Mr. ILSLEY:

I shall have to take it up later in the day.

Progress reported.

Labour Department Act

LABOUR DEPARTMENT ACT amendment to provide for the appointment

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I think we should have from the minister a complete statement, although not necessarily a long one, as to the necessity of the appointment of an additional deputy minister. I appreciate the fact that with the increased business and present unsettled state of things another deputy minister may be necessary. I would point out, however, having been around here for twenty years, that if you create a new position like this, carrying with it a substantial salary, the probabilities are that it will be a permanent one. There is never any going back when public offices of the kind are created; it is claimed thereafter as a matter of right. The minister should justify the appointment, and if it is of a temporary nature, it should be so stated. We have had a number of new deputy ministers in the defence portfolio. Of course we agree that they are necessary under the circumstances. But in this case there should be some undertaking on the part of the government that hereafter and for all time to come we are not to be burdened with two deputy ministers of labour.

Mr. McLARTY:

The work of the Department of Labour has been very greatly increased in the last two years. In the first place the purpose of this bill-because the present associate deputy minister has been appointed- is to make his appointment permanent rather than temporary.

The work of the department has been greatly expanded in three directions: in the first place, in the wide extension of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act; in the second place, in the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act; in the third place, through the war emergency training plan.

The Department of Labour has, I believe, always had a minimum of help for the wide work it has to do. We have appointed as associate deputy minister Mr. MacNamara, former deputy minister of labour and public works in the province of Manitoba. He has been acting since the regrettable death of Doctor Sirois as acting chief commissioner of

the Unemployment Insurance Act. The salary which the leader of the opposition refers to as being large is not really large when you consider the administrative ability which the present incumbent as Associate Deputy Minister of Labour has brought to bear in the organization of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is because of this wide extension of the definite functions of the Department of Labour that the appointment of an associate deputy minister is necessary and desirable. I need hardly say that Mr. MacNamara is carrying on his task in an excellent way and doing splendid work in promoting the early introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What is the salary?

Mr. McLARTY:

$9,000. I do not believe it is excessive. In my opinion it is justified by . the added responsibilities placed upon the Department of Labour; and may I suggest that there will be even greater responsibilities after the war is over. In view of all these considerations I believe it will be agreed that the appointment of an associate deputy minister is desirable.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I agree

with what the minister has said respecting the administrative ability of Mr. MacNamara. He is a man who had wide experience in another field when he came here to head the dependents' allowance board. I am satisfied he did excellent work when he was promoted, if that is the proper expression, to the office of acting head of the unemployment insurance commission. I had hoped the minister and the government would see their way clear to appoint him permanently to that position in place of Mr. Sirois. Apparently, however, that is not now the proposal, and the position is to be filled otherwise.

Let us for a moment examine the bases of the minister's proposal. He has given as a first reason the wide extension of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. What I believe he meant was the wide extension of the operations of that act, because so far as I know there is to be no wide extension of the principles underlying the act. Certainly it is not indicated in the bill the minister is to bring before the house. I had hoped that the wide extension in the operation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act would be purely temporary. It is hoped by everyone that these labour troubles which from day to day have been looming up on the horizon, and growing more extensive, will by the exercise of good-will and judgment, and by conference, be reduced to a minimum. That, I suggest, is a temporary

Labour Department Act

position only. Surely it is not sufficient reason for appointing a new permanent associate deputy minister, who would be here for all time in that capacity.

The second ground upon which the minister has based the decision to appoint this new officer is the establishment of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The organization operating under that measure will of course be a permanent institution. I should have hoped that in the operation of the act the commission would be the responsible body, and that they could report through ordinary channels, namely, to the deputy minister of labour, and through the deputy minister to the minister and the house. That in itself would not necessitate any great increase in the burden of work devolving upon the Department of Labour. Surely this commission is in large measure to be independent of the Department of Labour. The administrative sections of the act contemplate independence. It is to be a commission, not a bureau of the Department of Labour and, so far as possible, it is to act independently of that department, only reporting through it to the government. So that the second ground upon which the minister justifies the appointment falls down.

His third ground, namely, the setting up of a trade training plan, is in my view the least substantial of all. Surely that is a war measure -at least I so understand it. That is the basis upon which it was introduced and upon which it has been so far operated. It is not contemplated, I hope, that the federal government will permanently go into what is primarily a provincial field, namely that of education. As I understand it, this plan has been adopted on the theory that we have not enough mechanics for our war effort. That is a reasonable view to take, but 'it is an ephemeral thing; it is not to last forever. I suggest the minister will have to justify the creation of this new position on some higher ground.

What is to be done with the chairmanship of the unemployment insurance commission? Is somebody else to be appointed to do that work? So far as I know Mr. MacNamara is performing very satisfactorily the duties of that office, and unless there is some objection to his appointment as chairman of the commission, he should be confirmed in that position. In my view the minister has not justified the creation of a second deputy minister of labour, who would be a permanent official of the government. If we are to have two deputy ministers, which is to be the senior? Which is to have overriding jurisdiction? Are they to be on equal planes? What is to happen if they disagree? Or is it desired not to appoint Mr. MacNamara to the chairmanship of the unemployment insurance commission, but to obtain his very valuable services in some high executive capacity? Does this resolution contain that principle? At the moment I must conclude the minister has not justified his proposal.

Mr. MacINNIS:

There are a few observations which I should like to make on this resolution and also in respect of the other bill on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Labour. Most of what I wish to say I shall reserve until second reading.

Certainly this group will not oppose a resolution which has for its purpose the strengthening of the administration of the Department of Labour. About two months ago I drew the attention of the house to the serious conditions developing in industry throughout the country, and I insisted at that time that something should be done about it. On that occasion the Minister of Labour took exception to my remarks and indicated that everything was quiet on the industrial front. In view of certain actions he has taken in the last few days, and in view of questions which have been asked in the house and reports appearing in the press, I suggest he would have been well advised to accept my opinion and become more active at that time. However, better late than never.

I am always amazed when, on almost every question brought up in the house, the leader of the opposition asks, "Is this just for the duration?" His question seems to me to indicate a lack of understanding of what is happening in the world to-day. When I hear him speak in that way I am reminded of two legendary characters which I liked to read about in my youth. One was in the biblical story of the patriarch Lot. We remember that in the flight from Sodom, at the time of that city's destruction, Lot's wife insisted on looking back, with the result that she was turned into a pillar of salt. Again, I am reminded of Rip Van Winkle, in Washington Irving's classic "Sleepy Hollow," who slept for twenty years. I am convinced, however, that the leader of the opposition reminds me more of Lot's wife, because Rip Van Winkle did eventually wake up.

There are certain developments taking place to-day which we cannot ignore even if we would. We cannot ignore the fact that we have fewer and larger industries in this country under the control of fewer people and employing a greater number of wage-earners. This creates an industrial problem which the government will have to prepare to meet in the same way as it has organized to meet its foreign problem, its trade and commerce problem, and in fact its war prob-

Labour Department Act

lem or any other problems that may confront us. Unless we can find some way to turn the clock back to the primitive production which existed in this country in 1867, the Department of Labour will have to be strengthened. Its administrative functions will increase to meet increasing demands, and wisdom would indicate that we should organize to meet these increased demands.

I am pleased that the minister has taken this step at this time. While we may have some detailed criticism to make later, we are not opposing the measure; in fact we approve this resolution.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am quite opposed to the suggestion attributed to me by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The Department of Labour should be strengthened, but it should not be made top-heavy. What is the position to-day? We have the minister with a salary of $10,000; up to this year we had a deputy minister with a salary of $8,000, and we had an assistant with a salary of $5,220. That was the set-up until Mr. Stewart was introduced as deputy minister. My understanding is that he is a high-class man who came into the department, perhaps against his will, and insisted upon a salary of $10,000.

At some sacrifice.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

At some sacrifice, I believe. It is not known definitely whether he will make this his permanent vocation. That made a total of $23,220 for the three executive heads. But what have we to-day? We have the minister at $10,000, the deputy minister at $10,000, an associate deputy minister at $9,000, an assistant deputy minister at $5,220, and an executive assistant to the minister, whatever that may be, at $4,200. The total salary cost is $38,420, as opposed to the previous establishment which cost $23,220.

I want to elucidate these facts for the benefit of the taxpayers. Here is a non-war portfolio, which may be associated with the war effort along certain lines. It is agreed that there are temporary added responsibilities, but after this war is over, unless somebody gives consideration to this position, we will have for all time executives at the head of the Department of Labour costing $38,000. In addition a man is to be appointed to head the unemployment insurance commission at a salary of $12,000. I am calling attention to what has taken place in order that the people of Canada may know. We are being asked to tighten our belts, to give and lend to the government, and at the same time we are running away with executive expenditures.

That is all I have to say about this matter. I cannot stop it, because the appointment is an accomplished fact. This appointee is already in the department, and, as the minister has said, this is simply to legalize what has been done already by executive action. I think the appointment is a good one; this gentleman will do excellent work, but let us understand the proposal and what it means. Hereafter the Department of Labour is to have five executive heads instead of three.

Mr. McIVOR:

It is difficult to come to one's feet after the leader of the opposition has spoken, but I cannot but think of the Department of Labour to-day and the Department of Labour when the present Prime Minister was its deputy minister. I cannot but think of the Department of Labour under the late Hon. Norman Rogers. I have been surprised that another deputy minister has not been appointed before this. I ask the leader of the opposition how much the Department of National Defence is costing to-day as compared with what it cost before the war. I am one of those who take the stand that this government must wake up. It must keep alive the work that was started by the late Hon. Norman Rogers, something which I think the Minister of Labour is doing. The appointment of an associate deputy minister is long overdue, but I suggest that this deputy minister be a man who understands labour, who has come up from the ranks of labour and knows what a hard day's work at no great pay feels like. I think of the time I spent helping the late Hon. Norman Rogers with the youth training work. I could see then the magnitude of the task. This is one side of labour to which a man could devote his whole time. This type of work may not be needed to-day as much as it was during the years of the depression, and as it will be after the war, but it is still important. I hope to see the dominion government take over the whole problem of relief. If that is done, the work of this department will be increased and additional experts will be needed.

I repeat that this deputy minister should know labour. While the heads of our government departments may know something about these matters, I am afraid the public at large do not appreciate the problems of labour. If labour is happy, the country will be happy. I do not agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that there will be a great depression after this war. I believe that if this country can raise $5,000,000 a day for war, we can raise enough to cure unemployment and develop our resources. If the Department of Labour can lead in this endeavour, then we say, "Go to it and we will give you our support."

Labour Department Act

Mr. POULIOT:

Mention has been made of a salary of $12,000 per annum, but I would direct attention to resolution No. 12 which stands on the order paper in my name, and which suggests that for the duration of the war any government salary which exceeds $10,000 should be reduced to one dollar per annum plus $10 per day for living expenses. The suggestion is made to appoint an associate deputy minister of labour. In the Department of Labour as at present constituted there are three competent persons, the minister, his private sjcretary and the young lady who works in his office-the rest is nil. It is pitiful, and I mentioned this to the late Hon. Norman Rogers when he was alive. I am not discussing the excellent work done by my chief when he was deputy minister of labour and minister of labour. But he ceased to be Minister of Labour in 1911, and since then there have been many other ministers of labour whom I do not discuss. Some have been good, some bad, and some have been nonentities. The present minister is a good one. But I am strongly opposed to any salary in excess of $10,000 being paid. I think that that amount is enough, and when one man in the department receives $10,000 I do not see why another one should be paid as much as that. I think it is a scandal to appoint a man at over $10,000. There is not a man who is worth more than that in these hard times-unless he strikes a gold mine.

The suggestion has been made to take someone from the ranks of labour for this position. The suggestion has come from our reverend and very dear colleague from Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who is perhaps one of the most popular members of the House of Commons. My experience with labour is that there are two kinds of labour men, those who work and those who do not.

Mr. McIVOR:

Like members of parliament.

Mr. POULIOT:

Exactly, but that is true of very walk of life. Those who call themselves labour are those who do nothing and receive big salaries, and who are not working for labour men-they are company men. I have demonstrated that very often in this house, and I warn the minister against the appointment of any impostor of the kind, any lobbyist who calls himself labour to get a fat job and a salary ten times what he could earn with his own hands. Some people are under the impression that if we have no strikes in this country it is due to one man alone, a man you must see eating if you want to see him at work because that is the only work he does, with a knife and fork and spoon. There

was a rumour at one time that he was to be put on the purchasing board. I asked the minister for air and the minister for health, is this man going to be on the board? They looked embarrassed, and I knew then that it was only a rumour and that this man had not been asked. He has been mentioned as a possibility as minister, and here again when I occupied the seat in this chamber in which the Minister of Labour now sits I warned the government against his appointment, at the same time acknowledging that the Prime Minister had the right to choose anyone he liked, but stating that I could not support as one of my chiefs a man like that. He was not appointed. My friend who was the Postmaster General was appointed in his stead.

I am after this man because I think he is a fake, that he has betrayed labour, that he is an impostor, that he is a "Purvis" man in labour. Everybody knows him. I strongly object to his appointment. He has betrayed labour. He is only a lobbyist, an intriguer of the worst type.

Mr. HOMUTH:

May we know to whom the hon. member is referring?

Mr. POULIOT:

If my hon. friend does not know he is not well informed.

Mr. HOMUTH:

I do not know.

Mr. POULIOT:

If my hon. friend listened to my speeches he would know. If instead of making a noise when I speak he would listen to what I say he would be better informed.

Here we are, $12,000 for that man. It is a scandal. I denounce it because the man is an impostor, because the man calls himself labour when he has no right to call himself labour, when he has cost the country thousands and thousands, scores of thousands of dollars, to travel to places like Geneva where he has done nothing. He did not say anything, no more than a fish could say in water. He had nothing to say, and here is the man who represents labour. If I were a labour man I would be ashamed to be represented by an impostor of that kind-and when a man is successful enough to reach his post through intrigue he must be exposed as is and must be hanged on the next post. What I say I know. I warn the house about him all the time, but it is of no use. I remember that one of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party who holds a big job in that department got it through him because every time I denounced that impostor he was defended by that Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member in the house, and that man

Labour Department Act

rewarded the member by getting him a fat job. Everybody knows he is an impostor as I have described.

I do not want to say any more because then he would pose as a martyr. He will say I am crucifying a labour man, that I have no respect for labour. I know the labour men perhaps as well as any man in this house, if not better, and labour men are not afraid to speak to me or to come to me and ask me to defend their rights. When I have a big fat obstacle of the kind in my way I want to get rid of it, and I do the same as a man would who is driving along the road and sees a dead log blocking his path. He takes it away and throws it in the ditch so that he can proceed.

These are my humble views, and I warn the Minister of Labour, who is my friend, and tell him that if this appointment is made- he knows my reasons-it will be a bad appointment, and he will have to establish a cafeteria next to the man's office-