December 20, 1957

PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

I did give full consideration to the matter at the time I made the ruling and I do not feel I can change my mind in the middle of the debate. I do not think the hon. members should ask me to do so. I am afraid we must proceed on the basis of the former decision and the hon. member who has the floor will have to do the best he can with the debate.

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, on a question of privilege, I wonder if I may be permitted to correct just one statement which the Minister of Public Works

(Mr. Green) made? I am not going to argue with him about the ruling, because it was made by Your Honour after arguments had been addressed to you from both sides of the house and it must stand. But the Minister of Public Works, the leader of the house, said a moment or two ago that my bill was presented to the house after the government's bill was presented. He asked what is going to prevent private members time and time again from bringing in bills similar to government bills? Well, so far as this particular bill is concerned, it was on the order paper before the government's bill, and this was one of the factors which was taken into consideration at the time the point of order was under debate.

The Minister of Public Works will recall that there was some debate on this matter in which members on both the government side and the opposition side took part. The Speaker gave the matter consideration, read a number of citations and delivered a ruling on the point. I do not wish to get into an argument about the validity of the two bills being on the order paper at the same time, for that validity was settled by Your Honour, but I think it should be made clear that my bill was on the order paper first.

Putting the words used by the Minister of Public Works in reverse, it could equally well be argued that the government could come along at any time and get rid of a private member's bill by bringing in its own bill.

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:

On that point, I submit that is exactly what the government can do. When the government sees fit to bring in a bill it can do so, and it cannot be stopped by a private member.

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):

I agree, but it works both ways.

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:

It could not be stopped by a private member putting on a bill a day or two before. That would be another ridiculous situation.

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:

As I said, this matter has been settled and I think we are not spending time profitably in discussing it further.

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):

Could I have one 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:

No, I will not permit my ruling to be discussed further. I have made my ruling and I will not consider the matter further. However, if there is another point of order-

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):

It is not exactly on the same point of order. It was only

Industrial Relations

about the difficulty of dealing with the matter of principle. Perhaps the hon. member could stay within the rule if he simply refrained from referring to the number of the specific sections he is speaking about.

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

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Aiken:

The point of order which was originally raised, I believe, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has become diverted, and I will, in deference to Your Honour's ruling, attempt to proceed with the provisions of this bill without references to the clauses of the same but merely to differences in principle between the two bills as presented.

It is my understanding that the rules of the house prevent dealing with the clauses seriatim which I understand to mean taking them in sequence, one, two, three, four, five and so forth, and I wish to assure the hon. member that I do not intend to proceed on that basis.

Now there is one other provision in the bill presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which differs from that presented by the Minister of Labour in Bill No. 16. The basic difference is that in the bill we are now discussing there is provision for an annual vacation with pay of two weeks for each year of employment with any employer and this two-week period begins after one year of service with that employer. Bill No. 16, however, provides only one week's vacation after the first year of employment. Now I think the limitation imposed by Bill 16 presented by the government is a fair limitation, and I should like to put forward two reasons for thinking this is the case. In the first place, it is well known that any employee entering on a new occupation or employment requires a period of time in which to become familiar with the work he is doing. The first year of employment might well be considered a training period during which the value of the services rendered to the employer is, perhaps, not as great as it would be in subsequent years.

An engineer employed in one of the services of the government might be extremely well trained in his own profession, he might have extensive experience in the type of work in which he has been engaged, but he might find that the work for which he has been employed is different in its character and surroundings from that which he has done before. Even with his extensive training it would take him some time to adjust himself to the routine of his new work. I might also mention the example of a stenographer taking up a new position. She might be able to type well, to take shorthand and to file, but in order to become familiar with the surroundings of her employment, the

Industrial Relations

people with whom she has to work and the different circumstances under which she works, she does require a period of acclimatization or training. For this reason I would suggest that the first year of employment with one particular employer might not justify the full amount of vacation which might otherwise be given. The first year is fully justified, I believe, on this ground.

A further reason in its favour is that it would provide greater stability in employment. If an employee could move from one position to another within the government service, or an allied service, freely, or move freely from one type of employment to another and still secure each year the same amount of vacation or vacation pay, there would be no reason for that employee staying in any one place, and I think the provision in the other bill would make the stability of employment much less than it ought to be. For these two reasons I think the limitation which has been placed in the bill by the Minister of Labour is justified. That is all I want to say about this particular difference.

There is one more difference between the two bills to which I would like to call attention. Bill No. 2 is somewhat more complicated in its wording and application than the bill subsequently presented as Bill No. 16. The bill we are now considering contains some 25 paragraphs to which it is obvious a great deal of effort and thought have been given. I wish to refer in particular to clause 15 which sets up the principle of a vacation book system and which does provide in my opinion a more detailed and difficult accounting system than does Bill No. 2.

The provisions of the bill we are considering would involve a good deal more accounting, inspection and paper work-red tape, if you would have it that way-than the provisions of Bill No. 16. Those are the three main differences in principle to which I want to draw attention. I think the bills are similar in purpose, namely providing two weeks vacation with pay in respect of every year of service. The government has a bill before the house which seeks to give effect to this principle and I think I can safely say that in principle I am in favour of both bills.

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

William Howell Arthur Thomas

Progressive Conservative

Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to say a few words in connection with the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I believe in reasonable annual vacations and they are generally accepted in our society today. However, since there are now two bills before the house this situation

places hon. members on this side of the chamber in an awkward position.

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):

I give my friend full marks for honesty.

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

William Howell Arthur Thomas

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):

I am coming to that. If the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is accepted it does constitute to some degree want of confidence in the government. I do not know how you can avoid that implication. Therefore, although hon. members on this side of the house may agree with the principle of the bill we are now debating, since the government is sponsoring a bill which gives effect to the same principle-and especially since this legislation would have the effect of requiring the expenditure of government moneys indirectly if not directly

our acceptance on this side of the house of a private member's bill from the opposition side of the house would constitute want of confidence. As far as I am personally concerned as a private member on this side of the house I see no alternative but to oppose the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

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, would the hon. member permit a question. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that in 1956 when my bill in identical form was before the house eleven hon. members who are now members of the cabinet voted for it and therefore would he not be voting confidence in those eleven hon. gentlemen, who are after all a majority of the cabinet, if he voted today the same way they voted in 1956?

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

An hon. Member:

What do you expect, logic?

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

William Howell Arthur Thomas

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):

It is quite easy to ask questions which put one in an awkward position, I recognize that. Nevertheless I still think I am on sound ground when I say it does constitute or at least implies a lack of confidence in the government for myself as a private member on the government side of the house to support a motion which comes from an hon. member of the opposition and replaces a bill which is being sponsored by the government.

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

Thomas Speakman Barnett

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

Mr. Barneit:

Which bill was on the order paper first?

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

William Howell Arthur Thomas

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):

I do not

know which bill came first but the fact remains that the two bills are now before this house. I presume that under the rules of the house I can argue the merits of the bill which I am placed in the position of having to support and for that reason I am

going to refer to Bill No. 16. Up to this point the Speaker has not intimated that this is wrong so I will proceed.

Bill No. 16 seeks to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses. Clause 2 sets out interpretations some of which I will place on the record:

2. In this act,

(a) "federal works, undertakings or businesses" means (i) works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada; (ii) railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province; (iii) lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province; (iv) ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada; (v) aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation; (vi) radio broadcasting stations; (vii) banks and banking;

There are a great many people who are engaged in these various so-called federal works, undertakings and businesses who already have the advantage of vacations with pay. The interpretation clause goes on to provide: (viii) such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and (ix) any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province, and all other works, undertakings or businesses that are within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but not including any works undertakings or businesses of a local or private nature in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories;

Perhaps there is not much point in reading the rest of these interpretation items but the interpretation of "vacation pay" might be of interest. Subclause (c) of clause 2 provides that:

(c) "vacation pay" means

(i) four per cent of the wages of an employee during the year of employment in respect of which he is entitled to the vacation, if he is entitled to a vacation of two weeks, and (ii) two per cent of the wages of an employee during the year of employment in respect of which he is entitled to the vacation, if he is entitled to a vacation of one week;

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):

Does the hon. member agree with that last subclause of the other bill?

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

William Howell Arthur Thomas

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):

I am not at

liberty to discuss the section of the bill.

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

December 20, 1957