Mr. Gillis:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this measure because I realize the hon. member wants to get a vote on it and get it through. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay East. He says that he can interpret to this house the opinions of the mine, mill and smelter workers union of British Columbia. I do not think he can; at least he has not presented any documentary evidence to the house showing that he has ever been consulted by that organization upon this particular question.

I am just as closely in touch with a larger section of the trade union movement of this country as he is, and as far as I am concerned I do not know what their wishes are on this particular matter because they have not made any representation on it.

Mr. MacDougall:

Silence gives consent.

Mr. Gillis:

No, it does not. The hon. member who has just taken his seat got off on his left foot when he suggested that I was guided by editorials, and so forth, in regard to this matter. That is not true.

This is not ordinary legislation. This is something that affects every man, woman and child in this country. It is changing the day

Statutory Holidays

that was fixed by the fathers of confederation, and it deserves more consideration than has been given to it.

The hon. member says that he received a copy of this bill two months ago. Where did he get a copy of this bill two months ago, and who sent it to him? Who drafted that bill? These bills are generally drafted in the House of Commons after consultation with the law officers of the crown.

Mr. MacDougall:

I drafted it.

Mr. Gillis:

Where did this bill come from two months ago, and who urged the hon. member to bring it up in the house?

I am informed that this matter was brought to the attention of the trades and labour congress last September; that is the national body. It went to the floor of the convention, went back to the resolution committee and the trades and labour congress in its last national convention brought in a recommendation against this particular thing. I think the attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay East is an irresponsible one-I do not like to say that, but I cannot help thinking it-when he says that the unions of this country are looking for more holidays with pay. That is not true. By agreement the workers of this country today are working a forty or forty-four-hour week. That applies to most of them. By agreement some of them have statutory holidays, but a lot of them have not statutory holidays with pay.

When you stop for a moment and think that this country is going into a terrific defence program, with a very tight manpower situation and with the possibility of hours of labour having to be revised in order to meet that production, it is a very irresponsible attitude to take to suggest that we are going to provide more holidays with pay and disregard the wishes of the great majority of the people of the country.

As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support anything in the house that is reasonable and fair after due consideration; but I am also mindful of the fact that in the house I represent people; that I do not just come here to use my imagination and throw my weight around in any direction that I see fit. I come in here and try to interpret to hon. members the wishes of the people of my constituency. That is my job.

Mr. MacDougall:

I am doing the same thing.

Mr. Gillis:

I try to interpret the attitude of this house to my people whom I represent. I am prepared to make a decision on any matter that comes before this house in the field of legislation dealing with economic matters and that kind of thing, because

Statutory Holidays

these things are discussed from time to time. You have a guide on them; you have some knowledge of what the desires of your people are; but I am not prepared to vote in this house, with the information I have at the present time, that we should change the present statutory arrangement for holidays in this country which may mean, as my hon. friend over here says, less production, more holidays, more pay. The hours of work in this country today are not so unreasonable. I am going to vote against this. I am not fussy about what the editorials in the newspapers say, but I am particular as to what the reaction of the people whom I represent will be on this particular matter. As I said bef ore, I have not had any intimation as to what the steel workers, the miners or the fishermen in the part of the country from which I come, think on this particular legislation, and until I have some intimation that is going to be my attitude.

Mr. Herridge:

I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay East for his kind suggestion and attempted guidance; but in view of the record I do not feel safe in accepting it. All the unions in my constituency wanted union dues deducted for income tax but the hon. member voted against it. All the unions in my constituency wanted price control; the hon. member voted against it. Most of the unions in my constituency have supported the teachers federation of British Columbia in their plea for federal aid to education; the hon. member voted against it. Therefore, in view of the hon. member's record with respect to requests of the unions that I have the honour to represent I had better make certain and consult them before I support this bill.

Mr. Fleming:

May I ask the sponsor of this bill a question? If the bill is reported by the committee tonight, is it his intention to ask the house to give it third reading tonight?

Mr. MacDougall:

Absolutely.

Mr. Fleming:

The hon. member indicates that it is. In that event I propose to oppose the bill, and for various reasons. I share entirely the views expressed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. In the first place, sir, I think that the house has not given this matter adequate consideration; and if we are to be asked to report the bill out of committee tonight and give it third reading tonight, it seems to me we shall have done an act in haste that the house may well yet repent.

I am suggesting that this matter should not be pressed, but that it should be allowed to stand for further consideration. The committee knows perfectly well that when this

matter came before the house earlier this week, on Tuesday evening, it got practically no consideration. There was no debate at all. The house was actually caught off guard. The bill passed second reading and slipped into committee without hon. members fully realizing what had happened. Very few members were in the house at the time. The first section was passed in committee before many hon. members realized what had happened. It was just when we reached the second section that the full impact of what was happening really struck some hon. members.

To rush the bill through its remaining stages tonight makes a travesty, or comes very close to making a travesty, of the procedure in the sovereign parliament of Canada. This, sir, is a more serious matter than some hon. members have undertaken to treat it. In the course of the debate within the last few minutes there has been a rather striking levity, and shall I say light-heartedness, demonstrated in certain quarters of the house. I do not think it reflects any credit on the bill or on the way the house is addressing itself to its duty with respect to the bill.

If the bill has merit, then those who may be supporting it should have no fear that the merits will be able to stand up this week, next week or at a later stage of the session, after members have had an adequate opportunity to consider the bill and, principally, after the people of Canada have had an opportunity of appreciating precisely what is involved in the bill, and making the weight of public opinion felt through their representatives in the House of Commons.

Public opinion has not been felt in the house yet. The matter has had relatively little publicity. There are few members in the house, probably not more than a very few, who have had any reaction whatsoever from the public with respect to the public's view on the bill. My belief is that the public is not, generally speaking, aware that such a bill is before the House of Commons at the present time.

To those who express such confidence in the merits of the bill I would just suggest this, that if their confidence is well founded there need be no hesitation on their part in allowing the matter to stand until public opinion in this regard is known.

Was there any expression of opinion prior to the introduction of the bill? We all know there are people who, when a fine day comes in the spring or in the early summer, will always say-if it happens to be the 24th of May or the 1st of July-"Is it not a pity that it does not come on a Monday so that we could have a long holiday?" But, sir, I am

not so sure that if many of the people who react that way to fine weather were to sit down to deliberate seriously on the question as to whether they wished the natal day of their country changed by act of parliament, they would not say, "Wait a minute, now; this is something more than just choosing a day of fine weather."

Mr. Pouliot:

What about bad weather?

Mr. Fleming:

The hon. member for

Rosetown-Biggar spoke about having "a week end of rest". How many people get much rest out of week ends, when they go up to the country and spend hour after hour driving, bumper to bumper, on the main highways outside some of our cities? "Weekend rest" is often not rest at all. For many people it is just a week-end lark from which they come home dead tired.

Mr. Pouliot:

Physically tired, mentally

rested.

Mr. Fleming:

But that is not the principle before the house. The principal consideration in the matter ought to be public opinion. If the people of Canada want to have Victoria day celebrated on the nearest Monday or on the Monday following, then, very well, I think it is the duty of the house to conform to the wishes of the people. If the people of Canada wish the natal day of this nation to be observed on a day other than the 1st day of July, then the wishes of the people should be carried into effect in this parliament.

But I do not believe in running ahead in a slap-dash way, and enacting this bill before the people of the country are aware that the bill, with the implications it has, has come before the House of Commons. And, sir, if I had no other reason for recommending caution to the committee, and recommending delay so as to permit public opinion to be known, and to give time to consider the bill adequately, that lack was supplied a few moments ago in a remark made by the hon. member for Kootenay East when, in a most jocular and light-hearted way, he said that what certain people in his riding wanted was more time off with pay.

Sir, if that reflects responsible opinion in this country, under conditions such as we face today, then I say, "God help the. country." Yes, it is just as serious as that. And here is a remark by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys which I commend to the house, and to the hon. member for Kootenay East particularly, as being worthy of his consideration. It is a remark the minister in question reiterated in another speech today. This is what he said on the first occasion:

We are kidding ourselves to think we can work shorter hours and maintain a higher standard of

Statutory Holidays

living and, at the same time, defend our country and help defend the other free nations of the world.

Mr. Dickey:

Oh, oh.

Mr. Fleming:

Sir, if this country, along with the other nations of the free world, is facing an emergency of the serious proportions described to us by the Prime Minister only the day before yesterday, and by other members in the house-I have no time to listen to the gibberish of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). If he has no serious contribution to make to the debate, then he had better contribute nothing. Silence would be a constructive contribution on his part to the debate, and perhaps that is all we will expect from him under the circumstances.

But I say that if the Prime Minister was right in his picture of the emergency facing this country-and I think he was right-and if other hon. members were correct in giving endorsation to the resolution the Prime Minister sponsored-and I think they were right in doing so-then they cannot honestly, faced with an inflationary condition such as was described in the house, and the pinch of which is being felt by a great many people in this country today, come out with lighthearted remarks like those, in a time like this, and say, "What we want in this country is more time off, with pay."

What we need to do, if we are going to beat inflation in this country, and play the part that each of us should play in combating inflation, is to knuckle down to this job so that each of us will contribute his part toward increasing the productivity of the country.

It seems to me that for many reasons which have appeared during the debate it would be a grave reflection upon parliament, and our estimate of our parliamentary duty, to press this legislation swiftly before seeking to ascertain public opinion. We ought to wait. We ought to give public opinion time to make itself felt. We ought to give the public a chance to know what is being done here. I urge the sponsor of the bill, for whose sincerity I profess the highest respect, not to press the measure now, and to rely upon the merits he sees in the measure, and let those merits speak for themselves next week or the week after, rather than invite the house to do something which I think would bring discredit on the bill.

If there is merit in the bill, then let us not in this parliament bring discredit on that merit by proceeding hastily and thus denying to the bill the serious consideration it ought to have.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Chairman, there is one consideration of some importance which has not been mentioned, and which really should

Statutory Holidays

preclude the possibility of this bill's being dealt with at the present time. Has it occurred to hon. members that right across this country organizations of every kind have made arrangements for holidays, right through until the latter part of the year? Has it occurred to those hon. members that thousands of hotels, which render a valuable and continuing service to the people of Canada, have already made commitments to serve various organizations on dates which have been fixed in relation to holidays already settled? Those holidays have been settled by thousands of calendars printed some time ago and which are in the hands of the people of this country. The bill would have the effect of changing those holidays right away and would cause a measure of confusion which I hope all members will bear in mind, and which would affect many people who may perhaps believe in this idea but who would not wish to have it come into effect this year.

I must say that this bill is in a position somewhat different from a number of bills which raise new but extremely important principles, where we are actually called upon simply to exercise our judgment in relation to what may be right or wrong in principle. Here we have a simple and practical problem. Do the people want these changes made? These holidays have been celebrated on these particular days, in one case for eighty years t and in the other case for a shorter period although for a great many years. People have become accustomed to that.

It is quite possible that the people of Canada want this change. For the first reason I have mentioned particularly, and for the second as well, I do not think that the people who would be affected have had an opportunity to express their opinions in regard to something that is deeply embedded in the habits of our people. I for one propose to oppose this bill, not because it may not be a good idea but because I do not think we know yet what is the feeling of the people. In any event it should not go into effect until next year.

Mr. Coldwell:

The leader of the opposition has raised a point that deserves more than passing consideration. There is no doubt that people have made arrangements for May 24 and July 1. However, this difficulty could be easily remedied by amending the bill so that it would not come into effect until January 1, 1952.

Mr. MacDougall:

Agreed.