Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question *of privilege. I quote from the House of Commons debates of May 15, 1944, at page 2915, the following statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent):

Under date of January 10 Mr. Houde wrote the deputy minister of justice that he did not want any further hearing, and a copy of that letter was tabled in this house. Subsequently an kon. member of this house came to see me and said that Mr. Houde, as was istated in this letter of -which a copy was tabled, had expressed the view that he had been interned by order in council and that he was going to *come out through the big door and there would have to be an order in council passed to let him out. I explained to the hon. member that he was quite mistaken; that Mr. Houde had been treated like any other Canadian or resident of Canada under the defence of Canada regulations; that an order had been made by the Minister of Justice, and if he wanted that order reconsidered-it had been reconsidered once- it could be reconsidered again.

The statement made by the Minister of Justice is right but incomplete. The minister will admit that when I discussed with him the detention of Mr. Houde I submitted to his consideration a document to the effect that Mr. Houde would sign an undertaking. Concluding this question of privilege, I would ask the Minister of Justice to treat Mr. Houde as Tim Buck and other internees have been treated-

Mr. SPEAKER; There is no question of ^privilege.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the national joint council of the public service of Canada. The house will recall that on February 24 I announced that the treasury board had decided to establish such a council in order to provide machinery for regular and systematic consultation and discussion between the employer and employee sides of the public service in regard to grievances and conditions of employment, and thereby to promote increased efficiency and better morale in the public service.

It has been found that it takes longer to get such organizations established than originally contemplated. However, it is only natural that in an organization as large and complicated as the government service there should be many differences of opinion as to the composition of such a council and the representation to be given to various groups or organizations in the civil service.

We originally intended to provide for a council of twelve, equally representative of the official or employer side and the staff or employee side of the public service, and therefore announced that the Civil Service Federation, the Civil Service Association, the Amalgamated Civil Servants, the Professional Institute and the Dominion Customs and Excise Officers' Association would each be asked to name one representative, and that the three organizations amongst the postal employees would be asked to name one to represent all postal employees. Following my announcement of February 24, we received representations from the three organizations in the postal service protesting that no single person chosen from one of them could fairly represent the three organizations, and insisting on each organization being allowed to name its own representative. While this would mean a council somewhat unwieldy in size, nevertheless the treasury board decided that as the main purpose was to promote good will and better understanding, it should accede to the request. The board was immediately criticized for this decision, primarily on the general ground that it would give too much weight to what were strictly departmental organizations within the Post Office Department. At the same time we received requests for representation from several other civil service organizations, some recently

Public Service Council-Personnel

formed, which, if they were all accepted, would lead to the establishment of a council of no less than twenty-four members.

The board has therefore come to the conclusion that these differences and difficulties as to representation can only be adjusted amicably as a result of full and frank discussion of the whole matter between representatives of the various organizations and the official side of the civil service. In this connection I would emphasize that the first main task of the council will be to consider carefully the tentative or preliminary constitution which is being laid down by the order in council and to recommend a permanent constitution to govern the activities of the council.

It will also have to consider the advisability of setting up departmental joint councils and it is believed that when members of the council have had a chance of threshing out the part which departmental councils should play and what their relation should be to the national joint council, it will be far easier to reach agreement as to the organizations which should be represented on the national council and the weight of their representation.

The treasury board is hopeful that in this way a plan can be worked out which will assure a workable constitution with fair and appropriate representation to all existing organizations, and to all elements of the public service in the national council and the departmental councils that may be recommended.

At the conclusion of my remarks I shall table the order in council which has been passed. It will provide initially for a council of sixteen members. The eight members from the staff or employee side who have been nominated by their respective organizations or associations are the following:

Mr. V. C. Phelan, Civil Service Federation.

Mr. F. Knowles, Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada.

Mr. N. T. Allan, The Professional Institute of the Civil Service of Canada.

Mr. T. R. Montgomery, Civil Service Association of Ottawa.

Mr. John J. Reaves, Federated Association of Letter Carriers.

Mr. Fred Whitehouse, Association of Canadian Postal Employees.

Mr. W. Dennehy, Railway Mail Clerks Federation.

Mr. J. H. Wood, Customs and Excise Officers' Association.

The representatives of the official side will be:

Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, Department of Finance, who will act as chairman, with the assistance of a vice-chairman elected by the representatives of the staff side.

Mr. W. C. Ronson, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance.

Mr. C. H. Bland, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

Dr. C. A. Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines and Resources.

Mr. Edmond Cloutier, King's Printer.

Mr. J. E. St. Laurent, National Harbours Board.

Mr. P. T. Coolican, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.

Mr. A. H. Brown, Department of Labour.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

The Prime Minister, prior to his departure for the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers, intimated to the house that an invitation had been extended to Prime Minister John Curtin of Australia and Prime Minister Peter Fraser of New Zealand to visit Canada at the termination of the London meeting. It is apparent that our Prime Minister will be returning soon to Canada. I would appreciate it if the Acting Prime Minister will inform the house whether or not the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand will be accompanying our Prime Minister on his return.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Acting Prime Minister) :

The Prime Minister did extend an invitation to Prime Minister Curtin of Australia and Prime Minister Fraser of New Zealand, and I am very glad indeed to be able to tell the house that I understand the invitation has been accepted in both cases. At the moment I am unable to say whether the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand will be accompanying the Prime Minister of this country on his return. I am also not in a position to say on what date they may be here.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

I should like to ask the government if they will expedite as much as possible the bringing down of the remainder of the legislation which has been mentioned from time to time during the session and in the speech from the throne. I bring this to the attention of the government in order that we may be

Business oj the House-Legislation

able to make the best use of the time at our disposal in dealing with the activities of the session.

I find that apart altogether from the resolutions and second readings of certain bills that appear on the order paper, the following legislation is still to be brought down. When I read the list it will give hon. members some idea of what is ahead of us and how we must utilize our time if we are to make the most of it. The list is as follows: Civil service superannuation bill, amendment to Naval Services Act, Quebec Savings bank bill, export credit bill, national housing bill, the family allowances bill, floor prices for agriculture bill, war surplus assets bill, amendment to the Dominion Elections Act, Veterans' Gratuities bill, amendment to Veterans' Land Act, amendments to the criminal code, amendment to the Chinese Immigration Act, contributory old age pensions bill, health insurance bill; and in addition to these any legislation that may be based on reports of committees. Then there are the budget resolutions and whatever legislation may follow from them. In so far as the war appropriation bill is concerned the large departments of Agriculture, External Affairs, Finance, Pensions and National Health and Trade and Commerce have yet to be disposed of, plus thirteen separate items in other departments. If we continue to sit in future as we have done up to now, we have forty-three sitting days to August 1. We have had fifty-nine sitting days so far. I bring this to the attention of the house and of the government to request the government to expedite the bringing down of the legislation I have mentioned and thereby save time.

I should like to mention the cancellation of the Wednesday sittings. I do not want to bring up this matter ad nauseam, but I do feel keenly about it. I felt that the change should never have been made. But at this late date the government might give some consideration to the use of not only the Wednesday afternoons but Wednesday evenings, if they can possibly do it. This matter has been discussed and our party is substantially in agreement upon it. I may say to the government that as a party we are prepared to cooperate in these matters, and we hope that the government will do what it can-we shall do what we can-to bring the session into such order that the least possible time will be consumed in the transaction of the country's business. I realize it is not possible to cut off sessions at a certain time. This house owes a duty and an obligation to the country to see that legislation is dealt with properly. Subject to that reservation we as a party are anxious to see the session concluded as speedily as possible. I make this

suggestion in the hope that the tempo of the session may be increased and that the business of the country shall be carried on with perhaps even more dispatch than has been the case up to now.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Acting Prime Minister) :

I am obliged to my hon. friend for having brought up this matter. I have been sitting here during the last two or three weeks as the discussions have proceeded on the war appropriation resolution. I have once or twice made suggestions to the effect that I thought we might get on faster with better organization of the house. I felt that the remarks which I had made had fallen on barren ground and I thought I was putting the government in the position of endeavouring to force people to go faster than they wanted to go. I feel, however, that perhaps the course the government has pursued in just allowing the discussions to take their course has had some results. I take my hon. friend's words at their face value, that he is desirous of expediting the business of the house, as I am sure all hon. members are; but I think the example we have seen, in the length of time that has been taken on the war appropriation measure, is perhaps the best way to bring us to a realization that this house is a long way from having completed its business, and that some measures must be taken which, to use my hon. friend's expression, will speed up the tempo of the house.

I am not criticizing anyone, but it seems to me that is exactly what is needed here. As a matter of fact to-morrow, which is Wednesday, the day to which my hon. friend referred, I was going to ask the leader of the opposition and the leaders of the other two groups to a conference to see if it would not be possible to organize the discussion of these war appropriation items so that we might give some definite time to them and then call it a day when that time has expired. I know how difficult it is to do this. Hon. members want to ask questions which may occur to them at the moment when they happen to be in the house, and if they are away they want to be able to ask those questions after they come back, but that is not the way to get on with our business. So that I am going to ask my hon. friends to consider between now and to-morrow, if they will, the possibility of deciding on a certain number of hours, or a day if necessary., to deal with a certain subject and let us get it over and done with. It seems to me that is the only way we can speed up the tempo of the house.

With regard to the matter of legislation, it has seemed hardly worth while to place on the order paper a great deal of legislation which

Halibut Fisheries

may not be reached for one, two or three months in view of the speed we are making at the present time. The government has that matter fully in mind and legislation will be brought down from time to time; but with the situation as we have it, that is to say with the war appropriation measure still to be passed, a measure which I hope and believe we all regard as the most important of the session; with the farm improvement measure, which my hon. friend said he would like very much to have go to the banking and commerce committee in order that it might be considered along with the Bank Act; with some other legislation that has to come in and with the budget, which will be taken up in the reasonably near future, it seemed to me we had a pretty full order paper before us as it is. However, that legislation is in course of preparation; as a matter of fact most of it is prepared and can be brought down very shortly.

With regard to the matter of Wednesday, that has been discussed and I am not going to add anything to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in regard to it. I wish to close, however, by expressing appreciation of my hon. friend's having brought up the matter in a very graphic way, perhaps better than I could have done myself, because it comes from those who really have it in their own hands to decide how much time shall be taken on these matters. I thank him for having put on record again the programme we have ahead of us before this session would conclude in the normal course.

Mr. GRAYDON:

The minister said the

entire matter was in our hands, but that is not quite true. I made a check in that regard and found that to be not accurate; it is not entirely in our hands, in regard to the time that is consumed in this chamber.

Mr. RALSTON:

Shall I say it is not in

the hands of -the government?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

If I may make one or two observations with respect to the minister's statement, I think we ought to get the war appropriation bill through. Then I believe the government ought to bring down its legislation, even though it may not be dealt with immediately, in order that we may be given an opportunity to study it. I find it very difficult to read these bills and discuss them on second reading without having adequate time for study.