1967-02-20

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I wish to table two copies in English and in French of the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966. As the house is aware, the Financial Administration Act requires that the report of the Auditor General be laid before the house on or before December 31, or if parliament is then not in session within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session. The Auditor General has asked me to express his apologies to the members of the house over the delay, which has resulted from circumstances over which the Auditor General had no control.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Among the present members of the House of Commons, what are the names of those who have appeared on C.B.C. stations, either radio or television and have received sums of money?
2.	In each case, what was the amount received?
3.	Does this conflict in any respect with any of the regulations or laws with which members of parliament must comply in the House of Commons?
4.	If so, what action does the government intend to take on this matter?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	In his statement of December 14, 1966, to the house the Prime Minister gave the house information supplied him by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the effect that 17 members of the present parliament had accepted payments from the C.B.C. while
members of the previous parliament between May, 1963 and September, 1965.
The C.B.C. now informs me, however, that on checking further into this matter, they have discovered that seven of the individuals on the previous list were not members of parliament but rather other individuals whose names happened to coincide with those of certain members of this house. The correct total then of members of the present house who have accepted fees from the C.B.C. while members of the previous parliament is 10, not 17 as previously suggested.
As for the 10 members of parliament in question, the situation in regard to them is as follows:
(a)	The hon. members for Royal and York-Humber each received a cheque from the corporation and each endorsed it over to a worthy cause;
(b)	A cheque issued to the hon. member for Temiskaming was returned to the corporation uncashed within a few days of delivery to him;
(c)	Cheques sent to the hon. members for Medicine Hat and Danforth have, according to C.B.C. records, never been cashed;
(d)	This leaves five members who, according to the corporation, received and cashed cheques from the C.B.C. These are the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources, and the hon. members for Greenwood, Villeneuve, St. John's West and Brandon-Souris.
2.	While it is C.B.C. policy not to disclose amounts paid to any individual, in none of these cases did any individual payment exceed $65 and in no case where any of the members of parliament in question received payments for more than one appearance did the total payments to any M.P. exceed $160.
3 and 4. See statement of December 14, 1966 by the Prime Minister as recorded in Hansard, pages 11115 and 11116.


APPEARANCE ON C.B.C. OF CERTAIN HOUSE MEMBERS
Mr. Gregoire: How many times since September 1, 1966, have the following persons been invited to appear on the C.B.C.'s French radio and television networks

February 20, 1967
Questions
to make broadcasts of a political nature: Hon. Lucien Cardin, Hon. Maurice Sauve, Hon. Leo-Alphonse Cadieux, Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, Hon. Jean Marchand, Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote, Hon. Theog&ne Ricard, Hon. Martial Asselin, Mr. Auguste Cho-quette, M.P., Mr. Real Caouette, M.P., Mr. Pierre Bourgault, leader of the R.I.N., Mr. Gilles Gregoire, M.P. and president of the R.N.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The C.B.C. informs me that guest appearances by these persons involved interviews or discussions on a variety of subjects of public interest. The number of lows:	appearances is as Radio Televis	
Mr. Cardin	Nil	NilMr. Sauve	8	5Mr. Cadieux	1	NilMr. Pepin	2	2Mr. Marchand	5	4Mr. Cote	Nil	1Mr. Ricard	1	NilMr. Asselin	3	NilMr. Choquette	Nil	4Mr. Caouette	3	NilMr. Bourgault	4	5Mr. Gregoire	4	1


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY CENTRE, RIMOUSKI, QUE.
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Is the federal government contributing to the construction of a community centre in the city of Rimouski, Quebec, known as the John F. Kennedy centre?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the contribution?
3.	Was such expenditure included in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966?
4.	If the answer to part 3 above is in the negative, in what year did or will this item appear in the estimates?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. No.
2, 3 and 4. See answer to 1.


CENTENNIAL TRAIN STOP, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Why is the centennial train not stopping at the town of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
2.	Will consideration be given to having this centennial train stop at New Glasgow. Nova Scotia, or at another location in the county of Pictou?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The centennial train itinerary comprises 
83 exhibit stops for 315J exhibit days in nine provinces of Canada. Among the many factors that were considered and agreed to by the centennial commission and the provincial government centennial authorities were population by provinces, physical facilities at each stop and accessibility to the largest area population.
The confederation train is not stopping in the town of New Glasgow because of the heavy concentration of confederation caravan stops in the area. The confederation caravan will be stopping at Stellarton, New Glasgow and Pictou making a total of six exhibit days in an area that, if the train were to stop, could stop not more than one exhibit day.
2. The Nova Scotia itinerary of the confederation train was worked out between the centennial commission, the provincial centennial authorities and the railway representatives over a period of three years. It was agreed by the governments that changes would not be practical or possible.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 66-H683
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Who was the successful candidate in the civil service competition 66-H683, protection officer -fishery office, held recently?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the other candidates who entered this competition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Civil Service Commission as follows:
1.	Competition 66-H683, protection officer- fisheries officer 1, has not yet been completed. A written examination will be held on February 10 at 18 centres in the province of Nova Scotia. There are 227 candidates.
2.	Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission holds in confidence information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on the eligible list.


ITINERARY FOR CENTENNIAL TRAIN, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Bower: 1. In planning the route of the centennial train, was consideration given to having it stop at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, in view of it being the site of the principal Loyalist settlement in Canada and
February 20, 1967

hence one of the early manifestations of Cana-dianism?
2.	In planning the return trip of the centennial train to Halifax from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, was consideration given to having it do so via the south shore railroad with an additional stop in the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg?
3.	If this was not planned, will consideration be given to correcting this 250 mile gap in the train's Nova Scotia itinerary?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The centennial train itinerary comprises 83 exhibit stops for 315J exhibit days in nine provinces of Canada. Among the many factors that were considered and agreed to by the centennial commission and the provincial government centennial authorities were population by provinces, physical facilities at each stop and accessibility to the largest area population.
2.	This was not practical because the next stop of the centennial train was Kentville.
3.	See answer to 1. The Nova Scotia itinerary of the confederation train was worked out between the centennial commission, the provincial centennial authorities and railway representatives over a period of three years. It was agreed by the governments that changes would not be practical or possible.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION EMPLOYEES ABROAD
Mr. Allard: 1.	Further to the answer to question No. 2,381, what is the total number of public servants or employees working in the 34 cities abroad where the Department of Manpower and Immigration has offices?
2.	Among these public servants or employees, how many are not Canadian citizens and what is their percentage in each of the 34 cities abroad where the Department of Manpower and Immigration has offices?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The reply submitted to question 2,381 referred only to personnel posted from Canada. There was a total of 128 public servants posted to the 34 cities listed in the reply to question 2,186 and they are all Canadian citizens.
2. In addition to the Canadian employees there are 307 locally engaged staff employed at the 34 cities listed and 9 of these are Canadian citizens.
See table below for distribution of Canadian and locally engaged staff. The figure in brackets indicates number of locally engaged employees who are Canadian citizens.
Questions City Canadian staff Locally-enj		
Athens	3	employe 11(1)Belfast	2	3Berlin	1	4Berne	2	4Birmingham	2	3Bordeaux	1	0Bristol	2	3(1)Brussels	3	8Cairo	3	4Cologne	8	25Copenhagen	2	6Dublin	1	2Glasgow	6	12Hamburg	2	5Helsinki	0	2Hong Kong	8	16Leeds	5	6Lisbon	4	8Liverpool	4	7London	23	60(4)Madrid	2	5Marseille	1	0Milan	4	8Munich	1	4New Delhi	4	10Oslo	0	2Paris	8	20Rome	9	29(2)Stockholm	2	4Stuttgart	2	5Tel Aviv	3	5The Hague	4	10Tokyo	1	4Vienna	5	12(1)128	307


WORK OF REPRESENTATION COMMISSIONER
Mr. Bell (Carlefon): 1.	Has any work yet been undertaken by the representation commissioner pursuant to section 9 of chapter 40 of the statutes of 1963?
2.	If so, to what extent has it progressed?
3.	Has (A) the representation commissioner or (B) any of his officials (a) already undertaken (b) planned for the future, any visits (i) in Canada (ii) to other countries, for the review and study of the matters referred to in said section 9?
4. If so, outline (a) locale (b) purpose of each such visit already undertaken or planned, and (c) results of each such visit already undertaken?
5.	Is any interim report contemplated?
6.	If so, when may it be anticipated?
7.	If not, does the representation commissioner anticipate that the report required by said section 9 will be ready before the deadline established in the said section?
8.	If the answer to part 7 is yes, when may such report be anticipated?

February 20, 1967
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the representation commissioner as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The methods of registration of electors and absentee voting used in the provincial elections in British Columbia and in the national elections in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America are being reviewed and studied by the representation commissioner.
3.	(A) (a) (i) Yes. (ii) Yes. (b) (i) Yes. (ii) Yes. (B) (a) (i) No. (ii) No. (b) (i) No. (ii) No.
4.	(a) Visits have been made to the province of British Columbia, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, the state of Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia in the United States of America. After the review and study referred to in 2 above, are completed, methods of registration of electors and methods of absentee voting used in other countries will be reviewed. A decision will be made at that time to determine if visits by the representation commissioner or any of his officials to any such countries will be necessary to complete the study, (b) The purpose of each visit is to consult with local officials responsible for the administration of their methods of registration of electors and absentee voting and with other persons familiar with such methods, (c) The visits result
in a knowledge and understanding of the practical application of such methods.
5.	No.
6.	N/A.
7.	Yes.
8.	The representation commissioner is required by subsection (2) of section 9 of the Representation Commissioner Act to complete his report not later than two years after the 16 June, 1966. It is anticipated that the report will be completed by such deadline. However, unknown factors such as the number of elections that may be held in that two year period will decide the amount of time required of the representation commissioner to discharge his duties and responsibilities under sections 16 to 21 of the said act and this in turn will determine whether the full two years will be required to complete the report.


IMMIGRATION OFFICES ABROAD
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	How many Canadian immigration offices are maintained in each of the following countries (a) United Kingdom (b) France (c) West Germany (d) Italy (e) Poland (f) U.S.S.R.?
2.	In what cities are these immigration offices located and what is the size of staff of each?


John Carr Munro: 1.
and 2. See table below.
Country	City	Canadian staff	Locally emplcUnited Kingdom	Belfast	2	3Birmingham	2	3Bristol	2	3Glasgow	6	12Leeds	5	6Liverpool	4	7London	23	60France	Bordeaux	1	_Marseilles	1	Paris	8	20West Germany	Berlin	1	4Cologne	8	25Hamburg	2	5Munich	1	4Stuttgart	2	5Italy	Milan	4	8Rome	9	29
Canadian immigration offices are not maintained in Poland or the U.S.S.R., but accommodation for an office in Warsaw is at present being sought.

February 20, 1967


SHARED COST HIGHWAY PROJECTS, N.S.- AGREEMENT NO. 1
Mr. Chatwood: 1.	What shared cost highway projects were active in Nova Scotia in 1966 under the Atlantic Development Board agreement. No. 1?
2.	In the case of each project (a) how many miles of highway was or is under construction (b)
Questions
what work was or is involved (c) to whom was the contract awarded (d) what was the amount of the contract price (e) what is the total federal commitment?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD-FIRST AGREEMENT-NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
Total
				Contract	Federal
Project	Mileage	Type of Work	Contractor	Bid Price	Commitment
Lucasville Road to Trunk No. 1	 2.9
Overpass of Lucasville Road	
Ingram River to Halifax-Lunenburg County Line 6.8
Hubbards River Bridge	
East of Yankeetown Road to Ingram River		6.2
From 1.0 miles north of Bicentennial Drive to
Lucasville Road	 2.7
Ingram River Bridge	
Puddle River Bridge	
Mill Lake Bridge, Little Indian Lake Bridge..
Underpass at Old Sackville Road	
Beaverbank Interchange and Connector	
Grading	Modern Construction Limited	
S 443,825.00	$ 264,000.00Structure	
122,997.00	73,400.00Grading	Martell's Construction Limited	
1,222,925.00	700,000.00Structure	Acadia Construction Limited	
77,475.50	47,500.00Grading	Tidewater Construction Co. Ltd	
1,594,450.00	920,000.00Grading	Municipal Spraying and Contracting Limited..Structure	Martell's Construction Limited	Structure	Dolphin Industries Limited	Structure	Tidewater Construction Co. Ltd	Structure	Municipal Spraying and Contracting Limited..
Grading and
Structure	Modern Construction Limited	
597.210.00
129.847.00 61,952.00
324.702.00
153.384.00
274.095.00
360.000.	00
76.000.	00
38.775.00
187.000.	00
92.000.	00
162.650.00
13210	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 19G7
Questions
February 20, 1967

Mr. Chalwood: 1.	What shared cost highway projects were active in Nova Scotia in 1966 under the Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 2?
2.	In the case of each project (a) how many miles of highway was or is under construction (b)
Questions
what work was or is involved (c) to whom was the contract awarded (d) what was the amount of the contract price (e) what is the total federal commitment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:

ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD-			-SECOND AGREEMENT-NOVA SCOTIA		
Project	Mileage	Type of Work	Contractor	Contract Bid Price	Total Federal CommitmentLittle Brook to Coxheath Road	2.8	Grading	. .LeVatte Construction Company Ltd	$ 346,935.00	$ 213,785.00Sydney-Gabarus Road to Trunk 4 at Grand Lake	4.8	Grading	. .LeVatte Construction Company Ltd	786,180.00	492,992.50North Pleasant Valley Road to James Street	5.5	Grading	.. .Latimer Construction Company Ltd	640,000.00	412,325.00North Nine Mile River to South of Trunk 14	5.0	Grading	. .Latimer Construction Company Ltd	649,000.00	450,065.00Overpass at Hilden Road	Structure	. .Latimer Construction Company Ltd	87,555.00	53,900.00Sheldrake Lake to Yankeetown Road	3.5	Grading	. .Tidewater Construction Co. Ltd	667,770.00	403,150.00Horton Bridge to Kings-Hants Co. Line	4.4	Grading	. .Nova Construction Company Ltd	616,585.00	376,585.00Overpass of Railroad and Shubenacadie River...	Structure	. .Tidewater Construction Co. Ltd	339,510.00	206,800.00Enfield to Nine Mile River	5.6	Grading	. .Tidewater Construction Co. Ltd	746,750.00	479,270.00Kings-Hants Cc. Line to Falmouth	3.8	Grading	.. Nova Construction Co. Ltd	695,030.00	434,252.50North of Pleasant Valley Road to Short's Lake Road	3.8	Grading and Structure	. .Latimer Construction Co. Ltd	929,630.00	550,000.00West Brooklyn Road Underpass	Structure	. .Standard Paving Maritimes Ltd	69,717.00	43,604.00Nine Mile River Bridge	Structure	. .Latimer Construction Company Ltd	115,670.00	71,665.00Trunk 3 near Sheldrake Lake to Nine Mile River	3.7	Grading	... Nova Construction Company Ltd	991,800.00	568,150.0013212	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 1987
Questions
February 20, 1967


ISSUE OF MEDAL TO FIREFIGHTERS WHO SERVED OVERSEAS
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government give immediate and favourable consideration in this confederation year to directing the issue to all members of the corps of Canadian firefighters who served overseas in the second war, the volunteer service medal?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The regulations governing eligibility for the Canadian volunteer service medal state that it may be awarded in recognition of "voluntary service by members of the armed forces of Canada", The medal was not intended to be a campaign award nor a war medal. The corps of (civilian) Canadian firefighters for service in the United Kingdom was not a component of the armed forces and accordingly its members are not eligible for this medal. This does not, of course, imply any reflection on the splendid service rendered by firefighters during world war II. Members of the corps with sufficient qualifying service were entitled to the defence medal and the war medal 1939-45.


TOURISTS VISITING CANADA IN 1966
Mr. Honey: How many people visited Canada in 1966?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Data for 1966 are not yet available. The total number of entries into Canada by non-immigrant visitors during 1965 was 34,020,256. This figure includes trips by commuters and other visits of less than one day's duration, as well as longer term visits.


PENSION TO FORMER BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR
Mr. Sherman: Is the former governor of the Bank of Canada (Mr. Coyne) currently drawing a regular pension from the bank as a result of his services in that office and, if not, for how long after he vacated the governorship did he draw the pension?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. As indicated on November 18, 1963, Hansard page 4856, in reply to a question by the member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, Mr. Coyne has been in receipt of a pension from the Bank of Canada pension fund effective from the date of his retirement.
Inquiries of the Ministry EDUCATION


INQUIRY AS TO ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING FUNDS FROM U.S. AGENCY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the number of organizations that have received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States. Has the Prime Minister looked into this matter to ascertain whether any Canadian youth organizations received funds directly or indirectly from the C.I.A.?
Will the Prime Minister also advise the house-it is all part of the same transaction, apparently-whether the publication of a pamphlet bearing the title "Escape from Freedom" now issued by the Student Union for Peace Action for the benefit of those wishing to escape military service in the United States was assisted by a $4,000 award by the government of Canada through the Privy Council office; and did the government have any knowledge whether the moneys were going to be used for this unusual purpose?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has asked me two questions. As far as the first question is concerned, we have no information as to any funds from the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States or any other foreign intelligence agency being made available to any Canadian institution. We have learned, however, Mr. Speaker, both from reference in the newspapers and from a letter I received before lunch from the Canadian Union of Students that they have received two grants from an organization called the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs to assist in meeting the expenditures of a Canadian Union of Students seminar on international disputes and affairs.
The Canadian Union of Students, however, also state in this letter that there had been no direct contact between their union and C.I.A. operatives and that when the grants were received from this organization they considered it to be a reputable private organization. They did not know at the time that it had any connection whatever with the C.I.A., and they state that the grants did not influence the content of their seminars in any way, shape or form.
So far as the second question is concerned, the government has not seen any letter of the

February 20, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry kind reportedly being distributed by a private organization which, of course, must bear the responsibility for the kind of literature it publishes. Literature of the kind mentioned by my right hon. friend has no bearing on, neither does it reflect, Canadian government policy on this matter. As I said on February 2, the government does not give financial support to this kind of activity nor does it encourage it in any other way. The grant to which my hon. friend refers as having been made some time ago to the particular organization concerned-SUPA, I believe it is called-has no relationship to this activity in any way.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the house if any information is available with regard to United States students attending university on Canadian campuses, whether any of these students are supported by this organization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have no information whatever as to the source of support for foreign students at Canadian universities unless those students are here under scholarships or bursaries from the Canadian government or private Canadian institutions. We have no information whatever as to the source of funds of United States students at Canadian universities.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Prime
Minister what was the nature of the work to be done by the Student's Union for Peace Action in return for $4,000 granted them through the Privy Council, which appears on page 34, subsection 4 of the Public Accounts for 1965-66.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall get the exact details, but I believe it was to have a report from this organization on their own community activities, in case it might be helpful to know the kind of thing which was being done in relation to government auspices.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the supplementary question to the right hon. gentleman, my question has to do with the letter from the Canadian Union of Students to which the right hon. Prime Minister referred. May I ask him whether his reply accepted their suggestion that the Canadian government should

protest this intrusion by United States government agencies into Canadian affairs by way of a front organization? Second, can the right hon. gentleman assure this house that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are not engaged in similar activities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only information on this matter I have received at the present time would not seem to warrant any protest to the United States government in respect of an offer of a small amount of money through a foundation, the nature of which 1 am not entirely clear about but which appears to be a front organization of the C.I.A.
I want to make further inquiries to get the background of this award before deciding whether there is any case for an official protest to the United States government. But, Mr. Speaker, if a Canadian organization of the kind we have mentioned, or any other kind of Canadian organization, should be offered financial assistance from any organization or foundation in the United States, the Canadian government would be very glad, at their request, to give them any information it has about the nature of the organization or foundation.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Perhaps it should be supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for York South. In view of reports from the United States that the Central Intelligence Agency has been making use of international affiliations of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., would the Solicitor General indicate whether he has any knowledge of any such authority being extended into Canada through the A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and its political arm, the New Democratic Party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State. Can the hon. minister give us some information, today, on the C.B.C. and the program "Tirez au Clair" with regard
February 20, 1967

to the question I put to her last Thursday asking why the C.B.C. had not allowed Hon. Marcel Masse, minister without portfolio, to take part in the program?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Answering my hon. friend's question, I can tell him that I saw the telegram sent by the president of the C.B.C. to the premier of Quebec which, I believed, explained the situation. Other than that I have no further information.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question which is directed to the Secretary of State. The hon. lady was asked a question in the house regarding this matter during the course of the week just past. Would she inform the other members of the house what reasons were given by the C.B.C.? I do not know that we should have to read newspapers in order to get the answer to a question asked in this house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have with me a copy in French of the telegram which was sent, and if there is unanimous consent I will be happy to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It concerns press reports that Trinidad and Tobago have now made formal application for membership in the Organization of American States, and that Barbados is planning to apply almost immediately. In view of the Prime Minister's statement in December 1965 that Canada is prepared to act in unison with the Caribbean nations in making application for admission to the O.A.S., may I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada intends now or in the immediate future to apply for admission to this organization?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I ever said that Canada would probably act in unison. If my friend looks at his source which he probably 23033-836
Inquiries of the Ministry has before him he will see, though I have not the report, that I said I hoped it would be possible for us to act in unison with the other commonwealth governments in this hemisphere. Trinidad-Tobago having announced their intention of joining, if their application is accepted, with Barbados following up if it does apply within the next month or two, it looks as though my hope will not be realized.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of applying for membership in the O.A.S. and the effect this would have on our relations with countries in other areas of the world, whether he can assure us that no such step will be taken by the Canadian government without giving parliament an opportunity to express its views on the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say that the normal constitutional position will be adhered to in this matter. I hope, if the decision were made by the government and parliament were sitting, that there would be an opportunity for parliament to debate the decision before it became effective.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I note that the right hon. gentleman is about to leave for Antigua, and I am sure we all wish him bon voyage. I should like to inquire whether during his visit he will be meeting with the leaders of other Caribbean islands, and whether the talks which are scheduled will concern the development of a Canadian sugar policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite impossible to have any talks with any government in the West Indies on behalf of the Canadian government without talking about sugar.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. When does the government intend or plan to bring into this house the extensive amendments to the Indian Act which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

February 20, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Development announced on Saturday last would be put through this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As soon as practicable, Mr. Speaker; but there is a certain amount of very important legislation already on the order paper. It has been stated that this legislation will have immediate priority. When it is disposed of we hope to proceed to other important legislation including the proposal to which the hon. member refers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the Prime Minister means by his answer that he expects to have this legislation introduced and dealt with before the proposed summer recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will depend on the progress we make with the legislation before us, and with the estimates.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Could I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as a supplementary question whether he intends at the earliest possible moment simply to introduce the amendments to the Indian Act so they may become public knowledge, thus giving the Indian people a chance to express their views on the proposals before they are implemented?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The
Indian people have already expressed their views at two meetings of the National Advisory Board, and expect to complete their submission at a third meeting which is about to take place.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: will address this question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the most recent reports on Canada's housing shortage I would ask the minister whether he is considering terminating his cross-country symposiums earlier than planned in order that we may have concrete action sooner than originally anticipated.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: Then I will have to bring the matter up at ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members laugh, but it is not a laughing matter.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The Canadian Polish Congress stated that about 10,000 Polish people would be anxious to visit Expo '67 but that on account of red tape fewer than 10 per cent of this number will be able to come to Canada. Is it the intention of the minister to take urgent steps in order to cope with the situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about this. I do not know where this figure concerning 10,000 people comes from or anything about the 10 per cent figure but at any rate I will inquire about this and see to it that the issuing of visas is progressing normally in Poland.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Could the hon. minister justify also the security bond of $500 to $1,000 per individual required by Canada? Could he justify the advisability of such a requirement at this precise moment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will simply inquire about the situation and will answer later on.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question is prompted by the concern of several elderly ladies who are very perturbed about what has happened in the defence committee in recent days. Will the minister give consideration to members at future meetings of the defence committee being given battle helmets and battle dress in order to avoid casualties?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of Nalional Defence):: 

OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the minister is able to provide the house with an explanation as to the meaning of "capital cost allowance" under section 7 on page 10 of the document dealing with the guaranteed income supplement. I have been asked a number of questions about this by my constituents and have not been able to ascertain just what is meant by it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that this is not the type of question that can be asked at this time.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the problem I face is that if I put this question on the order paper I will encounter a great deal of delay in getting an answer, yet I am being asked about it daily.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that is the hon. member's problem, but I am sure that with a little effort he might be able to secure an answer faster than in other circumstances if he can convince the responsible minister that this is a matter of urgency. I suggest to him that the question cannot be asked now.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister authorize the negotiation of contracts between Dominion Coal and the U.M.W., since the miners in the union have been without a contract since August, 1966?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this matter with the minister.
23033-836J
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



ALBERTA-CLOSING OF SOME WARDS IN COLONEL MEWBURN HOSPITAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps the most important point in the trip will be when the hon. member returns to the house.']
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to whom I have given brief notice. I wonder whether he would be able to reassure the veterans in northern Alberta that the recent closing of a number of wards in the Colonel Mewburn hospital will not impair the availability of services to veterans. I apologize for asking this question in this way but I face the same problem as the hon. member for Cumberland; and I know the minister is ready to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I normally would apologize to the hon. member for having to suggest that the question be placed on the order paper; but if there is urgency and the minister is prepared to reply, I will certainly allow the question.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate this privilege, because it is important that veterans in that area be reassured on this point. I can assure the hon. member that the changes which have taken place in the hospital will in no way affect the services to the veterans of that region; they will in no way downgrade those services, or affect the number of veterans who can be accommodated.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: While the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) is on tour I would ask the Prime Minister whether any authorization has been given to that hon. member to produce a Canadian tartan for confederation year. Was any authority given to him to produce the red and white tartan which he has in his office, which certainly is a studied insult to the Scots if it is to be the one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Leeds is a Canadian citizen and can produce any tartan he desires. But if he does so it will not be with any official authorization on the part of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was, did he have authorization? I ask it because, as he

February 20, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry travels abroad, every day he issues bulletins. Did he have authorization?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very glad to answer this important question with a decided negative.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the announcements, from Singapore on Saturday and from Malaya this morning, that the hon. member for Leeds is making the most important call of his trip, I wonder if the Prime Minister will inform us which point of arrival is the most important, and what are the terms of reference at these points. Are they political or economic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. Surely the members of this house do not have to depend on the C.B.C. for information as to the perambulations of the hon. member for Leeds. The hon. member on Saturday announced through the C.B.C., as he arrived in Singapore, that this was the most important point of his tour. This morning we heard over the C.B.C., as he arrived in Malaya, that this was the most important point of his tour. We are just wondering when these important visits will cease.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps the most important point in the trip will be when the hon. member returns to the house.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister can tell us exactly at what stage is the study on maritime transportation problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe it is progressing very rapidly.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
to the Minister of Finance. Should we take seriously the statements which have been made to the effect that the report of the Carter commission is to be tabled at the end of this week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Carter, the chairman of the commission, has been in touch with the government. He intends to deliver the report to the government at the end of this week. Our plan is to table it in the house on Friday evening at 6 p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the report is to be tabled that soon, would the government consider postponing asking for third reading of the bill to increase the sales tax?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary might answer it. Could the parliamentary secretary report on what action is being taken with regard to the seizure during the past week end by United States authorities in New York of a Canadian citizen who had been en route by air from Paris to Mexico City?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for
York-Scarborough for having given me notice of this question. My information is that Mr. Sniderman had been arrested and arraigned for a federal offence before a grand jury in New York in July, 1965 but had jumped bail and left the country.
Last Thursday while en route from Paris to Mexico the aircraft in which he was travelling made a regularly scheduled stop at Kennedy airport, New York, where Mr. Sniderman was arrested and arraigned. I have no reason to believe that there was any irregularity in the procedure followed by the United States authorities in apprehending Mr. Sniderman when he came within their jurisdiction for an offence alleged to have been committed within that jurisdiction. The Canadian consulate general in New York is, however, making inquiries into the matter
February 20, 1967

with a view to ensuring that Mr. Sniderman receives no less favourable treatment under United States law enforcement and judicial procedures than would be accorded to a United States citizen in similar circumstances.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can say today whether he has reached a decision on a question he undertook to give active consideration to some little time ago. The question had to do with the reference to a parliamentary committee of several matters concerning animal welfare.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiry into this matter, and I am informed that the feasibility study in respect of setting up a Canadian council for animal care, to which I referred in my earlier reply and which now is being made, is to be completed shortly. Indeed, the final report is expected within a few weeks. I think until that report is received I should reserve a decision as to whether it should be submitted to a committee.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government house leader. I should like to ask him whether he can inform the house what progress is being made in the other place on the bill to amend the Criminal Code with regard to hate propaganda. Also I should like to ask him how soon he expects the legislation to be referred to the special joint committee established for the purpose.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that item No. 130 on the order paper, which is the provision for this house to set up its part of the joint committee, has not been dealt with by the house. I would hope to give it effective priority as quickly as is consistent with the demands in respect of the other items on the order paper. There are some 21 items before the house at the moment. It is just a matter of getting to it as quickly as possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TERMINATION OF SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I do not feel I should answer that question in the form in which it is asked. I think we have a rule in this house that we must show proper respect for the judiciary. The royal commission, as the hon. gentleman knows, was appointed by the right hon. gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition, or his government. I believe it is doing a very thorough and conscientious job. I am very anxious to see this work terminated as soon as can be, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that as soon as the report is received it will receive immediate consideration.']
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give any firm indication at this time as to when the session will be terminated, so the committees will know how to arrange their business; or alternatively, whether any arrangements are being made for these committees to carry on during the ensuing session without having the deliberations they have engaged in so far go to waste.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think perhaps the house leaders of the various parties could get together to look at the situation in the light of the progress which has been made. My hon. friend will recall that I had expressed the hope a few weeks ago, when I indicated the list of proposals which we hoped would be dealt with before the end of the session, that other things being equal we might be able to finish this session on March 10 and begin a new session on March 13. I think perhaps that was over-optimistic in view of the progress we have been making.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that the intention to end the session on March 10 now has been abandoned. I should like to ask him whether the intention he announced to adjourn for a week to 10 days over Easter is still firm.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I will have to reserve a decision on that until there has been a discussion among the various party house leaders. It still is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we might finish this session on March 10.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works concerning the sequence of house business. Could he advise us when it is intended to bring forward item No. 13 which is the referral to committee of the annual report of the Department of External Affairs?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to indicate the order of the house business in this way. I would be very glad to bring that matter forward, if I thought it would pass without debate.

February 20, 19S7
Inquiries of the Ministry PILOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he can apprise the house when he may present to it the report of the royal commission on pilotage. I should also like to ask him if he still has the view he always has had that he cannot accept this question, can he explain how such a slowpoke happened to be appointed as the commissioner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not feel I should answer that question in the form in which it is asked. I think we have a rule in this house that we must show proper respect for the judiciary. The royal commission, as the hon. gentleman knows, was appointed by the right hon. gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition, or his government. I believe it is doing a very thorough and conscientious job. I am very anxious to see this work terminated as soon as can be, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that as soon as the report is received it will receive immediate consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that some 900 workers have been permanently laid off by McKinnon Industries of St. Catharines Ontario and are not receiving the transitional assistance benefits; and that of the 240 females only 120 have been certified and of the 660 males only 255 have been certified by the adjustment assistance board. May I ask the minister what action will be taken by his department to see that these people receive the TAB payments to which they are entitled?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, about an hour before I came to the house I received a telegram containing information along the lines of that in the question just asked by the hon. gentleman. I have asked for an up to date report on it and expect to receive it at about four o'clock this afternoon. I will be guided in any action I may take by the contents of that report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister received any complaint to the effect that the union has not been able to secure from the adjustment assistance board the names of those certified, and has not been able to get an interview with the board? Can the minister deal with that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of this supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is looking into this matter will he enjoin the members of the adjustment assistance board to give an opportunity to the local union officials to meet with the board and review the situation; because according to the telegram received this unemployment is a direct result of the automobile agreement.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the government has no wish or intention to give direction to a board headed by a Canadian of the outstanding abilities of Professor Bladen. However, I will see to it that the right hon. gentleman's request is passed on to Professor Bladen.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi in his capacity as chairman of the committee on privileges and elections. My question is related to the one asked by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie. In order that we may study the matter of campaign fund contributions to political parties may I ask the hon. member when he intends to call that committee together so we can deal with the report of the election expenses committee?


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Norfhumberland-Miramichi):: It is planned to call a meeting of the committee just as soon as possible. I think all hon. members will agree there is great difficulty in getting enough members to form a quorum for a meeting owing to the fact that too many committee meetings are being held at this time. However, a meeting will be called as soon as possible.
February 20, 1967



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister has had time to rest following the passage of his transportation bill may I ask him whether he has had time to give attention to a matter which has been pending now for about three years, I believe, namely that involving the Canadian National Railways and three or four railway grade construction contractors who are facing bankruptcy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member said himself, this matter has been pending for a few years. I suggest that in view of these circumstances it cannot be asked at this time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I would point out with respect, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and ask whether he is in a position now to make a statement concerning the negotiations which have been taking place over the past three years between the coal operators in the Crowsnest pass area and the Japanese coal industry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not in a position to make that statement because unfortunately he is not here this afternoon, but I will take up the matter with him.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 17, consideration in committee of Bill C-170 respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When we rose on Friday, February 17, we were considering clause 36 at page 20 of the bill.
Public Service Collective Bargaining
On clause 36-Specification of process for resolution of disputes.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, last Friday when I called it five o'clock, I was asking the government to stand this clause, and I had not quite finished my comments. I am pleased to see that those who wish to speak to the clause will probably have the opportunity to repeat their request to the government.
Further to my intervention on Friday with respect to the clause dealing with the process for resolution of disputes, we see that there are only two ways of settling disputes in this day and age: conciliation and compulsory arbitration.
It was not my intention to take part in this debate last Friday, because I trusted the government, the governor in council would be able to deal with any particular dispute. But I could hardly hold on to my seat after hearing the statements made by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier). The hon. gentleman's opinions have always been very different from those of citizens who advocate peaceful and orderly action.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
His revolutionary ideas are known across the land. That is why we must denounce them as a national plague. He maintains, in fact, that the right to strike is normal; in his opinion, it is not to be used as a last resort, while union leaders who are not yet socialists consider it as a drastic measure. Striking is akin to revolution against the authority, and I maintain that it is an exceptional measure, that it is abnormal, contrary to what the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) has said.
We should study the possibility of passing an act setting out bargaining procedure intent on avoiding the drastic measure at all cost, namely striking, because in the public service, striking attacks a general right. I know this does not suit our petty socialists who need revolutions to slither into power and then do away with the workers' rights. Do you want an example? Go and try to have a single strike in Russia, and it will not be long before you wind up in a concentration camp.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Canada today fear an oncoming revolution provoked by socialist elements that we meet every day and when we see, as I was in a position to observe last Friday, the minister himself consult with socialists in the lobbies, I can assure you that our fears are intensified. Those great socialists, some of who have reached the highest

13222	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining level of management within our social, political and economic institutions, advance at the cry of liberty and ride rough-shod over the most sacred rights of millions of workers, if not the population as a whole.
They start by deducting compulsory dues from the workers' pay cheques, in order to guarantee salaries of $25,000, $35,000, $45,000 or more to prominent union leaders-after all, one must make a living-without guaranteeing anything in return. I have had an opportunity to note this fact in many contacts with unions, such as the railway workers union, etc.
The hon. member for Hochelaga said that never had a union leader used his influence to call a strike. The hon. member should talk to some former strikers of the Aluminum Company in Arvida. Let him suggest to them to strike again and he will see what the workers think of strikes organized by some union leaders.
We are against all strikes, just as the great majority of workers who are forced to use that very dangerous weapon today. That is why, on consideration of this bill, we are asking the 265 hon. members to study the possibility of setting up immediately a permanent non political commission having the necessary powers to ward oil that national evil forever. Thus, while sparing our country the experience of the socialist countries, we will guarantee to the workers their rights, while admitting the rights of the employers, and especially while considerng as most sacred the rights of society in general.
Once again, what our people are wishing for is to live in peace and security, guaranteeing our citizens their freedom of action. To achieve that, everyone must accept at the start the principle of authority which is seriously threatened today.
Anarchy has always led to blood baths; let us keep in mind that those who accept the principle have already agreed to the unfortunate consequences. The premonitory sign of all this is when you hear the cry: Down with the authority.
Mr. Chairman, are there not signs in some areas of the country? This is only a warning that I give in passing and I urge you to read the headlines of certain newspapers, to watch television, the perfect haunt of some well-known socialists. Look at some of them parading with banners which, in the name of freedom, insult established authority.

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
Mr. Chairman, in the presence of such chaos, I think we could repeat this old saying: "Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name."


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to amplify the few remarks I made last Friday on clause 36. I wish to make it abundantly clear at the outset that so far as the public service commission that is being set up is concerned I have no criticism of the conscientious and constructive work that committee did in connection with these three bills. These bills are extremely technical and of course the livelihood of over 200,000 public servants is bound up with these bills which deal with this very sensitive field. The work of the committee has resulted in very bold and enlightened legislation which extends for the first time the right of collective bargaining to civil servants as well as the right to political participation, with some reservations, on a national basis.
The man who was the catalyst in respect of this piece of legislation, Mr. Heeney, prepared a report entitled "Report of the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining", to which reference was made the other day. Mr. Heeney testified before the committee and, as indicated on page 346 of the committee evidence, referred to these three bills as revolutionary in concept. Near the bottom of page 346 Mr. Heeney is reported as having said:
These measures would vest new and important responsibilities in employee organizations and in the Treasury Board-*
On page 347 Mr. Heeney refers to these bills again and is reported as having said:
-they would confer on organized employees a capacity-I am talking now of the present legislation before you-unmatched, I believe, in any public service of comparable size to protect their interests and improve their conditions of employment.
The minister himself in giving evidence before the committee, as reported at page 199, refers to the proposed legislation as introducing reforms in the internal administration of the public service which have only one parallel in our history, namely, the reforms brought about by the Civil Service Act of 1918. The debate on the Civil Service Act of 1918 lasted six days and was primarily concerned with ensuring security for the em-ployeees and removing the large degree of patronage which had bothered the public service up to that time. The general remarks which I may direct to this bill at this time are not directed against the committee or the
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
public service but are directed against clause 36. I believe that even though a great deal of labour has gone into the production of this bold and enlightened legislation, it is the duty of all members, regardless of whether they were on that committee, to scrutinize the legislation as a whole or any section of it and to criticize any principle which a member believes is not soundly based.
I want to make it clear that when I criticize the principle contained in clause 36 I am not directing my remarks to the right of labour in general to strike. I am not suggesting that the bill be delayed. It has had a long period of incubation and it should proceed. I know that the public service is awaiting passage of the bill. Clause 36 for the first time in Canada, gives the public service the right to strike, and I find that offensive. I believe that this clause is dangerous in effect, has a dubious origin and is unnecessary. It gives a licence to strike by legislation, a right found in only two other countries in the world, namely, France and Sweden. I understand, according to the preparatory report of Mr. Heeney, that even in France there is the right for the government to interdict the right to strike if necessary.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
While in general the bill is bold and while in particular I am only against clause 36, I frankly resent some of the comments which were made on Friday. The hon. member for Hochelaga, in referring to his Olympian oracle and speaking from a philosophic ivory tower, suggested that to take a stand against the bill was the popular thing to do. To have his second words in this chamber on that point is something I personally resent. He can make his Olympian and Delphic oracle contribution from his philosophic ivory tower, but I would have hoped that he could offer more than that to the debate.
So far as the fish or fowl argument is concerned and some of the criticisms of hon. members that the bill puts fish or fowl into the legislation, the people in the public service who are closest to us physically are the staff members of the Senate and House of Commons in contrast to the other public servants across the country, so I suggest that "fish or fowl" really is not an apt analogy. There is no attempt here to make fish out of fowl or fowl out of fish. Those two species are in different environments. In Canada there are two different environments, the public sector and the private sector. This is recognized by the bill in the exclusion of the House of
Public Service Collective Bargaining Commons staff, the Senate staff, members of the armed services and other groups, people within the fish environment or the fowl environment, depending on the analogy.
With regard to taking a position on the right to strike it is suggested that one cannot take a position on the question if one does not hear the briefs or listen to the witnesses. There are, however, minutes of the committee hearings available to us. I suggest you do not have to be a doctor to recognize a pregnant lady. I suggest further that in this analogy you do not have to be involved in all the technical, complicated aspects of this legislation which I am not involved in and obviously do not understand, to recognize one of the basic principles besides political participation for public servants, and that is the right of collective bargaining which can lead to the right to strike. This principle does not involve technical grounds. Accordingly one can constructively criticize the work of the committee in producing clause 36 of the bill which provides for the right to strike.
The hon. member said it was unfortunate to see someone rather youthful criticize this clause of the bill. I suggest that the hon. member knows full well that only two other provinces of Canada, Saskatchewan and Quebec, have anything close to clause 36. In Ontario the rights of public servants are settled by compulsory arbitration. I am informed that Sweden and France, as somewhat reluctantly and hesitantly admitted by the minister on Friday, are the only two countries where there is the right to strike. England, which has a pretty advanced social conscience and legislative record, resolves differences in that country by compulsory arbitration or agreement.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: That is not true.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I read from page 21 of the Heeney report, the report of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining:
In 1925, the employee organizations and the United Kingdom government signed an arbitration agreement which provided for the referral to a civil service arbitration tribunal of disagreements relating to "emoluments, weekly hours of work, and leave". The tribunal consists of a chairman appointed by the minister of labour after consultation with the parties and two members named by the chairman from panels of individuals representative of the interests of the official and staff sides.
It should be noted that the Whitley Council system has no statutory base. Its mechanisms and processes have been provided for, over the years, in a number of statements of government policy and in agreements between the official and staff sides.
13224	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 1967
Public Service Collective Bargaining
It should also be noted that there is no statutory-reference in the United Kingdom-
All I said, Mr. Chairman, was that there was no statutory reference in the United Kingdom-
-to strike action by public servants. The government's policy in this regard was stated in 1946 in the following words:
. . nothing that we propose to do now will make it any more legal than it is today for civil servants to take strike action ... I take the opportunity of making it quite clear that this government, like any government as an employer, would feel itself perfectly free to take any disciplinary action in any strike situation that might develop .. .**
Yet in clause 36 in this piece of legislation we are setting up the machinery for the very strike action that the Heeney report criticized, a right which, according to the quotation I have given the government of the United Kingdom said it would take action against.


Mr. Benson:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Perhaps I could ask two questions and clear them both up at the same time. Does the hon. member realize that in the British legislation there is no prohibition of the right to strike? That is my first question. My second question is: Given no prohibition of the right to strike, which we also did not have in Canadian legislation, is it not better to provide in legislation procedures whereby there can be consultation and conciliation before strike action rather than have strike action taken summarily?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In answer to the first question may I say I am perfectly aware that there is no prohibition of the right to strike. But the reason I read that section from the Heeney report, containing the United Kingdom's statement of policy in 1946, is the inference that can be drawn, I suggest to the minister, that if strike action was taken the government of that country would take disciplinary action. We are not even stopping at that point but are going on to set up strike procedures.
So far as the second question is concerned,
I am in full agreement with one of the main principles of this bill, which is to set up the process of collective bargaining. I mentioned that on Friday. You carry on consultation, hope to finish any dispute by conciliation but then, as recommended by the Heeney report, you resolve it by compulsory arbitration.


Edgar John Benson: I wonder whether the hon. member would allow me to ask a third and concluding question. Does he not realize that here just as in Britain parliament has the

ultimate right to act if the public interest is affected by a strike that might result after all the normal processes provided in this legislation have been exhausted?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, obviously I would have to agree. We have exercised this right recently. Obviously parliament should have this right. But my objection is that by setting up the machinery you are accentuating the right to strike. We are now silent on this and I suggest we should remain silent.
To return to the remarks made about youth I point out that Mr. Heeney, who has had much more experience in the civil service than I will ever have, prepared a paper on this question. Either the report of the Glassco commission or the Heeney report was the original stimulus for this legislation. His terms of reference were confined by the Prime Minister to making a study of arbitration procedures but he sets out-and he is no youthful man in the context of real youth-his objections to giving the right to strike. He also set out his objections in evidence before the committee. On page 24 of his report the following statement appears:
After reviewing the principles underlying industrial relations law and practice in Canada and the experience of other public services in Canada and elsewhere, and taking into account the traditions and operating requirements of the Public Service of Canada, the preparatory committee, in its early deliberations, came to the conclusion that an appropriate system of collective bargaining and arbitration for the Public Service should have a number of basic characteristics.
A number of these are set out, Mr. Chairman, the second of which is:
It should make available, for use at the initiation of either party under prescribed conditions, machinery for the arbitration of issues on which agreement cannot be reached in negotiation.
I suggest that Mr. Heeney was not too youthful to present that view. Certainly that has been the experience in England and Australia, which also has a pretty advanced social conscience. I quote from page 23 of the report:
In Australia, it is mandatory for all labour-management disputes, including those relating to the public service, to be submitted to a conciliation and arbitration process. Arbitral awards are legally binding.
So you have compulsory arbitration in Australia. The United States is the closest free enterprise country to Canada geographically. An interesting statement is found on
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
page 22 of the report. In dealing with the United States the report says:
The compensation, hours of work and other conditions of employment of employees of the United States government are to a large extent determined by Congress. To this extent, the executive is not in a position to bargain collectively with employee representatives.
At the top of page 23 of the report appears this sentence:
No employee of the United States government may participate in a strike. An employee so doing is subject to immediate dismissal and is ineligible for re-employment for a period of three years.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
So we have three countries, all more advanced and with longer experience in labour relations procedures than ourselves, and one of the most knowledgeable men in the public service, Mr. Heeney, all saying that the right to strike should be curtailed. Mr. Heeney gave his views before the committee. Members who did not attend the sessions are able to read those views. They are set out on page 351. Some of his evidence is worth repeating, though I will not repeat ad nauseam. He describes the difference between the private and public sectors and on page 352 he says that the unique characteristic of the public service is that those exercising the highest responsibilities were elected to office in part by the employees themselves. This raises most relevant questions. He also says on page 352 that the interest of the whole Canadian community is paramount. He states on that page:
-we were not persuaded that the parties in bargaining could always be depended upon to preserve the public interest in these two vital areas-
That is Mr. Heeney's view. On page 354 he suggests, and this is his personal view, that compulsory arbitration should be provided. That seems to be his position as I read his evidence. The majority of the staff associations do not want the right to strike; they want the right to compulsory arbitration. Mr. Heeney suggests on page 355:
-there is little doubt in my mind that the demand of the large majority of organized employees in the public service for binding arbitration and the larger and more evident protection which that method-that is, arbitration-of resolving disputes would provide for essential public services, would, almost certainly in my judgment, have led the preparatory committee to propose provision in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act itself for the arbitration of public service disputes.
He admits that is his personal view, but he does not hedge. Nor is that a naive view of
Public Service Collective Bargaining youth. On page 357 he says that the recommendations of the preparatory committee are imaginative and even bold and radical. He
states:
We do not feel that we have produced a reactionary document. We feel that we have produced a document which deserves a place in the progress of the Public Service of Canada, which is progressive and which does introduce, or would introduce, if accepted, a new relationship between the government as employer and its employees, which would be healthy, consistent with the principles of the outside sector and in every way constructive and advantageous to the employees.
Note, Mr. Chairman, that he did not go as far as the legislation has. One has only to look at the province of Quebec to see the potential dangers inherent in the right to strike where a third party, the public, is involved. Where the public interest is involved I suggest it is reasonable and not reactionary to call for compulsory arbitration between the parties. That is the method adopted by most countries except France and Sweden. The proposals in this bill are of dubious value. One need only look at what the minister said on page 204 to realize this. He stated:
The preparatory committee, in its July 1985 report, recommended a process of dispute settlement which would remove from the government its traditional authority for unilateral determination of the terms and conditions of employment of public servants, by providing employee organizations who had won bargaining rights, with the right to invoke arbitration which would be binding on the employer, the bargaining agent and the employees concerned. This was precisely the kind of dispute settlement process that most employee organizations had sought for many years, and which the principal associations continued to endorse. The government's response to the proposal of the preparatory committee was positive. In the view of the government the proposed approach to dispute settlement would provide the majority of employees-
He refers to the majority of employees. I continue with the minister's words uttered on June 28, 1966:
-with the kind of system they had asked for and the Canadian public with the optimum protection against the disruption of public services. The basic concept appeared to be a good one, requiring only a slight amendment to make it quite clear that the government as employer would, in fact, be bound by the awards of the arbitration tribunal.
Then he adds:
At about the same time that the preparatory committee reported, it became increasingly clear that members of employee organizations in the Post Office Department opposed the recommended system of dispute settlement as a matter of principle. In this position they were supported by spokesmen for organized labour in other areas of the community.
13226	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining
In the circumstances, the government decided to accommodate the views of those who were opposed to arbitration in principle by including in the legislation an alternative process of dispute settlement directly comparable to that provided in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The basic decision to provide for two separate and distinct dispute settlement processes created a new and unprecedented situation.
It seems, from the minister's words, that compulsory arbitration would have fulfilled the demands of the majority of the associations involved. It appears that the postal workers did not care for this arrangement, and some evidence of that may be found on page 301 in Mr. Kay's brief. 1 hesitate to suggest that the postal workers were effective in changing the legislation from that providing for compulsory arbitration to its present form, but as found on page 301 Mr. Kay said to the committee:
We are certain it is no secret to the hon. members of this committee that a majority of the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are prepared on very short notice to withhold their labour power in order to achieve one or the other of these two objectives: either that the I.R.D.I. act be opened to permit postal workers to bargain under its procedures by direct amendment of that statute or, the conversion of the Post Office Department to a crown corporation. We would not pretend to influence this committee by threat, and we want it clearly understood that no threat is being made; we are merely informing the committee of the deep and abiding sincerity in which postal workers approach the issue of full and free collective bargaining.
If collective bargaining is approached in that spirit there can be no objection to it. Yet I wonder what effect the postal union brief had in changing the final intention of the government as set out by the minister in June and as first proposed in this legislation. Regardless of what the postal unions say, it is my belief that the majority of the associations want the arbitration procedure. In that connection I refer to the Woods committee. There is merit in the suggestion that the postal workers be part of a crown corporation. I say that the right to strike ought to have been excluded from this legislation. The majority of the staff associations do not want it.
I believe the minister said on Friday that the associations will not use that right as the public is against it. When one looks at legislation in other areas, including Saskatchewan and Quebec, and sees what the right of strike in legislation does, the government should consider seriously removing the present clause. The staff closest to us in the house- and we are supposed to be model employers -are not included in this bill. They are not in the legislation. This bill seems to make fish

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
and fowl of the same matter at the same time. In accommodating one group of Canadians the minister has forgotten the rights of all Canadians, including the majority of those affected by this bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 36 carry?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have some observations to make on this clause, particularly after listening to some hon. members who spoke last Friday. To a great extent I agree with the principles enunciated by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings so far as the right to strike is concerned. I was surprised when I read the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Hochelaga last Friday in this connection. He has astonished me before and he has done so again. I do not know whether these somersaults are typical of him. I had taken him to be a man of fairly sound judgment. He brought in such things as freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press-all those freedoms which are mentioned in the Bill of Rights. But there is a limit to all these freedoms. Duplessis once said that everybody was talking about rights and nobody was talking about obligations.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I recognize that strikes are a means to an end, not a goal. Strikes are an extreme method of reaching an understanding between the parties concerned. Even so, there are occasions when the government has to step in and block strikes as was the case in the province of Quebec last week. As a former teacher in that province I fully realize that the salaries, working hours and teaching conditions needed improvement. But is it right for an improvement to be brought about at the expense of hundreds of thousands of students who have been wasting their time when they ought to have been following their studies?
We may suffer injustice as individuals but we cannot take strike action when such action will cause social injustice. Two wrongs do not make a right. We need freedom of speech, and we will use it. Freedom of the press is most useful during negotiations. The hon. member for Hochelaga said he had never known organized labour to take advantage of such a situation because those involved in the dispute on the labour side used their own good judgment. They do. Sometimes, however, the workers concerned are not in a position to see the over-all picture. They are not the ones who sit around the table and they are not always given an exact picture when
February 20, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13227
their negotiators come back to them. In the case of the teachers' strike, the negotiations went on behind closed doors. This displeased the public because it was the public which was paying and suffering.
I was myself an executive of a labour organization in my district and I know that on occasions it is necessary to straighten out some of one's own colleagues. The workers can use their good judgment and reason things out if they have all the evidence. But they do not always have access to this evidence; we do not always give it to them.
When workers depend on organized labour to do their negotiating for them, let the negotiating be done honestly and pursued until there is no longer a possibility of reaching a common accord. At that point a mediator has to be called in, and if this is not enough other action may have to be taken to end the dispute. At least we might expect to see a nonpolitical organization established to deal with some of these disputes in their final stages so that the government itself would not be bound to intervene directly every time a serious difficulty arises. If the hon. member for Hochelaga believes there has never been any brainwashing, that is his business. I am very willing to have regard for the employees' side but I also have to consider the management side because the fault is not always on one side.
If we were to eliminate the right of association we would be going far beyond what is called for in any democratic country. But the right to associate does not mean the right to cause national chaos. We do not allow our economic affairs to be controlled by cartels. When cartels or monopolies are formed the government steps in and breaks them up. Similarly we should not allow any association, because of its size or its influence, to exercise monopoly power over the economy or over the rights of the Canadian people as a whole.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Let me refer again to the latest strike which occurred in my own province. Every one of the children affected had the right to go to school, the right to receive an education. I must say I do not like the way in which the vote was taken. Just over 5,000 people voted. The question was put this way: "Do you wish to stop the strike, or continue it? Do you wish to stop it on Monday or Wednesday, or continue?" There were three questions in one. In the result, out of the 5,000 who voted 3,000 voted in favour of stopping the strike that
Public Service Collective Bargaining morning. That was the result of the secret ballot. I still say that the vote was not carried out in an honest manner. When the result was announced, there was an uproar in the hall. These people were happy to quit striking; they were happy it was over. But the way the question was put was dishonest. These 5,000 people should have been asked: "Do you want to quit striking tomorrow morning or vote on the Wednesday issue?" These questions should not have been put together in the hope that the split vote would be in favour of those who wished to continue the strike. Let the hon. member for Hochelaga chew on that and digest it for a while. I sometimes doubt his reasoning because he has qualified the Liberal party as a trashcan and yet he jumps in it. Therefore I sometimes doubt what he says.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond Langlois: I didn't say it; the
hon. member for Hochelaga said it. I have never gone as far as to say that the Liberal party is a trashcan. He said it. You can judge for yourself, Mr. Chairman, whether that is right. I know the government does not want to abolish the right to strike but sometimes it is necessary to put a little sense into the other guy's head. Sometimes labour and management go to extremes. We have to arrive at some sort of set-up to deal with these problems before they create a crisis and a national calamity. We had many of these problems last year. I suggest that the government should establish a permanent board to deal with labour-management disputes. It should not be a political board. The board should be able to deal with these problems before they become national crises. Some people will not accept a mediator to settle their disputes. I think we will have to consider at some time setting up a permanent board to deal with situations where there seem to be no possibility of the parties involved reaching agreement. In these situations a mediator can make a clear, concise judgment with which both parties should comply.
This may be considered to be an extreme way of dealing with this problem, but I would point out that when you come before a court it is also an extreme way of dealing with problems. If you cause social injustice and go beyond your rights you appear before a judge, who is an arbitrator, and the judge will make a decision whether you are in the right or should pay the penalty for being in the wrong.
13228	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question? Does the hon. member realize that under this legislation conciliation or arbitration is compulsory, no matter which course is taken? If you move in the direction of the right to strike, conciliation is compulsory before there is the ultimate right to strike. If you move through the arbitration channel, you may move directly from negotiation to arbitration and skip the conciliation channel.


Raymond Langlois: I agree with the minister, Mr. Chairman; I go along with that. There is always a possibility that there will be a strike and therefore I have doubts about this matter. I wonder what the law would do if because of a strike people not directly affected were caused hardship? I saw this happen in 1949. There was a miners' strike in my region, and as a result of that strike the miners are extremely careful about striking again. In 1949 many families suffered hardship as a result of the strike and some bills have still not been paid. If the housewives had the vote I think the picture would be somewhat different. We may have the right as individuals to cause our own families some hardship through not providing them with the necessities of life, but if by a strike we cause other people hardship it is a different matter.
I am not reassured about the question of strike. I said it was an extreme means to be used very sparingly, if used at all. I know that in this bill there is the possibility of negotiation or arbitration, which is the normal procedure. These matters have to come to a head at some time and if we cannot solve them by discussion somebody has to make a decision. The government may always keep this one door open, but they should take the steps necessary to enact legislation that will help to solve these problems. I am talking about compulsory arbitration.
I wonder whether, rather than having a different person appointed every time to solve these disputes, we could not set up a nonpolitical board to deal with them. If it was not a non-political board I would not want a board established. Such a board would have the same effect as a judge in a court. Its members would make decisions the same as a judge. We rely on the judgment of a magistrate or judge in other matters. In a capital murder case we rely on their decision when a person's life is involved. Therefore why should we not rely on the judgment of such a person in labour-management disputes? There would not be just one judge involved

DEBATES	February 20. 1967
but a permanent board which would be able to solve these problems to the satisfaction of the parties. In this way the government would be left as far as possible out of this type of dispute. We are legislators; we are not judges to rule on these questions after legislation has been passed. It is our duty to enact the necessary legislation, but the machinery must be provided to make the legislation effective once it has been passed. A great deal of the legislation now on the statute books is as dead as any old wood you can find along a river bank because we have never applied it or perhaps have not the necessary equipment with which to apply it.
This is the problem that we face today in strikes and labour-management disputes. We should have on our statute books very efficient legislation with the equipment necessary to keeep the legislation well oiled at all times to face any emergency before the dispute becomes a national crisis. We should not have to run to parliament to take drastic action when a labour-management dispute reaches national proportions.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have in mind what the minister has said about compulsory arbitration and negotiation, but I believe we should establish a permanent board to deal with these matters rather than having one man, and a different one every time, deal with them. The government could keep a close watch on the board. In this way we would be able to deal with problems perhaps before they arise. In other words, we could deal with the chicken before it is hatched and prevent a great many troubles that now now beset our society. The purpose is mainly to prevent social injustice. I think we should have as much confidence in a board set up to deal with some of the management-labour disputes that arise today as we have in the judges and magistrates who are appointed to our courts.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, the speeches we have just heard show exactly how a Conservative and a Liberal mind differ. A Conservative mind wants all legislation to be tried out by others, or at the expense of others, whereas a Liberal mind is ready to take the risk and try the experiment. In fact, by saying that the right to strike is not recognized by the majorty but merely by some countries in the world and that we should not therefore grant this right in Canada, people only prove that we should precisely
February 20, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13229
await the results of all experiments and then follow the procedure used elsewhere.
Personally, I am proud of the fact that civil servants have been granted the right to strike in my province. I am proud of the fact that my country today is one of the first in the world to take a chance on granting its civil servants the right to strike, to take the consequences and to live through this experience with them.
We are not granting a negative right when we grant the right to strike. On the contrary, we are granting and recognizing a positive right which every member of a free society must enjoy.
It has been said that all employee associations are not urgently demanding the right to strike. I submit that the time is ripe for granting the right to strike. If we wait until conditions become intolerable, if we wait until a knife is put to our throats, so to speak, the associations not being in the mood for discussion any more, then granting public service employees the right to strike under such conditions would mean granting them a right which they would exercise immediately, probably without any regard for law and order. But if we grant it now, while conditions are favourable, at a time when both parties negotiate in an atmosphere of mutual confidence, we will be taking advantage of a unique opportunity to recognize a fundamental right.
Furthermore, in establishing beforehand procedures for the settlement of disputes, we are being wise; we are making provision for future ills, in order to better cure them, because when we find ourselves in the midst of a strike or faced with imminent strike action, we always deplore the fact that no provisions have been made for adequate and flexible machinery for the settlement of disputes, in a way that would be acceptable to both parties. That is when wTe find ourselves in impossible situations.
On the contrary, when we are in a favourable climate today and give the right to strike to those who are not pressing for it, we are simply recognizing a basic right belonging to any man in an up-to-date and well-balanced society. A basic right, especially if we resort to an analogy and compare it to what is happening as regards private enterprise. In fact, in the public and semi-public service fields, which still belong to private enterprise, we recognize, as regards the worker, the right to go on strike in order to settle his dispute.
Public Service Collective Bargaining
Why should the government, which assumes a primary responsibility concerning society, stop setting an example and provide machinery that could be applied in other fields and more especially in the public field? Why should not the government take the initiative of recognizing such a basic right on the part of its employees? Because as far as civil servants are concerned, we are definitely on the footing of employer and employees, which means that we must assume exactly the same responsibilities and not fall back upon the absence of a legislation or act as cowards concerning modern disputes which we shall have to face sooner or later, and it is better sooner than later if we do not want stagnation.
It is too often forgotten that employees do not strike from inclination. When employees strike, it is really because they are fed up and negotiations are no longer possible if that method is not used as a last resort. And the first generally to suffer the after effects of a strike are precisely those who launch it, because they have self-respect, they respect their rights and will have them respected and I believe it is honourable for them to share such risks.
So the risks are not all on the same side. In fact, the risks are on both sides and to think otherwise is to be behind the times and backwards; the facts must be faced.
What is the right to strike today? Is it being exercised only by totally and definitely refraining from work? No. There are many ways to strike today, ways that hurt and annoy the employer as much as using the right to a full strike.
Employees can hold study sessions which are just as harmful to smooth operation of business or government. They can stage a work to order strike which would be just as harmful to a government or a company.
Today, it is not by holding a big stick over employees, by enacting legislation or creating intolerable psychological conditions that we can make them work. Employees must work in a climate of mutual confidence and, if this is lacking, employees must be granted the right to go to the root of the problem in order to discuss it thoroughly, with a view to restoring an atmosphere of confidence.
I feel that those who refuse to grant this right are admitting in advance that the climate with respect to relations within the Canadian government can become and could very well be intolerable.
13230	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining
On the other hand, if we admit that this fundamental right can be exercised as stipulated in the bill, we are creating an atmosphere of confidence which the Canadian parliament can be proud of, on both sides of the house.
I hope that there will be enough members of parliament to show to Canada, to the labour world in Canada as well as to the whole world that a government can assume its responsibilities, as much as possible unanimously.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Simard:: Mr. Chairman, the brief remarks I want to submit to the attention of hon. members are prompted by the brief of the Civil Service Federation of Canada. In the short time allowed me, I will not try to make an exhaustive study of such a complex question but I want to point out to the house the recommendations and suggestions made by the employees concerned who had the opportunity to study the proposals of the preparatory committee which submitted its report in July 1965.
In order to respect the order of precedence which must be observed in the preparation of the bill under consideration, I should first of all talk about the 66 negotiating units proposed by the preparatory committee; I will refrain from going into such a complex question to deal mainly with negotiations and arbitration.
First of all, it is of prime importance that the employees be grouped according to their job when determining salaries. This basic principle is recognized and fully endorsed by the Civil Service Federation which claims that this can be achieved by having, as a bargaining agent for the public service, that organization or group of organizations which represents the majority of employees coming under collective bargaining in the public service.
It seems that the suggestions of the Civil Service Federation of Canada did not meet with the approval of the preparatory committee, although they have some merit; civil servants have proposed a compromise which legislators might consider more suitable.
Here is what they suggest: "Each job category that comes under negotiations might be considered as a bargaining unit and be represented by the employee association or a combination of the employee associations which represent the majority of employees in the particular job category."

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
I would not be prone to say that such a policy of compromise would guarantee full consistency in the field of social benefits, but one could reasonably infer that it would be possible to ensure the necessary consistency in the employment classes, without eliminating for all that the idea of a spread between classes. Nevertheless, I wish to point out that the suggestion of having bargaining agents based upon classes will never change our staunch conviction that "only one bargaining unit" with "only one bargaining agent" would be the most desirable system. It is, in other words, the limit of concessions that will be agreed upon by the Canadian Civil Service Federation.
Now, what should be the primary quality of the dispute settling system? It is a matter of common knowledge that the Civil Service Federation has always claimed that "collective bargaining for the federal civil service should contain provisions stipulating that cases under dispute should be settled by means of arbitration, by an impartial and independent arbitration tribunal and that the decision given by such an arbitration tribunal would be binding on both parties to the dispute". Such is the principle that was advocated from the outset of negotiations for collective bargaining for the public service, and the employees will not allow such a principle to be done away with.
Before the 1963 election, officers of the Civil Service Federation wrote to the leaders of the main political parties to find out their position concerning possible conventions or negotiations between the federal government and public service employees. The present right hon. Prime Minister, (Mr. Pearson), then leader of the opposition, explained as follows in his answer the position of his party:
-the Civil Service should be granted the right to negotiate and to have recourse to arbitration, although it should be recognized at the same time that parliamentary supremacy makes it impossible to grant the right to strike.
This was a rather disquieting and disconcerting statement coming from a party leader who, today, by the wish and majority of the Canadian electorate, has become Prime Minister of our country. The Civil Service Federation accepted this position as explained on the assumption that an arbitral award would be binding on both parties to a dispute. In their discussions with the preparatory committee, the officials of the Federation based their suggestions on this principle of compulsory arbitration and binding awards.
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
If hon. members will give careful consideration to the report of the preparatory committee, they will find that the public service staff relations bill empowers the government, under clause 66, to amend, set aside or suspend the operation of the whole or any part of an arbitral award.
Is it right to think that the government, an all-powerful oligarchy, wants to assume the right or power not to comply with, or submit to, an arbitral award? If so, one may doubt its good faith and, if such is the case, the Civil Service Federation will seek a compensatory power as well as the assurance that strikes will not be prohibited. On the other hand, if clause 66 is struck out and the government-employer sincerely rejects the idea of vetoing an arbitral award, then the Civil Service Federation will most likely be prepared to reconsider its own position in regard to the prohibition of strikes.
I feel I can assure the government that the mutual confidence between the two parties concerned will be the best guarantee of genuine and close co-operation with respect to the settlement of any dispute which could arise between them; this is surely the first consideration of the Civil Service Federation, and it must also be that of the government. On this condition alone, can the people of Canada in general be assured that essential services will be maintained. For all these reasons, it is preferable to accept a system providing for immediate recourse to impartial and independent arbitration, binding upon both parties, instead of this inadequate solution, just come out of thin air.
There is also another anomaly causing the Civil Service Federation considerable concern. The proposed legislation seems to ignore the part to be played by long established employee associations in various departments, in a collective bargaining system or in the settlement of problems at the departmental level. I realize that deputy ministers are being granted more and more authority in the administration of their department, but I cannot find in the proposed legislation particular provisions with respect to solving problems inherent in each department.
Employees of the public service, through the Civil Service Federation, recognize the fact that the governor in council will have the duty to appoint the members of the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the chairman of the arbitration tribunal. Hence, they have the right to hope and strongly
Public Service Collective Bargaining recommend that the selection of the chairman of the arbitration tribunal be recognized and accepted officially by the two parties concerned and to their mutual and common satisfaction; I am in a position to tell the hon. members, taking as a basis the recommendations outlined in the brief of the Civil Service Federation, that that requirement must be included in any eventual collective agreement of the public service.
I strongly recommend that the Public Service Staff Relations Board be established as soon as possible after the passage of the bills; by the same token, certification should be granted without delay to the bargaining agents.
The official recognition of those rights and privileges will have the beneficial effect of curbing and checking all types of pressures on the part of organizations which seek to interfere with the representation of civil servants.
There is another point on which the Civil Service Federation will be adamant and will not accept; it is the restriction of matters subject to arbitration set forth in the proposed pieces of legislation and included in the report of the preparatory committee. Mr. Chairman, why establish such a distinction between matters which may be negotiated and those which may be subject to arbitration? Cannot both be submitted to a arbitration court, if necessary? In my opinion, it is essential that appropriate legislative measures lay down fair settlement procedures for grievances in all fields where they may arise.
For quite a long time, the Civil Service Federation has been clamouring for collective bargaining legislation, but first of all, for the benefit of its members, it is calling for perfect legislation, in so far as possible. The Federation is happy at the government provisions to establish a collective bargaining system for the public service but at the same time, it is concerned over the means the lawmakers will use to introduce into the statutes legislation likely to maintain peace, order and good will between employer and employees. Whatever legislation is passed, they both will have to live with it; at all costs, the errors made in the civil service legislation of 1962 must be avoided, for this act failed to fulfil the hopes of its sponsors.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to ask the minister a question of which I have given him
13232	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining casual notice. Does he not believe that the passage of clause 36, since the federal parliament is the first legislature of the land and the alleged leader, is going to create a precedent which will cause pressure to be applied on all other public bodies at both the provincial and municipal levels to establish a similar strike procedure, notwithstanding the fact that compulsory arbitration is the final solution to labour difficulties in those areas?


Edgar John Benson: Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation does create a precedent. However, I have not seen evidence of the fact that municipal and provincial legislative bodies have always been so enlightened as to follow previous precedents set by the federal government. I should like to point out that in many municipalities in Canada the employees already have the right to strike. I should point out that we believe this is correct legislation for the situation which exists in 1967. We feel this is realistic legislation to present to the country at this time. Our view in this regard was completely substantiated by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which reported the legislation back to us in this form.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I ask one more question? Can the minister tell me just where on the road to Damascus his conversion took place from the position as indicated by the Heeney report and the evidence he gave before the committee in June, 1966, I believe?


Edgar John Benson: I was not a member of the preparatory committee which produced the Heeney report. This report was received by the government, considered by the government, and then the government had to prepare legislation based on the Heeney report as well as any other thoughts the government may have had at that particular time. We consider this legislation to be realistic in 1967 and we support the alternative proposals which are contained in clause 36.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 36 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 54 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 55-Authority of separate employer.
Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Under clause 55 dealing with a separate employer, I should like to make a very brief comment. It seems to me there may be a case to be made for treating the

DEBATES	February 20. 1967
Post Office Department in the future as a separate employer. I am not going into the matter in detail; I just wish to raise the point. I draw attention to return No. 321A which was tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday, February 15, in reply to a question of mine dealing with the Montpetit report. There were 282 recommendations in that report of which 35 have been implemented and 8 have been implemented in part; leaving 239 recommendations which have not yet received attention. I hope the government's record in dealing with the Montpetit report will improve considerably in the very near future. However, my point is that a case may be made for the Post Office Department being treated as a separate employer in the future.


Edgar John Benson: I think a great many more of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Montpetit have been dealt with since that return was made.


Richard Albert Bell: The return was just presented last Wednesday, February 15.


Edgar John Benson: There is a continuous action in respect of the recommendations.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope so.


Edgar John Benson: So far as the Post Office Department being a separate employer is concerned, I simply say that it is presently a department of government under a minister. Any change from this set-up would have to be considered seriously by the government and ultimately would be a matter for decision by parliament.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I support the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton. I have received strong representations from the Vancouver Association of Postal Workers and other organizations in this connection. I believe that the hon. gentleman was quite correct in saying there is a foundation for the postal department being treated as a separate organization.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 59 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 60-Public service arbitration tribunal established.
Richard Albert Bell: 1 believe the success of the procedure of arbitration will be in a very large measure dependent upon the quality of the person who is appointed chairman of the public service arbitration tribunal. I hope the government will spare no pains in getting a
February 20, 1967
person with a wise, judicial mind to occupy that very significant position. If they do that, I believe that the road of compulsory arbitration will inevitably be chosen by almost all public service employees. I underline how significant the quality of the chairman may be.


Edgar John Benson: We as a government will undertake to obtain the best possible person that we can obtain for this particular position, just as we have sought to obtain the best persons possible to work on the public service staff relations board which will in turn recommend the personnel of the arbitration tribunal.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 69 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 70-Subject matter of arbitral award.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my colleague the hon. member for York South was called out of the chamber a few minutes ago and things have moved a little faster than expected. I know the hon. member wanted to say a few words on the question of exclusions, though this might be possible on clause 1.
We are dealing in clause 70 with the possible subject matters of an arbitral award, and as the minister will recall we have contended that these subjects should be broadened. Would, the minister care to comment on both of these matters right now?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I might speak first with respect to the exclusion of personnel. I have made other statements outside the house, because the legislation was not before the house at the time, with respect to exclusions of management personnel and I should like to indicate that exclusions will be held to a minimum. We do not want to see a lot of people outside the collective bargaining process.
With regard to the subject matters of arbitral awards, this was gone into very carefully both by the Heeney committee in their suggestions and later by the government committee which considered this particular clause. The matter was again gone into very thoroughly by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, where I believe the hon. member for York South put forth his views which were very carefully considered by the committee members as well as by myself that time. We decided that this present clause could best reflect the decision arrived at by the committee and we are quite
Public Service Collective Bargaining
willing to accept the clause as presently framed.
After we have had some experience in dealing with collective bargaining in the public service there may be an indication that this provision should be expanded in future legislation. If this is indicated in the future and it is possible to expand it, the government will, of course, consider the matter at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 77 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 78-Establishment of conciliation board where requested by either party.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a previous occasion I tried to get what I thought was just a change in typography agreed to but I was told this could not be done. Is it possible to correct the typographical error occurring between clauses 77 and 78 on the floor, or can it be done without too much trouble?


Edgar John Benson: I have been told that it is not necessary to do it on the floor, that it is being corrected and will be taken out. It is a duplication of title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, is the minister saying that the second title is not necessary?


Edgar John Benson: That it right; it is in there twice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The second time there is a typographical error. Has the hon. member for York Centre noticed that?


Edgar John Benson: The second title is not necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to this? We had some trouble with him on a matter of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 116 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
On Schedule B-
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, does the minister believe it will be possible to hold to the timetable set forth in schedule B? Will there be any difficulties involved in so doing?


Edgar John Benson: We believe that these are the earliest possible dates. We have been moving forward as fast as we can in consultation with

13234	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 1967
Public Service Collective Bargaining
the staff associations to get the P.S.S.R.B. recommendation that draws attention to the established. We have some names which are experience the British government has had being considered for chairman, vice chairman with its standing committee on the pay of the and members, people recommended by both higher civil service. I wish to say, without the employers' and employees' sides. These divulging anything more, that we are very are the earliest possible dates, but the inten- much in favour of developing some such sys-tion is to move forward as fast as possible. tern.


Richard Albert Bell: I take it from what the minister has said that he expects to have the act proclaimed and the board appointed by February 28?


Edgar John Benson: That is my fervent hope.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedules C and D agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Richard Albert Bell: I did ask the minister a number of questions in my initial speech, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the pay research bureau, the national joint council, the question of an advisory committee on managerial and confidential employees and the question of dealing with employees of the Senate and House of Commons. I hope the minister is in a position to answer me now.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure all hon. members that the government accepts the obligation to give serious consideration to the recommendations made by the joint parliamentary committee on matters related to but lying outside the scope of Bill C-170.
One of the recommendations deals with the desirability of making it possible for "persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity" to make representations to Treasury Board on questions relating to their pay and conditions of employment. The government believes that in a genuine system of collective bargaining there must be individuals clearly identified to represent the interests of the employer, and believes further that it would be quite inappropriate to have the conditions of employment of these individuals established by the collective bargaining process povided by Bill C-170. At the same time, however, we recognize that in a large public service there may be good reason to provide machinery whereby the views of these individuals can be considered when decisions about their conditions of employment are being made.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
For this reason, we will be happy to consider the recommendation of the joint committee on this matter, including that part of the


Richard Albert Bell: Within six months?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, a long time ago I learned not to tie myself down to specific times in this house. We shall act with all due dispatch.
Another recommendation of the joint committee refers to the fact that employees of the Senate, House of Commons and Library of Parliament are not covered by this bill. It suggests that further legislative action be considered with a view to granting them advantages and rights similar to those provided public servants under the measure we now have before us. The government will be pleased to give consideration to this matter in consultation with representatives of all parties and the appropriate parliamentary officials. It seems to me that this is a very sensitive matter, involving in a rather direct way the rights of parliament, and will have to be treated accordingly.
In our dealings with the employees of parliament, that is, the employees of this house and of the other place, we must have a consensus of all parties as to what sort of procedure we should set up for consultation to determine rates of pay. We are, as recommended by the committee, quite willing to consider this. We shall, in consultation with representatives of the other parties in this house, consider this matter.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister when he intends to start these consultations? I agree, of course, that this is a special case requiring special consideration but I want to be sure it is not on the shelf for too long.


Edgar John Benson: As the hon. member knows, I never keep anything on the shelf very long. I like to clear things away as fast as possible. I can assure him that we shall deal with the matter with all due dispatch.
The final recommendation contained in the sixth report of the joint committee deals with the position of the pay research bureau under collective bargaining. On an earlier occasion I indicated that the government was generally in sympathy with the recommendations of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining which favoured the continuation of an
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
independent pay research function but called for its transfer from the Civil Service Commission to the public service staff relations board. At that time, I was unable to be more specific because it was our view that no firm decision should be made until the principal employee organizations had been given an opportunity to give us the benefit of their advice in the light of the provisions of Bill C-170.
The organizations have since been consulted and I am pleased to be able to inform hon. members that the government intends to provide for the continuation, under the aegis of the public service staff relations board, of an independent pay research bureau whose services will be available to the employers and certified bargaining agents in the public service. Arrangements for the transfer of the bureau will be made as soon as possible after the staff relations board has been appointed.
In passing I would like to pay tribute to the officers and staff of the bureau who in the past ten years, under the direction of the Civil Service Commission, have provided both the government as employer and the employee organizations with a continuing flow of information on outside rates of pay and conditions of employment, information that has made a very real contribution to the pay determination process and the development of staff relations in the public service.


Richard Albert Bell: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: It is my hope that with the continuing co-operation of the outside employers who participate in their surveys they will make a similar contribution to the success of the system of collective bargaining that is about to be introduced.
Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one other matter which, although not dealt with in the report of the joint committee, was mentioned in the debate last Friday by the hon. member for Carleton.
I refer to the national joint council of the public service of Canada, which since 1944 has provided a focal point for joint consultation between representatives of the government and representatives of employee organizations.
I would like to say at this time that the government strongly supports the view that the national joint council, suitably modified in the light of the legislation now before us, should be continued. Some months ago the council in fact recommended a revised interim constitution with this in mind, one that
Public Service Collective Bargaining would, among other things, provide membership on the council to all organizations certified as bargaining agents. This recommendation is now being considered by the government. In its essentials it will, I have no doubt, be endorsed and I would hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject soon after the passage of Bill C-170. I would like, however, to stress the fact that in the view of the government the form of the council and its method of operation should be left quite flexible for a reasonable period of time so that it can be modified to meet the needs of the parties in bargaining under the new regime.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a question? I am not as well versed in this subject as some of our members are. The staff of the House of Commons in their various categories are, of course, not organized at the present time. What procedure will be taken to get the views of the various categories of employees on the staffs of the House of Commons and the Senate?


Edgar John Benson: I mentioned this matter. I said that the staffs of the House of Commons and the Senate present a particular problem in collective bargaining. I suggested that before the government comes forward with legislation and changes the three bills involved we have consultations with the other parties in the House of Commons to determine what if any steps should be taken. As to the organization of the House of Commons staff, I leave that to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think the question just asked by my colleague has real point. I think the minister said that it was desirable to have consultation among the representatives of the parties of the house and I think he said "appropriate representatives of the employees". If those were not his words perhaps he could correct me.


Edgar John Benson: I think I said "appropriate officials of the house". I was thinking of the officials responsible for employing and looking after the House of Commons staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Appropriate officials", and not "appropriate representatives of the employees", were the minister's words. On this matter the minister does not envisage the employees themselves being represented in these consultations?
13236	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining


Edgar John Benson: That should be left to the various parties in the house when they get together to consider this matter. They should decide whether the employees should be told: "We want to proceed with this matter; would you get together and select representatives to meet with us?" As a representative of the government I should not make this kind of decision. These employees are not government employees; they are House of Commons employees. Any decision about their future must be made by the House of Commons.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall accept that proposition as a fair statement of the situation provided the minister understands that we do not want this matter left on the shelf indefinitely, to use the words of my hon. friend from York South.
This is the kind of thing which could be put off from one session to another. We could easily be told six months from now that it would be better to wait until more experience had been gained in the operation of the new public service legislation. Perhaps I should warn the minister that if he fails to act on this matter he will be pressed to do so on the floor of the house. We should extend to our employees the same rights as we are extending to public servants generally, and I hope these consultations will begin to take place very soon.


Edgar John Benson: I certainly do not wish that there should be any undue delay in this regard. I have learned from my experience with hon. members opposite to avoid saying that something will be done by a specific date, because it may prove impossible to do it by that date. But the hon. member knows from his experience of my conduct that I never put anything off for a long period.


Richard Albert Bell: I will simply say that unless the minister does act with the promptitude he has indicated he can expect harassment from this side of the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

DEBATES	February 20, 1967




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-181, respecting employment in the public service of Canada-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: May I draw to the attention of the committee the fact that several amendments were made when this bill was considered by the joint committee on employer-employee relations in the public service of Canada and a reprint of the bill was ordered.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to say a few words at this time on Bill C-181, the proposed Public Service Employment Act which is to replace the present Civil Service Act. Specifically, I should like to recapitulate the major objectives that this statute is to serve.
The first objective is the reaffirmation of the merit principle as embodied in previous civil service legislation. The application of this principle to appointments and promotions in the civil service has been the practice in this country for nearly 50 years and it is the government's conviction that this practice must endure. In this we have the unanimous support of the special joint committee on employer-employee relations which inquired into the bill, and also the support of all staff associations of the public service.
Bill C-181 extends the application of the merit principle to certain groups of employees who had remained exempt from the provisions of the Civil Service Act of 1961. The proven philosophy of appointment and promotion on the basis of merit is the core of the proposed statute. The security of this policy is again assured by stating explicitly the authority of the commission for all appointments to as well as from within the public service.
Another objective of Bill C-181 is to provide the public service of Canada with as effective and efficient a staffing agency as is required to meet the needs of departments for competent personnel in a labour market characterized by intense competition and increasing specialization over the years. The Civil Service Commission has done an excellent job; it has served Canada well through the continuous application of the highest standards to the business of staffing the public service of Canada, a public service which
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
enjoys one of the highest reputations on the international scene. Bill C-181 will make it possible for the Public Service Commission to maintain this tradition of excellence; it provides for greater flexibility and discretion on the part of the commission to adapt its methods and procedures in order that it might respond quickly and intelligently to changing demands and circumstances.
The third objective is to accommodate the establishment of collective bargaining in the public service. Bill C-181 relieves the commission of its responsibilities in matters of pay and conditions of employment, as it is more proper for them to be assigned to the agency which must represent the employer's interests at the bargaining table. It was considered essential to the preservation of the commission's independence on the one hand and the preservation of the merit system on the other that none of the commission's powers and duties be involved in the bargaining process.
Mr. Chairman, a number of amendments were made to Bill C-181 while it was the subject of review by the special joint committee. The majority of these amendments were made in response to suggestions of the various staff associations who presented briefs and comments on the proposed legislation. The government is in agreement with all the committee amendments to Bill C-181 and I believe that Bill C-181 will be a better statute for them.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, parliament has no duty more important in my view than to ensure to young Canadians that a career in the public service shall be attractive and rewarding. Year by year, government looms larger and larger in the life of every Canadian, and if we are to have enlightened, forward looking, progressive administration the public service must be able to recruit the very best from the ablest young Canadian men and women. Service to the state must be judged and assessed as the very highest form of service with genuine rewards and satisfactions attached thereto.
That is why the bill now before us is so important. In all the discussion about collective bargaining for the public service little attention has been paid to the fact that this measure involves a convulsive change in the familiar pattern of personnel recruitment and management which has been in effect since Sir Robert Borden sponsored the Civil Service Act of 1918. The introduction at that time of the merit system was the foundation
Employment in Public Service
upon which we have built our truly great civil service.
In 1918 the Civil Service Commission was made the guardian of the merit system with a threefold role: first, recruitment and promotion; second, classification and establishment; third, recommendations in respect of salary and wage levels. Under this bill, only the first of these remains with the new Public Service Commission. Classification is now a matter for Treasury Board and salary and wage levels a matter for collective bargaining. Whether the complete freedom to the new Public Service Commission to concentrate upon recruitment and promotion will result in greater efficiency and competency in this field remains to be seen.
The bill has received careful study in the joint special committee and with the amendments made by that committee is considerably improved. The staff associations and others presented comprehensive and thoughtful briefs which were most helpful. The expert guidance of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, John J. Carson, and one of the commissioners, Mr. Sylvain Cloutier, contributed greatly to our deliberations. Both were knowledgeable, articulate witnesses and the latter fascinated some of us by his ready facility to express nuances of meaning in both languages. But I emphasize that the bill is far from ideal and still contains frustrating imperfections.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A major change achieved by this bill is the inclusion for the first time under the merit system of appointments of applicants for prevailing rates positions, and of ships' crews and officers. I support this change fully and believe it will accrue to the benefit of the public service and as well of all politicians. Not all members of the house, I am certain, will agree that the abandonment of political patronage in the prevailing rates positions is good. I do not profess this afternoon to speak for anyone but myself. But from 1957 to 1963 I had the experience of interviewing over 16,000 persons seeking patronage employment, and I am convinced that this type of patronage parade is neither helpful to the politician, to his political organization nor to the public service. Few of us in this chamber have any training or aptitude for personnel administration, and I believe the public interest will benefit when prevailing rates employment is taken out of the hands of members of parliament and the defeated candidates of the party in office.
February 20, 1967

Employment in Public Service
I would wish, however, to utter a word of caution or admonition to the new Public Service Commission. Appointment by paperwork will not be satisfactory in the prevailing rates field. There must be the human touch, the understanding interview and words of counsel and advice. In my view, the existing examination procedures will not work. It will not be enough merely to hand an applicant a form of application tell him or her to complete it and then test his or her qualifications from paper.
Many of the best potential candidates for prevailing rates employment do not have qualifications which will stand up on paper and could never pass conventional examinations, however simplified they might be. The process of selection for many prevailing rates employees must include personal and individual counselling, a genuine measure of humanity and compassion. Politicians in their so-called patronage recommendations did keep these factors in mind. I can say that never have I asked a widow or an afflicted person seeking prevailing rates employment what her or his politics were. Many widows, long removed from the employment market, many afflicted persons who have suffered major illnesses or other reverses and hardships in life, have the will and incentive to succeed, but they could never qualify in examinations or conventional tests designed primarily for youngsters just out of school. That is why I am this afternoon asking the new Public Service Commission not to institute the coldness of paper in the selection for these positions but to retain what politicians brought to the task, the warmth of personal interview, the compassion and humanity which can come only from face to face dealings.
My major reservation about this bill, Mr. Chairman, relates to the power of delegation. I realize that in large measure this stems from the Glassco commission report, but personally I have never been a worshipper at the feet of Glassco. Unless the delegations are monitored with the greatest care-and indeed even then-grave dangers of a return to political patronage are evident. I say even then. How can any monitoring system really ascertain the real reasons for the appointment of one person and the elimination of another?
I hope the power of delegation will be used most sparingly and only when there is the clearest and most incontrovertible evidence that a deputy head will not be subject to ministerial pressure. I have confidence in the

independence and impartiality of the Civil Service Commission and I am sure the same will apply to the new Public Service Commission. But a deputy head is subject to pressures. To return to a system where a deputy head simply confirms a list of prospective appointees that he receives from the minister or the minister's staff would be a most retrograde step.
I have no desire to be unduly suspicious but I do know that a strong minister will normally dominate his department, and indeed to that I have no objection. But I do want to avoid a return to the days before 1918. Let us assume, for example, that the commission delegates the appointment of certain classes of officers to the undersecretary of state for external affairs. Is there any member of this chamber so naive as to believe that the most politically-minded man in the house, the genial but politically tough Secretary of State for External Affairs, will keep his political fingers out of that appointing role? I think it stretches credulity too far to believe that he would. Or, on a delegation to the deputy minister of agriculture, does any hon. member believe that the Minister of Agriculture, who breathes and sleeps politics, would keep clear?
I believe this is a serious matter, particularly when I draw attention to the fact that there is still the right under clause 6(4) for a deputy head to delegate further his own delegated authority to some officer in a department. There are special dangers in this when the delegation is on a local or regional basis. I say that ministers must be prevented from instructing local officials to whom the power is delegated to consult with local or regional party officials.
It is true that the special joint committee made some limiting amendments to clause 6 and inserted in clause 45, dealing with the report to parliament, a specific provision requiring special attention in such report to the nature of any action taken under clause 6 pursuant to these delegations of authority. My question is: Is that sufficient? I doubt it. I say that the Public Service Commission has a duty to parliament and a high obligation to the public to prevent a return to political patronage through the back door route of delegation of authority for appointment. I for one, as a member of this chamber, intend to check with the greatest care at regular intervals to ensure that the Public Service Commission is fully discharging this duty and obligation.
February 20, 1967

Another feature of this bill about which I have some reservations is the appeal procedure. The bill was slightly improved in this respect by the joint special committee, but I consider the appeal provisions are still primitive, unsatisfactory and indeed offensive to natural justice. I am satisfied that it will not be long before the Public Service Commission and the government are compelled by events to establish genuinely independent and impartial appellate tribunals. My views in this respect are set forth in a private bill which I introduced earlier this session and which is on the order paper as Bill C-63. I remain unconvinced that the provisions of this bill, even stengthened as they were by the special joint committee, come anywhere close to providing a really satisfactory system of appeal.
Then, sir, may I draw attention to the fact that the provisions of the old Civil Service Act relating to the parliamentary staff have been dropped. By section 72 of the existing Civil Service Act the Senate and House of Commons might apply by resolution any provisions of the act to the staff of this house, the other place or the Library of Parliament. No doubt this right exists even in the absence of legislation. But I believe this chamber is entitled to know from the minister before this bill passes what the intentions of the commissioners of internal economy are in this respect. Will they recommend that the provisions of this bill either in whole or in part be applied to the parliamentary staff?
That leads me to the question of political participation by civil servants. Here, I submit, the government has proposed feeble and halting steps. They are of almost no significance. Personally, I would have preferred the emulation of the three-tiered system in effect in the United Kingdom and now in operation in the province of Ontario. For the life of me I cannot see why a packer or helper or an elevator operator or laboratory technician should be deprived of political rights, whereas on the other hand, of course, any policy adviser must obviously be restricted.
Since I think hon. gentlemen opposite are determined not to go further than the frail and laboured provisions of new clause 32, I do not propose to press the matter further at this time, but I do want to draw attention to the recommendation of the special joint committee as follows:
The consensus is that the whole question of political participation by public servants should be reviewed after the next general election in the light of experience and knowledge gained to 23033-837

Employment in Public Service that time. Interested groups might then wish to make more specific representations for the consideration of parliament.
Personally I hope that .at that time, with a new government in office, something approximating the new Ontario legislation introduced by a Progressive Conservative government may be achieved. I hope that then there will be more disposition to experimentation and that a genuine attempt will be made to balance the essential impartiality and the imperative non-partisanship of the public service with the ordinary political rights of citizenship in a democratic country.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
With these reservations and doubts, I propose to support the bill. On certain clauses I shall have additional comments. After the bill has been in effect for two or three years I believe the operations of the new Public Service Commission should be referred to another special joint committee for study, investigation and assurance on the subjects I have raised. The merit system is a precious one, the very cornerstone of our civil service, and its full preservation intact is the responsibility of this parliament as well as of the Public Service Commission.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I do not think it is necessary to make a very lengthy comment. I join of course, with the President of the Treasury Board and the hon. member for Carleton in emphasizing the importance of the merit system and in expressing pleasure that the prevailing rate employees who formerly were outside it are now brought under the merit system through the bill which is now before the committee. I have not had the experience that the hon. member for Carleton says he has had of interviewing thousands of people wanting patronage jobs. I am glad that this will not be possible from now on in his case or in the case of anyone else in government or outside government.
I should like to direct the attention of the committee to another point of progress in this bill which I consider of great importance and which the joint committee considered of great importance, that is, the recognition to a greater extent than was the case in respect of the Civil Service Act of the bilingual character of the federal function. Members of the committee will see, particularly in clause 14, that notices of vacancies are to be given in both languages at all times with certain exceptions which are left to the discretion of the Public Service Commission. Obviously there would
February 20, 1967

Employment in Public Service not be much sense in having a notice in English in Le Droit or La Presse or a notice in French in an English language newspaper. Subject to such exceptions, however, the bill requires the recognition of the bilingual character of the federal parliament and the federal public service in a way which ought to result in some little step forward in our general Canadian situation.
Like the hon. member for Carleton, I am still disappointed that there is not a special separate appeal tribunal for members of the public service who feel aggrieved because of dismissal or suspension for one reason or another. In the committee we did make some progress in this regard. The commission and the government, through its members on the committee, agreed that the Public Service Commission should have such an appeal board under its umbrella, but as I understand it the appeal board is to be an entirely separate body acting independently of the Public Service Commission.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee again to something I said last Friday in connection with Bill No. C-170 which has passed the House of Commons and I hope will become the law very shortly when the other place has dealt with it. I point out that the commission, under the bill which is before us, will be given exclusive jurisdiction in the field of standards for appointment and in the field of promotion, demotion lay-off, release of employees and so on in the public service. In other words, to use a common management-labour term, the whole area of job security is left exclusively with the Public Service Commission with the intention, we were told, that the merit system not be interfered with. As I said the other day, and repeat, I am not convinced that it would not have been possible to make certainly some areas of the job security problem a part of collective bargaining. Hon. members will notice in the bill that one clause deals with lay-offs, jurisdiction over which is given to the Public Service Commission and deputy heads in certain circumstances. Lay-offs are a very important part of job security.
Hon. members will notice that there is provision for dealing with public service employees who show themselves to be incompetent or inadequate for their jobs. Frequently that is a matter of opinion, and the standards in that regard should be subject to collective bargaining. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I, however, as members of our party on the special joint

committee, after discussing this matter at great length decided, as we did in respect of other matters, that the better course for the sake of the civil service and for the sake of parliament and the country was to have partial agreement on at least the things which were conceded in order to see how these bills and the various bodies under them will work out in practice.
I notice that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission is sitting in front of the minister. I am sure he will forgive me if in his presence I plead with the Public Service Commission, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction in the field of job security, appointments, promotions and so on, that at every practical step it consult with the organizations representing the public service employees-the various certified bargaining agents-and make them fully aware of the standards that the commission has in mind to apply generally, particularly where important positions are involved, so that the organizations of employees will have an opportunity at least to explain their views even though the authority to make a decision, of course, will rest with the commission itself.
I say to the members of the Public Service Commission that if, when the commission is established and they are appointed, they carry out their duties without regard to consultation with the employees' organizations, consultation which is meaningful and honest in terms of being frank and full or if they attempt to foist standards, approaches and procedures without taking into account the representations of the employees' organizations, they will pile up for themselves, for the government and for this parliament a great deal of trouble in the months to come. It may be that if they develop a proper avenue of consultation, short of negotiation, with the organizations, the exclusive jurisdiction which they now have will in fact work out well. If so, I will be one member of parliament who will be very glad indeed to have been in practice proven wrong in insisting that this matter must form a part of collective bargaining. I will be very happy indeed if the practical application of this procedure shows itself to be totally acceptable in principle to the employees and their organizations and totally acceptable in principle to the minds of all of us who are concerned about this problem.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I just want to say a few additional words with regard to political rights under clause
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
32. Like the hon. member for Carleton, I am still very disappointed at the fact that the bill before us only grants partial political rights to public service employees. In the special joint committee I moved an amendment, as recorded in the minutes of proceedings of the committee, No. 26, at pages 1223, 1224 and 1225, in which I attempted to divide the public service into two general groups, the first one consisting of deputy heads, chief executive officers and persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity as defined in the bill we have just passed. While I did not agree entirely with the idea I must say I was prepared, for the sake of getting somewhere, to make the concession that in those classes of employees anyone wishing to be a candidate for provincial or federal office should seek the permission of the Public Service Commission before doing so. I think there is an argument in favour of that proposition.
I also suggested in my amendment, seconded of course by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, certain prohibitions against certain activities. For example, one of them was that no employee, as defined, or other person employed in the public service should ever do anything which would associate his position in the public service with any political activity in which he was engaged. I was prepared to agree also that members of the public service should desist from speaking in public or expressing their views in writing over their signature on behalf of any candidate or political party, unless of course a person was himself a candidate, so that there could be no possibility of the public service, or of a department or division of the public service, becoming publicly associated with a certain opinion or political view.
As a third concession in this field I was prepared to agree, if other members had agreed with the general proposition, that no political activity of any kind should be undertaken on behalf of a candidate during working hours, or even during non-working hours, on the premises of the employer, so that offices and other places where public service employees are engaged in work would not become centres of political discussion or activity.
With those safeguards which I have enumerated, namely, that the top people in the public service-I am speaking here of top people in terms of function and not necessarily of quality-cannot be candidates for provincial or federal office without getting the 23033-837J
Employment in Public Service permission of the Public Service Commission, and a safeguard against activities on the premises or outside the premises during working hours of a kind that might blur the line between the duties of the public service employee and his political opinions, I cannot for the life of me see why an ordinary public servant, such as a stenographer, a clerk, an engineer, a draftsman, postal worker, or a prevailing rate employee such as an electrician, carpenter or machinist should not be able to run for any party for which he in his judgment decides, without having to obtain permission to do so from the Public Service Commission. I do not see why he should be put to the humiliation of not being able to exercise ordinary political rights. He would not be a person exercising managerial or confidential functions in the public service, he would not be a policy-making or even a policy-advising person in most cases; he would be a functionary carrying out sometimes very routine functions.
I do not see why such an employee should not have the right to be a candidate after having gone to the Public Service Commission and automatically obtained leave of absence without pay for the duration of the campaign. If he were elected he would cease to be an employee of the public service but if he were defeated he could go back to the job if it were available to him or to some other comparable job. I cannot see any reason for denying that right to the ordinary public service employee-by that I mean the vast majority of public service employees-who are not in the managerial or confidential category.
I certainly cannot understand why members of the government and members of the Liberal party in the committee-I also understand there is likely to be opposition on the floor of this house-objected to the simple proposition that public service employees should be permitted to be members of political parties.
At the present time the bill allows them to make contributions to the funds of a political party or candidate. It allows them to attend political meetings and presumably to speak at them. It allows them to seek to become candidates for federal or provincial office but in my view-and this is a matter of the legal interpretation of words-it does not allow them to take out a membership card in a political party. In most cases that will mean, of course, that they cannot become candidates. I understand that some parties in this
February 20, 1967

Employment in Public Service house, or local associations of parties in this house, do not require membership in the party from anyone who wishes to be a candidate. If such is the case that is the business of the party concerned, although it seems very strange to me that that should be so. As far as our party is concerned there are very few cases where it is possible for anyone who is not already a member of the party to be a standard bearer for the party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. member tell us how long the period of probation is?


Mr. Walker:: Two minutes.


David Lewis: Does the hon. member mean that I have only two minutes left or does he mean that the period of probation is only two minutes? If the minister did not ask the question just to be funny but really wants to know, I will be very pleased to educate him. In our party the provincial constitutions dealing with the qualifications of candidates vary somewhat. Some require six months' membership and some require a year's membership in the party before a person can become a candidate. However, I must say there are exceptions. Under some constitutions the provincial council is given authority to make certain exceptions in cases where that is justified, but by and large a candidate for the New Democratic Party must already have been a member of the party for at least six months. In fact, it seems to me that I saw a provincial constitution which only required three months' membership for candidates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member mind if I asked the Minister of Transport how long he was a member of a political party before he got his nomination?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I became a member in 1936, so the hon. gentleman can do his own arithmetic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the minister a member of his party all the time he was a civil servant?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can say fairly that I always voted that way.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The suggestion that I was flustered is rather like some of the other suggestions that are made, sometimes irresponsibly, about other ministers. It does not bother me. I was a Tory for 20 years and I have advertised that fact. At the end of 20 years I could not take it any longer and I became a Liberal. I have been a Liberal ever since and I am still proud of it.
February 20, 1967	COMMONS


David Lewis: I am, of course, most surprised that the minister is still a Liberal. I am equally surprised that he is proud of it. However, he does not have to tell me that. I thought he was flustered but I will withdraw that word. The hon. gentleman is usually very quick to get to his feet and his hesitation seemed to indicate to me he was flustered. If the hon. gentleman was tired as a result of his work over the week end and did not get to his feet as quickly as he usually does, then I accept his statement that he was not flustered. It is regrettable that the question should have to be asked and that the minister should have to answer it by saying, of course I was a Liberal. I would not like to ask him if he were a member of the Liberal party during those years because I would not want him to have to answer that. If being a member of the Liberal party in those years did not require any particular membership card and he did not have to pay any dues, not even the dollar which is sometimes necessary now, then I gather he might have been a member of the Liberal party without being able to show a card. His answer would either have to disclose that he broke the law at that time or he would have to make the kind of answer-I say this with great affection for the minister-he frequently gives which consists of very attractive words that do not get to the point. The minister would have to do one or the other.
I think this is an absurd situation. I do not see any justification for it except the traditional timidity we cannot get rid of. I think the time has come when we should get rid of it and give public service employees the political rights that every other citizen exercises. I was ready, as I said before, to make a concession and except certain classes of employees such as those who are engaged in advisory capacities or in the development of government programs. I certainly cannot understand why the suggestion I made to the President of the Treasury Board that he at least accept an amendment that would permit public service employees to be members of political parties as well as make contributions to parties and attend meetings should not be accepted. I simply cannot understand that.
I am told there are some people who believe that the language of clause 32 does not prohibit public service employees from being members of political parties. I am prepared to argue that. I am not at all sure that the language is clear. I think a strong argument can be made that it is not clear because if the
Employment in Public Service language were clear on that point it would be equally clear on the exceptions from the general proposition. If it is true that when an employee is prohibited from engaging in any activity for a political party, as the present bill provides, that does not mean he cannot be a member, then I cannot understand how you can be a member and at the same time, be prohibited from engaging in any activity of the party. This does not make sense to me. If it makes sense to the minister, then it is equally true that a person can attend meetings if he keeps his mouth shut when he attends them and a person can make contributions to a political party if he keeps quiet about it.
As a lawyer who has had some training, not as much as many others in this house, in interpreting language I would say that clause 32 in the present bill does not clearly give the public service employee the right to be a member of a party. I am putting it that way in order to avoid being dogmatic and starting an argument about it. There may be an argument that he may have the right, but the bill does not clearly give him the right. Unless you clearly give him the right to be a member of a political party, the right to be a candidate is in most cases a farce. My colleagues .and I are not prepared to take part in that kind of farce if we can avoid it. I hope the minister will still give consideration to accepting an amendment which, if it does not go as far as the amendment we moved in the special joint committee, will at least make clear the right of the employee to be a member of the political party of his choice without running afoul of the law.
This bill makes perhaps less change in the present legislation than the other two bills, No. C-170 and No. C-182. There are many improvements in it. I have not been living in Ottawa, except when elected to parliament, during the last 16 or 17 years. However, I have had the pleasure of knowing a great many civil servants. My colleagues and I are delighted to agree that we have a very high-class public service in Canada. I have not been to the United Nations as a member of parliament but I have as a visitor. I have heard the representatives of other countries express their admiration for those who represent Canada on various commissions and at various international conferences. When I say "those who represent Canada" I do not mean our political representatives; I mean those from the public service who speak and work
13244	COMMONS
Employment in Public Service for us. As a Canadian I have been very proud of the universal expressions of admiration for our public service.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Equally, Mr. Chairman, I share the admiration of other members for the competence and independence which the present members of the Civil Service Commission have shown, and for all I know their predecessors showed though I did not have the pleasure of knowing them, in the application of the merit system and the law. For that reason we are pleased to support the bill except for the reservations I have mentioned and in connection with which we shall try to get this committee to accept some necessary amendments.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on Bill C-181, because it is interesting, after all, to hear the views of everyone. We just had a discussion between the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), which showed us something of what happened and is still happening in the public service, in the political field.
In other words, public servants are prevented from engaging actively in the work of a political party, while we have the proof in this house that several ministers have at one time been members of the public service and that it is probably their work in the public service that permitted them to accede to the political life. It seems that some want to close the door to skilful public servants, who would like to devote their talents to the welfare of their country, as members of parliament.
I found enlightening, a while ago, that exchange between the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for York South. I did not know the hon. Minister of Transport had been a public servant once, like several of the present and former ministers that I know, some of whom were more successful than others.
I do not wish to take too much time of the house, because I am anxious-as the minister seems to be also-that this bill be passed without delay inasmuch as it brings certain improvements in the public service, although one has to reckon with human nature with all its evil inclinations.
More and more efforts must be made to relieve the public service from political patronage and to encourage technicians, in

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
short all those who deserve encouragement, regardless of their political affiliation. We should keep in mind that even though a public servant works for the government, he has the right to retain his political ideas and the right to defend them. I am not at all against that.
However, if a public servant wishes to stand as candidate for Parliament, I think that in such a case, he should resign from the public service. He would then be required to resign, to abandon his position, but as long as he does not run for office, I feel a civil servant should not be prevented from expressing his views or even from working for the man he trusts and helping him. In my opinion, if some people can defend a political cause, it is precisely civil servants familiar with the situation and well aware of every administrative strategy.
I am very proud that civil servants are urged to become more qualified; indeed, present employees are far from perfect and there is much room for improvement. Our civil servants are fairly satisfactory and since I am a little more chary of praise, I shall refrain from crediting them with the same qualifications as the previous sDeaker. But we find that a great number of civil servants are responsible, that they deserve some incentives and promotions to certain positions unattainable by them in the past, not because of their lack of competence, but because of their political allegiance.
It is absolutely imperative that the members act together and stop trying to influence appointments. Such influence has been exerted in the past and today, no one should imagine that there will no longer be any patronage when this bill is passed. No. When it is recalled that appointments to certain commissions are made by the governor in council, one can rest assured that the appointees will not be old-time members or partisans of the Progressive Conservative, the New Democratic or the Social Credit parties. That is understood. Let us not have any qualms about it. Human nature will remain as it is. Let us not make any mistake about it, but let us at least make an effort to be fair. We ask of those who play the political game, who do the picking, to show some fair play to the employees they are to hire. In fact, when I consider the Post Office Department, I think that if I were to go around the post offices in my constituency, I would not find three employees appointed by the Conservatives.
February 20, 1967

Had the Conservatives been in power, the situation would probably have been the same. Stop trying to make us believe that it will not happen. Let it be said simply that the utmost will be done to treat people with more fairness. Just look at the matter of bilingualism. I feel a little something has been done to promote bilingualism. I say a little something because, to my mind, only 9 to 10 per cent of all public servants will benefit from the new policy on bilingualism.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
If the civil servant is a French Canadian and his mother tongue is French, he is normally considered bilingual, since he usually speaks English. But if he works in an office where French only is spoken, I can foresee, according to this legislation, that that perfectly bilingual civil servant will not get the promised premium on the grounds that the work he does in English does not reach a percentage of 10 per cent. This is what I think will happen. The work in another language must be equivalent to at least 10 per cent of the workload. I believe that this is not much of an incentive for the employee, for his rating will be based on production rather than on ability.
I wish the ability or the rating of a civil servant were considered instead of production, for quite often, some politicking will influence production. Knowing that a civil servant is bilingual, the administration will appoint him to some unilingual branch, let us say to a degree of 75, 80 or 90 per cent, precisely to prevent him from getting the premium.
This is the reason why I submit that incentives should apply to technical knowledge, to a civil servant's rating, and that political influence, what is usually called patronage, should go by the board.
If we were to eliminate among civil servants all those who are involved in political activity, well, I think that we should start first with the senators. I consider that the senators are public servants, since they are not elected.
One need only look at the last appointments. Why were certain civil servants quietly appointed to the Senate? To do political work; the great organizers of all the political parties sit in the Senate and organise political campaigns. A young civil servant is to be prevented from promoting his political ideas, while all these sleepy old men are allowed to work all year for their party and scheme for
Employment in Public Service a possible election, trying to bring it about as soon as possible.
If we are to encourage civil servants, we should do so all along the line and use all their talents which they want to place at the disposal of the public, whether in the public service or in politics. I cannot see any reason why we should try to restrict the activity of a capable man. I hope that this bill will attain its objective, but I think that the commissioners must try to free themselves of their old political myth in implementing this bill. It includes everything that is necessary to act honestly, but for one who wants to be dishonest, it is still possible to evade the act.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before calling on the hon.
member for Okanagan-Revelstoke I wish to announce that the questions to be considered this evening are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Air Canada-Suggested increased use of Winnipeg maintenance base; the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin'), External Affairs-Portugal-reported intention to exile political prisoners; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), finance -suggested provision of "real dollar" bonds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the discussion thus far on Bill C-181. I am pleased that the merit system in the civil service is being extended and I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton in this regard. As increasingly examinations become the means of deciding employment in the civil service it is important that great care be taken to ensure that examinations are truly valid and test what they purport to test. From my knowledge of education and previous experience I know there is a possibility that the operative factor at work is the frequency and recency that people have written similar tests rather than the tests themselves. In other words, from the test the best candidate may not be chosen but rather the best writer of tests. Though this problem is extremely difficult to solve, it must be kept in mind. I hope that when standards, including educational standards, are prescribed in the selection procedure candidates will know of them and know exactly where they stand when they are writing tests. This will prevent the disappointment and frustration that come from being first in the examination and then
February 20, 1967

Employment in Public Service finding that other disqualifying factors are announced later.
I am happy to note that the bill has been amended to preclude discrimination on the basis of sex. I suspect it will take more than passage of this bill to remove such discrimination, for it is built deeply into the folkways of this part of North America. All the same, I am happy to see this provision in the bill. People occasionally complain to me that a lady is working somewhere but should not be working because her husband is working or she is middle-aged or some younger man should have the job. Many excuses are put forward why a woman should be removed from her job. I have always felt that if a woman is qualified to do the job and performs her duty satisfactorily she has every right to her position.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for York South about the desirability of political activity in the civil service. I find that these remarks contradict earlier remarks made by the hon. member and by many other members of his party. Every time a judicial bill comes before the house we are treated to a lengthy dissertation about the horrible system under which judicial appointments are made. We are told that they are made on the basis of past political activity. If the hon. member was in the chamber he would at once leap to his feet and say he was not talking about that at all. The point is that political activity casts doubt occasionally on the validity of an appointment to the judiciary. In like manner I would expect that political activity of an entirely open nature would tend to cast doubt upon the validity of subsequent promotions in the civil service. If a promotion to the judiciary is suspect on the ground of political activity-goodness knows we have been told as much over and over again from the same quarter of the house and I really am not in disagreement with the observations which have been made in this regard-then overt political activity on the part of civil servants would cast doubt on the validity of some of the promotions which might be made within the service and thus reduce the usefulness of some people who might have been quite qualified to move into new positions.
Nor can I believe that it is a great imposition for a member of the public service to be required to seek permission before running for office. I know that at the present time it is

frequently the practice for members of the public service to resign on such occasions. In many cases this enforced resignation has been an excellent stepping stone from which to launch a campaign; perhaps such a start is not altogether detrimental to success in politics.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Delegation to deputy head.
Thomas Miller Bell: This clause deals with delegation and I wish to say that as far as I am concerned it carries on division.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Selection standards.


Thomas Miller Bell: A brief comment on clause 12. In committee I expressed my concern about the importation into the merit system of standards which I believe to be extraneous to it. Take, for example, such matters as age and residence. I believe these are in the nature of job requisites. If residence is of importance it should be specified under clause 13; it is not, in fact, a matter of merit. Indeed, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of merit.
I made my position on this point clear when I was speaking in relation to another group of subjects. I contended that the commission is introducing into the concept of merit factors which properly belong to the specifications which should be laid out for the job itself. On this occasion I merely wish to express the reservation which I argued in detail last April. My position is unchanged.
May I say that the inclusion of subclause 3 constitutes a great improvement in the bill and is something for which the special joint committee deserves credit. It does give opportunity for proper consultation between the commission and the bargaining agents in regard to the matters enumerated and I hope there will be the fullest and frankest co-operation between the commission and the bargaining agent in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 16-Consideration of applications.
Thomas Miller Bell: On this clause I merely wish to say that I am not fully satisfied that the provisions for veterans preference are
February 20, 1967

working genuinely in the interest of all veterans. I think the house is satisfied with the concept of veterans preference but my view is that the system may well not be working now as was intended I think the commission should confer with the Royal Canadian Legion and that the question should be considered at some time in a future session by the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to support the view just advanced by the hon. member for Carleton. 1 think it very necessary that we follow his suggestion in view of changing circumstances and conditions today. I trust there will be consultation between the commission and representatives of veterans organizations with respect to the application of this clause.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to assure hon. members that the government is most interested in seeing the veterans preferance work in the way in which it was originally intended and I have been assured by the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, who is the chairman of the new Public Service Commission, that he will be pleased to meet with leaders of the veterans organizations sometime in the near future to discuss this particular matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Appeals.
Richard Albert Bell: I wish to express again the reservation I have already made with respect to the appeal procedures. I believe they should have been spelled out and that an independent and impartial board is to be desired. I believe the commission and the government will within a comparatively short time be compelled to take this position.


Edgar John Benson: In reply I can assure the hon. gentleman that the court of final decision, that is, the appeal board, will be an independent group appointed by a commission which is also independent of the government. It is very similar to what was done in Bill No. C-170 which has just been passed, with regard to arbitration tribunals.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 32-Political partisanship.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before I make a few remarks on this clause and propose the amendment which I should like to make with 23033-838

Employment in Public Service respect to it, may I say I was pleased to hear the announcement which the minister made a few moments ago that Mr. Carson, the present chairman of the Civil Service Commission, will be the chairman of the new Public Service Commission. I would also hope that Mr. Cloutier and Miss Addison will be continued as members of that commission.
Clause 32 is the one which deals with the question of political activity on the part of public servants and, as hon. members are fully aware, the particular provision before us is one which came out of the special joint committee itself. As my hon. friend from York South has pointed out, we moved an amendment which would have broadened the provision of this clause. Really we won, because more parties voted for our amendment than voted against it. But somehow or other the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Social Credit members and the Creditistes were outnumbered by government supporters.


Mr. Reid:: That is why you are in the opposition.


James Edgar Walker: Carry on. Everything has been fine so far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was wondering what party that voice came from. The hon. member has evidently been reading the Gallup polls and is wondering where the present parties are going.
As has already been indicated, since we lost in the special joint committee on the proposal we then made, we do not intend to divide this committee on the same broad question. But we do think the government and members of the committee should consider the appeal which was made by my hon. friend from York South and which I myself spoke about on Friday. The substance was that we should go one step further than we have done up to the present.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Clause 32, as drafted in its present form, provides for a ban on political activity but it does make three exceptions. It permits a civil servant to become a candidate under certain conditions. We will not quarrel with those conditions now that they have been worked out. In addition, clause 32 says clearly that it is not a contravention of the ban on political activity on the part of civil servants to attend political meetings or to make contributions. The contributions can be either to the candidacy of a particular nominee or they can be to the funds of a political party. It is our
13248	COMMONS
Employment in Public Service contention that one more exception should be added, namely, that we should say it is not contrary to the ban on political activity for a civil servant to be a member of a political party.
We went over this argument in the committee on Friday, and again today, so I will be as brief as I can. We think it is ridiculous to say that a civil servant can contribute all the money he wants to a candidate's campaign funds or to the funds of a political party, to say that he can contribute $100, $1,000 or more, but that he cannot be a member, which may involve the contribution of $1, $3 or some such small amount. We also think it is most absurd to say to a civil servant that he can become a candidate at election time if he wants to, by getting permission and taking leave of absence, and yet leave the civil servant who wants to be a candidate of a political party that requires membership for a certain length of time out in the cold without any chance of becoming a candidate for the party that he happens to choose.
We had a somewhat interesting byplay last Friday and today about the position of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and some others over there who managed to translate themselves from the civil service, where they could not be members of a political party, into the position that they were candidates for the Liberal party. We think that all this is ridiculous and absurd and we should resolve it by adding this other exception so far as civil servants are concerned.
As I say, I am looking particularly at clause 32(2) which says that a civil servant does not contravene the ban on political activity by reason only of attending political meetings or making contributions. We think this clause should say, "by reason only of his being a member of a political party or attending a political meeting or contributing money." If the minister is going to argue that there is at the moment no precise language in clause 32 that says a civil servant cannot be a member of a political party, may I remind him of the argument already advanced by the hon. member for York South, that on those terms subclause 2 is pretty hard to understand. By subclause 2 we say that attending meetings or making contributions is not a form of political activity, but we also use the word "only". The word is right there in the provision-"A person does not contravene subsection (1) by reason only his", doing these two things. Surely it follows that if he does anything else 
DEBATES	February 20, 1967
in the political sphere he is contravening subclause 2 of clause 32. Therefore I suggest that common sense, logic and the desire to remove the absurdity from this clause suggest that we ought to amend it. I therefore move:
That subclause (2) of clause 32 of Bill C-181 be amended by inserting in line 4. immediately after the word "his", the following words: "being a member of a political party,"
I have copies of my amendment in both languages. I will not take the time of the committee to impose my French on the members who are here, but I am assured that it is good French. If I may do so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read subclause 2 as it would read with my amendment incorporated into it. It would then read:
A person does not contravene subsection (1) by reason only of his being a member of a political party, attending a political meeting or contributing money for the funds of a candidate for election as a member described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) or money for the funds of a political party.
I am assured that the French version, when incorporated into the French text, produces the same result. It is after six o'clock and we are in the closed season on voting in the House of Commons, and I think it applies in committee, and I trust that the government would like to take a little further time to look at this amendment. I would be quite happy if there could be agreement at some time-I do not mean just at the moment I sit down-to letting the clause and the amendment stand until the government can consider it, in the hope that we will not have to vote on it.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, in this regard I would simply like to say that I would agree to the standing of clause 32 until eight o'clock. We could revert to it at that time. I have been considering over the week end the proposition put forward by the hon. member for York South. When this matter was raised previously in the House of Commons I indicated that the government had a completely open mind on it and that we would accept whatever recommendation came back from the committee. There was a good deal of discussion in the committee on this matter. I believe this was one of the last clauses agreed upon by the committee and they made a recommendation in respect of it.
Concern has been expressed by many people that membership in political parties would affect the capacity of public servants to discharge their responsibilities in a non-partisan manner. This was one of the arguments put forward, and it was a concern expressed by
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
the officials of some of the employee organizations particularly the Public Service Alliance, who considered that membership in a political party would tarnish the public image of a public servant. I will not go any further into the arguments in this regard. I would simply like to say that I believe the wording of the clause as it exists was carefully considered by the committee, which made its recommendation to the house, and we are willing to accept the clause as recommended to the house. Therefore we are not willing to accept the amendment. Having said that, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that this clause stand until eight o'clock so that we may consider it further. We could revert to it at that time.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, before the clause stands there is a question I should like to address to the minister. If I heard him correctly a little earlier, at the time the hon. member for York South was speaking on clause 2 and dealing with this subject matter the minister said there was nothing in the act which prohibited an employee being a member. Doubt was expressed on that point both by the hon. member for York South and a short while ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would be interested to have the minister suggest on what grounds he bases that statement.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the statement is based on the advice I have been given by officials with whom I have consulted in respect of this particular matter. You will notice that subclauses 1 (a) and (b) and subclause 2 of clause 32 deal with the conditions which exist at election time and do not deal at all with the matter of membership in a political party. They really deal with activities of civil servants at election time. The other matter is left in the same position it always has been. People say that members of the civil service cannot be involved in political parties. There is no provision. It is the same as it has been in respect of the Civil Service Act. People say that under the Civil Service Act civil servants do not have the right to strike; but if they have that right as an individual, then they have the right to do it and apparently it would be upheld in a court of law. I am informed that the same situation exists under this piece of legislation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister may theoretically be right when he says this is parallel to the situation in respect of the right to strike. However I think it would be 23033-838J
Employment in Public Service quite unrealistic for anyone in this house to suggest that it has not been understood, and by and large accepted by people in the public service, that they cannot become members of political parties without placing their employment in jeopardy. Personally I have known a good many people employed in the public service who, to paraphrase what they say have told me they would like to be a member of a party if it were not for this rule. These people certainly had that understanding. I do not know from what source such a statement has emanated. It is, however, a very widespread assumption.


Edgar John Benson: I think this really is just an excuse for not joining the New Democratic Party. Really there has been no provision under the act in respect of people being members of a political party, but this is quite different to their taking part in political campaigns. This is what the position has been. There are individual civil servants who no doubt believe that if they should be members of a political party this would somehow affect their position in the civil service. This feeling exists in the civil service. I have good friends who have said to me that they would not join the Liberal party even though they support its ideals and objectives because they feel that as members of the public service they should not do this. I believe it would be wrong to write into this legislation something to the effect that a civil servant can be a member of a political party, because then they would be in a position where pressure could be put on them to join a political party.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I must say that I find myself entirely in agreement with some of the remarks the minister has just made. I think that by and large in a great many aspects of employment in the public service it is right and proper that individuals should decide not to belong to or actively participate in the activities of any political party, but on the other hand, the present range of employment in the public service of Canada embraces all types of occupational groups which find employment under types of employers.
As one example I might pick out the teaching profession. I know a great many teachers who feel free to participate actively in the activities of political parties in this country. I certainly have developed the impression, however, that the teachers who are employed, we will say, in the education branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, feel there is some prohibition to
13250	COMMONS
Employment in Public Service their participation in political activities, although this is not applicable in the case of their other friends in the profession. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between a person acting directly in a sense, as an agent of the government administering government policies, and a person in a similar professional field which normally is not considered to be excluded.
Whether or not the minister is prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think we should at least give some of these things an airing in the house so that we might have an understanding in the house and in the country as to what the situation actually is in matters of this kind. I do not feel that the minister has clarified the situation by the rather abstruse reference to a parallel between the theoretical right to strike and a theoretical lack of any prohibition against membership in political parties, where one would normally expect a person to have that right. I believe it is something similar to the feeling one finds in industry, where there are certain employees of corporations who, because of the nature of their relationship to the corporation and its management, are not expected to be members of the union. The minister may not have knowledge of the sort of thing I am talking about but I find it difficult to imagine that he has not come up against this attitude and understanding.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, if he is correct in his statement that there is now no prohibition against membership in a political party, why he objects to there being included in the bill simply a confirmation of what he says is the status quo.


Edgar John Benson: I object to its being in the bill because when this bill went to the committee I said I would accept the recommendations which came back from that committee. The committee held extensive hearings and had extensive discussion on this particular matter. Their recommendation has come back and I accept their recommendation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, those are noble sentiments the minister has just expressed, but of course he realizes this is one of the very few issues on which in the committee there was a division. Most of what came back from the committee in these three bills was unanimous. On this point, however, it is difficult to say that there was a consensus, in view of the vote.

DEBATES	February 20, 1967


Edgar John Benson: The report was unanimous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister's announcement that there is no ban on civil servants being involved in political parties may, of course, be quite interesting if it appears in the Ottawa newspapers tomorrow and across the country; but it seems to me that one should not be quite so sanguine as to think that all that is necessary is for a minister to give his interpretation of legal language. In fact, we are often told that this is the sort of thing we should not ask a minister to do; so I suppose I should be grateful he has done it, and it will be taken as gospel.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
As I said earlier, I think the problem that arises now is perhaps one that was not there before, and that is that subclause 2 specifically names what is contrary to the ban which seems to suggest that other things of a political nature are also contrary. The minister is relying heavily on his assertion that this relates to election time. Would he please define election time in this country? Any time is election time.


James Edgar Walker: The time between the sittings of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For most of us in this place election time was in 1962, 1963 and 1965. We missed 1966, and I do not know whether or not we have missed 1967. Not only is there a question of the frequency of general elections but there are also by-elections to consider. There are rumours that a whole lot of them will be taking place in a few months. Actually there is nothing in clause 32 which mentions an election. Some candidates have already been nominated for the next election. In fact I think the hon. member for Carleton was present at a nominating convention not long ago which put a candidate in the field. Is that correct?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, in fact two of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I believe they come from this area, in which there are lots of civil servants. Were there any civil servants present at the meeting that night?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The latter part of clause 32(l)(a) says: "engage in work for, on behalf
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
of or against a political party". Political parties are not organizations that come into being just at election times. They have a reasonably permanent existence. As a matter of fact some of them have been around too long. So I think the minister cannot say that this relates only to the period immediately surrounding a general election.


Edgar John Benson: I did not say "general".


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he means by-elections, we have them all the time.


Edgar John Benson: It applies to the time surrounding an election period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since hardly a year goes by without a by-election in the federal field, it can affect activity for or against a political party. In fact I would ask the minister to explain this. There is nothing that I can see which would qualify as to time the wording in lines 46 and 47 on page 13 which read: "or engage in work for, on behalf of or against a political party".


Edgar John Benson: He can do this at any time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree, and I am not trying to change the ban against working for, on behalf of or against a political party. However I suggest that this very language has ruined the minister's argument about time. He cannot say that subclauses 1 and 2 refer only to a few weeks or months surrounding an election. It seems to me that, as the hon. member for Carleton said, if the minister is satisfied that simply being a member of a party is not in contravention of the ban, then why not say so. Is it not necessary now to say so in view of the fact that in subclause 2 we specify what can be done despite the ban? I suggest that having told civil servants that they can attend meetings and make contributions without contravening the ban, we are using language which may make civil servants wonder whether they have the freedom which the minister suggested they do have.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the words "attending a political meeting", because if they were not here I suppose some argument could be made that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission and other public servants should not be allowed to enter the House of Commons to listen to some of our deliberations. However, may I point out right away that I rise to speak on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister has suggested
Employment in Public Service that, because as members of the committee we were entrusted with a particular task, once we have completed that task whatever we brought forth would be immutable and unchangeable. Perhaps he offers as a compliment the suggestion that our actions in committee were as fossilized as the laws of the Medes and the Persians, which changeth not.
However, may I point out to him that clause 32 was an amendment brought in by his parliamentary secretary, who stood off manfully any attempts to make changes. Further I will suggest to the minister that it would be only human nature if the aforesaid parliamentary secretary, a very estimable fellow, had checked with higher authority before bringing it in.
I know the parliamentary secretary is an excellent draftsman, but I would go even further and suggest that there were certain officials who undoubtedly had a hand in the wording of this particular clause. Call me a suspicious fellow if you will, Mr. Chairman, but my suspicions go even so far as to lead me to believe that the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board gave his blessing somewhere along the way to the clause which was brought before us by his parliamentary secretary. So I hope again that, with this little refresher of memory, the minister will accede to the very sensible suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
In reading the various subclauses of clause 32 it does not seem to me out of place or illogical to place such a proviso in there. After all there are other permissible actions such as the contribution of money, and in the practice of Nova Scotian politicians one usually follows up one's money with political action. If civil servants are allowed to make contributions I do not see why they cannot be considered as members of a political party. Indeed I think the backroom boys who collect the moneys for the various political parties would think that almost the only sine qua non of being a member of a political party was to come marching in with monetary support. I appeal to the minister therefore that he consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.'
If I may be allowed to say something which may be considered out of order, because I may not be able to take part in the deliberations tonight-


James Edgar Walker: Before the hon. member starts on another subject I wonder if he would permit a question-and the only way in which he
February 20, 1967

Employment in Public Service will be able to tell it is a question is when I put a question mark at the end of it. Actually it is a question of personal privilege in connection with my role in the committee. I think the hon. member will recall that I brought forward an amendment in the committee which was much broader than the one that has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, or the clause that is in the bill.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Frankly, to my regret, I found that there were members on the committee-I want to stress the point that this was a personal amendment-who disagreed with this wide extension of political activity which my own amendment would have accomplished. I believe the hon. member for Halifax had his tongue in his cheek when he suggested that the amendments I put before the committee had been vetted by the President of the Treasury Board. This was not so. The President of the Treasury Board assured me that whatever recommendations came out of the committee in connection with this particular clause would be acceptable to him. He spoke on behalf of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it was not the President of the Treasury Board, who was it?


James Edgar Walker: It was the member for York Centre.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Of course I accept the hon. member's question, but perhaps it should have an exclamation mark after it rather than a question mark. I should like to be out of order for about 30 seconds because I have to be on a committee tonight. I compliment the members of the committee for their contribution, and this includes the parliamentary secretary, the chairman, the hon. member for Carleton, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and all the others.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that clause 32 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it also agreed that the question of the amendment will be taken at eight o'clock, or when the committee resumes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 33 to 36 inclusive agreed to.

On clause 37-Ministerial Staffs.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 37 carry?


Edgar John Benson: Stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 37 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clauses 38 to 48 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A, B, C and D agreed to.


Edgar John Benson: At this point, I should like to suggest the committee rise and report progress and that we take a dinner break until eight o'clock.


Richard Albert Bell: Why could we not deal with clause 37?


Edgar John Benson: I have a small amendment to propose to clause 37. If we wanted to revert to clause 37, I could move the amendment, which could then be considered by the committee over the dinner hour. The amendment to clause 37 would include in subclause (6), the leader of the government in the Senate or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. My amendment is as follows; and I would ask the Minister of Fisheries to move it:
That Bill C-181, an act respecting employment in the Public Service of Canada, be amended by striking out line 40 in subsection 6 of section 37 on page 16 and substituting the following:
"Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, leader of the government in the Senate or Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as it".


Mr. Hobichaud:: I so move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the minister accepted the bill as it came back from the committee, but now he is changing it.


Edgar John Benson: The big difficulty was in connection with the position of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. This was brought to my personal attention after the bill came back, and it was something that was not considered at all by the committee. The amendment is being introduced in order to take care of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Actually the present leader of the government in the Senate does not benefit because he is a member of the cabinet now and is covered. However, this might not be the case in the future.
The reason I am putting the amendment forward now is to avoid the bill being amended in the Senate and coming back to the House of Commons for such a small matter.
February 20, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of the committee to revert to clause 37?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 37-Ministerial staffs.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Richard Albert Bell: I have a brief comment to make in connection with clause 37. Under this clause a statutory right to a position is extended to those individuals who are mentioned-executive assistants, special assistants, and so on. Since this statutory right has not always been given promptly but in some instances has been delayed for months and months, this has caused some difficulty. Recently a case came to my attention in which a person holding a position as of statutory right had been red circled. I want to suggest that the red circling of a position held by an individual who has been granted that position as a statutory right is quite improper. I intend to draw the circumstances to the attention of the chairman of the Public Service Commission. When parliament requires that an individual have a role at a certain level, I think that level ought not, indeed really cannot, be reduced, although I understand a legal opinion by the law officers to the contrary has been obtained. This is the only comment I wish to make.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 37 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion that I should like to put forward concerning the interruption of the sittings for luncheon and for dinner. I should like to move:
That the order of the house adopted on February 3, 1967, and appearing on page 1282 of Votes and Proceedings of that date suspending the sittings of the house from seven o'clock p.m. to eight o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and from one o'clock p.m. to two o'clock p.m. on Fridays, be extended for a further two week period commencing February 20, 1967.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, agreed.
Employment in Public Service


Richard Albert Bell: We are in favour of this motion and would be glad to extend it to the end of the session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that we resume the business interrupted a few moments ago?.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-181, respecting employment in the public service of Canada-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-181.
Pursuant to an order of the house just made, this sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Prior to the dinner hour the committee had been considering clause 32 and the amendment thereto moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The clause was then stood. Is it the wish to the committee to proceed with that clause now?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas 23; nays 44.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 32 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have been reflecting upon the remarks made before dinner by the President of the Treasury Board. I am wondering, in following his line of logic and the parallel he drew with certain things not being declared, or as not being unlawful-and these things are not spelled out in the bill-whether the minister could not delete clause 32 entirely. The matter would then be left to the judgment of the people in the public service. We agree that in the past these people have shown and most likely in the future they will continue to show the right kind of judgment, without entering into any form of partisan activity.
February 20, 1967

Financial Administration Act


Edgar John Benson: Clause 32 contains certain prohibitions which were agreed to by the committee considering this legislation. I do not think the list of prohibitions rules out any rights possessed by an individual under the rule of common law. I am the last person to be talking as if I were an expert about the law as such. The only point I wish to make is that any common law rights there are still exist. That is as far as we can go. I do not think I can make any more comment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave now.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bid.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-182, to amend the Financial Administration Act-Mr. Pearson

Mr. Batten in the clair.
On section 1: Responsibilities of Treasury Board.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Edgar John Benson: I suppose there is little I need say about Bill C-182, which complements the two pieces of public service legislation with which the house has already dealt. The basic purpose of the bill is to amend the Financial Administration Act in such a way as to provide the Treasury Board with the authority it will require to act as the central management agency envisaged by the royal commission on government organization, and as the principal agent of the government in employer-employee relationships in the processes of collective bargaining.
I should like to say that in the case of this legislation, as in the case of the other bills we have considered, the government wishes to express its appreciation to the joint committee for the careful consideration given to this measure, as well as for the amendments which were introduced, and I should like to indicate at this point that the government is happy to support without reservation the bill as it was recommended by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.


Thomas Miller Bell: Most of the comments which might normally have been made on this bill have already been made on its two companion measures. I have only three comments to make, now.
In earlier debate I expressed reservations about the transfer of all responsibility for classifications and establishments from the Public Service Commission to the Treasury Board, a politically motivated body no matter how dedicated the secretary and the officers of that board might be. To this change I adopt what I might describe as a wait and see attitude. As long as I am in this chamber, personally, I shall endeavour to check and monitor the work of the Treasury Board in this respect.
The bill as originally presented to us contained no provision for appeal in the case of dismissal on security grounds. It has been greatly improved in the special joint committee by the inclusion of a mandatory provision for an inquiry prior to a person's dismissal for security reasons. But it is still weak, inasmuch as it leaves the nature of the inquiry totally undefined; the matter is left to regulation by the governor in council, the dismissing body.
I believe that some certainty, some procedure enacted and specified by parliament itself, is not only desirable but essential. Were it not for the fact that this new clause is one which must obviously be studied by the royal commission on security headed by Max W. Mackenzie, I would be prompted to move an amendment to establish formal procedures on appeal. If my words are heard by the commission I submit that they should devise and recommend formal and public procedures or techniques of inquiry for inclusion in this legislation.
Finally, I want to express my grave reservations about the provision for Governor-General's warrants which is re-enacted in this measure. I will await clause 6 before expressing my firm disapproval of this undemocratic technique of public financing.
With these comments made, we have no reason to delay the passage of this bill.


David Lewis: Like the hon. member for Carleton I shall not take very much time. I would point out to hon. members of the committee who have not had the occasion to study this bill as closely as those of us who were on the special joint committee that the measure now before us represents a serious and important change in government organization.
February 20, 1967

The President of the Treasury Board will now have a great deal more authority, and, what is perhaps more important, a great many more duties than heretofore. I should also like to remind members of the committee that the Treasury Board from now on will be in effect the employer of the public service; in practical effect, if not in law, it will be the Treasury Board which will be the employer of every civil servant who works for the federal government. It will be the Treasury Board which will be negotiating with the certified bargaining agents; it will be the Treasury Board which will agree or disagree with any proposal made by the employee association; it will be the Treasury Board which will be signing collective agreements. So while this may appear to be only a technical bill making certain changes in the Financial Administration Act, it really places on the Treasury Board a whole range of new responsibilities and duties, including responsibility for collective bargaining under Bill No. C-170.
One can only express the hope that the representatives of the Treasury Board when negotiating with the employees will act in such a way as to make this employer a model employer in Canada. The President of the Treasury Board indicates it is already the model employer of Canada. He will forgive me if 1 say that if I wanted to take up the time I could show him a number of instances where the model needs a great deal of redesigning. I am hoping that Bill C-170, which this house has passed, affords a structure within which this redesigning can take a proper form in actual bargaining between the employee representatives and representatives of the Treasury Board.
I told some leaders of the public servants whom I met last Wednesday, and I repeat it now, that I was most impressed by the attitude of the secretary of the Treasury Board, Dr. Davidson, and Mr. Douglas Love, when they appeared before the joint committee. They appeared to me to indicate an attitude which augurs well for the future of the collective bargaining regime. I hope the actual process of collective bargaining will not revive any managerial prejudices which are below the surface at the present time-that they will remain sunk, even under the pressures of collective bargaining.
I am taking nothing away from the hon. member for Carleton when I take the liberty of reminding, or informing, members of this committee that I had occasion to battle a
Financial Administration Act great deal about the right of appeal for persons dismissed for security reasons. Like the hon. member for Carleton I am dissatisfied with the provisions for inquiry contained in clause 3 of Bill C-182. I still cannot for the life of me understand why the government members could not have agreed to the inclusion of a decent form of appeal in the case of dismissal, for reasons given in the relevant clause. I was told in the joint committee that one of the reasons for this attitude was that a royal commission of inquiry into security matters is now in progress, and that it would be wise to await the results of that inquiry before setting out any complicated appeal machinery.
I was unconvinced then by this argument, and I am still unconvinced. Surely there would have been nothing to prevent the government from making any changes which the report of the royal commission on security might have recommended as necessary or desirable. In the meantime, anybody affected by dismissal for safety or security reasons could resort to a definite form of appeal.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am glad the government went so far as to agree at least to provide statutorily for an inquiry, but I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the inquiry is being made in accordance with regulations of the governor in council by the person appointed by the governor in council, and without any requirement that the person concerned is to be given details of the charges against him or, detailed information as to the reasons why he was dismissed, so that he would have a case that he could meet before such an inquiry. After all, it is the essence of any kind of inquiry that is really worth while that the person charged, accused, disciplined, discriminated against or in any other way dealt with as a result of some allegations, should know the precise nature of those allegations and be able to meet them in the proper way.
I therefore echo the criticism made by the hon. member for Carleton and criticisms which I made in the joint committee as loudly and as annoyingly as I could, that this provision for an inquiry, although a step forward, is simply not adequate. I hope that between now and the time the royal commission of inquiry into security matters reports, the government will have no occasion to use the powers conferred by this clause of the bill or that anyone will suffer injustice-because injustice there will be if there is no more adequate provision than this. I also point out
February 20, 1967

Financial Administration Act that in addition to the dismissal of the employee concerned, there is the problem of what happens to some of his benefits when he is dismissed. I hope this question will be gone into in any inquiry that is set up under this bill.
As I said with regard to the bill that was before us a few minutes ago, I am still very much disturbed by the fact that classification of employees is exclusively within the authority of the Treasury Board, and that the collective bargaining process will not be such as to have any effect on the classification of employees. Anyone who has represented workers at any time knows perfectly well that classification is as related to wage determination as any other factor in the labour-management relationship. As I said the other day, you could easily get a wage increase on Monday and find it eroded on Tuesday by a reclassification that the employer unilaterally undertakes. Fiddling with classifications, reclassifying positions, reducing the rate attached to a particular classification, and all that kind of thing, immediately affects the total salary situation.
Again I repeat what I said in committee and have said once or twice before on the floor of this house, that even though I grant without reservation that it is a normal right of the employer initially to classify the work that has to be done under him, I still see no reason-I did not see any in committee-why the collective agreement could not contain some provision for negotiation in cases of reclassification or changes in classification, even through the initial step is taken. When you have a collective agreement, the collective agreement in this case, I imagine, as in all other cases, will set out in one way or another all the classifications of employees and the particular salary or salary ranges applicable to a given classification. I hold the view that I may say was shared by Mr. Justice Laskin who, before he was appointed to the bench was one of the leading arbitrators and conciliators in the province of Ontario, if not in Canada, that once you have set in a collective agreement particular classifications of employees, it should not be within the power of the employer unilaterally to erode the collective agreement by either withdrawing classifications or fiddling with them during the term of the collective agreement.
That is why I am disturbed by the fact that the area of classification of employees is outside the realm of collective bargaining under a previous bill considered and passed by this

house. I can only express again the hope, as I did on another occasion, that Treasury Board officials and the Treasury Board itself will be mighty careful about their behavior with regard to classifications. 1 do not suppose 1 have known anything quite so disruptive and, if I may say so in the presence of the President of the Treasury Board and some of his officials, in a sense so shameful as the reclassification and red circling which went on in the federal civil service in the last number of months. The fact that the way it was done was regrettable is, I think, proven by the fact that many thousands of the original reclassifications were abandoned or changed and many of the red circles were removed. In my submission, the only decent way of reclassifying and changing rates for classifications is not to hurt the incumbent employee, not to make the new, lower rate applicable to the person already on the job but to make it applicable only to a new employee undertaking the job for the first time.
I submit that this could not have happened if classification had been part of an existing collective bargaining regime. Perhaps it is too strong to say that it could not have happened, but it certainly would have been much less likely to happen if that had been the case. If Treasury Board indulges in the same kind of reclassification in the future, using its exclusive right in this field to do that kind of thing, namely to red circle and green circle as they have in the last number of months, they will create precisely the same confusion, resentment and loss of morale which the red circling produced in many areas of the civil service, the customs and excise area and many others, in the last number of months. It is obvious that nothing we can say or do will change the government's mind on this question of keeping classification out of the collective bargaining process, because we tried for many, many hours in the joint committee and I personally, as I said the other day, felt embarrassed from time to time at being so annoying and persistent in my demands on this and related issues.
Certainly we could move an amendment on the floor of this committee. If we did that, the Whip of the Liberal party would make sure that those who have gone for coffee, or wherever they have gone, would be brought back into the chamber and there would be further delays, which we are determined to try to avoid. So we have to accept the government's unjustifiably adamant position, in my opinion, on this matter, give the bill a chance, and see
February 20, 1967

whether this provision will in fact work. I hope that the staff associations, which are very much worried about the question of classification, will watch with great care, what Treasury Board does, will note everything that the board does, will keep a very careful record of the results of its actions in the field of classification, and will arm members of parliament of all parties with the necessary information to produce a change in the law if the behavior of Treasury Board should require it.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anything more I can usefully add at this point. I can only hope and pray that Treasury Board will behave like a good employer. I am not so sure what my prayer can accomplish, but I can at least hope, because if they do not behave like a good employer things will be pretty dismal for the civil service.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 1
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question which seems to come under clause 1.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, should we not be on clause 2?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 1 is deferred only when it is simply the short title. Clause 1 in this bill, as the minister recognizes, is one of considerable substance. It gives the Treasury Board authority with regard to a number of pension acts, and it is in relation to this that I should like to ask the minister a question.
As the minister knows, the joint committee on the public service of Canada is still meeting, primarily in respect of pension questions. I do not at this time intend to bring in the kind of matters they are dealing with in the committee, but I should like to say to the minister that when some of the delegates which have appeared before the committee have been asked about what should be done in respect of future, with particular reference to the writing of an escalation clause into the pension plan and things of that sort, the reply I think by all the delegates has been that this could be the subject of collective bargaining.
When the specific question, would you favour an adjustment of the rates that are paid to achieve such and such a purpose, was put, the answer was that that could be the subject of collective bargaining. I should like to ask
Financial Administration Act the minister whether, under the provisions of this and the other bills we have dealt with, it is clear that changes in the various pension plans, such as the Public Service Superannuation Act and others could be the subject of collective bargaining between employee organizations and the Treasury Board.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, contributions with regard to pensions are covered under the Public Service Superannuation Act and no collective bargaining agreement can affect a statute. Therefore changes in pensions of the public service are not bargained in the collective bargaining sense. I am informed they would have to be approved by parliament and would take the form of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that any different from some of the other things which might be agreed to as a result of collective bargaining? Are there not other cases in which the result of collective bargaining would call for an enactment by parliament? As I understand it, the only thing the government can undertake at these collective bargaining sessions is to bring these matters before parliament. If that is the case in respect of other areas, could it not be the same in respect of pension matters?


Edgar John Benson: In the new bill clause 56(2) provides:
No collective agreement shall provide, directly or indirectly, for the alteration or elimination of any existing term or condition of employment or the establishment of any new term or condition of employment,
(a)	the alteration or elimination of which or the establishment of which, as the case may be, would require or have the effect of requiring the enactment or amendment of any legislation by parliament, except for the purpose of appropriating moneys required for its implementation, or
(b)	that has been or may be, as the case may be, established pursuant to any act specified in schedule C.
Then schedule C mentions the four acts, the Government Employees Compensation Act, the Government Vessels Discipline Act, the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I still wonder whether we did not have an understanding in the committee that in fact there would be areas in which part of the agreement between the government and the employee organizations would be an undertaking on the part of the government to seek certain changes in parliament.
February 20, 1967

Financial Administration Act


Edgar John Benson: I do not think the government as such in a collective agreement could undertake to change a statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not say "undertake to change it"; I said "undertake to seek the change".


Edgar John Benson: The government at any time could, outside the House of Commons, state that it intended to undertake to change a statute; but this in itself does not change the statute. I do think any government in collective bargaining, if a matter of superannuation were considered, could say that it would take this under consideration. This is a matter for decision by parliament, and if the government indicated in a collective bargaining agreement that it would change a statute of parliament, everyone in this house would say that it was overriding the powers of parliament as such.


David Lewis: The minister is misunderstanding the point, if I may respectfully say this to him. There are two stages. One is the collective bargaining itself; the other is the actual document in which the agreement is embodied. The minister is quite right that clause 56 states that the collective bargaining agreement cannot provide for some term that is not consonant with the acts set out in schedule C. Certainly he is right. Obviously one could not oppose that, because if you have an act of parliament that sets certain standards, you cannot by a collective agreement amend the act of parliament. No one has suggested that.
What I believe my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has in mind, and what I should like the minister to say, is that so far as he is concerned, as the President of the Treasury Board, there is nothing to prevent a staff association putting on the bargaining table matters relating to superannuation and that the government, through the Treasury Board, will be prepared to discuss superannuation at the bargaining table. What the result of that discussion will be, if there is agreement between the Treasury Board representatives and the union representatives, may have to go to the colleagues of the President of the Treasury Board, and he may have to persuade them to make certain amendments to the Superannuation Act. We should like to have on the record, however, a clear statement that superannuation is properly a matter for consideration at the bargaining table.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, any matter to be raised in the process of collective bargaining could include superannuation. What I was attempting to stress was the fact that the collective bargaining agreement as such could not amend an act of parliament. Certainly the matter can be put forward by the employees or by the government. It can be considered and the government then, outside the collective agreement, can indicate it might be willing to undertake certain proposals in respect of amending the particular legislation.


David Lewis: Perhaps the minister can make this a little clearer, without some of the reservations which his words convey. Are there some areas in which the employer-in this case the Treasury Board-would be fully justified in saying that this is not a matter for collective bargaining? When the area is classification of employees, and so on, we may be certain that superannuation or any matters covered by the acts set out in schedule C are not necessarily excluded material from collective bargaining.


Edgar John Benson: These are not exclusive
managerial decisions, as are such things as classification, whether my hon. friend likes it or not in the present legislation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, there is one point arising out of subclause 2 upon which I should like to make a comment. This is the clause under which the Treasury Board is authorized to exercise the power of the governor in council under certain acts.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Paragraph (f) is a general provision which reads as follows:
such of the provisions of any other act respecting any matter in relation to which the Treasury Board may act for the Queen's Privy Council for Canada pursuant to subsection 1 as may be specified by the governor in council.
I would hope that this authority for delegation would be used as sparingly as possible and only for a very good reason. The President and Secretary of the Treasury Board and I, have argued the question related to the production of minutes of the Treasury Board in the house. The President and the Secretary of the Treasury Board have taken the attitude that the minutes are not subject to production in the House of Commons as are orders in council. If the governor in council acts, then the house may get the documents, but if there is a delegation of authority to the Treasury Board then the President of
February 20, 1967

the Treasury Board will probably come to parliament and hide behind the alleged privilege of the minutes of the Treasury Board. If he does, then the house will be denied access to information in some cases which is urgently desired.
Under the structure that is proposed there is no doubt that the Treasury Board will have to act in many of these matters, but I do hope there will be no hiding by way of privilege in the way which I mentioned.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to the remarks made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) on subclause (7) of clause 3 and on security.
However, Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the minister's attention-

to the following subject. There is a problem here under internal administration, grievances that come under the jurisdiction of the internal administration. Some methods of dealing with them have already been established but I should like to get an explanation from the minister. I am referring to internal administration under subclause 1.


Edgar John Benson: I am not sure what my hon. friend is referring to when he speaks of internal administration. If he is referring to internal administration in the House of Commons let me tell him that this does not come under this legislation. It comes under the House of Commons Act. Earlier this afternoon I gave certain assurances with regard to it. The employees of the House of Commons are not employees of the government as such but employees of this house. The manner in which we deal with them must be decided by all parties of the house.


Raymond Langlois: May we have an assurance from the minister that we will have some explanations from him with regard to this matter in the near future?


Edgar John Benson: This afternoon I gave some assurances which will be recorded in Hansard.


David Lewis: Can we have some co-operation from those who manipulate the loud speaker system, because we cannot hear the minister too well and we get a good many echoes over the earphones. Words can be interpreted in many ways when there are no echoes, but the echoes can double or triple the meanings.
Financial Administration Act


Edgar John Benson: That is no fault of mine.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Powers and Functions of Treasury Board in Relation to Personnel
Management.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about subsection 7 of section 7 in clause 3 of the bill. I am particularly concerned about this subsection which reads as follows:
Nothing in this or any other act shall be construed to limit or affect the right or power of the governor in council, in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, to suspend any person employed in the public service or, after an inquiry conducted in accordance with regulations of the governor in council by a person appointed by the governor in council at which the person concerned has been given an opportunity of being heard, to dismiss any such person.
Subsection 7 is a very slight improvement over section 50.


Edgar John Benson: It is a considerable improvement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We will see how much of an improvement it is. I remember that when we were arguing over the Victor Spencer case I think it was the Prime Minister who said that back in the 1950's section 50 had been passed without any strenuous objections. I want to make it very clear that I have strenuous objections to it now. The words "or, after an inquiry conducted in accordance" simply provide for an inquiry. In the case of Victor Spencer it was an inquiry concerning a man who had been dismissed by the governor in council, was to be tried under regulations made by the governor in council by a person appointed by the governor in council. If there is anything more unilaterial than that, I do not know what it is. The governor in council is going to be the judge, jury and executioner.


Edgar John Benson: Will the hon. member permit me to clarify this? Under subsection 7 he is not dismissed by the governor in council, but suspended until an inquiry takes place at which he can put forth his case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly the last part of the phrase which reads "to dismiss any such person" indicates that somebody has to dismiss him. Surely this would be under the jurisdiction of the cabinet after an inquiry had been conducted under the regulations made by the cabinet by a person appointed by the cabinet.
13260	COMMONS
Financial Administration Act In other words the cabinet will be the judge, the jury and the executioner. The cabinet will set up regulations under which the man will be tried, will appoint the judge, and after this kangaroo court is carefully set up the man will be dismissed by the government, whose original suspension will be fully vindicated by the quasi court which it has set up.


Edgar John Benson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he really believe this? This is exactly what Victor Spencer asked for and what the government gave him. He asked for an inquiry conducted by someone appointed by the governor in council. Does the hon. member believe that that inquiry was not carried out fairly in the circumstances, or that the governor in council can make this kind of decision with regard to a dismissal without first obtaining advice from the R.C.M.P., and from the committee on security, etc.?
Under this section a person cannot be dismissed summarily as he was under section 50; he can only be suspended. He is given the right which Victor Spencer had when the inquiry was set up. I am the first to admit that this is not a perfect solution, that it is an interim solution as was understood by the committee at the time when it was passed. It is an interim solution while we are awaiting a report from the committee on security.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, to try to refer to the Victor Spencer case in order to gain approval for this subsection is a very weak argument indeed. In the first place Victor Spencer was only given an inquiry after weeks of questioning and protestations in the house. Second, he was granted an inquiry by a person appointed by the cabinet, only because there was no other way of having such an inquiry. Now, if the minister will just possess his soul in patience I can get to the point I am seeking to make.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I suggest that what is required here is not an inquiry. What is required here is the right of appeal to some impartial person or board, and not under regulations set up by the people who want to fire him; not by a person appointed by the people who have already made a decision with respect to his case. First, he ought to have a right of appeal to some impartial person or tribunal. Second, the regulations and the procedures under which that appeal will be conducted should be set out, not by the cabinet but by parliament, or set out under usual judicial procedures. Thirdly, there should be a guarantee

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
that in the course of that appeal he will be allowed two things; one is to know clearly and distinctly what the charge is and what the evidence is against him, and the other is that he will be allowed counsel and that counsel will be allowed to appear for him, and will be given in advance all the evidence that has been collected against him. These are the basic things that any individual going into court would be entitled to under our system of jurisprudence.
However, since this individual is a civil servant, under the cloak of secrecy he can be denied the basic tenets of justice. He may be dismissed by the governor in council. He may be tried by someone appointed by the governor in council under regulations set up by the governor in council. This, Mr. Chairman, is far from any great improvement over the old section 50 of the Public Service Act. This is not a right of appeal. This is simply a situation in which the cabinet can suspend some person with the intention of firing him, and after they have set up an inquiry under their own appointee, with their own regulations, they can get the approval of that appointee for the dismissal of the individual concerned.
This individual, under this subclause 7, has no guarantees at all that he is going to have a fair hearing, that he is going to have an impartial judgment made of his case, that he is going to be given in advance all the facts and data upon which the charge is based. He has no guarantee he will be brought face to face with his accusers. None of these things is spelled out in this subclause. I think the minister ought to be ashamed to ask this committee to approve a subclause like this. It represents a complete abdication of the ordinary precepts of Canadian justice.
I think the minister ought to give the committee at least some idea of the regulations the governor in council proposes to promulgate for the conduct of such an inquiry. What are the regulations to be? What rights will an individual have who appears before this inquiry? Will he be entitled to have counsel and to have the evidence presented against him? Will his accusers appear and be subjected to cross-examination by counsel for the accused? Will all the ordinary court procedures obtain? We do not know. I for one am not prepared to see this subclause pass until the minister tells us what the regulations are which the governor in council has in mind, and which will constitute the framework within which this inquiry will be conducted.
February 20, 1967


Raymond Langlois: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam never ceases to astonish me. Today he seems to be clairvoyant, but on other days he seems to be a little bit short-sighted. I am always embarrassed for the former premier of Saskatchewan. In some respects I am somewhat surprised at the proposal contained in subsection 7 of clause 3. If we recall correctly, this provision was probably amended following the Victor Spencer case which was brought before the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said entire responsibility for this matter lies with the cabinet. Well, I would not know who else would have responsibility. If a person has been accused of a breach of security, it is up to the government to deal with that person. Parliament will know about it when any such action is taken. This is a better system than we used to have.
Everyone, Mr. Chairman, has a right to a fair hearing. If there is no cause for alarm after the hearing has been conducted, the man should be rehabilitated and the case set aside. If there is any doubt in a security case, can that man stay? These remarks apply to a person who has been accused by the government. But suppose it is a case like that of Calvin Macdonald who has not been accused by the government? He has no remedy in trying to get a fair trial. The minister may say this matter does not come under his jurisdiction. However if a man is an agent for the R.C.M.P., part of his pay is withheld to rehabilitate him when he is no longer an agent.
If someone is being accused, then it is the government's responsibility to assure that person a fair hearing. Mr. Macdonald is being tried by public opinion because of the government's silence. If we go around suspecting people and accusing them, then it is up to the government to give these people an opportunity to clear themselves. I am not too concerned with whether or not the government appoints the judge for this inquiry. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam says the government should not name the judge. However, the government names all the judges.
I do not believe in this system of nominating judges, but I believe that until it is changed we have to accept it. If a man who has been accused is given a fair hearing and is found guilty, then that should be the end of the matter.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In this case a man and his family and all those involved have been left in a state of
Financial Administration Act suspension, and I think this is a grave injustice. The government says that it cannot do anything in a case like this. I would draw attention of hon. members to what happened in the case of Leopold. So why cannot the same thing happen in the case of Macdonald? If the man was not an R.C.M.P. agent he should be locked up. He has accused members of the former C.C.F. party and other members of the House of Commons, though not in a derogatory way. He made reference to Mr. Coldwell, a man I respect and who was nominated for the commission.
There have been a lot of protests over the Victor Spencer case, yet in the case of Macdonald there has been nothing but silence. Why is this, Mr. Chairman? Is it because some cabinet minister says the guy is a crackpot? Who is any cabinet minister to call someone that? I think some members of the cabinet may be crackpots, but we still have to put up with them. If this man was either working directly or indirectly with the R.C.M.P. and they were paying him, then he was working for the R.C.M.P. Now he has been found out. Nevertheless the government should look into this question and publicly state one way or the other exactly who this man was and what he was doing. This is the responsibility of the government.
In matters like this there may be many doors to pass through and sometimes they are all closed. If this parliament had not acted on the Victor Spencer case, then perhaps this clause might never have been in the bill. Unfortunately he died suddenly before the matter could be cleared up. But the other gentleman is not dead and neither is his family. I think the government should make a public statement on the matter and if under this clause the man deserves to be rehabilitated, then the government should take action.
The only reason I spoke on this clause is that on one side we talk of rights and on the other side we forget about them altogether. You would be surprised, Mr. Chairman, how many people do not know what they are talking about when they discuss Calvin Macdonald. All they know of him is that he was the guy who threw the blood bomb.
If a member of parliament cannot get a reply from the government, Mr. Chairman, just imagine how difficult it is for the little man out in British Columbia. I do not know whether the government is waiting for some brain wave or some fancy idea, but sometimes we forget to take our own responsibilities.
13262	COMMONS
Financial Administration Act Certainly in this regard I condemn the government for their lack of responsibility. All the government say in cases like this is that they must keep silent. But they did not keep silent during the war in the case of Leopold. If he could be reinstated in employment, then so should Macdonald. If Calvin Macdonald is a lunatic then he should be locked up. If the man stands accused of being a Communist spy for ten and a half years, then why is there any need to wait. He should be brought before an inquiry so that he can tell all he knows. Such an inquiry need not be a public inquiry, but some determination should be made as to whether he should be put behind bars or rehabilitated.
I would suggest that a man like this who has worked for his country deserves just as much justice and attention on the part of the Canadian government and parliament as one accused by the government outright of being a Communist spy and relieved of all his privileges until an inquiry was set up. If we give this sort of treatment to our official spies we should at least give it to one who says he worked for the R.C.M.P.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a very brief observation. I think we all accept the fact that the application of the strict rule of law must be superseded at times when the security and safety of the realm is at stake. I think this is the condition precedent which is set out in the first part of subsection 7 in clause 3.
I was not present during the committee sessions, though I did read some of the transcripts. I take it that this particular clause is only a stop-gap, interim measure until the government, through its committee now in operation, has completed examination of this very difficult problem and has brought in some regulations. I do not know whether any undertaking has been given in this regard, but this undertaking should not preclude this parliament from examining the regulations.
True enough, Mr. Chairman, the government must have a responsibility in this matter, but I would hesitate to agree to this measure-in fact, not only would I hesitate but I would oppose it-as it is embraced within the four corners of subsections 7 and 8, if I thought that there would not be any opportunity for this house to debate at some future time not too far distant the regulations under which there would be some process of examination where the safety and security of the state is involved. As I read subsection 8,

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
once the order has been made by the governor in council it shall be taken as being conclusive proof of the matters stated therein. In other words, there is no opportunity for it to be tested or questioned.
I am not going to say any more. If the government is in a position to tell me that following the completion of the proceedings of the committee set up by the government these matters will be brought before parliament and an opportunity given to debate the kind of procedures involved in security matters, which will be the subject of a more permanent arrangement, then I am content.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that this is only a stop-gap measure for the future until the commission appointed by the government reports and recommends procedures with regard to security matters in this country.
On this commission we have Mr. Max Mackenzie, Mr. M. J. Coldwell and Mr. Y. Pratt. We hope that in the not too distant future these gentlemen will come forward with a report which will advise the government how security matters should be handled. The representatives of the party of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were sitting on the joint committee. That body came forward with this measure as a possible stopgap. For the interval I hope that no security cases arise until after the royal commission has reported. I wish to assure the committee that this is a stop-gap measure and will be subject to review when the report of the royal commission on security has been received. In the interim we hope this will be acceptable to the committee.
Personally I believe that this measure is far superior to section 50 of the Civil Service Act. Subsection 2 of section 50 says:
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or affect the right or power of the governor in council to remove or dismiss any employee.
This is a real step forward. It is not the ultimate solution to the problem. I think we would be guessing at what the royal commission on security will find or recommend if we go further at this point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understood, from the minister's previous statement, that this was an interim measure pending the recommendations of the commission set up to look into security procedures. I understand that. I would not expect the minister to move a lengthy amendment, with that caveat in mind.
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
Though this is an interim measure until the commission reports and until the government brings down legislation to implement any recommendations the committee may make- which may take two or three years-I think this clause could have been much better than it is. We are passing a law: We are not passing a temporary regulation. This matter becomes a law of Canada.
Even though this is a temporary measure I object to two things in it. One of those has to do with the whole procedure under which the inquiry will be conducted and the right of appeal, which goes much further than the inquiry. The framework within which the inquiry will be conducted is to be contained in regulations passed by the governor in council. We have not seen the regulations. As things are, the government is left with a completely free hand as to the regulations it will pass and the framework within which they will be set up. The other objection is that this measure says that the commissioner has to be appointed by the governor in council. That might be somebody in the civil service; it might be somebody closely associated with those who have suspended the man and recommended his dismissal. The minister could have saved himself much trouble by having placed in subclause 7 a provision saying that when a person has been suspended for security reasons the right of appeal would be to some judge named by the Chief Justice of Canada.
In these circumstances the judge appointed would set up the regulations and framework within which the appeal would be heard and the inquiry conducted. This would give the judge the right to decide the extent to which the hearings would be private-I assume they would be in camera-and the procedures for the conduct of the appeal. This gets the governor in council entirely out of the picture. A security matter ought to be referred to a judge, it should be left to a judge to carry out his own investigation in the way he thinks best. That would alleviate any suspicion that the person appointed as commissioner has been selected because he is more likely to agree with the recommendation of suspension and dismissal.
The minister shakes his head. I remind him of the old saying, that not only must justice be done, but it must appear to be done. Beyond a shadow of doubt it must appear to an individual who has been dismissed on security grounds that justice has been done. Those grounds, because they have to do with
Financial Administration Act security, cannot be made public. I point out to the minister that subclause 8 of clause 7 says:
(8) For the purposes of subsection 7, any order made by the governor in council is conclusive proof of the matters stated therein in relation to the suspension or dismissal of any person in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.
We are giving this commission wide powers. Not only has it power to inquire, but the decision it reaches is final and complete. I take it there can be no appeal to the courts. A man can do nothing else. If you are to make such a definite decision, which would end a man's employment with the government and probably ruin him for life-any man who has been fired by the government after an inquiry on the grounds of security, is not likely to find a job anywhere else in Canada or in the western world-it is extremely important that this committee make absolutely sure that when a person is dimissed he has every opportunity to present his case. He should be treated according to the ordinary precepts of justice.
The government for its own sake, I should think, would want to wash its hands of anything that looked like a biased judgment. I do not know why the minister does not consider that when it is decided to suspend a man, the right of appeal should be given to him. Any such appeal ought to be conducted by any judge of the Supreme Court selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It should be left to that judge to decide how to conduct the inquiry.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise what might be considered a contentious question. I have been asked to do this by some people in my constituency, by some members of the public service in Ottawa, and by some other employees in the public service. I suppose I have been asked because possibly I represent the Victorian values more than any other member of our group.
I want to quote two paragraphs taken from section 3:
(f)	establish standards of discipline in the public service and prescribe the financial and other penalties, including suspension and discharge, that may be applied for breaches of discipline or misconduct, and the circumstances and manner in which and the authority by which or whom those penalties may be applied or may be varied or rescinded in whole or in part;
(g)	establish and provide for the application of standards governing physical working conditions of, and for the health and safety of, persons employed in the public service;
February 20, 1967

Financial Administration Act
We take it that persons employed in the public service are proud to be in it. I am rising to ask one or two questions which have not been answered to the satisfaction of employees in the public service, the public or some of the supervisors and administrators of the public service. I ask the minister, with respect to this section related to discipline and so on, are certain standards of deportment and dress required in the public service of Canada? Are they required in all branches of the service?
This has been brought to my attention. In my own constituency we have a young man who was employed as a postman, you see, and there was a dreadful uproar because he went round with the post, delivering the rural mail wearing this postal hat, with his hair down over his shoulders. There was a proper hullabaloo. I might tell the minister that I am inclined to be always on the side of discipline in cases of this kind.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Then again, there is the question of miniskirts in the public service. Are there any standards applied? I am not asking about anything reasonable, but suppose some female employee turns up in anything which might be considered quite outrageous. Are there any standards in this respect? I am lately informed that in some departments of the public service young ladies have arrived in their offices with skirts so short that it has been necessary to put screens in front of their desks. I should like the minister to make inquiries into this. Are there any standards about dress, or with respect to the length of hair and so on? Miniskirts and long hair can be very diverting and provocative in certain circumstances. I am one of those who believe there should be certain standards of dress and deportment required in the public service of Canada and I should like the minister to tell the committee whether there are any standards in this respect at the present time. I ask, not for my own information, but for the information of the public in general, the employees, and in some instances the supervisors who are responsible for the various branches of the public service.


Gerald William Baldwin: Also whether they affect the security and safety of the country.


Edgar John Benson: There are certain requirements in the public service with regard to those who wear uniforms in the public service, and I believe there are certain standards with respect to the general appearance of


those employed. But these are presently administered by departments. I was about to say somewhat facetiously that our standards with regard to miniskirts are pretty high.
But of course this is a serious matter. People in the public service may be expected to report at their work dressed as properly as people in other walks of life in Canada. I do not think the standards in the public service need to be any higher or lower than that. As I say, these questions are at present handled by the departments. For example I received a note from my deputy minister the other day asking whether it would be all right for our customs inspectors to grow beards in areas where beards are being grown as part of the centennial celebrations. I replied that since others in the area were growing beards there seemed no harm in our inspectors growing them as well.
The purpose of these two paragraphs in the bill is really to take important matters affecting personnel administration having to do with standards of discipline and move them into the jurisdiction of Treasury Board, where we could get some sort of standard established throughout the civil service.
In addition I would point out that any standards which are set under the collective bargaining procedure might at the ultimate include standards with respect to hair length and skirt length and would be subject to the normal grievance procedures; if someone disagreed with a decision which was made by the Treasury Board when giving instructions to departments, he or she would be able to go through the normal grievance procedure and the matter would ultimately be determined by adjudication under the terms of Bill C-170.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his reply, but in fairness to the public and to the employees could the minister provide us with copies of the standards established in the various departments by the deputy ministers or departmental heads?


Edgar John Benson: I can undertake to try to do this. I do not know how far these standards are written out in the various departments. One of the purposes of this legislation is to make sure that in future we have something in writing and administered by the various departments.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
February 20, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Financial Administration Act
On clause 6-Payments urgently required.
Richard Albert Bell: As I indicated when we were discussing a previous clause, I have reservations with respect to clause 6 which I wish now to express. This clause deals with Governor Generals' warrants. It repeals a former section and re-enacts it substituting the President of the Treasury Board for the Minister of Finance.
Now I was brought up in the old school which believed that Governor Generals' warrants were evil in themselves and basically inconsistent with responsible government. I therefore intend to oppose the re-enactment of this provision. In my opinion it is an affront to parliament and to responsible government for any prime minister to seek dissolution of parliament without having secured from parliament financial provision for at least the election period.
The persistent use of Governor Generals' warrants in the past few years is a denial of the basic function of the House of Commons. Four times in 25 years parliament has been totally by-passed and ignored and the national administration financed over long periods through this undemocratic technique. In 1940 Mr. Mackenzie King persuaded Lord Tweedsmuir, improperly, in my view, to dissolve parliament at a time when no provision had been made for the public service until a new parliament might meet. As a result, there had to be massive resort to Governor Generals' warrants.
This precedent was followed in 1958 when Mr. Massey granted the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert a dissolution without consideration of the financial provisions still to be made, and resort was had to Governor Generals' warrants not only for that fiscal year but for the ensuing year. From that date things have gone from bad to worse. When the former government was defeated in this house in February 1963, no effort was made, despite some urging by ministers, to come back to the house the following day and ask for financial provision to tide the administration over until the new parliament could meet. So essential Canadian needs were financed by that government, and by the government which was elected on April 8, 1963, through Governor Generals' warrants, and this was done for many months.
Then, deliberately, in September, 1965, the present Prime Minister induced General Vanier to grant a dissolution without the House of Commons having made any financial provision whatever for the election period.
Once again resort was had to Governor Generals' warrants for a period of several months. Four times for extended periods on each occasion this house has been by-passed and ignored and I think this intolerable denial of the basic authority of the House of Commons is something which should be stopped.
I believe this provision ought not to be re-enacted and that the correct procedure before the dissolution of parliament at any time is for the government to come to the House of Commons and secure supply for the period that is likely to elapse before the next parliament meets. Until this is done, parliament ought not to be dissolved. I believe, as I say, that a Governor Generals' warrant is evil per se and on that ground I intend to oppose the re-enactment of this clause.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I can do nothing less than support as strongly as possible the very valid position taken by the hon. member for Carleton. During the time I had the honour to be chairman of the public accounts committee, and subsequently sitting as a member of the committee, this matter engaged our attention year after year after year. I think there can be no better way of bringing this matter to the attention of the committee and demonstrating the seriousness of the situation than by referring to paragraph 48 of the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966, which has just been delivered to me. This special problem is dealt with under paragraph 48, at page 17. The Auditor General refers to the dissolution of parliament on September 8, 1965, and says:
The dissolution of parliament on September 8, 1985 before full supply for the year 1965-66 had been granted, necessitated recourse to Governor General's special warrants to provide the funds for carrying on government services until the new parliament was assembled on January 18, 1966. A total of $920,591,867 was provided by five special warrants as follows:
The Auditor General goes on to say:
When the 1965-66 special warrants were being prepared the departments were instructed by the Treasury Board that each vote and class of payments required special consideration in the light of section 28 of the Financial Administration Act.
That is of course, the act which is being repealed and re-enacted by clause 6 of this bill. This passage in the Auditor General's report continues:
The Treasury Board also advised the departments to review and take into account the particular audit comments contained in the Auditor General's reports for 1962-63 and 1963-64.
February 20, 1967

Financial Administration Act
Then the report says:
In the audit office view these guide lines were not always followed in the preparation of the special warrants and a number of the items provided for did not meet the test of being "urgently required for the public good" as required by section 28 of the act.
Furthermore, payments under the special warrants continued to be made after parliament assembled on January 18, 1966 until Appropriation Act No. 1, 1966 was assented to on February 8, 1966.
This is a serious problem which of course the permanent officers of the crown have to face when their political masters, for reasons best known to themselves, decide to call elections from time to time. This is something for which all political parties must accept some degree of responsibility. When you look at the original section 28 of the Financial Administration Act, the section that will be replaced by this clause, you find this wording:
Where an accident happens to any public work or building when parliament is not in session and an expenditure for the repair or renewal thereof is urgently required, or where any other matter arises when parliament is not in session-


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is not the section that is being replaced now. The section that is being replaced now is the one that was enacted on September 6, 1958.


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that this section was changed, Mr. Chairman, by reason of another amendment. I am trying to get at the history of the legislation. It is quite obvious, starting on this basis and working forward, that it was intended that when some special or urgent circumstance arose requiring expenditure to be made when parliament was not in session, recourse could be had to this particular section.
I remember that when I was practising law years ago, as a solicitor for some municipalities in Alberta there was a question of whether relief or welfare payments were the responsibility of one municipality or another. The test then was that if it was a case of sudden and urgent necessity, the municipality in which the person resided was liable for these payments. I remember that there were cases of women being delivered of children who tried to suggest that this was a case of sudden and urgent necessity, and we could always argue logically that this had nothing to do with a sudden and urgent necessity because there had been a preparatory period of nine months.
For a government deliberately, two and a half years before its time has come-I have in

mind a little different time here-to seek an election and go to the people, and then say there is a payment that is urgently required to be made, I submit is absolute nonsense. We have argued this question in the public accounts committee time after time and this is an opportunity to bring the matter before this committee. If the government is defeated there might be some circumstances in which a payment has to be made urgently, but even then, as the hon. member for Carle ton has pointed out, there are ways and means of getting around the difficulty. But when a government deliberately chooses to seek an election knowing it can have recourse to this legislation, and the sum of $920 million is involved, it is a further example of the erosion of parliamentary control of finance. It is all very well to say that under the terms of the legislation the estimates are brought back to the house. Of course they are, but the money has been spent and we cannot undo what has been done.
Over the last two or three elections billions of dollars have been spent by way of Governor General's warrants and this parliament has had nothing at all to do with those expenditures except after the act, in approving the amounts. I suggest that the original intention of the section was to provide for emergency payments of a particular kind, but when a government deliberately seeks an election they should only do so on the basis that they have provided the funds necessary to carry on the essential services of government during that period.
Quite obviously it is going to take a great deal more than a simple amendment to resolve this question. This is a matter which governments will have to consider in the light of parliamentary responsibility. A gover-nement has a certain responsibility which sometimes it can only exercise when it sees fit to ask His Excellency for dissolution of parliament, but I suggest they should not do so until they have taken the proper precaution of making available the funds necessary for the carrying on of the essential services of government. I intend to vote against this clause in the hope that it may initiate further discussion of this problem.
There is one other matter that I want to bring to the minister's attention. I have not a copy of the last amendment, but perhaps the minister can answer this question. Will section 28 of the Financial Administration Act contain a provision similar to that contained in subsection (4) of the act, which provides
February 20, 19G7
that where there has been an adjournment sine die for more than two weeks, it shall be presumed that parliament is not in session?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The only changes from clause 6 on in this bill amending the Financial Administration Act are the substitution of "President of the Treasury Board" for "the Minister of Finance".


Gerald William Baldwin: So we will still be in the position that if parliament should be adjourned sine die to a period of one day more than two weeks, the government is free to ask His Excellency for Governor General's warrants?


Edgar John Benson: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then, Mr. Chairman, I propose to vote against this clause.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 to 17 inclusive ageed to.
On clause 18-Coming into force.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, on clause 18 may I ask the minister whether it is his intention to have this legislation proclaimed immediately, or in any event before February 28, so that as companion legislation to the collective bargaining legislation it will come into force at that time?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman; it is our intention to proclaim this legislation as soon as it is passed through the other place.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board IMMIGRATION



PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEAL BOARD

George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an Immigration Appeal Board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary to the minister going to make a statement at this time?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in making these comments this evening I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who unavoidably could not be here tonight. This matter came up suddenly. When it came to our attention that this matter might come up this evening, the minister at that time was on his way to another engagement. Therefore it is impossible for him to be here.
All of us who come to this house do so, I am sure, with the purpose of doing our best to ensure that the laws of our land treat people with equality and consistency. We find, however, that this objective, so simple and so important in principle, is far from easy to realize in all cases in practice. Perhaps I am especially conscious of this, because in no other area is equality and consistency so hard to achieve as it is in immigration matters. I believe, however, that in this bill we are for the first time providing a basis on which success in our high objective will be possible not only in theory but in practice.
No immigration law can be both enforceable and fair unless it provides a considerable area of discretion in its operation. The law establishes general rules as to who may come to Canada and who may stay in Canada. The rules necessarily are general. They cannot precisely accommodate all the variety of individual circumstances. They must be capable of being tempered in their application, according to the merits of individual cases. There will sometimes be humanitarian or compassionate reasons for admitting people who, under the general rules, are inadmissible.
This is the responsibility of the minister and his department, in administering the law. It is an onerous responsibility. We cannot expect to discharge it perfectly. Even if our actual mistakes are few, there are bound to

132G8	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board be people who feel aggrieved by some of our decisions. To me it is self-evident that this calls for some system of appeals. The minister should not have the final say in cases where the individual has claim to rights in Canada or as a Canadian.
I do not mean that the person overseas, who wants to come to Canada but whose qualifications are not accepted as adequate, should have a right of appeal. To be admitted to a country not one's own is a privilege, not a right. But once a person is in Canada, he should not be deported without a right of appeal. And Canadian citizens, I believe, should be regarded as having a right to bring members of their immediate family to Canada. Like other rights, it is not absolute. But if it is denied in a particular case, the citizen should be able to take his case to an independent body.
Mr. Speaker, an Immigration Appeal Board does now exist. It provides for appeals against some deportation orders but not against all. Moreover, the present board has authority only to allow or dismiss an appeal on matters of law; and furthermore its decisions are, under the Immigration Act, subject to review by the minister. The minister can confirm or quash its decisions or substitute his own. Worst of all, the board cannot make any decision on the non-legal merits of a case. It cannot bring humanitarian or compassionate considerations into play. It may recommend to the minister that the minister do so, but the decision again is up to the minister. The board has no final say.
In these circumstances, the effectiveness of the existing board is extremely limited. The public is aware of the board's limitations. Everyone knows that its decisions may be reversed by the minister or by officials acting on the minister's behalf. Thus the board has no independent status. It is regarded as merely an arm of the immigration division which appears, in effect, to decide the outcome of appeals against the actions of its own officers. This casts doubt on the application of other aspects of immigration law, policy, and procedure. It invites the application of pressure to the minister and the department. Indeed it is through such representations, rather than through the appeal board, that efforts to obtain the redress of alleged grievances are chiefly made.
The purpose of this bill therefore is to establish public confidence in the appeal process and to remove a serious cause of dissatisfaction and criticism. An effective appeal procedure will greatly reduce the discretionary

DEBATES	February 20, 1967
powers of the minister and his officials. The action that may be taken administratively, following a decision by the board, will be restricted and clearly defined by the bill. In effect the board will be able to bring the humanitarian and other non-legal aspects of a particular case fully into consideration. On that basis, it will be able to make final decisions that are as fair and impartial as possible.
The main provisions of the bill empower the governor in council to appoint seven persons as members of the Immigration Appeal Board. It will be a court of record and function accordingly. Its proceedings will be public unless the appellant wishes otherwise. The members will hold office during good behaviour until they reach the age of 70 years. The Chairman and at least two other members will be barristers or advocates. With these and other provisions we hope to ensure that the board commends the respect appropriate to its new function.
e (9:50 p.m.)
The board will be authorized to deal conclusively with all appeals against deportation orders. The one proviso is that provided a deportation order is found to have been legally made, it must be carried out where in criminal or security cases the board is provided with proper certification from the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to say that the national interest requires execution of the deportation orders. The one proviso is that provided a one that we expect to use frequently.
The discretionary authority of the board is defined according to two types of deportation cases. Where a legal resident of Canada has been ordered deported and has appealed, the Board can decide what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. On humanitarian or other grounds it can set aside a deportation order, however legally valid.
It would not be reasonable to exercise such wide discretion in the case of people who have been ordered deported because they came to Canada claiming to be non-immigrants or who entered surreptitiously without any status, or indeed who are simply seeking admission without having complied with immigration procedures.
In these cases the board, having decided the lawfulness of the deportation order, will have authority either to enforce the order or to authorize entry or landing, but this discretionary power will be exercised only when
February 20, 1967	COMMONS
exceptional circumstances, in the board's view, make it reasonable to grant a special privilege to stay in Canada.
I wish particularly to draw the attention of hon. members to another important aspect of the bill. For the first time sponsorship is recognized in effect as a legal right of the Canadian citizen. The board will have authority to make a final decision on appeals from Canadian citizens who think that the department has been wrong to refuse the admission of relatives whom they wish to sponsor.
This is a new concept in Canadian immigration legislation. But the idea is not new. Sponsors, ethnic organizations and parliamentarians have for years been seeking an objective form of review of departmental decisions in sponsored cases. The minister is very happy to attempt to provide it.
The practical difficulties, however, are considerable. I am sure that they can be overcome, but it will take a little time and experience. I do not think in the meantime it would be wise to risk swamping the board with sponsorship work.
For this reason the bill proposes to leave it to be determined from time to time in the regulations exactly what classes of sponsora-ble relatives may be the subject of appeals by Canadians citizens. The government's intention would be to provide initially that these classes will be all those dependent relatives who, if the white paper proposals are implemented, will in future be sponsorable by immigrants before they become citizens. We will subsequently reconsider the scope of appeals in the light of experience.
Apart from these basic provisions you will observe, Mr. Speaker, many other ways in which this bill is able to assure the individual not only that justice will be done but that it will be seen to be done, and to be done with humanity and compassion. You will wish,to note particularly, Mr. Speaker, that the board will render written reasons for its decision to allow or dismiss appeals. Its decisions, in so far as they concern law, become precedents; and the appellant and the department will both be entitled to appeal the decisions of the board on questions of law to the Supreme Court of Canada with leave of that court.
I should emphasize that every person ordered deported will have access to the board; the case is within the jurisdiction of the board whenever the individual claims that the weight of evidence does not justify his
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board deportation. The existing provisions of the Immigration Act excluding certain persons from the right of appeal will be abolished. The individual will be on the same footing as the minister who may appeal to the board against a decision of a special inquiry officer not to order deportation.
I should mention another special point. Under the Immigration Act only a special inquiry officer may authorize release of a person detained during deportation proceedings. This is in connection with the matter that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) raised the other day. It is proposed in this bill that in future people who are detained pending disposition of their appeals may apply to the board against a decision of a special inquiry officer to refuse to grant conditional release.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of the four routes by which we are seeking to improve immigration policy and procedures. We have begun to make changes in administrative procedures and we will be carrying these further in the light of discussion on the white paper.
In the light of that discussion also the minister hopes to make the changes in the immigration regulations that will remove all discrimination and provide a proper balance in the national interest between manpower needs and the claims of sponsorship. Fourth, as the final and basic stage, the minister hopes to introduce a full-scale revision of the Immigration Act.
Of all these steps, however, the one represented by this bill is the most urgent, because it is the one necessary to assure that the proper concepts of the rights of the individual are applied to our immigration procedures. It is a change not in technicalities, though these are important, but above all in the essential spirit of our whole approach to the problems. As such, it is the most urgent of all the reforms, and as such I hope that it may have the consideration and approval of hon. members.


Mr. Fairwealher:: I should like to ask the
parliamentary secretary a question. Will reasons with regard to security tinder clause 21 be given?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be best if questions on clauses of the bill could be asked during the clause by clause study, after second reading of the bill.
13270	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I understand the hon. member cannot give an answer to my question at this time.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary had no reason to apologize for the absence of the minister. Indeed I am glad that he had the courage to proceed with second reading of this legislation, for I believe that ministers should entrust the presentation of legislation more frequently to the second string, the men and the hon. lady in the third row who are coming along. I am glad that by reason of the minister's absence the hon. gentleman had this opportunity tonight.
This bill represents a significant chance in our immigration procedure and administration. Quite probably it is overdue.
I remember very well when years ago the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) now Minister of Transport, said that there was probably more paper work in the then Department of Citizenship and Immigration than in any other department of government. He spoke from knowledge gained as Clerk of the Privy Council and as cabinet minister, and I think that what he said is probably still true today. This legislation may well prove to be a relief to successive ministers of manpower and immigration.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? I will continue my remarks when this bill is next before the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what will be our business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose to submit for the consideration of the house the following items on today's order paper: Items 83, 100, 116, 126, 127, 132, 130 and 131.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that perhaps the house leader is a little presumptuous.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, just optimistic.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
DEBATES	February 20, 1967

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 13, as recorded in Hansard at page 12946, I put this question to the Minister of Transport:
In view of reports that the Air Canada base at Dorval is not now adequate for its maintenance and overhaul work and that its facilities will have to be expanded, could the minister remind Air Canada of the fact that its base at Winnipeg could handle both the Viscounts and the DC-9 aircraft?
The reply of the Minister of Transport was one short sentence, not particularly helpful. It was as follows:
I have no doubt Air Canada will take note of the hon. gentleman's representations.
In view of that answer, I am sure the minister was not surprised when I posted this question for a few remarks on one of these late shows. It would be a gross understatement merely to say that the people of Winnipeg have been disappointed over the various steps that have been taken which have reduced the use of Air Canada's maintenance and overhaul facilities at Winnipeg. These steps have been taken over a number of years, despite the many delegations to Ottawa during two or three different governmental regimes and despite very thorough examination of the whole situation. I recognize, as do most of us in Winnipeg, that whether we like it or not the die has been pretty well cast and that for the most part Air Canada's maintenance and overhaul operations are destined to be performed at Dorval.
However, it has come as a bitter piece of news to workers at Winnipeg to learn that Air Canada is now planning an elaborate extension of its facilities at Dorval. It appears that this expansion is necessary in order to cope with the amount of work that is piling up. The reason that this pill is a bit bitter to the people of Winnipeg is that the Thompson report, which was the last full scale inquiry into this matter, based its approval of the removal of the maintenance and overhaul work from Winnipeg to Montreal on a number of considerations, one of which was that the facilities already established at Montreal were greatly under-utilized.
I have a copy of Mr. Thompson's report here, and I have been noting in particular references on pages 86, 96 and 106, in which Mr. Thompson sets out the various arguments. The commissioner stated, in effect, that in view of the fact the various facilities are under-utilized at Montreal, it would be a

February 20, 1967	COMMONS
waste of those facilities to try to do DC-9 work at Winnipeg or to plan on the indefinite use of the Winnipeg maintenance and overhaul base for any of the company's aircraft. Winnipeg, having been told that one of the reasons it had to see its work go to Montreal was that Montreal's facilities were huge and greatly under-utilized, now so soon after the Thompson report produced on March 3, 1966, less than a year ago, learns that the facilities at Montreal are not adequate and are having to be enlarged. This is a bit hard for the people of Winnipeg to take.
I realize that the Thompson report came down pretty squarely on the side of Air Canada's decision. I know that the Thompson report was sympathetic to Winnipeg and suggested, perhaps, that there were other ways in which the work to be made available at Winnipeg might be increased. Meantime not much of this other kind of activity is taking place and employees see the maintenance and overhaul work gradually being transferred to Montreal.
If Air Canada has now determined that it must enlarge its facilities at Dorval, Mr. Speaker, then this suggests that new factors have come into the picture. If new factors have come into the picture I would urge that Air Canada might again consider the greater utilization of its facilities at Winnipeg. To put it in the plainest, most simple language that I can, Mr. Speaker, if facilities are needed and they are not to be found in Montreal-in other words, if enlargement of facilities has to take place there-and there are facilities which are unused at Winnipeg, does not common sense suggest that the company might take another look at this whole situation? Frankly, why not make full use of the facilities at Winnipeg?
When I speak for the people of my city with respect to what has happened to the use of the base at Stevenson field I speak for a disappointed people. I hope that the Minister without Portfolio, who I gather will be speaking tonight on behalf of the Minister of Transport with respect to this question, will have something a little more encouraging to say than simply that he will send a copy of today's Hansard to the president of Air Canada.


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that that is exactly what I am going to say tonight. What the minister said in answer to this question last week was that he would draw it 23033-839
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to Air Canada's attention, and he has done so. On the basis of the fuller argument the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been able to make this evening, the company will be apprised in more generous terms of the scope of this question. The hon. member knows that I have personal reasons for having great sympathy for the people of Winnipeg and I can assure him that I will report back to the minister what he has said this evening.



FINANCE-SUGGESTED PROVISION OF &quot;REAL DOLLAR&quot; BONDS

Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the Minister of Finance last week arose out of three different statements. One was made in an article in the Globe and Mail dealing with jobs and the inflation equation, quoting Professor H. C. Eastman of the University of Toronto. He based his comments on the report of the Economic Council of Canada, their Third Annual Review. According to the Globe and Mail he suggested that the council was remiss in not pressing the government harder to help low-income savers protect themselves against inflation. The article continues:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
"An obvious step." he said, "would be to provide real dollar government bonds which individuals could buy, perhaps subject /to a stated maximum, thus avoiding the loss of their investment through price increases." Private business, said Prof. Eastman, already has made progress in protecting employees against inflation through such devices as pension plans based on earnings in the final years of an employee's career. "Government should adopt a similar concern for the welfare of society at large by providing safe instruments any individual can use."
I have read Dr. Morton Shulman's book, "Anyone Can Make A Million", not because I wanted to make a million but because I had heard considerable comment about it. In it he says that the price of gold will be raised. He calls this step inevitable. Such a step would result in a more rapid devaluation of the dollar, and a devaluation of government bonds. He calls the process theft and says it is theft against which the individual has no recourse.
With that we have the remarks of Professor David W. Slater of Queen's University, Kingston, made before the committee investigating prices and consumer credit. He also talks about inflation being permanent and something with which we must learn to live.

February 20, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion In that connection may I read a letter I received from one of my constituents. The letter reads:
At great sacrifice I bought an annuity when the dollar was worth a lot more than now. It is rather cold comfort to be told "Sorry, but you should have thought of the rise in the cost of living, and bought a bigger annuity." Even with foresight a higher annuity would have been impossible. There must be thousands of Canadians in the same position. Could not the interest rate be hitched to the cost of living.
It has been hoped that one of the things to be done for the problem is to institute a prices review board to force prices down somehow. I expect the proponents of that solution have found cold comfort these last few weeks in the hearings of the consumer credit committee. Repeated witnesses have said to that committee that that is not an effective step. Professor Slater says:
"And to say you can control prices by law or supervision is kidding yourself. You have got to go to the fundamentals. A price review board is not going to do much."
We in Social Credit over and over again in this house have expressed concern about monetary policy and the value of the dollar. Last week we were twitted indirectly by the Minister of Finance when commenting on some proposals of the N.D.P. He suggested that anything put forward by Social Credit was somehow inconceivable. Well there is a very serious problem with the monetary policies being followed by this government. The effects of those policies are shown by the writer of the letter. They affect thousands of Canadians. Those policies do not yet take into account the necessity of living with inflation.
I should like to hear the reply of the minister through the parliamentary secretary about the suggestion that the government issue real dollar bonds that would not lose their value. Perhaps the government could make other suggestions to solve this problem. I should be happy to hear them.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue is acting. In the absence of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue has been asked to answer.
For the record the question that was asked is the following:
In view of the continuing rise in prices could the hon. minister say whether the government is considering what Professor H. C. Eastman of the University of Toronto, when speaking recently called an "obvious step" of providing "real dollar" government bonds which individuals could buy, thus avoiding the loss of their investments through price increases?
The answer to this, I suggest, is that the proposal for so-called "real dollar" government bonds to which the hon. member refers is not a new idea. It reflects the widespread and not unnatural desire of investors to be protected against all possible eventualities, including rising prices.
One of the prime objectives of government policy is the achievement and maintenance of reasonable stability of prices. This government is confident that, with the support of parliament and the public, we can follow policies which will achieve this goal.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Tuesday, February 21, 1967