel I must express my disapproval.
Of course, it is easy at the present time, because of certain crises which have affected Canada as a whole and certain provinces in particular, to speak of the right to strike as if it were a sort of plague. The right to strike, at the present time, in the eyes of many people, is not very popular. Quite naturally, one goes
Public Service Collective Bargaining along with a prevailing trend in public opinion at this time by claiming that the right to strike is above all else, dangerous and that any legislation should first of all protect, or if I may say, vaccinate the public weal against eventual strikes.
I am surprised that the right to strike is not considered in the same manner as most members of this house view other rights which are just as fundamental, such as, for instance, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and the right of representation. I should like to emphasize here that the right to strike is a hard-won victory by workers and wage-earners.
It is also a fundamental right in a democracy that the right to strike should not be tampered with any more than freedom of expression. I know that some strikes can bring about unpleasant results; I also know that the right to strike can lead to abuse, but I must point out that unpleasant results and abuse can ensue from any of the fundamental freedoms for which members of this house are always ready to fight, except for this one perhaps.
As for me, I find quite natural that this bill should recognize the right to strike as a normal right and it is therefore granted until an exception proves necessary in the case of the public service. They would have us take the opposite view and say that the right to strike is the exception, whereas the rule would be to restrict such right to strike. I feel this latter attitude is unacceptable. The former should prevail and this is precisely what is provided for in the bill we have before us.
I doubt very much that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) was in order when he tried to have the house believe a minute ago that union leaders were people who toyed with strikes as with some sport, that they benefited from strikes in all sorts of ways, such as having their pictures in the papers while the unfortunate strikers were the ones to suffer from almost every strike. I feel that if the remarks of the hon. member were out of order, any comments of mine would also be out of order but they may be tolerated in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
I feel that an entire concept is being developed in this direction. The member for Trois-Rivieres said that he was on the picket, lines. I congratulate him for that. I wonder if: he ever tried to tell a whole group of striking workers thay they were being victimized by their union leaders at that time.

February 17, 1967
Public Service Collective Bargaining
As for me, I spent twelve years working for a federation of labour unions and I may truthfully say here that I have often seen the majority of a meeting of union members force their leaders to call as strike which they would have preferred to avoid, but not once have I seen labour leaders impose a strike on a meeting of union members who did not want to strike. It is a strange misconception of the psychological atmosphere of the labour movement to suggest that a group of workers can be forced to strike when they do not want to. The workers are marvelously aware of their own interests, and when they do not want to strike they are perfectly capable of realizing it and intelligent enough to make their own will prevail.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Chairman, some of the thoughts that I might have attempted to express have already been put into words by the hon. member for Hochelaga so I will not seek to repeat them. Inasmuch as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings seemed to make frequent reference in his remarks to my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, I thought I should like to add a few words to indicate to him and to the committee that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not alone in this quarter of the house in the point of view that he expressed.
I listened as attentively as I could to the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and it seemed to me that one thing and one thing only emerged quite clearly from his remarks, and that is that the hon. member is against trail blazing. I suppose that that is an understandable position for a Conservative to take, but it is a little sad to see that attitude so rigidly taken by one so relatively young in years and of considerable figure.
I think the hon. member came dangerously close to building a case for saying that he is against people, though I do not think that any one of us in this house who know the hon. member would seriously believe that that is so. However, he was attempting to express feelings that he has, and I think his remarks did reveal that in our society today we are in a state of flux, that there is room for questioning in which particular direction we should go in an increasingly complex society to keep society on the rails, and at the same time preserve the rights and freedoms of individuals. This much I think was revealed by the remarks of the hon. member, and to

that extent I give him full credit for voicing his views.
I think that if most of us in this house were honest, Mr. Chairman, we would agree that there is a great deal of room for questions to be asked in this particular field, and that neither in this legislation nor probably in the report that the Woods committee brings in will we have any final and necessarily lasting answers as to how we should proceed in this matter.
At the moment, Mr. Chairman the point at which I differ from the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is that this is a most opportune time for us to be doing a little bit of trail blazing. While perhaps some of the provisions in this particular area are not ideally what I should like to see, nevertheless I think a little bit of experimenting in this field-if that is indeed what it is-is not something for which the Canadian government should be condemned but rather something which should give us as Canadians cause to be proud that we are prepared to do some venturing and searching into this field, which I think all of us agree is a complicated one, and in many ways fraught with uncertainties.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I almost wanted to rise on a question of privilege after listening to the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), since I had the honour of being mentioned in his speech a while ago.
Like many others in the province, I was surprised at certain times by our political history, for example when I read in the newspapers that the hon. member for Hochelaga had become one of the guardian angels of the Liberal party, after having renounced his N.D.P. philosophy.
I understood a little better today why people said he looked like a flower transplanted to a climate which did not agree with it too well. He was called some things which I do not want to mention. I have not the same reputation for infallibility as the hon. member for Hochelaga, which he probably earned when he was writing editorials in the Montreal paper La Presse with a vitriolic pen and without giving those he attacked a chance to tell him at least that he was misinformed. However, I should not like to let him say in this house things which are incorrect or, with his well-known intelligence and ability, twist the words of a colleague to give him an attitude which was not really his.
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
For example, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hochelaga says that strikes are not popular nowadays, whereas my impression is that they are, on the contrary, quite popular and that those who object to strikes are those who are least demagogic. His attitude proves probably that demagogues do not all wear overalls, and that some are clad in white collars and cuffs, since he now seems to defend strikes by insinuating very cleverly that those who raise questions do so in specific cases, when he says that the hon. member

I have forgotten the name of his riding-and myself ask questions about the right to strike, we do not criticize the right to strike in general and when he says with almost pompous words, in a modest tone, that the right to strike has been earned by costly struggles, we know that too and we do not object to the right to strike in so-called private services or those which could be called ancillary services.
But I still believe that there are some essential services where the common good must come first. To say that, is not, in my opinion, an act of demagogy but it is rather a stand which requires a certain intestinal fortitude since it obliges us to face up to a trend which seems to me quite popular at the present time, that the common good must rank first. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said earlier: Why are workers not treated on an equal footing? It is simply because all workers do not have equal responsibilities. Even if we wanted to give everybody the same treatment, it would be impossible because they do not all assume the same responsibilities, they are not all placed in the same situations.
Why are judges, for instance, deprived of the right to vote? Precisely because it had been foreseen that objections would be raised in this regard. I could give dozens of examples, but I would probably be ruled out of order.
However, in order to clear up the things which the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) has insinuated or fallaciously implied, I would like to say that we do recognize the right to strike in most cases. But we maintain that in the public service there are cases where the common good comes before private interests. For instance, when 100,000 or 200,000 employees threaten to paralyse the economy of a whole country* at the expense of millions of citizens, we do not say that the right to strike must be removed entirely, but that some other means should be afforded so
Public Service Collective Bargaining that, at least, the possibilities of going on strike would be reduced to a minimum. That is what we are saying and I think our stand is right at the present time. When the hon. member for Hochelaga insinuated that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres would not speak in this house the way he speaks to the workers in Trois-Rivieres, to the workers on strike and to their trade union leaders, I invite him to come to Trois-Rivieres and he will find that the climate there is not the same as in Hochelaga: we always say the same thing to everybody.
For instance, last Labour Day in the Labour temple in Trois-Rivieres, the provincial Minister of Labour, Hon. Maurice Bellemare, myself and the mayor of the municipality appeared before the trade union leaders and I spoke the same way I am speaking in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I am controlling myself a little, for I would have a good mind to recall memories and this may not be the place to do so. Nevertheless, I will not permit anyone to misconstrue the views I have expressed here, which are quite similar to those of my colleague from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan).
All I want to say is that I do not admit that the commonweal cannot always prevail over the individual interest. In my opinion, the commonweal in the public service cannot be denied; it is a fact that cannot be denied, which is real and which should inspire us. Even though that is not popular in our ridings, even though union leaders or intellectuals who develop labour philosophy, as it is understood now in some circles, in socialist circles, in revolutionary circles, even though it does not please the dilettante writers in the times we live in, I think there are still the rights of conscience which must be expressed. [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The commonweal must come before everything. That is why we shall continue to ask all governments concerned to reduce the motives of strike, even in private enterprise, but not to suppress it simply without replacing it. I think that in saying that, I have the right attitude; I probably have a better attitude that the hon. member for Hochelaga. I could refer to half a dozen testimonies but I will mention one, only, that of Mr. Walter Reuther, chairman of an important American union who, a few months ago-I will send
13190	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining the quotation to the member for Hochelaga, for his edification-said:
It is time governments create mechanisms to prevent labour movements to settle their disputes at the expense of the commonweal, of the whole people.
I did not say that a union leader did. And I could quote half a dozen other similar testimonies. To my mind, to express such ideas is not a matter of making false representations or even of coasting with the tide in order to be popular. On the contrary. I feel that, in so doing, one bucks the current to a certain extent After all, there must still be some considerations which are more important than that of merely being popular with one's voters.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings for entering this debate and for doing such an excellent job of holding the fort while all his leaders, it seems, are out seeking the holy grail of leadership. I suggest, following his excellent intervention this afternoon, that he add his name to the 17 or 18 candidates aspiring for that post.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Elected.


Howard Earl Johnston: I think the hon. member will find, on the basis of what he said this afternoon, that he will not be without support.
The hon. member also produced a second result this afternoon.

We have now witnessed the second intervention in this session of the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier). I am pleased to learn that none of the workers in la belle province go on strike on the advice of their leaders. I know, from personal experience, that in British Columbia it is possible for people to strike on the order of their leaders. People do not believe a strike to be necessary, but they go on strike.

We heard a great deal of fatuous comment this afternoon about people as people. It rings a little false. We must remember the debates we have had in this house, and I think particularly of the special session of parliament that we had to deal with a strike in the private sector that was not in the national interest. We heard this afternoon in this

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
house members of the same party telling us that we should regard people as people, who urged at that time the people involved in that strike to defy parliament itself, and not to return to work if the back to work legislation did not satisfy them.
I am sure the people of Canada listening to the debate this afternoon must groan at the thought of extending the right to strike at this time to the civil service, in the light of the unhappy experiences we have had this past year. We may talk about people as people. I am concerned, as I listen to this debate, with the right of a government to govern. That right was tested severely at the end of August and early in September when we endeavoured to end the strike.
I wonder how possible it would be for a government to carry on in the face of a strike by its own civil service, if the people on strike knew they had the support of a section of the parliament itself, a section which, by itself, would not be strong enough to bring about the collapse of government through the due process of parliament. By the power that is being given to the civil service this afternoon, and through the interlocking connections that exist between the trade union movement in this country and one group of representatives who sit in this parliament, it seems that we pose a very real threat to the supremacy of parliament as we have known it. We have heard a great deal about trail blazing. We may be setting fires in this legislation.
The hon. minister has spoken about the wonderful experiment in binding arbitration. I do not know whether he referred to experiments within the civil service, but he must know that large groups in this country have operated under binding arbitration procedures for many years. I am speaking for example of the teachers groups in my own province of British Columbia. Disputes have been settled by binding arbitration for a long time now.
We have gradually, insidiously, over the past several years in this country-and we are doing that again in this legislation this afternoon-forced ourselves into a situation where only a political party closely tied to labour can govern. That situation has been brought about in Great Britain. One might say, looking at the results there, that when that happens the trades unions and the people
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
involved get exactly what they deserve from their efforts during the years.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
At the present time, however, those in Britain who are opposed to socialism, those who hold the political philosophy of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings for example, can always leave to go to Canada or Australia or New Zealand. But I wonder where our bright young conservatives will go when we have travelled the whole road to socialism in this country.
We hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni criticize the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings as a young man expressing a Conservative sentiment. But I can assure him that many young people in Canada today resent the gradual loss of freedom, the gradual reduction in incentive which goes with the development of the totally socialist state.
The minister seems proud of this piece of legislation, and it is- lengthy and complex, but I should like to hear his ideas as to the possibility of the government being paralyzed as a consequence of some of its provisions. Does he feel that the clauses which come later in the bill are sufficient to override the danger presented by the right to strike being written directly into the legislation?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My youth has been challenged, and perhaps somewhat exposed and insulted. If I hold tender feelings in common with others of youthful years in the house, then this youthful person throws out the challenge to the hon. member, who personally is a lovable person-and perhaps at the polls at the next election the challenge will be vindicated by the people's decision-that whether he accuses me of blazing trails or being against blazing trails and whether this is done by the youth of the land or by the older or the middle-aged, it is my friend, who may have lived a few more years, who is more hidebound than is this youthful member in his concept of the resolution of labour problems.
I come back to a consideration of the bill in question. I must say I was interested to hear the hon. member from Hochelaga. I suppose we have interrupted the writing of his editorial in the Montreal Star. I hope he was able to bridge the gap between the Star and his comment in this house. But it is not a question of being against trails. I would be the last to be against blazing new trails. It is a
Public Service Collective Bargaining question, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said, of a differing philosophic approach.
The government has already waited three and a half years to get this bill through. No one, is against the bill. I think there is little objection to it generally. But having waited so long, what would be wrong about waiting for the Woods report with regard to collective bargaining procedures? Certainly let us go as far as compulsory arbitration. That is as far as Britain has gone and, to the best of my knowledge, as far as any other country has gone. Let us wait for the report to come in before we are faced, perhaps, with the need to reverse decisions we have already taken.
I was interested in the minister's view that all the unions would elect to arbitrate.


Edgar John Benson: I said "most of them".


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, that most of them would elect to arbitrate, rather than call for a strike. Have they not heard time and time again from the left that labour's ultimate weapon is the strike? This is the weapon which is recognized in the private sector and to me it appears naive that the minister or his officials would expect the unions to refrain from making use of their ultimate weapon. This youthful member does not follow the logic of their thinking.
I may be youthful in years, but I believe some people are far removed from reality in this country today and unfamiliar with the trails which are being blazed by people who are fed up with the erosion of individual initiative. Talking about philosophy, it appears we have now gone full circle. In the old days, in feudal times, the cry was for individual initiative and individual freedom. People fought against the old laws and their old masters in order to become individuals and express their own individuality. Today the whole trend, leaving aside the question of closed shops and union shops, appears to be completely the reverse. The individual initiative which took centuries to develop is now being restricted and compromised in union bargaining areas, corporations, locals and organized bodies. Individual initiative is leaving the scene, and I think the bill now before us serves to accelerate its departure.
Those who are now employed in the public service joined that service knowing they did not have the right to strike. In return they secured fringe benefits and security of tenure.
13192	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining Now, upon the initiative of the government as expressed in this legislation, we are extending the right to strike into an area which is relatively new territory and it is for this reason we should consider carefully the implications of the clause now before us.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to say a word or two on this subject before the clause carries. I suggest to the minister that it might be better to let clause 36 stand while we discuss other clauses in the legislation. It seems to me that today, as so often in this house, we find ourselves dealing with important subjects such as this late on Friday afternoon, instead of at a time when more hon. members are aware of what is being done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everyone is supposed to be here on Friday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is true, but I believe the planes start to leave Ottawa at 4.10 and it is now 4.30. Members are trying to get home to their families and I, for one, do not hold that against them.
In this clause, however, we are considering a new departure in civil service legislation and in the light of the experience in Canada during the past year I believe we should weigh the consequences seriously. I say this realizing that much of the difficulty in which the government has found itself during the last 12 months has resulted from its failure to negotiate with regard to wage settlements.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Let me refer to the postal strike. I think the government in its efforts to negotiate aggravated the situation and provoked these employees into walking out.


Edgar John Benson: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I should like to ask him whether or not he is aware that the committee which examined this bill after second reading held 48 meetings and heard from 47 witnesses, and then presented a unanimous report back to the house. Is he aware that any member could have attended those meetings?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am aware that the committee sat long hours and worked hard, and I know that I might have attended those meetings. Is, the minister aware of the fact that I was deeply involved in the meetings of the committee on the transportation bill,

DEBATES	February 17. 1967
which held some 40 meetings and heard numerous witnesses? The transcript of the proceedings of that meeting amounted to something over 3,000 pages.
I am fully aware that the members of the committee studied this question very thoroughly, but that fact does not convince me that I should support this particular part of the bill. This government has found itself in grave difficulty over the past year because of labour disputes, and in my opinion the government's participation in negotiations provoked many of the strikes.
It is all very well for the minister to say that most of the bargaining agents will decide on arbitration, but if he really believes that why do we need this clause at all? Why should there be an alternative? One need only consider the province of Quebec to understand how governments can get into serious difficulty when essential services are tied up. Some time ago there was a hospital strike in that province which had very serious consequences. Today that province is suffering grave educational problems because of teacher walkouts. I am not suggesting these strikes are right or wrong, but their consequences are serious. Students in that province have been forced to hold self-help seminars in an attempt to educate themselves.
I urge the minister to consider the facts very carefully. The committee which studied this bill commenced its sittings nearly a year ago. During that period of time this whole labour problem in respect of strikes has come to the forefront in Canada. I believe that the strike weapon is outdated. If we firmly believe that the people of the world are sufficiently educated to sit down and settle their differences and prevent wars and poverty in various countries, surely we can expect they are sufficiently educated to solve domestic problems. Surely we must believe that world society has advanced to the point that these problems can be negotiated. That being so we should be able to negotiate and settle differences in respect of wages and conditions of work.
Let us face the facts. Last year we faced a threatened strike of air line employees. Some 400 men threatened to tie up the nation's air line,s. In fact one group in that association did tie them up. Some 200 men at the Vancouver port practically tied up the whole western economy for some time. The postal strike, legal or otherwise, practically tied up our
February 17, 1967	COMMONS
mail service in those areas where it took effect.
In light of this experience I wonder whether this is progressive legislation. After we pass it can we throw our shoulders back as legislators and say we have done what is best for Canada? I wonder whether our education and ability to be tolerant is keeping pace with developments in the field of scientific research. If we are keeping pace we should be able to settle our differences around a table rather than by strikes which create extreme hardships.
It is time that we in Canada realized that strikes are outdated, particularly when innocent parties are affected and our whole economy is tied up. I am not referring to the small shop operator and his employees who have differences about wages or working conditions. If those employees go out on strike the only people who lose are the employees and the operator. Innocent people would not necessarily be hurt.
On the other hand if we are talking about essential services, strikes can tie up the economy of the country and inflict untold hardships on people not involved. As a result of this bill many of the essential services may elect to have the right to strike. I urge the minister to realize that this is not the time to pass this particular clause. We have just been through one of the worst experiences in our history so far as labour disputes are concerned. Surely this is not the time to give many essential services the right to strike.
Let me say to the minister that when he had occasion to take part in negotiations he did a better job than the Minister of Labour.
I am not suggesting that in the rumoured cabinet switch about to take place he should be moved to Labour, but without doubt he did a better job of negotiating than did the Minister of Labour.
I again ask the minister whether he believes that now is the time to give civil servants the right to strike, particularly in view of the difficulties experienced in the province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada in relation to wage negotiations. I ask the minister in all seriousness to reconsider this clause in view of the experience of this country in labour disputes during this last year. Is now the time to adopt this clause? I doubt very much that it is.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It might be that in the years ahead we may reach a point where a clause of this nature
Public Service Collective Bargaining could be put into effect. I sincerely think that today the country is neither prepared nor in the mood to accept anything of this nature. Today the country in fact is in a different mood. I should like to refer to a group of people which has been a strong ally of labour on many occasions in the past; that is, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. This organization presented a brief to the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development not too long ago urging that now is the time for Canada, wherever essential industries are affected, to adopt a system of labour tribunals to settle these matters in order to avoid serious strikes which can affect our economy. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture last month in Winnipeg recommended that now is the time, when we have reached the stage we have in the development of education and human understanding, perhaps to adopt labour tribunals. The government is moving in the opposite direction.
I do not have any objection to the setting up of bargaining agencies for the civil service. I do think, however, that essential services should be spelled out and that the agencies should not have the right to elect to go on strike if the negotiations have not been successful, because this would result in difficulty for the government and for the economy of Canada as a whole. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister when he says that he doubts very much whether too many of these bargaining agencies will elect to strike. In my dealings with civil servants it has been my experience that they have shown themselves to be responsible in any matter in which the economy of the country is affected. As I have said, I agree with the minister that few civil servants will elect to follow a procedure which eventually would lead to their going on strike. If a vote were taken in the civil service here in Ottawa I doubt very much that they would ask for the right to strike. I am not saying that their leaders would not; I am speaking of the civil servants themselves.
I would like to think that we now have reached the stage in our development when we could negotiate wage settlements through arbitration, particularly in respect of essential services and in respect of operations which have an effect on the economy of Canada. So, once again I ask the minister to stand this clause today, proceed with other clauses, and then deal with this matter after it has had a general public airing. Although it may be true
13194	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining that this matter was under consideration by the committee for quite some time and was aired in the newspapers to some extent nearly a year ago. I do not think that recently it has been brought to be attention of the public generally. I believe hat perhaps it would be wise judgment on the minister's part and on the part of the government to give this subject a general airing in the press for a period of three or four days or over the week end, and then if the minister still is firm in his belief that this should be proceeded with, of course he could do so. This is the manner in which I would hope the minister would proceed now.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, briefly I should like to reiterate a question I asked the minister this morning in the hope that before we close off this debate today we might know whether or not he intends to take action on this over the week end. Could he tell us whether or not he or his officials have consulted with the Minister of Justice concerning whether or not this bill is in keeping with the intent of the basic articles in the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I can answer the question immediately, if that is the desire of the committee. The bill, before it was introduced in the house, was referred to the Department of Justice in respect of this particular point-as I understand is the case in respect of all bills-and was approved by the Department of Justice. Clause 8 was not changed by the committee.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is the minister saying that the Minister of Justice has given his decision on the particular point I raised this morning?


Edgar John Benson: The Department of Justice.


Robert Norman Thompson: The Bill of Rights states very clearly that any legislation which refers to the Bill of Rights shall be passed to the Minister of Justice for a ruling as whether or not the Bill of Rights is being transgressed by the legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I doubt that the debate on this bill would have taken the turn it has if at the outset the minister had answered correctly the question put to him by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. At that time the minister said that in Great Britain there was compulsory arbitration. He left the clear inference

DEBATES	February 17, 1967
that the right to strike was banned. Of course that is not the case. Arbitral tribunals are available in Britain under the aegis of the Whitley Councils and there is no prohibition of the right to strike. There is silence on the subject. Unless we take the position that a strike is treasonable, which I think is unlikely, there is no reason to take the position that the right to strike for public servants is unlawful in Britain today. Under existing legislation in Canada there is silence; there is neither recognition of nor prohibition against the right to strike for public servants.
Those who have suggested this afternoon that in this legislation we are extending recognition of the right to strike are approaching it in the wrong way. What the legislation in effect does is provide a technique for compulsory arbitration and also provide a technique for conciliation. Those who take the road to conciliation retain the right they now have to strike. That is all that is happening under this legislation. This legislation then goes further and in clause 79 gives the right to the governor in council to designate certain employees who shall be called "designated employees" whose duties consist in whole or in part of duties the performance of which at any particular time or after any specified period of time is or will be necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If the right of the public service to strike would damage the safety or security of the public obviously the governor in council would act under this clause. If my hon. friends who have raised this issue want to go further and say, "All right, we will have compulsory arbitration throughout all employer-employee relations", that is one thing; but I say it is wrong to differentiate completely between essential services in the private sector and the public service. I for one, representing more civil servants than any other member in this House of Commons, am not prepared to have my civil servants made fish, while flesh is made of another group of workers.
I dissociate myself completely from those people who are prepared to say that civil servants do not have the ordinary rights of other citizens of this country. I am as much against the use of the strike weapon as anybody, and of course we all hope that new and modern techniques will be developed whereby strikes will not be necessary. But I say to
February 17, 1967
you, Mr. Chairman, that this principle would have to be general; it would have to apply right across the board. We should not take rights away from and penalize people just because they are members of the public service. In that respect I think this debate has proceeded with the wrong approach, with the suggestion that we are extending recognition of a right to strike where no recognition now exists; in fact, that is not the case and the very reverse situation obtains.
This whole matter was most carefully considered by what I thought was a strong committee. That committee was unanimous in its decision; and I am prepared to accept- the opinion of a unanimous committee which gave detailed study to this question rather than the opinion of those who have not read even a line of the briefs or of the evidence presented.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to take too much of the time of the house, but I do want to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), and if the minister wants to proceed faster, I suggest that he should stand this clause, dealing specifically with strikes, in order to give us an opportunity to take a closer look at it.
Of course, the hon. member says that the committee made extensive inquiries and, as the only member of our party on that committee could not attend all its sittings, being a member of four committees, I believe it would be wise of the minister to stand this clause and to bring it back for discussion on Monday or during the course of next week.
I want to express my confidence in the work of the committee, but I think we are now in a somewhat special situation. In the light of current events and of everything that has happened in the last two or three years, especially in recent months-and I would say mainly in Quebec-I think it is time for legislators to think twice and keep their eyes wide open, because we are being faced today with a systematic series of well organized strikes called deliberately by a power which has infiltrated all other countries. Let us stop hiding our heads in the sand and let us look right ahead. It is a known fact that the favourite weapon of socialism is strikes. Let us face the situation squarely; it is time to think about it. The favourite weapon of socialists, grandchildren of communists, is the strikes they *call throughout the country in an attempt to
Public Service Collective Bargaining overthrow the established authority and to win their case.
If we consider the general situation, we see the results of our inaction in front of small groups of hard-working socialists, very eager to thrust their opinion on the people. I feel we shall wake up tomorrow faced with the most fantastic revolution Canada has ever known. That is why I am asking the minister to give second thought to this matter.
Today, conditions have changed since the minister embarked upon the consideration of his bill. This is an act respecting employer and employee relations. The employer is the government of Canada and the primary responsibility of the government is the protection not of the interests of a small group or of a large group, but first and foremost of the general interest.
It must be remembered that the end purpose of a government is to protect the general interest.
I have no objection to a group being given certain rights. But, at the same time, the people involved should be told about their responsibilities. Today, some union leaders are only clamouring for their rights, often forgetting their responsibilities.
The hon. member for Hochelaga opened my eyes today, although I was already aware of his advanced and even anti-democratic ideas. As we are still debating here among democratic parliamentarians, I think we ought to save at least what is left of democracy and try to get rid of undesirable elements attempting to destroy that marvellous democracy which our forefathers built at the cost of countless sacrifices.
Do not think, Mr. Chairman, that everybody in the province of Quebec is happy about the strike that is going on. In my own riding, and in many other places, even the teachers are not happy about it. Some teachers are not happy about the dictatorial ways of one Raymond Laliberte. We do not at all approve acts of violence and dissension. We do not deny the right to strike, but we ask the hon. minister to give us the time, through discussion, to create an organization which can lead us out of this depressing state of affairs. Let us create an organization which will allow us to guarantee the rights of groups and, above all, those of the whole population.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.



February 17, 1987
Indian Affairs
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, February 17, 1967
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 17th February at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, before we continue with the consideration of private bills may I announce at this stage the order of items to be considered on Monday. First we will take third reading of the bill to amend the Excise Act. Then we will return to the item before the house today, namely item 47 on today's order paper. Next we will take item 58, followed by item 59. Then we will move to item 83, second reading of Bill C-220, an act to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: the second reading of Bill C-28 respecting the Canada Court of Indian Claims.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing second reading of Bill C-28 which is entitled an act respecting the Canada Court of Indian Claims I can best sum up its basic principles by referring the house to my remarks which may be found on page 2178 of Hansard of March 3, 1966. At that time we were considering the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and I said that the fundamental issue in our relationship with the Indian people in Canada is "whether we of European ancestry are going to be able to hold up our heads before them".
I submit that this is the basic principle involved in the bill. Following that suggestion,

which I made in the debate at that time, I went on to recite some of the history of the legislation concerning Indian claims in more recent times. At that time I said:
On December 14,	1963 the then Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-130, An Act to provide for the Disposition of Indian claims. As members of the committee will recall this bill had its genesis in the joint committee on Indian affairs which brought out a report in 1961; but Bill C-130 after a preliminary stage in the house, was circulated widely throughout the country, and then on June 21, 1965 we had a successor bill. Bill C-123, which was to have been referred for consideration last fall to a special committee for detailed consideration.
At _ this time arrangements were under way for the appearance of Indian people and others before that committee, until the bill, along with a number of other things, came to an untimely end with the dissolution of parliament. I might also draw the attention of the committee again to the fact that in addition to the bills introduced on the government side, to which I have referred, there was in 1963 Bill C-67, entitled An Act Respecting the Canada Court of Indian Claims, introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Skeena.
I may say that the terms of Bill C-28 which we now have before us are identical to those of the bill previously introduced by my colleague.
Having made reference to the various bills that have been brought forward I would like to express the view that the exact terms of any of them including the one which we have before us, are relatively unimportant. What is really important to me is the settlement of a moral issue, that is the restoration to the Indian people of self respect and, perhaps even more important to many of us, the restoration of our own self respect in our relationships with the Indian people. In my view the purpose of such legislation must be to create a situation in Canada where we will no longer be haunted by the injustices perpetrated by our forefathers, which I think we all recognize cannot really be undone, but which in my view can be removed in so far as they are still being visited upon the children of this day and generation.
The important thing to me is to bring about a state of affairs where we and the Indian people can look one another fairly and squarely in the eye, where we no longer need to speak and they no longer need to fear that we will be speaking with a forked tongue. I recognize fully the fact that legislation alone cannot achieve this end, but I do believe that legislation can act as a catalyst to bring about this end. I submit that if this end, which to me is one of the most desirable and important
February 17, 1967

objectives to which this country should be moving, is to be achieved, the basic contents of the legislation that may be put forward in this parliament is not unimportant.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that in my view the legislation which has been introduced by the government so far has been to put it mildly, less than satisfactory for the purposes that I suggest we should all have in mind. My views in this regard are perhaps best spelled out by an amendment which I moved to government Bill No. C-123 when it was before the house on June 22, 1965. This amendment can be found in Hansard on page 2768. At that time I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That Bill C-123 be not now read a second time, but that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation that will provide for
(a)	an Indian Claims Commission enabled by its terms of reference and its composition to assist the Indian peoples of Canada to prepare for disposition of all outstanding claims arising out of the occupation by non-Indians of territories now within Canada; to search out and hear evidence in relation thereto and to make such awards, both general and particular, as are just and fair, and
(b)	an Indian Claims Appeal Court, the presiding officer of which shall be a jurist, other than a Canadian citizen, of international repute, which shall hear appeals from any decision of the commission.
I believe that principle is in this bill, although rather awkwardly put because of the limitations that are imposed upon a private member, since he does not have the prerogative of financial initiative that the government has. What I believe is implicit in this bill and in the amendment I previously moved is, first, that prior recognition of the fact that claims do in fact exist must be given, and such claims should not be subject to narrow restrictions such as whether they arise from actions of the Crown in right of Canada, or of any of the colonies which preceded the Canadian confederation. These claims should not be subject to the restriction of whether they arise from the actions of corporations such as, for example, the activities of the Hudson's Bay Company or other fur trading companies, or from the actions taken by individuals under what they assumed to be rights conferred upon them under Canadian or other laws, or actions they may have taken outside of the law.
Indian Affairs
The second thing, Mr. Speaker, which I believe is implicit in the principle of this bill is that the claim must be dealt with as if negotiations were being conducted between equals. This is something which was not done in the past. At that time a superior power simply moved in with all the trappings of imperial colonialism. Since that time there has never been any real acceptance of this idea of negotiations between equals. Ever since the successful encroachment of imperial colonialism into this continent, the relationship between the Indian people and ourselves, both in the state and in a large part as individuals, has been a sort of father-child relationship. The actions of this parliament, indeed the actions of the Fathers of Confederation, in effect created this father-child relationship by making the Indian people legal wards of the federal government of Canada.
It may be argued with some truth, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years the father has become a bit more generous. He has not restricted the child entirely to a diet of cold porridge. He has been prepared to hand out occasionally a few lollipops and perhaps even on occasion what one might term a full bodied meal of meat and potatoes. This basic situation has not been altered in any way by the events which may have transpired because this parliament has been fit to provide the government with somewhat more generous amounts of money to dispense to the Indian people across the country. I submit that handouts are not the answer. More and more the Indian people are no longer content to be treated as adult children. I believe that more and more of us are realizing the futility of attempting to play over and over again the role of father. I believe that negotiations by an Indian claims commission would be the key which could unlock this paradoxical situation in which we and they have involved for far too long.
As we are considering this bill today, Mr. Speaker, I must admit quite frankly that I am not too concerned if it should develop that this bill receives the treatment private members bills so often receive, and is not actually given second reading during this hour. At the moment, I think the important question is for this parliament to understand just where we are at the moment in our relationship to this whole question. I believe this question is answered in part at least by some remarks I made on March 3, 1966, when I drew the attention of the committee to a question which was asked of the Minister of Indian

February 17, 1967
Indian Affairs
Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Laing by my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). This was the question of the hon. member, which I quoted in my speech at that time, and it appears at page 2178 of Hansard of March 3, 1966:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When may we expect the introduction in the house of a bill regarding the Indian claims commission? When the minister answers that question perhaps he might also indicate whether that bill has been delayed up to now by revision of any previous bill.
The Minister replied to the hon. member in these terms:
Mr. Speaker, the delay that has eventuated has had more than one cause. It has come from the quarters with which my hon. friend and myself are familiar, namely, the province of British Columbia where the Indian people seem to prefer to take a concentrated second look before proceeding.
Some Indians of British Columbia indicated they would prefer to consider their particular position in negotiation prior to the introduction of the bill. I have told the legal adviser of the Indians in the province of British Columbia that I am prepared to discuss with them this subject, and I have had a preliminary meeting with him, before any action is taken.
After quoting the minister I proceeded on that occasion to say:
I think that the answer the minister gave to the house on February 14 re-opened this whole matter in several very important respects. It particularly re-opened the question as far as the Indian people of British Columbia are concerned, but it also leaves unanswered what the minister may have in mind as far as the Indian people in the rest of Canada are concerned in relation to the proposals that were put forward in the government bill that went down the drain when parliament was dissolved.
-9 (5:20 p.m.)
I submit that the time has now come for us to move forward once more on this whole question. Some of us in this house are aware that in the province of British Columbia the Confederation of B.C. Indians has now been formed and is prepared to deal with the B.C. land question. I think those of us who have had some participation in the proceedings before the Indian affairs committee have become increasingly aware that Indians in various parts of Canada are anxious to see another forward movement on this matter, which has been resting with some quietude for some little time.
I found myself while on a subcommittee of the Indian affairs committee in Toronto last summer, Mr. Speaker, being asked to explain

some aspects of the Indian land question, and after discussion had proceeded for a little while one of the members of the Indian advisory council of the province of Ontario asked me why Indians in other parts of Canada should have to wait while the British Columbia Indians made up their minds what they wanted to do.
Along with other members of the committee one day last week I visited the Indian people in St. Regis and Caughnawaga, and this question of action to deal with the historic claims of the Indian people in that area was certainly brought to the fore in the discussions the Indians had with the members of the committee.
In introducing this bill for discussion today I feel, whether or not the bill receives passage at this stage, that we in this house could usefully be reminded that the time has come for a definite forward move in the direction that I have outlined and in accordance with what I believe are the basic principles of the bill which is before us for consideration.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on the presentation he has made of a very interesting case. One of the frustrations that we in this house have had to put up with for some time now has been the fact that before this parliament and the government has moved to change the direction we are taking in Indian affairs, we have submitted the proposals to the Indians themselves for their deliberation and approval.
I think that this is a very good move, but it is also very frustrating because we see a great many abuses and needs which must be met which we cannot deal with as quickly as we would like, because of this outstanding prior necessity for getting the consent of the people concerned. This is going to slow the activities of the government and of the House of Commons in the matter of legislating for the Indians. However, I think it is all to the good and it is a very forward looking step to allow the Indians to have a greater say in the legislation which governs them.
One of the interesting comments that was made by the sponsor of the bill was that although he thought the bill might be deficient in some respects he felt that the principle of the bill should be discussed. To some extent, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this view, and I should like to take a look at the
February 17, 1967

contents of the bill itself. It is not really enough to suggest that the end is justified unless we take a look at the means. Therefore I should like to make a somewhat academic analysis of a variety of provisions contained in the bill, with a view perhaps to clearing up some of the ambiguities which now exist.
I think that one of the first objections one could make to the bill is one which we are continually coming across in private members hour, and it is, of course, that the bill contemplates the expenditure of public moneys. We are all aware of the well worn phrase to be found in citation 249 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which reads in part as follows:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian commons receiving the authority of the crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
There are several clauses in the bill Mr. Speaker, which presume to do exactly this. Perhaps the most outstanding is clause 19 which deals with the procedure of the court to be set up under the bill, and with the payment, in whole or in part, of the reasonable costs, fees, or expenses of preparing and presenting a claim or an interest affected, the court being empowered to order that such expenses, either in whole or in part, may be the administrative expenses of the court.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the expenditure of money by the judge who would be required if the court were to come within the ambit of the Exchequer Court would have application here, as well as the increased salaries, money required for travelling and administration extra staff and so on.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask a particularly pertinent question of the hon. gentleman, and I think that this is a matter of which Your Honour should also be apprised. It is my understanding that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is now raising a point of order as to whether the bill itself is in order and should be considered? It seems to me that that is what is happening.


John Mercer Reid: No, Mr. Speaker; I was just discussing what I thought were some of the
Indian Affairs
technical deficiencies that had occurred to me. Perhaps the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is right and I could raise a point of order, but I would point out to him that this same question, I recall, was raised when the hon. member for Skeena himself-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


John Mercer Reid: -introduced a similar bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi is rising on a point of order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. In my speech I did state that the bill was a little awkwardly drafted because of the very limitation to which the hon. member has referred. My submission is that the bill is very carefully drafted and has some limitations because of the fact that it does not trespass on the provisions to which the hon. member if referring in his speech.


John Mercer Reid: Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the drafting of this bill is certainly an improvement over the drafting of the previous bill. Nevertheless, the point I was making, which was that it infringes upon the rights of the crown, is I think a valid one. However, for the sake of argument perhaps I should pass that matter by and if the bill does come up again and is in danger of passing this point of order could be explored in greater detail and much more depth.
There are other deficiencies in the bill, Mr. Speaker, particularly the provisions in clauses 13 and 14. My principal objection to them is that they are vague. For example the process of defining who may bring a claim to the special court is not precise.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Indians in Canada.


John Mercer Reid: My hon. friend says Indians in Canada. But Indians are not defined. Does my hon. friend mean Indians or the band? What happens if there is a conflict between the rights of the band and those of individual Indians? Much will depend, of course on the different land holding procedures that exist and, of course, these vary from place to place.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Whose interests are to be paramount? Is it the interest of the band or the individual? There are 550 odd Indian bands in Canada, and this should be spelled out in more detail so that when the court deals with these matters there can be no difference of opinion and everybody will know who may bring a claim.

February 17, 1967
Indian Affairs
I also wish, to refer to subclause 2 of clause 14. This clause permits the court to hear and determine claims submitted to the court by petition concerning Indians or lands reserved for Indians. Questions must be answered about this. Who may petition? On whose behalf may the petition be lodged? How many are required to submit a petition? Must these people be Indians, or can it be somebody outside the band? For example, can somebody outside the band submit a petition on behlaf of a dissident group within the band who do not appreciate the way things are going?
In this connection I wish to mention something to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. We ran into this when we visited the St. Regis band, which is having difficulty with its elected members.
Because of the situation there,-and the band has been handling some of its own affairs for some time-there has been created a great deal of confusion and a great deal of bad will between two conflicting parties within the band. To avoid such conflicts and to protect the people concerned, this matter should be more precisely spelled out. For instance, can anyone petition on behalf of Indians? We have been objective with legislation covering the rights of Indians with respect to land reserved for Indian use. But this clause to which I have referred is wide open, and the matter is not precisely defined. The objections I previously raised apply to this clause.
Continuing, we find that there is no definition, no basis on which a claim might be lodged. This is not spelled out in detail, and raises problems which should be looked into. For example, the clause as presently drafted does not allow the Indians concerned or the court set up in this bill to determine what classes of claims might be brought to the court. As an example of this in clause 14 (1) paragraphs (a) and (b), which deal with British Columbia land question and the Oka land dispute, neither of these particular things is defined.
It may be perfectly natural for somebody coming from British Columbia to know precisely what is meant by these disputes, but somebody coming from my part of the country might not know about them. It is not fair to assume that the court will know. The bill might have been improved had the hon. gentleman opposite defined more clearly what is meant by these particular paragraphs. I admit that in a legal sense the courts might

know what is meant, but I doubt whether this is so.
As a result there are intriguing possibilities when it comes to interpreting the legislation. First, dealing with the three clauses I have referred to, does it mean that any Indian claim, any individual claim no matter how frivolous or ridiculous it may be, must be considered by the courts? Must it be considered equally with more substantial claims launched by other individuals or bands? Second, does the band have precedence, or a superior status with respect to claims started by an individual? This should be resolved one way or the other. Third, can the individual act when the band council does not act? For example, in a case where a legitimate claim is outstanding and where the band has reasons of its own for not taking action, would an individual resident of the reserve be allowed to take action to settle his claim?
Another aspect I wish to raise is, whether individuals and bands can submit claims on one particular matter? That is, can the band and other persons acting individually submit claims to the court? These questions are not resolved in the bill and they cause much confusion. They should be more clearly defined, so that the people petitioning the court and the court itself may have a better understanding of the rights and privileges involved.
Then, turning to clause 15-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I am interrupting the hon. member's speech because I do not want to disrupt his trend of thought. Will he allow me to remind him that he cannot refer to specific clauses of a bill when we are on second reading. He should limit his comments to the principle of the bill. I am sure the hon. member will be able to limit himself to that aspect of the matter.


John Mercer Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Had I known at the beginning of my remarks what Your Honour has just said I might have taken a different tack.
To comply with your ruling, and back tracking, may I say a few words about the progress of the Indian claims commission and the role we expect it to play. Let me speak of precisely how this bill fits in with the general principle of that commission. The progress we make with respect to that commission is slow. A great many claims in my constituency are to go before the commission. It has not yet
February 17, 1967

been set up, and has not been operating because the various Indian groups in Canada, as I understand it, cannot agree about how it should be set up, what its powers should be and how it should operate. When you begin to deal with Indian affairs you learn about the vast diversity of opinion among the various Indian groups across Canada. Many Indian bands such as the Caughnawaga and St. Regis bands, which the members of the Indian affairs committee visited last week, are relatively able to look after their own interests. Those two reserves that we visited are well able to do without the Department of Indian Affairs in many respects. Perhaps in five or six years it might be possible to withdraw Indian affairs service from those people. They can manage on their own.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This very diversity hampers the government, the House of Commons and the standing committee when dealing with Indian affairs. It makes it difficult to lay down a policy which will apply equitably across the board, taking into consideration the variations which exist, as well as the educational opportunities for integration into Canadian life. The claims commission is a perfect example. There are a variety of claims to be processed, one of which is the exotic series of claims from the west coast about which I do not claim to have much knowledge. But I do know that the claims we have to face arise from a variety of natural causes, as well as from the plain skulduggery of many of our ancestors.
I know that in my own constituency treaty No. 3 has been broken because it was necessary to use the watershed of the lower Rainy River as storage for power. Thus, many areas which were once part of the mainland have become islands and have been lost to the Indians. They were taken over by the Crown and sold to summer settlers. Much land has been lost, some of it valuable.
There are also the leases which were signed in the early part of the century for what was then considered to be a fair price. Today the fair price is no longer fair. For example, under one lease seven bands receive $35 for a considerable territory. In 1905 when the lease was signed this may have been a good deal, but in 1967 it is not a good deal. I think that in the future the Indian claims commission will have to look into these old leases which were signed in former days in good faith by both parties but which are no longer equitable in 1967.
Indian Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Frank Howard: I was the one who seconded the motion for second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case I will recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I recognize the difficulty which has developed; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and I have been allied closely on this particular measure, as with other measures, for some years. I realize that I run the risk of talking out my hon. friend's bill, since at any moment there may be a knock on the door to tell us we are required in the Senate chamber. I have often wondered why we have to put up with these interruptions-why they cannot take place after six o'clock-but that is the way things are.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). I wish you had not called him to order, Mr. Speaker, during his comments about the intimate parts of this bill because it was obvious that the hon. member was niggling around the subject, not getting to the core of it. It is interesting to note that when he was dealing clause by clause with the bill now before the house he complained about its vagueness and generality. Then, when he began to talk about the Indian claims commission as the subject matter of the government's proposal in this regard he stressed the difficulties which arose because of differences across Canada between one region and another, and explained why it was not possible to get a clear picture of the claims made by the Indian people.
I submit that when he made his later remarks dealing with the position of the government he answered his own question and gave a perfect explanation of the reason for drawing up this bill in its present form. It is not possible to clarify a great many of these matters, so they were left open to the court itself.
I think I might usefully give an historical account of what has occurred with respect to the subject of Indian claims in this nation, and begin by referring to a pamphlet published by the Liberal party during an election

February 17, 1967
Indian Affairs
in 1963. It begins by saying that at Prince Rupert in 1910 Sir Wilfrid-presumably Sir Wilfrid Laurier-promised that the Indian land question would be taken to the Privy Council. Then the pamphlet adds: "The solution in 1963 lies in a totally different course of action". This emphasizes the attitude of successive parties with regard to the land question in British Columbia and in a broader sense to all the claims Indians have advanced with respect to encroachment upon their rights, their traditions and their land. If it is considered as a milestone in the development of our approach to the claims of the native people to refer back to a promise broken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier 50 years ago, there is surely something wrong with the attitude of successive governments in dealing with these matters.
I wish, now to make a comment on the land question in British Columbia because this is a question of vital importance not only to the Indian people in that province but to the government and to all of Canada. I think this is separate from a large number of the claims which the native people have to present about various aspects of the treatment which has been meted out to them. In 1910 it was considered that Sir Wilfrid Laurier or his government would assist in solving the land question. Obviously no solution was reached at that time. In 1926 a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons met to consider what I believe was called the claims of the allied native tribes of British Columbia. That committee concluded that the native people had not proved their claim to aboriginal title. They did not say it was disproved; they simply said it had not been proved. In any event, it recommended a payment of $100,000 a year to the native people of British Columbia. That payment is still being made but it has been greatly diluted as a result of a population increase among the native people, and because of the reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar.
In the late '40's a committee on Indian affairs was established and it delved into many aspects of Indian problems. In 1948 it unanimously recommended that an Indian claims commission be established. Nothing was done about this recommendation, which was supported by members of all political parties represented on the committee. It was forgotten. In 1959 another committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was formed to consider Indian affairs. In 1961 that
committee made its report, and again representatives of all parties in the house and in the Senate unanimously recommended the establishment of a court of Indian claims or of an Indian claims commission, I forget which. That committee specifically referred to the British Columbia land question and to the Oka land dispute, and as a consequence these matters are referred to in the bill now before us.
On October 14, 1963, Bill No. C-130 was introduced to establish an Indian claims commission. The intention was principally to introduce the bill at that time-parliament was close to prorogation-in order that copies might be distributed to the Indian people in Canada and to all others who were interested. It was distributed and many representations were made about changes to the bill. Contrary to what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has said,-and I looked over these representations-there was a considerable body of opinion among the Indian people in Canada that there were great deficiencies in the measure introduced in 1963.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In June of 1965 another bill was introduced, known as Bill C-123. It was almost identical to Bill C-130 and obviously had no regard for that body of opinion among the native people which had been expressed during the examination of the earlier bill introduced in 1963. This fact prompted the Indians of the North American Indian Brotherhood to form a group called the Federation of Indians of British Columbia. The prime function of that group related to the Indian land question. That brotherhood had, among other things, the following to say about the last bill introduced by the government:
It is considered by the Indians of the North American Indian Brotherhood to be an insult on the part of the then Minister of Indian Affairs the Honourable Jack Nicholson to then reintroduce the bill in the old form except for one minor change, namely that there be provision for one Indian to sit on the commission. All the recommendations except this one, by both the N.A.I.B. and the other Indian organizations of B.C. were disregarded and the N.A.I.B. considers the amended bill in most of its entirety to be absolutely useless in giving to the Indians of B.C., according to the Liberal pre-election promise an "unbiased and unprejudiced tribunal."
Those are not my words but the words of the North American Indian Brotherhood.
Mr. Speaker, someone is knocking at the door so I must cease and desist.

February 17, 1967



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Bamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
Royal Assent
[DOT]	(6.00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 20, 1967