May 3, 1934

UFA

George Gibson Coote

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. COOTE:

I really do not think the

objection that has been raised is vital. I think the paragraph as drafted ought to be all right. Although I do not agree with the principle of the bill, or at least to confining the restoration of the ten per cent only to those under $1,000-I think that amount is too small-the drafting of the section seems to be all right.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

If this amendment is not

pressed, there is one amendment that should be made. If my hon. friend from Macleod will look at line 12 of section 3 he will see that the last two lines of that section read: "to provide the full amount of compensation of those to whom this proviso applies." That limits the payment of compensation to those referred to in that last proviso, whereas I am quite certain that it was intended, or should have been intended, by the draftsman to make the compensation applicable to those in both provisos. I therefore suggest that all the words after the word "necessary" in line 12 on page 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "to give effect to the provisions of this subsection." That widens and clarifies the section. It is carrying out the original intent.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Hugh Guthrie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

It does not meet the objection which I raised the other night. I do

Civil Service-Salary Deduction

not want to delay the committee; I should like to see the minister get the bill through to-night, but I still hold to my opposition to the term "unappropriated moneys." If the minister would have the section read as he first proposed, and strike out the words he now proposes to put in, I should be satisfied.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

I have tried to give effect to my hon. friend's desire, but apparently the committee was not with him.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

The committee was with

me. There was only one objection.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

There was another as well.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
?

Clarence Joseph Veniot

Mr. VBNIOT:

Well, that is two.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter Heenan

Liberal

Mr. HEENAN:

As I understand the effect

of this amendment it is more or less window dressing. It is just the same thing-a blank cheque.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

No, my hon. friend is in

error. It widens the section. The wording of the clause as it stands restricts the compensation to those in the second proviso while the intention was to include both provisos, and the amendment is moved to make that clear.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter Heenan

Liberal

Mr. HEENAN:

I cannot object to it

under the circumstances. The minister says it makes it wider. That simply means a wider blank cheque.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

It means more generous

treatment of the employees of the government.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter Heenan

Liberal

Mr. HEENAN:

Then I will vote for it. But does the minister not think it unfair that employees who are working for a daily or weekly or monthly wage should have to wait until the end of the fiscal year before they know whether they are going to be engaged for a sufficient length of time to earn $1,000 or get the benefit of this legislation? I am satisfied that the Minister of Finance is practical enough to realize that men or women, boys or girls, who are working in the civil service from month to month have their bills to pay the same as the rest of us; they are thinking not of the end of the fiscal year but of the end of the month. When the 31st of December comes, the year has gone by; why should civil servants who are only temporarily employed, and who give very valuable service to this country, have to wait until the end of the fiscal year before they can tell whether or not they are going to get back the ten per cent? It would be a small amount

in the aggregate for those civil servants who are usually employed as temporaries, I do not care in what capacity. There cannot be very many of them, and they are nearly all in Ottawa. They should be reimbursed the ten per cent at the end of the calendar year, not at the end of the fiscal year, and if the minister will amend the bill accordingly I will vote for it one hundred per cent.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

It would be to the advantage of the civil servant to wait until the end of the year. He is being paid in the meantime.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink

Amendment agreed to. On section 3, subsection 2-apportionment of deduction.


?

Clarence Joseph Veniot

Mr. YENIOT:

I want to draw the attention of the minister to a situation that prevailed Last year in connection with this deduction. In the case of postmasters the deduction is made from the total amount received on commission, that is, over the $100 allowed the postmaster as salary in the smalll rural offices. Where a postmaster is paid by commission the deduction is made on his total commission. For instance, the business done may be between $1,800 and $2,000 to give the postmaster $1,000 as his salary. The ten per cent is deducted from that $1,000

I am referring to the previous bill-irrespective of the expenses which he must incur to carry on the business of the government. In the larger revenue offices-these do not come under the present bill-(the commission may be $2,000 but the postmaster has expenses to pay to carry on the work of the government. The deduction does not take those expenses into account and it should be made only after the postmaster has paid his help and his light and fuel. It is not fair to make a deduction from his total commission when he may have to pay $150, $110, $100 or $75 for expenses to run his office on behalf of the government. Perhaps it cannot be remedied under this bill, but I suggest to the minister that he take this point into consideration when dealing with future deductions-I think it can be regulated by the treasury board-and make the deductions from the minimum and not from the total commission received.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

When the treasury board is considering such regulations I will give my personal undertaking to look into the questions brought up by my hon. friend. If there is any injustice which can be properly remedied, I shall be very glad to see that the proper remedy is provided.

Civil Service-Salary Deduction

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

Before the board deals with such a matter perhaps the minister would call in some of these postmasters in order to obtain accurate information.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES:

I doubt if that will be necessary. I think all the information necessary can be gathered from the officials of the department.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink
LIB

Peter Heenan

Liberal

Mr. HEENAN:

I appreciate the very

gracious way in which the minister has received suggestions from the opposition. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is in his place, but I regret that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) are not in their places. I remember sitting on the other side a few years ago-it may seem like a hundred years to some but in fact it is only three or four years ago-when the present Minister of Justice, the present Minister of Railways and the present Prime Minister sat on this side of the chamber. At that time they claimed with tears in their eyes that a civil servant should have at least $100 per month in order to bring up a family under Canadian standards. If that statement was right then, it is right to-night. In view of that statement I wonder if the Minister of Finance would not make the amount $1,200 instead of $1,000. Of course, he was not in the house at that time and was not responsible for the sins-I should not call them sin3, because I agreed with them

or the gospel of his colleagues. I know the Minister of Jinance will say that increasing this to $1,200 will mean quite an additional amount. The same thing was said in connection with the old age pensions. After that legislation was well on its way through the house hon. members of the Conservative party who were opposed to old age pensions advocated that the pension should be not $20 a month but $30. They also wanted the age limit lowered from seventy years to sixty-five years, and some wanted it brought down to sixty years. That would have cost about $1/9,000,000, but these suggestions were made in an effort to kill old age pensions. I know the Minister of Finance can advance the legitimate argument that increasing this limit to $1,200 will cost the federal treasury several millions of dollars, but the fact remains that some years ago $1,200 was the minimum set upon which a civil servant could live, and the same holds true to-day.

Progress reported.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY DEDUCTION ACT-RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT CUT TO EMPLOYEES RECEIVING $1,000 OR LESS
Permalink

May 3, 1934