December 20, 1957


Bill No. 200, for the relief of Pierre Rothe. -Mr. Rea. Bill No. 201, for the relief of Vasyl Dudka. -Mr. Rea. Bill No. 202, for the relief of John Francis Bernard Deegan.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 203, for the relief of Jean Guy Joseph Desparois.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 204, for the relief of John Howard Cooper Thompson.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 205, for the relief of Romeo Raymond.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 206, for the relief of Annette Allard Huint.-Mr. Rea.



Private Bills-Divorce Bill No. 207, for the relief of Vera Dziedzic Volkman.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 208, for the relief of William Toulouse.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 209, for the relief of Frances Maud Mercer Barter.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 210, for the relief of Florence Bloomfield Cichella.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 211, for the relief of Carmen Baron Matucha.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 212, for the relief of Martine Rol-land Badeaux.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 213, for the relief of Gertrude Laurence Delisle Laplante.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 214, for the relief of Viola Carmela Starnino Dizazzo.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ludek Peter Rubina.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 216, for the relief of Bernhard Wilhelm Michael.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 217, for the relief of Paul-Emile Bedard.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 219, for the relief of Michael Todascu.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 220, for the relief of Iris Dorothy Birks Yates.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 221, for the relief of Marion Gloria Ewart Balleine.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 222, for the relief of Yvonne Florence Kee Brien, otherwise known as Yvonne Florence Kee Durocher.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 223, for the relief of Christine Mary Mackay Leavitt.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 224, for the relief of William Lucien Proulx.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 225, for the relief of Lionel Houde. -Mr. Rea. Bill No. 226, for the relief of Gilberte Hen-riette Marie Harchoux Vuillaume.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 227, for the relief of Catherine Maitland Moenting Johnstone.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 228, for the relief of Maria Torossi Chartrand.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 229, for the relief of Judith Sidney Browne Stein.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 230, for the relief of Florence Wedge Whitlock.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 233, for the relief of Jean-Baptiste Gagnon.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 234, for the relief of Christine Sil-verson Manchur.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 235, for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Leon Prosper Brault.-Mr. Rea. Bill No. 236, for the relief of Kaarlo Kustaa Loikkanen.-Mr. Rea.


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES


The house resumed, from Friday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.


CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Philip Bernard Rynard

Progressive Conservative

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):

Mr. Speaker, it is with some humility that I rise to discuss this bill. It appears that it is the government's intention to introduce legislation involving the same principles. It appears to me that on this question there is now considerable variation in the thinking of industry and labour who many times, left to themselves, work out their problems around the conference table. This is done in most cases to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. These holidays in almost all cases are for a week or longer; and a week, let me say, Mr. Speaker, is almost universal while it is not uncommon in a great many cases to have two weeks and even longer. In some cases they extend to even three and four weeks. In most cases the length of the vacation with pay is directly related to the length of service. It will be found that office workers generally get two weeks.

The provinces across Canada vary in their regulations. It might well be that the matter should be left to the labour unions to negotiate or the provinces, as conditions vary so widely from the Atlantic to the Pacific. For example, for some workers a longer holiday might be of distinct value, for example in construction work; and I am sure that many hon. members in this house can think of many other occupations as well. We have made a great deal of progress in this field. The impact of this legislation proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will affect roughly between

4,000 to 5,000 workers who now get only one week. The legislation which the government has in mind I believe will serve this purpose better than the bill proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would submit that I would have to go along with our legislation.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

In principle, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the bill which is now before the house. It is also in principle the same as the bill brought in by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) which is now before the house as Bill No. 16 and which is on the order paper for second reading.

I have taken the opportunity of comparing the two bills which are before the house. I am quite well aware of the fact that it is contrary to the rules of the house to deal seriatim with these bills on second reading because basically we are discussing the principle of the bill. But in view of the fact that the principle of this bill is similar to that of the one introduced by the Minister of Labour, I feel it is necessary to discuss some of the differences; and only by referring to different sections can the differences become apparent. I will make every effort possible to avoid contravening any rules of the house.

Section 3 of this bill defining the application of the act is identical with section 2, subsection (a) of Bill No. 16. It is also the same as the application of another bill brought forward with reference to statutory holidays. From this I can only assume that the wording of the various bills is derived from some source of well settled precedents which are designed to keep this bill clearly within federal jurisdiction. But since they are similar and since I intend to support Bill No. 16, I see no objection whatever in connection with this particular section.

There is just one other principle in connection with the bill that I should like to mention, namely section 4 of this bill.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to press a point of order too severely, particularly with my hon. friend who is a new member of the house. But where do we get if we begin discussing the individual clauses of these bills when we are at the debate on second reading? Is it not required by the rules that the discussion at this stage be with respect to the principle of the bill? I realize the difficulty created by the fact that there are these two bills; but if the hon. member is going to spend his time in comparing the clauses of two bills, it seems to me we are contravening the rules.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Aiken:

When I rose, Mr. Speaker,-

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Is the hon. member addressing himself to the point of order?

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Aiken:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to speak I attempted to indicate that that would be my effort, to keep the two bills separate. But as I recall it, when this bill was originally brought in, on first reading there was some discussion then as to whether it was in order because it was so similar in principle to Bill No. 16, which the Minister of Labour had placed on the order paper. The resolutions also appeared to be quite similar.

At the time the argument was put forward, as I recall it, that although the bills were similar there were differences and so there

Industrial Relations

would be no real objection to bringing forward the bill of the hon. member of Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That is the history, according to my recollection of the case, and therefore we are discussing two bills before the house, similar in principle but different in detail. I therefore submit that it would only be by discussing the differences between the two bills that we could talk intelligently about them.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to the hon. member that he could make the kind of speech which I gather he wishes to make and yet stay within the rules if, for example, he would address his remarks to the fact that one bill asks for two weeks after one year and the other bill asks for two weeks after two years. He could discuss that difference in principle without picking out the particular clauses and comparing them word by word.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

I think that is the only avenue which the hon. member could follow. It is quite clear that on second reading the principles involved in the bill are before the house for discussion and in so far as he can bring out the differences in principle by reference to the provisions of the bill, without reference to or quoting sections, and by describing the principles in general terms as the differences appear from the reading of the bills, I think he could proceed although, perhaps, not in the way in which he is attempting to proceed.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

John Borden Hamilton (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (York West):

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. Is this not the result of the fact that we have these two bills on the order paper at the same time. With deference, I realize we are proceeding with the discussion of this bill of the private member, but surely in connection with your interpretation of speaking on the principle, when we have two items of legislation before us, the member is talking about principles when he speaks, quite definitely, on the differences which exist between specific clauses in the bills and sections in the two acts. I would suggest, sir, that this is something different from the ordinary course of arguing the principle involved which has been put forward by my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and that at this stage it is going to be very difficult to actually discuss the principle of the bills unless there can be pretty specific reference to what is involved in each of these pieces of legislation.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Well I have already ruled on the question of whether this bill is properly before the house. What we have before us at the moment is one bill only and my ruling,

Industrial Relations

as I remember it, was that until the house had taken some action on either of these bills it did not preclude discussion on the other, but the house is now getting into discussion of this particular bill on second reading and if it is desired to make comparisons with the other bill there is no difficulty about that and I do not intend to exclude comparisons. They should, however, be comparisons of principle. It is perhaps rather a fine line to draw when you have bills which are so closely parallel. If there are differences they could be pointed out, I think, in general terms rather than by reading the clauses of this bill.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree with me when I say there is no objection to reading the clauses of another bill which is not before the house.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Is this not a very strange procedure, Mr. Speaker? After all, last night we had a debate on second reading of Bill No. 16, the last business with which we were concerned when the house adjourned at ten o'clock was the debating of Bill No. 16. Now while it is true that there are some differences in the terms of these two bills, they deal entirely with the same subject and I do suggest to Your Honour that it might be well for you to consider whether or not this debate today is in order.

We have a measure sponsored by the government which is actually under debate and it does seem to me to be quite ridiculous that the house can debate a government measure one day and then the next day debate a private bill which deals with exactly the same thing. That, surely, does not make sense under our rules or anything else and I am very doubtful as to whether it is in order for the house to proceed with this debate today.

If this is proper, then on any government bill which does not involve the expenditure of funds a private member can put in a private member's bill which deals with the same subject, perhaps in a slightly different way, and then you have two debates. It does seem to me that that is a waste of the time of the house and if you can have two debates, why can you not have three or four or five, or six? Why could not another private member bring in another bill dealing with the same subject which might vary in the days or the weeks or other little differences in the terms, which is the position here in so far as these two bills are concerned? I think the house has got itself into an impossible situation on this debate which of course is highlighted by the fact that last night the government measure was actually

under debate and then this afternoon we are asked to debate the same subject under a private members bill.

Now I do not believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can find anything in the rules that would justify a procedure of this kind being followed.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, not only can I produce items in the rules, but I can quote Your Honour. This point was raised on the 29th of October and Your Honour made a ruling.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

I must point out to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) that this matter is not open to debate. I did rule on this matter before. Now it may seem an absurd thing for the house to debate two bills concurrently but it does have it within its own power to deal with the situation if it does not wish to debate two measures. It can take the appropriate action to defer one in favour of the other.

I did come to the conclusion before that there was no priority as between the bill standing in the name of the minister and the bill standing in the name of the private member and that until the house comes to a decision debate on one does not preclude debate on the other. Having made that decision I cannot very well change it. I am always glad to reconsider decisions, and I may make errors in my rulings, but that is the position we are in at the present time.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

May I ask Your Honour to reconsider this ruling because perhaps at the time when the previous point of order was discussed it was not fully realized just where this kind of situation might lead, and I doubt that Your Honour had any lengthy arguments placed before you. I do, however, suggest that if Your Honour should allow a precedent of this kind to stand it would not be in the best interests of efficient parliamentary procedure and I submit, with due deference sir, that this point is of sufficient importance to justify further consideration.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   PROVISION OP ANNUAL VACATIONS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES
Permalink

December 20, 1957