Mr. Gillis:

When we last debated the amendment to this particular section I adjourned the debate, and I am now going to conclude my remarks. Mr. Chairman, many of the speakers who are supporting this particular bill have done so on the ground that it is going to be beneficial to the workingmen of this country, and that most of the labour bodies in the country support the idea. The riding which I represent is perhaps one

in which labour is most highly organized in the Dominion of Canada. Steel and coal have been organized one hundred per cent for a good many years. The riding is completely organized in co-operatives and credit unions. To date I have not received any representation from any of these bodies as to the desirability of this particular measure. My riding is pretty well on its toes in seeking legislation which it feels would be beneficial to the men earning a living.

I am not prepared to accept this bill and make changes in the lives of fourteen million people in this country without at least more opportunity of discussing it with the people I represent. As I have said, to date I have received no intimation from any of the organized bodies in the riding as to the desirability of this particular piece of legislation. I have seen,, however, articles and advertisements from the tourist association urging this particular change in the interests of United States tourists who may be coming to this country, so that they may have more time to spend in the country. This same agitation is going on in the United States for changes in some of their statutory holidays. I understand that the move started in the United States, and is being carried on by the tourist association in Canada. I do not think there is any large body of opinion in this country in favour of this particular change.

So far as I am concerned I am not prepared to change Dominion day. As I said on a previous occasion, I am not a great patriot but I am a Canadian and I am proud of the fact. I am not prepared to change the day on which this country was given birth just because someone moves a bill in this house. I believe the sponsor of the bill is absolutely honest about it, and I have no intention of imputing anything but honest motives to him. I am not so sure about the background of this change, and it may go deeper than the hon. member or I realize. I think commercial interests are behind it. I should like to see anyone go over to the United States and tell the government to change the date for celebrating the 4th of July holiday. I believe he would get rather rough treatment. While I am not greatly interested in the Victoria day portion of the bill, I am not prepared to support it until I have had an opportunity of consulting my people.

Mr. Lennard:

Mr. Chairman, as one who is connected with a concern that employs labour, I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to the amendment, and I intend to vote against both.

Mr. Byrne:

I should like to remind the house that there is quite a large group of

Statutory Holidays

organized workers who have been successful in obtaining statutory holidays with pay in their agreements. In most cases the first of July will be one of those holidays. However, in those agreements there is a provision that when the statutory holiday falls on a scheduled day off, such as Saturday or Sunday-Saturday now being recognized as a rest period for workmen-the employees do not receive pay for that holiday. I believe, therefore, that this amendment has some merit in so far as those people are concerned. If the holiday is declared on Monday, rather than on Saturday or Sunday, then they will receive an additional rest day and be paid for it. I thought perhaps the member for Cape Breton South might want to consider that point.

Because of the critical situation which exists today, I realize that it may be necessary for employees to work extra time. However, most of these large corporations are making sufficient profits to enable them to pay time and half or double time, should the employees have to work on Saturday or Sunday to make up for the holiday on Monday. I thought that should be brought to the attention of the house before a vote is called.

Mr. Pouliol:

Mr. Chairman, my main objection to the amendment is that, although the amendment accepts the suggestion for a change, it is altered in such a way that there will be no holiday for those who are trying to calculate on what day the holiday is to be.

Mr. Knowles:

I realize that it might be difficult to produce a calculation that would satisfy the member for Temiscouata. Speaking in support of the amendment, I do not think there is any more difficulty about computing it in the manner suggested in the amendment than there is in the way suggested in the original bill. Originally, it was suggested that the celebration of the 24th of May might be on the 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th. But if the amendment carries, the 24th of May would be celebrated on the 21st, the 22nd, the 23rd, the 24th, the 25th, the 26th, or the 27th. It is just as simple as that. The main difference between the original bill and the amendment is that under the original bill the day is celebrated on the original day or as much as six days thereafter. But under the terms of the amendment the day would be celebrated either on the original day or not more than three days previous or three days after. It seems to me to be common sense that if we are going to make a change, we should make the change to the Monday nearest to the day, not as would be the case in some years, to the Monday farthest away from the day.

Statutory Holidays

Mr. Pouliot:

There are few who would be bright enough to understand the matter as well as does the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Coldwell:

I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata understands it.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

I want to

take one or two minutes of the time of the committee to stress one or two points which were made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, which I thought were eminently sound and which, so far as I know, no one has attempted to answer. First, if I remember aright, he said the other evening that this matter had just been brought forward and that we had had really no opportunity to test public opinion or to find out what the people back home thought about it. I agree with that statement. I would feel greatly embarrassed to go to my constituency and have my constituents say to me: You passed this measure but you never discussed it with us. You never had any opportunity to bring it to our attention at all. Second, I should like to say this, and I think everyone in the committee will feel as I do. I think it was an excellent point made by the hon. member. If you went to the Americans and asked them to celebrate the 4th of July on another day, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, I think you would get short shrift. For us to take this step in what seems to me to be a rather casual way is a rather curious commentary on our feelings with regard to our nation's birthday.

Mr. Coldwell:

I am going to support the

amendment. I think there is a great deal of import in the bill. After all, anniversaries are not so sanctified as to be unchangeable, as we find when we think of His Majesty the King who was born on December 12 and whose birthday we celebrate about six months later, in June. I am sure that it quite leaves me cold as to whether we celebrate the 24th of May on May 24 or on the Monday nearest to May 24. As long as we celebrate the birthday of this country on a day that will give most people the opportunity to get away for a week end's rest, I think we shall be doing more for the people of this country than by celebrating it on a Wednesday when they have to leave on Wednesday morning and get back on Wednesday night. They will enjoy celebrating the day over the week end more than they will on a day in the middle of the week.

The Chairman:

Shall the amendment

carry?

Yes.

No.

The Chairman:

In my opinion, the nays

have it.

Mr. Coldwell:

We had better stand.

Amendment (Mr. Graydon) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 35.

The Chairman:

Shall the section carry?

Mr. Herridge:

I want to say a word in

support of the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I am not in favour of our passing this type of legislation without having some direction from the people we represent. If organized labour and the people I represent think that this is a move to their advantage, I am quite willing to support it. But I think we are doing something here to change the habits and the customs of the Canadian people, without giving it due consideration. Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I might say that when it comes to a question of changing the day on which we celebrate the 1st of July, it does not leave me cold. I believe that in this nation we must give some consideration to the things we stand for and not be governed entirely by considerations of comfort and convenience.

Mr. Byrne:

For the benefit of the hon. member for Kootenay West, I should like to suggest to him that I believe I could, in all conscience, interpret the wishes of a large union organization in his riding. It is a union that is affiliated with the same organization that I have in my riding. They have an agreement which I have already outlined. I do not know on what day the 1st of July falls this year; I will use the 1st of July as an example. Should it fall on Saturday or Sunday, the men will not be paid for that holiday. But if Monday is declared a holiday, they will receive one additional day's holiday with pay this year. I am sure that is a union principle-holidays with pay.

Mr. MacDougall:

Mr. Chairman, I presume that when I speak I close the debate.

This is in committee.

Mr. MacDougall:

I think the answer to my good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South has been given by the Vancouver and New Westminster district trades and labour council. I received a copy of this bill several months ago. As to the allegation of lack of opportunity to study this bill, it just does not seem to add up; because this bill has been before the house for approximately ten days. When I suggested to the president and the secretary of the Vancouver and New Westminster district trades and labour council that I should be happy to discuss this bill with

them at any time they were desirous of calling a meeting, those gentlemen, who were certainly not of the same political stripe as I, said that there was no occasion to do that because as far as they were concerned their organization was wholly and solely behind the bill. The hon. member for Cape Breton South stated the other evening that he wanted to have some word from his constituency or that he wanted to see what was said in the editorials appearing in the press the following day. If we as members of the House of Commons are going to pass legislation entirely upon what is said in editorials in the press which appear on the day following the discussion of measures, I say that we are losing our sense of responsible government. I could have read, the other night, several extracts for the edification of hon. members as to the favour with which this bill is being received not only in my own city of Vancouver but in the cities of Toronto and Saskatoon. But we do not particularly feel that that is apropos of this bill. We have agreed to the bill in principle. I do not think that the argument of the hon. member for Cape Breton South is a sound one. If he wants to abrogate responsible government, then he is going about it in the quickest and shortest way, if we are to allow ourselves to be governed by editorials. Surely we are adult people with adult minds, capable of making them up in connection with this bill without reading editorials.