May 1, 1964

LIB

Auguste Choquette

Liberal

Mr. Choquetie:

South Centre is what I meant. Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre-they represent two extremities.

I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the generous spirit which led him to introduce this bill which deserves the most careful consideration.

However, as I said a while ago, it should be integrated into much wider legislation and, in my opinion, it should be referred to a committee where more time could be given to its study and where the necessary amendments could be made.

For instance, if we look at section 2 of the bill, we see that statutory holidays are enumerated. Here again, this is merely an insignificant detail, but a detail which nevertheless should be rectified, because the statutory holidays listed in the bill do not correspond at all to what is considered as statutory or non legal holidays in the province of Quebec.

For instance, the member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that New Year's day be a statutory holiday. Well, New Year's day is one of the non legal holidays recognized under the civil code. There is also the day of Epiphany, on January 6. But, in the bill we are considering, January 6 or the day of Epiphany is not recognized as a statutory holiday. To my mind, there could be some citizens in the province of Quebec who would like to have January 6 as a statutory holiday.

There is also December 8 which is, for the people of the province of Quebec, a day of very special significance while for other members, it would not have the same importance.

You also have Victoria day. Certain other people would prefer to celebrate on that day the reigning monarch instead of a former monarch. And this, no matter what ideas have been expressed previously. In my opinion, it would be far more appropriate to celebrate the anniversary of the reigning monarch rather than that of a former queen. Therefore, the anniversary of the reigning monarch could be a statutory holiday, more so than Victoria day. The members on the other side of the house, those of the Conservative party, suggest the creation of a Sir John A. Macdonald day; that day could become a statutory holiday.

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Will the hon. member permit

a question?

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
LIB
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Is he not aware of the fact that the current practice is to celebrate on what is called Victoria day the birthday of the present reigning monarch?

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
LIB

Auguste Choquette

Liberal

Mr. Choqueite:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but some people have such devotion to the reigning sovereign that it would be necessary to have two separate days to celebrate both anniversaries.

You also have Dominion day, which is rather celebrated as Canada's day. Here again, this is merely a detail in reference to the text.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, should we study this bill section by section, we would find out that it needs many adjustments and that a good number of suggestions would have to be made. Therefore, I do not think that we would be able within an hour to approve in full the bill as it is being proposed. This is the reason why, while agreeing with the principle and advocating it at the same time, I maintain that this text should form an integral part of the legislation as a whole and should be given much greater consideration than it is being given at the present time.

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Then we agree. Would the hon. member permit another question?

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
LIB
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

If he thinks it is impossible to do this within one hour, does he not think it should be possible to do it within 45 years?

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
LIB

Auguste Choquette

Liberal

Mr. Choquelie:

I know that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is saying, is said in jest, but after all, the present social legislation has been established by the Liberal party. If our labour legislation is as progressive as it is today, the Liberal party has something to do with it, made its contribution to it.

The labour code does not exist, and I agree that it should exist.

We have done much more than any other party in the house in the field of Canadian social legislation.

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
?

Malcolm MacInnis

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent that my remarks will be quite brief. In fact, they are going to be briefer because of remarks that have been made this afternoon. I fully realize that another party in the house wishes to

put its views on record in support of this measure and that will make it unanimous.

It is very difficult for me to add anything to the arguments developed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in support of the merits of the bill, which he has once again sponsored in the house. I do not intend to take much time of the house other than to congratulate him and to refer to two statements which have caused me to consider the time left for discussion.

During the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) there was an exchange with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin). I did not quite catch the entire exchange but my interpretation of it was that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was accusing the hon. member for Villeneuve of blocking legislation. In addition, the speaker who has just resumed his seat referred to the fact that slowness and obstruction were preventing legislation from going through the house.

I would call attention to the televised remarks of the Prime Minister on April 19- I emphasize the date and the person making the statement-who said at that time in answer to a question put to him by an interviewer that as far as the work of the House of Commons was concerned he was quite satisfied with developments over the past 44 days. The 44 days brought us up to April 19. Having regard to the necessary time taken for the budget debate, the throne speech debate, a supply motion and so on, I would point out to the member who has just resumed his seat that he is in disagreement with his own Prime Minister, who made the statement on a national television program that he was more than satisfied with the progress during that 44 day period. If the hon. member is assuming responsibility for the government when he refers to slowness and obstruction, and having in mind the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska that legislation has been blocked, I only hope there will be time enough left for a member of the Social Credit party to support this legislation, and that that member will see fit to leave enough time for government supporters in order that we may see what they may do, so far as slowness and obstruction are concerned. With the hon. member's co-operation we will give them ample time to accept this very worth-while bill.

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
SC

Alexander Bell Patterson

Social Credit

Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, I would not respond on every occasion when invited to do so by the hon.

Statutory Holidays with Pay member, but I am going to respond on this occasion. I regret that my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), has left the chamber for a few moments. He intended to speak on this measure but I will have to say a few words about it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has introduced this or similar bills on other occasions and we have supported the principle of them. Therefore I do not hesitate at all to express my support for the measure now before the house. I believe that this matter should not only be talked about, but that definite action should be taken. Many times we are in danger of giving lip service to fundamental principles and having given lip service just setting matters aside. When the same thing comes up on another occasion it is often bypassed.

But I believe this matter should be given urgent attention and a decision should be made by the parliament of Canada. The suggestion has been made that the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations for detailed study and analysis. I would certainly concur in that suggestion. I simply wish to indicate my support for this measure and I agree that it should be referred to the committee on industrial relations.

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
LIB

James Allen (Jim) Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this legislation has been talked about by the government but nothing has been done about it. It is a fact that considerable legislation was forecast in the speech from the throne, but so far we have been unable to do anything about it. There are various reasons for our not being able to bring this legislation before the house. However, I can assure the hon. member and the whole house that it is the intention of the government to bring forward a bill which will have the effect of incorporating, I would hope, most of the provisions contained in Bill No. C-30.

Following the conference held some weeks ago with the provincial ministers of labour, the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) said that this matter was discussed with them in order to get their opinions and to determine how various business enterprises in their provinces might be affected.

The Minister of Labour, speaking on March 11, had this to say of the proposed labour legislation in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):

Statutory Holidays with Pay These proposals in general were discussed at the conference of the labour ministers. It was not sought at the conference to ask for agreement on these matters; what was sought were the views of the provinces.

Obviously, the provinces have been considering these matters for many years. They realize the problems which a government faces when it is required to bring forward economic legislation which regulates the bargaining position as between labour and management. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are the only two provinces which have legislation providing for statutory holidays with pay and, to its credit, the province of Saskatchewan names eight statutory holidays. I must say they turn out to be a little less progressive than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The provincial legislation provides for opting out, to use an expression which has become popular these days. If I may quote from a report of the Department of Labour entitled "Provincial Labour Standards" at page 14;

By agreement between an employer and a trade union representing a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, another working day may be substituted for any of the eight listed holidays.

The bill before us makes no such provision. In addition, the provincial legislation provides that hospitals, restaurants, hotels and so on need not be bound by the legislation. I am saying this simply to show that there are many matters to be considered and that we cannot cover such an important subject in the limited time provided for discussion of a private member's bill. No other provinces but those two have legislation dealing with this matter. Other provinces do provide for minimum wages-

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink
LIB

Herman Maxwell Batten (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):

Order. It being six o'clock the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired.

Topic:   X. 1964
Permalink

At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


APPENDIX "A"

COMMUNIQUE OF JOINT U.S.-CANADIAN COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


The ninth meeting of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs was held in Ottawa April 29-30, 1964. The committee noted with satisfaction the progress which had been made in matters of interest to both countries and the general improvement in relations between them. The committee received from Mr. Arnold Heeney, on behalf of himself and Mr. Livingston T. Merchant, their interim report of progress on their joint study of United States-Canadian relations. They were appointed by President Johnson and Prime Minister Pearson to examine the desirability and practicability of developing acceptable principles which would facilitiate co-operation in economic and other policies. Their report noted agreement on method of procedure and stated that preliminary investigations have been initiated. The committee noted that economic activity in Canada and the United States had continued to expand and that another favourable year was anticipated for 1964. They agreed that the two countries should continue to follow policies designed to stimulate economic growth and employment in the context of economic stability. They noted that trade between the United States and Canada was running at record levels. The committee discussed policies which each country was following to improve its balance of payments. The United States members expressed agreement with Canada's desire to improve its current account through an expansion of exports and stressed the importance of adhering to the principles of non-discrimination in achieving this objective. The committee also noted the recent improvement in the United States balance of payments position and expressed the expectation that this improvement would continue. The members of the committee looked forward to the opening of the GATT tariff and trade negotiations in Geneva, in which both countries would be participating actively, for the reduction of trade barriers and the expansion of trade in both industrial and agricultural products between the two countries and with the rest of the world. They took note also of the progress at the current United Nations conference on trade and development 20220-1814 and agreed on the importance of continuing international co-operative efforts to assist the less developed countries to expand their trading opportunities and facilitate their economic development. The committee discussed the trade in automobiles and automobile parts between Canada and the United States. United States members stressed their concern over the possible adverse effects of the Canadian automotive program on certain United States parts producers. Canadian members emphasized that the program is designed to promote increased specialization and lower production costs in the Canadian automotive industry. The committee examined problems affecting trade between the two countries. Canadian ministers expressed concern about increases in levels of certain United States tariffs arising from the recent reclassification of the United States tariff, including rates on parts and components. They urged that the United States government take action to correct this situation. They requested that action should be taken to remove long standing United States restrictions on imports from Canada of lead and zinc, and cheese. The United States members expressed their concern over possible Canadian measures which might adversely affect certain United States publications. A number of other matters were discussed including great lakes water levels, tourist customs privileges, and the trade in softwood lumber and coal. The committee discussed the energy resources and energy problems of both countries and their relationship to economic efficiency. There was general agreement that United States-Canadian co-operation should be encouraged in areas where such co-operation serves the long term mutual advantage of both nations. They established a joint working group to prepare a program of studies relating to trade in all kinds of energy between the United States and Canada. The meeting concluded with a general review of the international situation by Mr. Rusk and Mr. Martin. The Canadian delegation included Mr. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs; Mr. Walter Gordon, Minister of Finance; Mr. Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Trade



and Commerce; Mr. Harry Hays, Minister of Agriculture; Mr. C. M. Drury, Minister of Industry; the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. L. Rasminsky; Mr. Norman Robertson, the chief Canadian trade negotiator; the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. C. S. A. Ritchie, and other advisers. The United States delegation included Mr. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; Mr. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury; Mr. Stuart Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Mr. Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of Commerce; Mr. Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture; Mr. George W. Ball, under secretary of state; Mr. Walter W. Heller, chairman of the president's council of economic advisers; Mr. William M. Roth, deputy special trade representative; the United States ambassador to Canada, Mr. W. W. Butterworth, and other advisers.


APPENDIX "B"

STATEMENT BY TRANSPORT MINISTER ON CIVIL AVIATION POLICY

May 1, 1964