1954-02-01

Mr. Speaker:: It is the practice for the Speaker to inform the house about messages that he receives. Needless to say, I am pleased to inform the house that today is the birthday of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. I am sure I express the views of everyone when I wish him a very happy birthday and many happy returns of the day.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: May I avail myself of the privilege, with the consent of the house, of extending to the Prime Minister the warmest good wishes for many happy returns of his birthday. One of the happy incidents of service in the House of Commons is that the contacts we make with each other leave no doubt in our minds about the sincerity with which those of different political views seek to serve the common cause. With that in mind we extend our friendship and our personal contacts, but always reserving, as we always shall, the right to disagree. That is a healthy state of affairs.
I extend good wishes to the Prime Minister not only for his health and happiness on the occasion of his birthday but also for the trip ahead of him. May I remind hon. members that the Prime Minister, looking extremely well, is, after all, still a comparative youngster when one compares his age with that of the very youthful head of another government of the commonwealth with whom he will be lunching in just a few days. In extending our good wishes to him today, may I express the hope that for long years ahead his health, vigour and happiness may continue.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and all my colleagues for these expressions of good wishes, the sincerity of which I find very touching. It is one of the perhaps not too many satisfactions of public life to be able to vigorously prosecute one's own opinions and ideas and still feel that one retains the esteem of those with whom one is trying
to serve the state. We all welcome every opportunity to exchange warm good wishes with each other on proper occasions, and thereby to show each other that we do appreciate the sincerity of each of us in endeavouring to serve our great country to the best of our individual ability.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I am sure all of us, irrespective of our political views, join with the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker and everyone else in extending our good wishes to the Prime Minister. When we say this sort of thing sometimes some people, because of our political differences, think that there is some insincerity about it, but I want to say that I am confident that there is no insincerity anywhere in the house in wishing the Prime Minister health, happiness and many happy returns of the day.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that there are occasions when it is possible for us to forget our differences and emphasize the common ground on which we stand. Birthdays seem to be one of those occasions, and I am very happy to be able at this time to join the other hon. gentlemen who have spoken in extending to the Prime Minister our very warmest wishes for many happy returns of the day and to assure him that there must be many hon. members who hope that at 72 they will be as spry as the Prime Minister.



COMMONWEALTH FINANCE CONFERENCE


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, since the full text may not have been available to all hon. members, I thought I might table the official text of the communique issued at the conclusion of the meeting of commonwealth finance ministers in Australia which ended on the 15th of January. There is little I can add, or perhaps should add, to what is in the communique. As the house knows, this was the most recent of a series of meetings that have been held at fairly regular intervals since the end of the war. At these meetings the questions which have been discussed have related primarily
1S24	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Finance Conference to the commonwealth countries in the sterling area. As the house is aware, the United Kingdom acts as banker for and holds the reserves of the sterling area countries. As a result of conditions arising out of the war, sterling has been inconvertible up to the present time, and it has been necessary to impose a variety of restrictions upon trade.
I have had the privilege of attending all these meetings since the end of the war. In my opinion this last meeting was, in many ways, one of the most satisfactory of any of them.
The questions reviewed were the progress made in liberalizing trade and in moving towards the goal of convertibility. The targets were set two years ago, at a time of real crisis, and they were reaffirmed at the meeting a year ago. Anyone who has watched the march of events will realize there has been a moderate but steady improvement during all that period. Today sterling is stronger than it has been at any time since the end of the war, and there has been a progressive liberalization of all these trade restrictions.
I am happy to say that at the meeting in Sydney the goals of freer trade and convertibility were reaffirmed.
I have always hesitated to assume the role of prophet, and I do not presume to do so now. The time when sterling, one of the world's great trading currencies, is made convertible must of course be determined by those who are primarily responsible for that currency. But in my opinion, that goal is very much nearer than any one of us would have dared to hope even as short a time since as a year ago.
I should like to add one word, and that is to say that the arrangements made by our host, the Australian government, were admirable in every respect. The Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies, who presided, did so with his usual ability and tact. The hospitality which was extended to us by our Australian friends was beyond praise. I regret that because of a minor throat affliction I was not able to participate to the extent to which I would have liked. Nevertheless, I can assure you that the hospitality was fully up to what I had always heard were Australian standards, so that all in all I found it was a most satisfactory conference.
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe
Opposition): In view of the insistence with which we have presented requests in this house at different times, Mr. Speaker, in the form of resolutions seeking the initiative in reaching the goal of convertibility, we will naturally welcome with great enthusiasm the statement that the goal of convertibility is so


much nearer. I must say that we welcome also the fact that convertibility has now become a respectable word. There was a time when ridicule was poured on the suggestion that our government might take the initiative in seeking ways to further the cause of convertibility. The Australian government, having taken the initiative, obviously has attained results which are satisfactory to the government. While we would regret that the initiative had not been taken in accordance with our resolution, we welcome this statement that the goal of convertibility is closer today than it was before.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I ask the minister whether he could make the communique available by having it printed, perhaps as an annex to Hansard or in some other convenient manner?	[DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the house were willing to agree, I am sure it would be entirely satisfactory to have the document printed as an annex to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this document be printed as an addendum to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of document see appendix, pages 1671-75.)



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: On several occasions
recently, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has addressed questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) concerning the national film board, and the Prime Minister had answered, I think, on each occasion that the government was considering the awarding of a contract for the building of the headquarters and operational units. The house will recall that the Massey commission and the J. D. Woods and Gordon company, when they investigated the work of the board some years ago, both recommended that the board should be housed in one building rather than in the eight or nine places they now occupy, and in which they work under quite unsatisfactory conditions. These recommendations were passed upon by a committee of this house something less than two years ago.
In the meantime the government took steps to investigate the sites available, and a property was located in Ville St. Laurent and acquired at a price which, at the moment, has totalled about $256,000. It may cost up to $25,000 or perhaps $30,000 more to negotiate for the remaining pieces of property. At

this point invitations were extended by the Department of Public Works for tenders for the buildings, and several tenders were received, the lowest being $5,230,760. With the expenditure of that amount before it, the government has been considering this question to see if that expenditure is justified, having in mind the operations of the film board and as well the acknowledged fact that private industry in the film trade in Canada has been improving in the quality and quantity of its output. We did give serious consideration to this question, and came to the conclusion that the national film board was producing films of an educational and cultural nature which were providing real advantages to the Canadian people, and that if the film board did not produce these they could not be otherwise produced in Canada.
For that reason, we have decided that this advantage should be continued, and for the benefit of the Canadian people we have authorized the awarding of a contract to the lowest tender in the amount I have mentioned. May I say, sir, that I have only been responsible for the work of the film board in parliament for the past few months. In the study we have made during that time, we have been struck by the remarkably improved efficiency of the film board in the past few years and the much improved public relations which it seems to enjoy with the Canadian taxpayer. I cannot help but take this opportunity, sir, to say that in my opinion this is due not only to the good work of the employees and the present and former commissioners, but in particular to the supervisory and administrative skill of my predecessor, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters).


George Alexander Drew: The statement made by the minister, Mr. Speaker, raises a point that goes far beyond the awarding of a contract. This subject has been under discussion before, and the answers that were given at that time are a matter of some importance in considering the extent to which parliament is, or should be, brought into the confidence of the government in regard to matters that are of very great public importance.
The minister has referred to the reports of the Massey commission and the J. D. Woods and Gordon company. I would remind the minister that if he will look at the report of the J. D. Woods and Gordon company-which I might say in this case was not regarded as a secret document in regard to some of its contents-it speaks of the bringing together in Ottawa-
National Film Board


Mr. Winters:: No, it does not.


George Alexander Drew: It speaks of the bringing together in Ottawa of the buildings of the film board. Now, I am not suggesting-


Robert Henry Winters: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the finding was a positive recommendation in regard to Ottawa or otherwise; but if the minister will look back at the J. D. Woods and Gordon report he will see a reference to the words "in Ottawa". The minister shakes his head, but I feel sure he will find it. The minister will recall that at the time the J. D. Woods and Gordon company were being called upon to make this investigation there was no suggestion then, so far as we were informed, other than of improved efficiency and integration of the activities of the board, and the bringing together of the functions of the board in a single unit. Now, so far as the recommendations are concerned, they did not place before the house any comparative advantages as between Ottawa and any other city. And I wish to make it abundantly clear that I am not presuming to express an opinion as to where the less desirable site would be. We simply have no information before us.
Attempts that were made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) to get information when this item came before the house last year, on April 9, 1953, indicate just how little was available. On that occasion the hon. member for Peterborough pressed the minister responsible for information as to what was contemplated. Let us take a couple of examples just to see how little this house knew about what was then taking place. In response to a question put at that time the minister said, as reported at page 3645 of Hansard:
I am not too sure we have completed purchase of the site.
If he was not, who would be? Then he went on to say:
I think somebody raised that question earlier in the session and I answered that we were negotiating with two or three parties who are the owners of the site.
This, mark you, was on the occasion when these main estimates were before the house for consideration, a time when, we have been told, the house made a decision in this matter.
Then, on another occasion, when the minister was asked what he thought it would cost, he said:
I am told that the whole project will cost approximately $5 million . . . We have not completed the purchase of the land and I would not like to give the figures I have here at this time.
1626	HOUSE OF
National Film Board
That is the last time there was any opportunity for members of this house to obtain positive information. The item passed in the absence of that information.
Then an announcement was subsequently made that a decision had been taken to move this to Ville St. Laurent. That may be an excellent decision or it may not, depending upon what the reasons are; and this house surely has a right to know what reasons motivated the government in coming to that decision.
We have tried on a number of occasions, as hon. members will recall, to obtain information. Hon. members will recall that in the debate on the speech from the throne, when I spoke in opening the debate, I pointed out the absence of information on something which not only involved an expenditure of money but had very important cultural features in connection with it as embraced in the Massey commission's report, to which reference has already been made. My request at that time was denied. No steps were taken to carry out my suggestion.
Then, on January 19 of this year, I directed the attention of the Prime Minister to a press report which had just appeared respecting the national film board, which said that the government was reconsidering its decision. I asked the Prime Minister whether there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter further. His reply, as reported at page 1235 of Hansard, is as follows:
There has been no decision reached in that matter. What is under consideration at the present time is the tenders that were submitted for the construction of a building in Montreal. They are all of a very substantial amount, and the matter that is now under consideration is as to whether or not the government will recommend the appropriations required for that large expenditure at this time.
I then asked:
Do I understand from what the Prime Minister has said that, having regard to the amount involved, the government may actually be reconsidering whether it will or will not move the national film board from Ottawa?
To that the Prime Minister replied:
No decision has been reached in that regard, but until the government comes to parliament with a definite recommendation for a definite amount to be expended for a building at a definite place there is always a possibility that changes in the recommendation may be made.
Now, there is both a question of propriety of procedure, and a question of the rights of parliament involved. The Prime Minister said at that time:
. . . until the government comes to parliament with a definite recommendation for a definite amount to be expended for a building at a definite place there is always a possibility that changes in the recommendation may be made.


Let us assume he thought that changes were not going to be made. It was said that the matter would be laid before parliament before changes were made.
Then, within a few days, in fact the very next day, I read a statement in the press by Mr. Gardiner-this was not the Minister of Agriculture but, I believe, an architect in the Department of Public Works.


Robert Henry Winters: The chief architect.


George Alexander Drew: The chief architect. He said that this matter was going to come before treasury board for recommendation. On that occasion I said:
In the late afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal I read that the definite recommendation in regard to the adoption of a tender for the construction of the national film board building was definitely going to the treasury board. It seems to me that these statements are inconsistent. Having regard to the general principle involved and the assurance by the Prime Minister that we would have something before us before this move was definite, it seems to me that we should know what the situation is.
To that the Prime Minister replied:
I would hope that the house would take the statements made by the government in the house in preference to speculative reports by newspapers.
And hon. members in the house on that occasion will I am sure recall the firmness with which the Prime Minister made that statement and the hilarious applause with which his supporters in parliament greeted what was intended to be a rebuke made concerning even the very suggestion that anything contrary to what had been said on January 19 was contemplated.
I feel sure that the Prime Minister did not have the information before him when he made that statement. Then, today, we have the statement of the minister responsible for this, who blandly comes to the house and tells us this, in spite of the assurance by the Prime Minister that, "until the government comes to parliament with a definite recommendation for a definite amount to be expended for a building at a definite place, there is always a possibility that changes in the recommendation may be made".
I think this is a challenge to the rights of parliament concerning information in regard to the business of the people of Canada, and I say that a very real question of privilege arises in that members were misled-I am sure it was unintentional, because I feel sure the Prime Minister was sure that nothing had taken place at that time. But the fact is that now a statement is made by the minister in charge which confirms the announcement to which I referred earlier,

made by the chief architect in the Department of Public Works, that this was going to treasury board in any event.
I recall again the words of the Prime Minister, when that was pointed out to him:
I would hope that the house would take the statements made by the government In the house in preference to speculative reports by newspapers.
Unfortunately, those speculative reports, as they were called, turned out to be right. On the basis of the Prime Minister's statement, I submit that this house has a right to ask that the government reconsider this decision today. We do not pretend to be in a position to say where this building should go. We have been denied any information. The last time it was up for discussion we were told that the government did not have any plans, although they insisted on the item going through. We have no reasons before us why this should be done and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that both for the purpose of establishing the authority of parliament and for the purpose of doing the business of the people of Canada in an orderly manner, this should be reconsidered. It should be placed before the House of Commons, as was clearly implied by the Prime Minister in the statement on January 19.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word on this. I knew what I was talking about when I made that answer to the Leader of the Opposition here. Tenders always go to the treasury board, but the treasury board had been requested not to act upon this tender until council as a whole had reconsidered the matter. Council as a whole had not reconsidered the matter at that time. Council as a whole has since on two occasions very seriously reconsidered the matter, and the factors which led us to take the responsibility of deciding that we would come to parliament with a recommendation for the appropriation, and we will.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I ask of the Prime Minister whether he will tell us what the factors are which have led to this decision?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think that all the declarations such as have been made at this time on this matter have gone just about as far as the rules and the practice of the house will allow. The recommendation to parliament will be in the estimates, and there will be a full opportunity to discuss the whole matter when that estimate is submitted to parliament for its approval or disapproval.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word?
National Film Board


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is entitled to speak, since it is the practice of this house, when a minister makes a statement on the orders of the day, to allow one spokesman for each opposition party to make observations. That was the practice established by my predecessor. I should like to refer hon. members to a statement which I made on November 25, 1953, with respect to a ruling of my predecessor on June 4, 1951, where he said:
It is not customary to allow a debate on a statement made at this stage of the proceedings. I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other two groups to speak, but it is not customary to permit other hon. members to do so.
I have extended this privilege to a spokesman for each party because, as we know, sometimes an hon. member other than the leader of his party is a specialist on certain subjects. I therefore say it is fairer to establish the practice of having a spokesman for each party speak on the matter.
Later on in the same debate Mr. Speaker Macdonald had this to say:
Of course I cannot allow a debate on it at this time. We cannot generalize.
Since a statement has been made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) and since the Leader of the Opposition has spoken on the matter I will now see a spokesman for the C.C.F. party and also a spokesman for the Social Credit party, if one wishes to speak, and I would imagine that the matter should rest there for the moment.


Angus MacInnis: I was not rising to speak on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I was rising to protest on a point of order, or on a question of privilege, whichever you would care to recognize, about this way of carrying on debate. If this question should be debated we should ask for a time to debate it so that all hon. members would have equal opportunity to express their views on it. This is not something that happened just today. It is almost a daily occurrence in this house. It often happens that the Leader of the Opposition and some minister of the crown talk across the floor on some question that should be debated by hon. members. Perhaps some of the fault today rests with the minister because of the time he chose to make his statement. I do not believe it should have been made on motions, in answer to a question. It should have been made after the questions were disposed of. If it was a question asked on the orders of the day, the answer should have been given then. But my chief contention is that no

National Film Board
provision is made in the rules of this house for such debates as have been continually carried on in this house in the past.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway rose not to speak to the statement but on a point of order, that is different. If there are other remarks strictly directed to the point of order, I shall listen to them.


George Alexander Drew: My remarks are exclusively directed to the point of order. I would recall that the practice which has developed is one which should be understood by all hon. members because it relates to the requests that have been made for some opportunity to debate things that come before the house. I would point out that under the rules, wisely or unwisely, no provision is made by which a minister has a higher right to rise and make a statement than any other hon. member. That was pointed out, and it was also pointed out that if we were to accord the courtesy to a minister to make a statement before the orders of the day, then it was only appropriate that there be an opportunity to make some observations in regard to that statement.


An hon. Member:: How often do you want to do it?


George Alexander Drew: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that so far as these discussions are concerned my own recommendations some time ago were that we find a device by which, on some substantive motion, matters of the kind could be brought forward. Unfortunately, that has not been dealt with. It would only be necessary for any member to object to the minister making the statement to prevent the statement being made. We do not want to raise such an objection; we want the statement to be made. But it was pointed out at that time when this was under discussion before, and when Mr. Speaker Macdonald made the ruling, that we would be ready and willing to accord unanimous consent to the introduction of statements of this kind so long as an opportunity to make observations on them were provided in this way. It was upon that basis that the ruling was made. I submit that anything else would be really a challenge to the concept of parliament as a parliament of government and opposition.
If statements could be made by unanimous consent with no observations on the other side, we could get a steady procession of statements of this nature without any opportunity to correct or to make observations that would be related to them. That was
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
the basis on which Mr. Speaker Macdonald made the ruling. I have no desire to see this practice changed, but I would equally point out that if the practice of ministers making statements of this sort, without a substantive motion, is to continue, then obviously the practice of giving opportunity for some reply or some observation should continue as well.


Robert Henry Winters: May I now state my question of privilege having to do with the interpretation placed on the use of the words "in Ottawa" in the report submitted by J. D. Woods and Gordon.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West should explain that.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise on a point of order.


Robert Henry Winters: My question is one of privilege. It has to do with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said the words were there and implied I said they were not there. Mr. Speaker, the words "in Ottawa" are in the report. The film board has operations all over this country. I well know that the author of the report intended the words to mean that the operations of the board here in Ottawa should be assembled under one roof; but he did not mean that they should be assembled under one roof in Ottawa. There is quite a difference, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar wishes to raise a point?


Major James William Coldwell: I think what is happening-


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, I think that answer should be amplified.


Major James William Coldwell: I think what is happening this afternoon illustrates the difficulties we are in. This has developed into a debate, and there are others who want to participate in this debate. I want to participate in this debate. While the Leader of the Opposition occupies an official place in this house, I do not think the whole discussion on matters of this sort should be confined to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, if 1 may ask the minister a question, I should like to ask him whether this contract will be let before the estimates are before the house for approval by the house. Can he tell us in any event, particularly if his answer is in the negative, what will be the total cost of this project and the removal of the staff to Montreal? Further, to what extent, if any, is Central Mortgage and Housing involved in the purchase of land for the housing of staff and employees in Ville St. Laurent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I think there comes a time when a decision must

be made. I think that time has arrived. The question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is on Hansard and if unanimous consent is given the minister can answer. It is difficult for the Speaker to diagnose exactly the type of statement which my predecessor had in mind when he made his ruling. Personally I do not think that the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) today was the type of statement that Mr. Speaker Macdonald had in mind when he made his ruling. Nevertheless, had I jumped to my feet at the time to try to explain that, I am sure there would have been some objection.
Hon. members will recall that until two years ago it was an old tradition of this house that ministers were entitled to make statements about public affairs when motions were called and no replies were allowed by any member of the house to ministerial statements. Following representations that were offered, Mr. Speaker Macdonald gave the ruling I referred to, namely that when a minister makes a statement the leaders of the various groups will be allowed to reply.
Perhaps that is not the type of ruling that gives satisfaction because hon. members can always stand up and say that they have equal rights in the house. While the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), ministers of the government and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) may be considered to be in a different position under our rules, nevertheless the principal rule is that all hon. members are equal and have equal rights. Therefore, if one hon. member is allowed to speak, why should not I allow others to speak? That is why, in the light of that ruling, on the first occasion a statement was made in this house by a minister after I took office I made this statement, which I repeat, which is to be found at page 329 of Hansard of November 25, 1953:
Before the Leader of the Opposition speaks, and since this is the first occasion that has arisen where a minister has made a statement before the orders of the day are called, I should like to remind hon. members that in the last parliament, when an important statement was made, the leaders of the three opposition parties were permitted to take part in the debate; that is, to ask questions or to make comments. 1 should like to refer hon. members to page 3669 of Hansard of June 4, 1951, where Mr. Speaker Macdonald said:
"It is not customary to allow a debate on a statement at this stage of the proceedings. I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other two groups to speak, but it is , not customary to permit other hon. members to do so."
I should like this gentleman's agreement to be adhered to, if it is possible, following the statement.
And further, on a different occasion, Mr. Speaker Macdonald also ruled that a debate cannot be generalized. He said, as reported on page 411 of Hansard of December 8, 1952;
National Film Board
"I think now the house is entering upon a debate on the subject."
That had to do with television. I continue to quote:
Mr. Speaker Macdonald went on to say:
"Of course I cannot allow a debate on it at this time. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) should be directed strictly to the statement which has been read. We cannot generalize."
With these previous rulings as a guide, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to make his comments.
If I may say so, I have extended this gentleman's agreement, not only to the leaders of the three opposition parties but to the spokesman for each party. It is known that on all matters of housing, for instance, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) might be the one called upon to speak on behalf of the Conservative party. On matters pertaining to transport, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) might be the one called upon to speak on behalf of his party. That is the limit to which I think I should go in interpreting the spirit and the letter of that ruling.
But when hon. members claim that this practice which has now been established is going too far and is detrimental to the rights of private members in this house, it may well be that the house should consider whether or not we had better revert to the old traditional practice whereby a minister made his statement and no debate was permitted from the other side of the house or on the part of any private member. I should like to leave this for the consideration of the house. Precedents are being established in two ways: First, by Mr. Speaker through his rulings and, second, by hon. members taking certain attitudes on various occasions.
We have come to a situation where, if we cannot have the gentleman's agreement adhered to, under which a minister would make a statement and a spokesman for each opposition party would reply; if that arrangement is not satisfactory, I am announcing now I shall have to consider going back to the practice which was honoured before of not allowing anyone to speak following the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before you depart from that, do you wish any comments on this? I ask, because it is an important matter. We have statements made almost every day by ministers, and as I understand it you are not making any ruling at the moment. I assume that you will accept written submissions in regard to this matter now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to have the matter debated now. I am merely saying that
1630	HOUSE OF
Members' Retiring Allowances the practice has developed whereby a spokesman for each party or the leader of each opposition party was allowed to make observations directly related to a statement made by the minister. I am quite willing to carry on with that arrangement, but if it is violated too often I shall have to assume the responsibility, and I so announce now, of deciding that if the gentleman's agreement is not adhered to properly we will revert to the old practice of allowing a minister to make a statement but not allowing any other member to comment upon it.

On the orders of the day:


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) what the total cost of this project will be, and the related question as to whether arrangements have been made by or with the approval of Central Mortgage for the acquisition of land for the building of homes for the employees, and if the contract will be let before the estimates come before the house for approval?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the estimated cost of the move is of course just an estimate. There will be the cost of moving equipment from Ottawa and the cost of moving personnel. In addition to that, there will be the purchase of furniture which is not now owned by the board because of the quarters they now occupy, and it is difficult to put any firm figure on all these matters. However, it is thought that all that may run to $500,000, including furnishings. I am informed by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) that no arrangements have been made up to the present time through Central Mortgage for the housing of the employees.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: for leave to introduce Bill No. 176, to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when the banking and commerce committee in 1952 recommended the bill which became the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act it was drafted in such a way that if an adjustment upward or downward was made subsequently to members' indemnities their contributions to the retiring fund and the matching contributions of the government


would be increased or decreased in the same proportion and so eventually would be the retiring allowances for those who ultimately became entitled to receive them.
It was felt that such proportionate adjustment in the contributions without any shortening of the period during which they were made would bring about a situation where the fund would remain actuarially sound and self-supporting, because only a small number of the many contributors were expected to ever become entitled to retiring allowances.
We have now reason to believe that that was the best kind of forecast that could be made at that time, but after all it was only a forecast and we do not think that there should be any automatic change in the contributions or ultimate possible effects at this time.
The purpose of this bill is to recommend amendments to the act to prevent any change in its operation or any increase in the maximum allowance from taking place automatically as a result of changes in the sessional indemnity proposed by Bill No. 171 now before us.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 174, respecting the Great Lakes Reinsurance Company.-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East).


Mr. Zaplitny:: 1.	Has the government received representations from the vegetable growers association of Manitoba, requesting a seasonal embargo on American vegetable imports into Canada?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, FORT WILLIAM
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What federal moneys have been paid to date in respect of each of the 14 contractors working on construction of the trans-Canada highway in the Fort William district?
2.	What federal moneys have been held back in respect of each contractor?
3.	When was each contract let and what are the general specifications of each contract?


Mr. Bourgei:: No.	Contractor	Total approved commitment	Canada's share	Amount paid by Canada	Estimated unpaid balance	Date contract let	General specifications1	Wolfe Const. Co	776,494.19	388,247.10	333,253.95	54,993.15	June	21/49	Grading2	Wolfe Const. Co	1,362,984.00	681,492.00	590,612.59	90,879.41	Feb.	27/50	((3	Fort York Const. Co	476,135.00	238,067.50	232,722.84	5,344.66	May	5/50	*4	Wolfe Const. Co	1,335,185.00	667,592.50	243,891.52	423,700.98	Dec.	22/50	it5	Tomlinson Bros	1,516,020.00	758,010.00	329,701.01	428,308.99	Dec.	22/50	it6	Tomlinson Bros	941,497.50	470,748.75	167,874.85	302,873.90	Dec.	22/50	it7	Hewitson Const. Co	416,078.27	208,039.13	207,907.02	132.11	Apr.	24/50	it8	Thunder Bay Harbour Improvement Co	103,000.00	51,500.00	Nil	51,500.00	Nov.	21/50	Overpass9	Hacquoils	797,051.00	398,525.50	Nil	398,525.50	July	17/53	Grading10	H. J. McFarland Const. Co	977,105.61	488,552.81	318,052.46	170,500.35	June	9/50	Grading and paving11	Tomlinson Bros	71,842.50	35,921.25	29,548.92	6,372.33	Sept.	6/50	Bridge12	Standard Paving	1,547,222.00	773,611.00	617,808.51	155,802.49	June	13/50	Grading and paving13	Sarnia Bridge Co	33,574.00	16,787.00	16,687.00	100.00	Nov.	23/50	Bridge14	Hacquoils	70,159.00	35,079.50	Nil	35,079.50	Sept.	10/53	n10,424,348.07	5,212,174.04	3,088,060.67	2,124,113.37	
>
Questions

Questions


P.F.R.A.-EXTENSION TO BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Jones:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the provincial government of British Columbia, asking for the extension of P.F.R.A. facilities to that province? If so, when?
2.	Has the government indicated its willingness to extend this service to British Columbia?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1935 to provide for the rehabilitation of the drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta only. It enabled the undertaking, over a five-year period, of methods of farm practice and water development to minimize the very serious problems of drought and soil drifting that existed there at the time, in the area commonly referred to as the Palliser triangle.
An amendment in 1937 extended the activities to the withdrawal of poor lands from cultivation, and to the resettlement elsewhere, of farmers from such lands in the drought area. Provision was also made to organize those vacated lands into community pastures, and the act was further amended in 1939 removing the five-year time limitation but the pastures were confined to the drought area as above.
Representations have been made on a number of occasions in past years for the extension of the P.F.R.A. area to all of the prairie provinces as well as to British Columbia. The last request received from British Columbia was in a letter dated February 2, 1953, from Hon. R. E. Sommers, minister of lands and forests. The Minister of Agriculture replied to this letter on February 6, 1953, stating that the government has had this matter under consideration for some time and that until a decision had been reached specific problems in that province would be dealt with by special parliamentary appropriations as in the past.
In British Columbia a serious flood problem developed some years ago in the Lil-looet-Pemberton district. In response to representations from the province and the district a special parliamentary appropriation was provided over a number of years for the construction of flood control works and to March 31, 1953, the total expenditure was $1,163,811. Another parliamentary appropriation for special projects in British Columbia, that has been provided for a number of years, is that for the development of irrigation projects for the rehabilitation of veterans. Expenditures to March 31, 1953, under this vote amounted to $1,574,715, and
fMr. Bourget.l
2,797 acres on seven projects have been developed for irrigation, providing locations for 304 veterans of world war II.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


APPLICATIONS TO CLOSE RAILWAY STATIONS
Mr. Weir:: 1.	How many applications, if any, have been made in the calendar years 1952 and 1953 by the railways to the board of transport commissioners to close stations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2. How many applications were made by the Canadian National Railways?
3. How many applications were made by the Canadian Pacific Railway?
4.	What are the names and the net revenues of the stations in Manitoba for which applications to close have been approved in the years 1952 and 1953?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Four applications to close stations and 18 to replace agent with caretaker.
2.	Three applications from the Canadian National Railways to close stations and 18 applications to replace agent with caretaker.
3.	One application to close station.
4. Application	to close station
Station	Gross revenues
Hallboro	May 1951 to April 1952: $740.
Applications to	replace station agent with caretaker
Station	Gross revenues
Grosse Isle	April 1951 to March 1952: $17,024.
Isabella	May 1951 to April 1952: $36,500.
Margaret	Nov. 1951 to Oct. 1952: $21,758.
Deloraine	August 1951 to July 1952: $7,082.
Holmfield	May 1951 to April 1952: $1,792.
Neelin	August 1951 to July 1952: $20,050.
Shellmouth	Jan. to Dec. 1952: $19,314.
Dugald	Jan. to Dec. 1952: $12,299.
Note: Net revenues not available.
NATIONAL FILM BOARD Mr. Fulton:
1.	Has the attention of the responsible minister been called to a report on national film board activities appearing in the Ottawa Journal of December 26, 1953, and a confirming report in Newsweek magazine of January 18, 1954?	'

2.	Has the national film board under active consideration the production of dramatized feature films, as distinct from the present documentary type, one of the main developments of which would be the substitution of dialogue and acting for commentary?
3.	Would this program call for the employment of professional actors and actresses?
4.	Does the program envisage the sale of such films in Canada and foreign markets in competition with commercial productions of this and other countries?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Documentary features such as "Royal Journey", "R.C.M.P. File 1365" and "Canada at the Coronation" have been highly commended and similar documentaries will toe produced as occasion may arise. No other features are contemplated.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES- UNCLAIMED BALANCES
Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What is the accumulated amount of unclaimed balances on the books of life insurance companies doing business in Canada at the present time resulting from: (a) unclaimed matured endowments; (b) unclaimed surrender value of policies; (c) unclaimed dividends; (d) unclaimed annuity contracts?
2.	Are any such lists published periodically by either insurance companies or the office of the superintendent of insurance, as is done, for example, in the case of unclaimed bank deposits?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Not of government record.
2.	No.


CANADA HOUSE, LONDON    LETTERS OF INTRODUCTION
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Are letters of introduction issued from Canada House, London, England, to Canadian citizens travelling to certain foreign countries?
2.	What fee, if any, is charged for these letters?
3.	How many such letters of introduction have been issued during 1952 and 1953?
4.	What is the total sum collected from the issuance of letters of introduction from Canada House during such period?
5.	What disposition is made of any moneys obtained from the issuance of such letters of introduction?
6.	Do any other Canadian embassies charge a fee for issuing letters of introduction? If so, what is the total amount collected during the years 1952 and 1953?


Mr. Pearson:: 1. It is not the general practice of Canada House or other Canadian posts abroad to issue letters of introduction except in a few cases mainly on a personal basis for which naturally no fee is charged. It is possible the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich refers to 83276-104
Questions
letters to foreign authorities requesting assistance in obtaining a visa, exit permit or similar document or service. These are included among the many consular services for which, according to general international practice, there is a nominal fee.
2.	Fifty cents, except in cases of government officials, servicemen and dependents, to whom such letters are issued free of charge.
3.	1952-13 with fee; 80 gratis.
1953- 2 with fee; 53 gratis.
4.	1952-$6.50.
1953- 1.00.
5.	Deposited to revenue account and thus become a part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
6.	Yes. In 1952, $49.75, and in 1953, $28.00.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	Was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration outlining certain phases of government policy on immigration in an address delivered before members of Knox Presbyterian church, St. Thomas, Ontario, on January 11, 1954?
2.	Does the government intend to maintain the demographic balance between Canadians of French origin and those of British origin to the proportions which existed in 1867?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The purpose of immigration is to foster the growth of Canada by admitting such persons as can readily be absorbed into our national economy, and in that connection immigrants from the British Isles and France are subject to the same immigration laws.
In 1871 the number of persons in Canada of British origin was 2,110,502 or 60-5 per cent of the total population. Of French origin the number was 1,082,540 or 31-1 per cent of the total population. In 1951 the numbers and percentages were: British origin-6,709,685 or 47-9 per cent; French origin-4,319,167 or 30-8 per cent.


SAI.E TO ENGLAND
Mr. LaCroix:: 1.	Is beef being sold to England by the Canadian government at 15 cents per pound?
2.	If so, what is the cost to the Canadian government of such beef?
3.	Will the government make available a quantity of beef at 15 cents per pound to relief organizations to be supplied to unemployed in various districts in the province of Quebec?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1. In December, 1953, a sale of approximately 8 million pounds of frozen beef was made to the British Ministry of Food at a price of approximately 15 cents per pound.

Questions
This sale disposed of the last of the beef purchased by the government for the purpose of supporting prices of cattle during the time that cattle and meat shipments to the United States were under embargo due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in western Canada. This was in keeping with prices paid for New Zealand beef by the British Ministry of Food.
2.	The average cost of all carcass beef acquired by the government during the period of the embargo mentioned in the answer to question 1 was 45 cents per pound.
3.	The government does not now own any beef which was acquired as described in the answer to question 1.
4.	See answer to No. 1.


LEPROSY
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	During the last fiscal year, how many patients suffering leprosy were treated in the two institutions where lepers are hospitalized?
2.	What was the total cost to the government of providing this treatment?
3.	How many permanent employees are engaged by the federal government in the institutions mentioned?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Eight.
2.	$18,202.
3.	Two permanent employees are engaged at the department's leprosarium at Bentinck island, B.C. The patients at Tracadie, N.B., are cared for at L'Hotel Dieu de Tracadie on a per diem rate basis.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	How much butter produced in 1952 did the government hold on (a) September 1, 1953; (b) December 1, 1953; (c) January 1, 1954?
2.	How much butter produced in 1952 and 1953 did the government hold on January 1, 1954?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	(a) August 31, 1953, 19,020,823 pounds;
(b)	November 30, 1953, 18,169,114 pounds;
(c)	December 31, 1953, 15,184,431 pounds.
2.	December 31, 1953, 49,185,163 pounds.


NATIONAL HEALTH WEEK
Mr. Henry:: 1.	What is the nature, extent and purpose of national health week?
2.	By whom is it organized?
3.	To what extent does the federal government co-operate therein?


Mr. Robertson:: 1 and 2. National health week has been organized and sponsored each year for the past 9 years by the Health League of Canada,

a voluntary organization with headquarters in Toronto. This is a week of concentrated promotional effort directed to making Canadians more aware of the value of good health to themselves, to their families and to their communities.
The federal department of health, the provincial departments of health, churches, educational leaders, service clubs, women's and men's voluntary organizations, the press, the radio, the moving picture industry, and other commercial firms co-operate with the health league in carrying messages on many health topics to the Canadian people.
3.	In addition to the annual grant of $10,000 to the Health League of Canada for the furtherance of its work which is made by the federal government the Department of National Health and Welfare supports the efforts of the league in promoting national health week by such methods as producing a special newsclip to be added to theatre newsreels during the week, providing a statement by the minister supporting the aims of the week, running a feature article in the departmental magazine "Canada's Health and Welfare", and publicizing the week in the monthly budget of national health radio notes provided to radio stations and in Canada's health column provided to weekly newspapers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulion:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda or telephone calls, etc., exchanged between the minister or the Department of Fisheries and any person or organization outside the dominion government service, since December 5, 1952, concerning the installation of fish screens on rivers and streams in the Nicola valley or elsewhere in British Columbia.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams, in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project, that passed between any department of the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan and/or with contractors or engineers, since the 10th of August, 1953.



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.-SALE

Mr. Winch:: For a copy of contracts made by the government of Canada with the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraphs, relative to the purchase by the said companies of the telegraph and telephone lines owned by the government of Canada in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, there is no information available in answer to the order which my hon. friend seeks. The hon. member will iprobably remember that I have already stated that an offer has been accepted by the government for the sale of the assets of the government telephone and telegraph services in British Columbia, but subject to the conditions of an agreement being ironed out. That agreement is still in the course of preparation, and until it is prepared there is certainly no information I can give at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, signed in Washington on February 8, 1949, and ratified July 3, 1950, following approval by parliament.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Is the minister yet in a position to tell the house when the estimates will be tabled and also when the budget will be brought down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am in a position to inform the house that I expect to table the estimates by Friday next. As to when the budget will be brought down, that is still a matter for conjecture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was February 19 last year, you remember.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to 83276-104J
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and ask him what is the position of the negotiations as between the dominion government and the government of Saskatchewan in regard to the question of division of responsibility for the cost of construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project; whether the committee is now sitting; and generally whether contractors have been approached for estimates in connection with this work.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been verbal negotiations between our own Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and representatives of the Saskatchewan government. I think, however, the hon. member may be better informed if the Minister of Agriculture answers his question.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Hon. members will recall that on April 27, 1953, as found at page 4444 of Hansard, I placed on the record a letter which had been written to the premier of Saskatchewan setting forth the government's position at that time. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the first half of the letter as it does not bear upon this particular point, but the last half does and I think I should read it again. Dealing with the report of the royal commission, it says:
The report has been tabled in the House of Commons and has given rise to very diverging views about the soundness of the project. Your government has prepared a document which is quite critical of the report and you have written the Prime Minister that your government feels the project should be proceeded with notwithstanding the report of the royal commission.
Since this is your view, the federal government is prepared to consider a definite proposal from the provincial government for co-operation in the project and I am authorized by my colleagues to discuss such a proposal with you once the question of water rights has been settled among the three prairie provinces and agreement reached that the water would be available for the project.
I may say in passing that the terms of that particular paragraph have since been met.
Any proposal put forward by the province should make it clear what contribution to the cost of the dam itself the province is prepared to make to remove any element of federal subsidy for the production of power since power development could obviously not be subsidized in one province unless the federal authorities were prepared to provide similar subsidies in all provinces and federal subsidies for power development are contrary to present government policy.
That is one of the paragraphs still under consideration, and which I presume the hon. member for Prince Albert has in mind in asking the question. I continue:
You will appreciate that any federal contribution would also have to be limited, as in the St. Mary's

Inquiries of the Ministry and Bow River projects, to works for the conservation of the water and that we could not justify the expenditure of money raised from taxes all over Canada until the provincial authorities had prepared a practical scheme for the distribution system which gave reasonable evidence that the water would actually be used for irrigation on a scale which would justify the expenditure of national funds.
The fifth paragraph reads as follows:
Any proposal would, of course, have to include some satisfactory means of determining in advance what the total cost of the project would be, and what the federal share of the cost would be. This would be essential so that there was no open-ended commitment which might result in the final costs being far greater than anything either government would regard as reasonable.
On these conditions as prerequisites the federal government is prepared to discuss the project further with the government of Saskatchewan.
As the Prime Minister has said, these matters have been discussed on one occasion since. Paragraphs 2 and 4 have been cleared in so far as the two governments are concerned, but paragraphs 3 and 5 are still the subject of consultation between them. I do not know whether I should read the two letters which I had it in mind to read as a result of the hon. member for Prince Albert asking that these letters be made available and the answer given, or whether we should get the consent of the province for the publication of the different letters. I am inclined to think, however-


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister going to read them without the consent of the province? I have objected from time to time to getting the consent of the province, but if you obtain consent in one instance I think you have got to get consent in all instances.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just going to say that I think consent should be secured for any other letters, but in so far as these two letters are concerned I am quite sure the provincial government would not take any objection to their being published and being used to answer the question. With your consent, Mr. Prime Minister, I think I might read the letters. They are not very long.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister or the hon. member for Prince Albert might help me. A little while ago we passed a motion in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert for a copy of all correspondence and telegrams in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project that passed between any department of the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan and/or with contractors or engineers, since the 10th of August, 1953. If that order covers the letters referred to by the minister, why not produce them with the order passed by the house instead of reading them now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite satisfied to have it so decided. That was what I was suggesting a moment ago. I simply say that as far as these two letters are concerned I do not think any objection would be taken, but in view of the motion passed a few minutes ago I think your ruling is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a supplementary question because apparently these matters were referred to in detail in Regina the other day. Did the Saskatchewan government make an offer as to the amount that it is prepared to expend in connection with power and also with respect to irrigation, and was that offer withdrawn at the request of the government of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Prince Albert what the objection is to putting this question on the order paper? It is not a matter of urgency. It seems to me these details could be obtained by a question put on the order paper and answered in the ordinary course of affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is always urgency in Saskatchewan regarding this matter.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 
Mr. Fleming:: The sessional indemnity?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The sessional indemnity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not annually?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: Senate and House of Commons same indemnity as the members of this house? Since confederation, that has always been the case. Perhaps that, in itself, is not a sufficient reason. But what does appear to me to be a sufficient reason is that the four provinces stated, as expressly set out in the British North America Act, that it was their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. The parliament of the United Kingdom has been a two-chamber parliament as long as it has been a parliament, I believe-and that is for many centuries. The act itself, carrying out that principle, and that construction of the principle, provided that there shall be one parliament for Canada consisting of the queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Now, that was the constitution that the fathers of confederation represented as being the one desired by the Canadian public. That constitution has operated now in this country for 87 years; and I, for one, feel grateful that the fathers of confederation did recommend at that time that the constitution for the parliament of this new federal dominion under the crown should be similar in principle to that of the parliament at Westminster. I think the parliament at Westminster has been the model of all successful democratic parliaments that have been established in the world since that time.
I know that questions have arisen from time to time about the portion of the work of parliament that is effectively done by the members of the Senate. Well, it must be recognized that the situations in the two houses are somewhat different and in consequence, though they both have responsibilities to the Canadian people, they have responsibilities of a different aspect concerning each of them.
We in this house are elected in our constituencies; the members in the other house are appointed. They are appointed, under the constitution, to their seats in the other house for life tenure. But because we are an elected chamber, then this chamber has the privilege, the right, the obligation and the responsibility of initiating all fiscal policies. And because we are elected it is our responsibility in this house-a responsibility that has been recognized from the earliest days of Canadian parliaments-to use this house as a forum where what takes place will help to form the opinion of the electorate of the country as to whether or not they should retain their confidence in those who constitute the government, or whether they
TMr. St. Laurent.]
should come to the conclusion that that government is no longer worthy of their confidence.
I think all of us will admit that a great many of the speeches made here in the house are intended for the purpose of properly informing the public in that respect, rather than because of any feeling as to the effect they will have upon the decision to be made in the house.
I am not complaining about that; I think that that is the proper working of democratic institutions. Those who support the government do so because they believe, and want their electors to believe, that the government is worthy of the public confidence. And the opposition has it as its duty to scrutinize very carefully the conduct and recommendations of the government. And I am quite sure they hope they would be able to do a better job, if they were on the government side of the house, than those who happen to be there. And, that being their belief, they try to promote that belief in the opinion of the country at large. That is the normal way in which these democratic institutions are intended to work, and the way in which they do work.
When we talk about streamlining our rules we have to keep in mind that those rules are not designed merely to get speedy disposition of the matters that come before parliament, but that they must also be designed to have matters coming before parliament dealt with in such a way that there will be this information which will assist the electors who take an interest in what is being done by those who represent them, in forming their opinions as to whether the party that happens to be in office merits the confidence of the electors and should remain there, or whether, when the next election comes along, it should be replaced by others who might attempt to do better.
I think this explains why it is inevitable that there should be much more protracted debates in this house than there are in the other house. Nevertheless everything of a legislative character has to be considered and has to be passed by both houses of parliament. And I have never heard any serious complaint from any source that the members of the other house of parliament do not give consideration and study to legislation-which could not become legislation unless it had their concurrence. Because of the different atmosphere, the character and the democratic responsibility of that chamber, it does not take them as long to do their legislative work as it takes us here. But they have to do it. And there is no way under this constitution

whereby anything can become legislation until it has been approved and passed by the members in the other house.
Now, is that a good constitution? I must confess I have never felt that it was realistic to give any serious study or thought to the probability of modifying it. In order to modify it there would have to be also the concurrence of the members of the other house.
Since I have been in Ottawa I have found that there were plenty of problems that it was realistic to study and consider, because I might have some responsibility in connection with forming some opinions as to the solutions they should receive. I must confess I have never felt I was going to have in my day the responsibility of having to come to a conclusion about substantial modification as to the character of our constitution.
I have heard certain modifications suggested about the way in which appointments or summonses to the other house might be made. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have never heard one that did not seem to me to bristle with more obstacles than promises of advantage to the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the Prime Minister. I think he is going into the subject of proposed reform of the Senate, or the method of appointing senators, and I should like to point out that if that trend is to be accepted we would be diverging from the principle of the bill. I offer these remarks simply as a warning.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank you. I wish to be careful, and my intention was to deal with the principle of the bill, which provides that the same indemnity will be available for both houses of parliament, and not only for members in this house. And it is only in respect of that principle that I have ventured to make these remarks about the other place. When we adopt any measure in this house we do so because we think it is the right kind of measure to be adopted. We do not adopt it for the purpose of having it vetoed in the other house, where it has to be also considered and passed if it is to become legislation. It is because we think it is appropriate at this time to recommend these increases in indemnities that we have recommended them in the form in which they will apply to both houses of parliament and not to only one.
Now, I defer to your warning, sir, and I shall not say anything more upon that subject, but pass to the third point I wish to say something about, namely, the fact that in our view this is something which has to be dealt
Senate and House of Commons with by the members of parliament not in respect of their own individual interests but with the desire to do what they think is best for the vitality, proper development and proper maintenance of our parliamentary institutions.
I know that there are some hon. members who honestly believe that nothing is required to be done for that consideration. I believe it is the members of parliament themselves who are in the best position to know just exactly what the situation has been over the years with respect to the duties, obligations and possibilities of a member of parliament maintaining decent living conditions for himself and his dependents, with the length of sessions that cannot be very much shorter if we are to continue to regard this as the principal forum from which come the inspirations to the electors of the country for their proper conduct when they have to exercise their right at election time.
We may differ, as was said earlier today, but I think we all believe that each and every one of us is endeavouring to discharge his duties to the Canadian people to the best of his ability. It is in that light that hon. members should approach this question, and those who feel, as some honestly do, that no increase in indemnity is required, and any increased indemnity would be wrong, will oppose the legislation. But there are those who feel that an increase is proper and that it would be better for the future of these democratic institutions to have a situation where one does not really have to be fairly well off in order to be able to assume the responsibility of representing his fellow citizens, if he is the kind of person his fellow citizens think would make a proper representative for them in parliament. It is with that view and because I think that the future will amply justify the validity and the usefulness to the Canadian people of what is being recommended in this bill that I submit it for the consideration of my fellow members.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I concede that the problem is one of some considerable difficulty, and I agree with the Prime Minister that it is not an easy one to deal with, no matter when the subject may arise, nor how it may be dealt with.
I agree with many of the observations he has made in regard to the necessity for adequate sessional allowances to make it possible for those who would make good members of parliament to offer themselves as candidates whenever the election may come.
The Prime Minister spoke of the fact that there were some who did not think there
1640	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons should be any increase in sessional allowances. I may have missed some statement that was made, but I do not recall a single statement made along that line. I have been under the impression that there has been general agreement that there should be an increase in the sessional allowances paid to members of the House of Commons.
As the Prime Minister has said, the members of the House of Commons know from their own experience something of the financial and other burdens imposed upon them in respect to the responsibility of representing their constituencies wherever the constituency may be. I had thought there was general agreement that it is appropriate that there be an increase of sessional allowances to members of the House of Commons which will make it possible for those who would make good members to offer themselves, regardless of their personal financial position.
Having said that, I then point out that we are in a position which is not different from that which has existed on other occasions and in other jurisdictions when it was regarded as wise to examine the situation and consider the alternatives and to establish some figure based upon due consideration and exchange of ideas and the participation of other members from other parts of the house in the deliberations leading up to such a decision. May I point out that in this case, as is its right the government has presented to parliament a measure, or in fact two measures, dealing with extensive increases, and that has been done without any examination of which we are aware which would tell us where those figures came from.
I could not agree more about any subject that might come up for consideration in this house or discussion in this house than I do with the words of the Prime Minister when he said that we should follow the course which will assure the effectiveness, efficiency and vigour of parliament, and that in arriving at conclusions in regard to the measure now before us we should have in mind the dignity of parliament itself, and the opportunity that is afforded, by the measure of allowances made available by statute, for the very best type of men and women to come here as members. With that I agree wholeheartedly. That still does not absolve us from the responsibility for arriving at these decisions by orderly methods and applying the same tests as we would apply to any other case where substantial changes were being made and where we were asked to adopt certain figures having considerable importance in themselves to any substantial segment of the Canadian community.


It seems to me that the demand for that type of information and that type of inquiry is far more exacting when our own interests are concerned. If we wish parliament to have that measure of respect which is in itself an essential factor in maintaining our system of government in these troubled days, then it is not only a case of getting the right type of candidate, it is also a case of being sure that members of parliament follow a course which will commend itself to the public when their own personal interests are concerned.
For that reason I still feel that it is extremely important that by one method or another there should be inquiry which shows us in some way the digesting processes by which a certain figure came out at the end. These figures were not simply grabbed off a rack; these figures must have come from some consideration of some kind. We have simply put forward the thought that in a matter of this importance the process should be very carefully designed.
The Prime Minister has said something that I think might well be taken as a guide by a number of his supporters in parliament. When some of them become impatient, as they listen to speeches made on this side when there is before the house some measure which they are anxious to have adopted, I would commend to them the rereading of the Prime Minister's words of a few moments ago when he said that all of us will admit that many speeches are made more for information of the public than for the effect the speech is likely to have in the house.
I doubt if there is any statement that the Prime Minister could make in this house with which I will agree more completely. Of course there are times when we are encouraged to hope that even in the house speeches may have some effect. There was the recent occasion when the minister for northern development with great courtesy very generously explained the reason for introducing an amendment to a bill which he had placed before the house as a government bill. That was a welcome sign. If any hon. members opposite noticed an increase in the amount of debate that followed, perhaps in some degree they must blame the minister for northern development for encouraging the belief that speeches do sometimes have an effect in this house.
We have had still further encouragement today. A few days ago we raised some question about the automatic application of the increase in sessional allowances to the pensions act. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked the Prime Minister if he would give the undertaking that legislation

would be introduced to limit the application of that change in its operation on the pensions act. The Prime Minister was quite emphatic in saying that he could give no such undertaking. In the meantime the arguments put forth-at least I hope this is the case-have had some effect, and today we have had introduced in this house and given first reading a measure dealing with this aspect of the problem. So I would say that we have had some encouragement.
Nevertheless, I think the general proposition is correct and in large measure remarks might be directed toward the information of the public. But I still hope that remarks may also be given some consideration here in the house.
The Prime Minister has given various reasons for proceeding in the manner in which he has. He has told us that there are three points which have guided the government in presenting the legislation in this way. He has explained that it is only rarely that members deal with indemnities or allowances and that whatever decision is made should be one that will extend over a considerable number of years and be adequate to avoid the necessity of coming back here too frequently for further revision.
Then the Prime Minister also dealt with the question as to why the government did not think there should be discrimination between indemnities in the house and the Senate. He explained that he considered that this is related to our constitution. He pointed out that at the time this country became one under the British North America Act the constitution had provided for two houses.
I think most of us, perhaps not all, will agree with that system, no matter how much we may disagree with the position in which it now finds itself. The Prime Minister may well say that the people of Canada have been given the opportunity to reform the Senate in some other way. I was not aware, when the party of which he is a distinguished member, many years ago and frequently since then, promised to reform the Senate, that this was the type of reform they proposed. He has stated that he has never seriously considered the practical possibility of those kinds of amendments to the constitution which would bring about a change of this kind. He has felt that there was plenty to do in this house without embarking on that difficult course.
I can only say that this must sound strange to those who for so many years promised Senate reform. Nevertheless we have the statement of the Prime Minister today that no such reform is now contemplated by the
Senate and House of Commons Liberal party. Obviously the present method is to continue. I do not intend to extend my remarks for fear of challenging the ruling of the Speaker already made as to the possible consequence of that course. Nevertheless this is one subject that the Prime Minister has placed before us and one that we cannot disregard.
We know that it is a delicate subject. We know that it is one that has to be dealt with having full regard for the dignity of parliament, which embraces both houses and the members of both houses. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) tells us the same amount has always been allowed to the Senate and the House of Commons may I point out, without in any way reflecting upon the members of the Senate or the dignity of that house, which is an essential part of this bicameral system which came to us under our constitution, that the considerations that have been placed before us justifying an increase in allowance to the members of parliament do not apply to the members of the Senate.
I am not prepared to say there should be no increase to the Senate. It is conceivable that there may be arguments which would justify an increase in the allowance to the members of the Senate to the same amount as that paid to the members of this house. But, Mr. Speaker, if there is such an argument it has not been presented, and if there are any facts to justify that conclusion they have not been placed before us.
We were told, and I think we will agree with the proposition, that one of the reasons it is essential that there be a reconsideration of this subject at this time is the great increase in the cost of living, and above all, the increased time that members must spend in Ottawa, or at least most members. The Prime Minister pointed to the fact that it is expensive for members to keep in touch with their constituents, and in that he is entirely correct. He is also correct when he points out that this is not a task that is measured by attendance here in the house, and that an effective member of parliament is constantly in touch with his constituents interpreting their requirements and informing himself in regard to what is taking place, as well as doing a multitude of things in regard to the services of one kind and another which are offered by the government.
Then there is the subject that can be perfectly frankly discussed, and that is the cost of elections themselves. That has been indicated as a reason why we should have regard for the position in which members find themselves. In fact, some hon. members might almost smile-I perhaps should
1642	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons not put in the word "almost"-if they went back and read that on an earlier occasion when there was an increase, the optimistic prediction was made that election funds would no longer be necessary because the amount that was to be paid in the House of Commons would fully cover all expenses of that kind. That argument, of course, has not been made during this debate, but it was made in this house.
Whatever reasons there may be, Mr. Speaker, for increasing the allowances to members of the House of Commons, not one of those applies to members of the Senate. They are not elected, so they have no election expenses-that is, no local election expenses. They have no necessity for that measure of contact with their constituents which is referred to by the Prime Minister as an essential consideration in keeping themselves informed, nor have they as lengthy a stay here in Ottawa, nor are these stays broken by the legitimate and proper demands on members of the House of Commons to address various meetings and maintain these contacts that are essentially a proper part of our political system. If we are looking for reasons we will find they are reasons outside of any put forward to support the increase for the members of the house.
The Prime Minister made a point of the fact that he was glad we had adopted a similar form of parliament to that at Westminster, and he did that in discussing the need for an increase for the members of the Senate. Well, Mr. Speaker, with all deference I must say that I find it very difficult to follow that argument, because we do not borrow our methods in this regard from Westminster. At Westminster the lords in the second chamber do not get anything, so certainly we did not get the idea of having the same amount paid in the House of Commons as in the upper chamber from Westminster.
Whatever may have been true in days gone by, when the increases were relatively small,
I do not believe that would apply today when the increase can only be regarded as substantial. The Prime Minister gave us the history of the various allowances that had been made, and gave us the years in which increases had been made. But hon. members will realize that from 1867 the increases were relatively small on each occasion until 1920, when the largest increase was made. It was then $1,500. Now we have the proposed increase of $4,000. That figure may be right, but I would point out that a commission in

Senate and House of Commons
On an earlier occasion I put forward my belief that the dignity of parliament, which the Prime Minister has emphasized, and the respect of our people for our parliament and the way it conducts its business would be increased by an assurance that we had applied the strictest tests to any measure or measures that would benefit us in any way. The Prime Minister has replied to these proposals very frankly and has dealt with the suggestion that we should have a royal commission or a select committee. He has seen fit not to adopt that suggestion.
In view of that fact I am unable to support the bill. The principle of the bill is not merely an increase in salaries. If that were so, then we might just as well say that we believe in everybody getting more money, outside of this house as well as inside. There is more than that. The principle involved in the bill now before us cannot be divorced from the way in which the changes have been arrived at and the result that is to be produced. There are many cases where details may not be satisfactory but it may be entirely proper to support a bill on second reading, particularly when there is going to be a further examination, as in the case of a bill before the house just a few days ago which was being sent to the banking and commerce committee. There are a number of cases where it is obvious that it is appropriate to criticize, to examine, and try to amend.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bill, as it stands, cannot be divorced from the inadequacy of the procedure by which it comes before us. I think we must have regard also to the principle that, when our interests are involved, the most precise method of arriving at the figures must be followed. This principle is not met by this measure. I propose, therefore, to vote against this bill. I propose to do so without any suggestion that there should not be an appropriate adjustment of allowances in keeping with established figures and facts, but because there should not be just an accumulation of figures put before us without any explanation as to how they were arrived at.


Angus MacInnis: Although I am the first speaker for the C.C.F. party, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking officially, if that is the proper word, for this party. I believe, however, that I am expressing the point of view of the great majority of those sitting behind me. I shall probably put that point more clearly a little later. I noticed that when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) was stating the business of the house on


Friday night he said that first we would take this measure before us; then we would go on to the post office bill for increasing postage, and then we would take up the Criminal Code. I believe that was a most appropriate sequence of the business of the house. I must congratulate the minister on having among his many other fine qualities a very nice sense of humour.


Walter Edward Harris: You omitted the Salaries Act.


Angus MacInnis: I shall come to that later. I include both as if they were in the same bill. In order to please Mr. Speaker we have to discuss them separately, but so far as I am concerned they are of the same kidney.
When speaking here last Tuesday I said that I was only saying a few words to indicate where I stood in regard to the measure before us; that I was opposing the measure at the resolution stage. Everything that has elapsed since last Tuesday has confirmed me in the position I have taken. I have read the newspapers and I have heard from a great many people in the various parts of Canada. They all say about the same thing, that it is rather shameful-many of them have put it that way-that we should be taking something for ourselves before we have made provision for the thousands of people in this country who are living under deplorable conditions. I received one letter from a resident of Stettler, Alberta, a person with whom I have never communicated, who puts it this way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon.
member reads the letter I want him to know that under the rules he has to disclose the source, because an unsigned letter or a letter without the signature being disclosed becomes an anonymous letter, and anonymous letters should not be read into the record. I thought I should warn him of that.


Angus MacInnis: It should not be taken for granted that the letter is anonymous. I did not say so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member did not understand what I said. Sometimes an hon. member thinks he can read a letter he has received from a private citizen without disclosing the source. Under our rules the source must be disclosed. I thought I would warn the hon. member of that. I went on to explain that when an hon. member does not wish to give the name of the sender when reading a letter into the record he is running the risk of having the letter ruled anonymous; that is the interpretation I must put upon it. I did not say the hon. member said this

letter was anonymous. I said the interpretation which I put upon a letter when the name of the sender is not given is that it is an anonymous letter, and anonymous letters must not be read into the record.


Angus MacInnis: I have too much regard
for Mr. Speaker to dispute the point with him. I believe I could do that. I do not think there is any rule that compels me to either table a letter of this kind or state the name of the sender. I am not going to hide anything. I said this letter was from Stettler, Alberta. It is not confidential, so I am quite willing to give the name of the writer. The letter is signed by Mrs. Richard E. Price. It is a very reasonable letter, and she says:
Probably the increase is justified in that living costs are high these days, but on the other side are those who have been lining up at the soup kitchens in Calgary these cold days-surely, they need some aid, too.


Mr. Dupuis:: I may be mistaken, but that
is what I call demagogic.


Angus MacInnis: Senate and House of Commons for? Well, we will have to have much larger indemnities even than those proposed, if that is the intention.
Then it was said that the indemnity should be increased because of the many handouts we have to make by way of wedding presents, presents at christenings, wreaths at times of funerals, as well as many other things. I am in the very happy position where I am not asked for such handouts. My constituents know that I am not a wealthy man and that I cannot afford such largesse. But, more than that, they do not consider these things any part of the duty of a member of parliament. They would think it highly improper for a public representative to curry favour in such a way. They elect me to parliament to put forward their views and press their needs in the House of Commons. If I did not do that I would hear from them, and in no uncertain language. Their weddings, their christenings and their funerals they can look after themselves. I am quite satisfied that that should be the case, because in my opinion these things are too intimate for a member of parliament to interfere with.
As I said, I am not saying that no increase whatever is justified; and at the proper time this party will make known its views in the matter. But as I have said, I do not believe an increase to the extent of 100 per cent is opportune at this time. Hardly a worse time could have been found for putting it forward. What do we find? In employer-employee relationships the employers are adopting a "hold-the-line" policy. That is a refusal to make any wage increases. Unemployment is increasing alarmingly all over the country. I am sure every member is receiving letters from his constituents about this. Prices of farm commodities are falling. All around us wages, salaries and incomes of all kinds are falling; and just at this moment the government introduces a measure of this kind that, as I have already said, increases the indemnity of members of parliament by 100 per cent or, if we include the expense allowance, by 66g per cent. It is at times like these that people look to their representatives for help.
As I said before, every hon. member is receiving requests from old age pensioners, persons on war veterans allowances and from persons on small incomes and superannuation pensions that were given by this government at a time when our dollar was worth very much more than it is today. To every such request made there is just the one answer, no. Then to add insult to injury we raise our own indemnities by 100 per cent.
I tell this house that this can have only one result; it will lessen public confidence in our
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

parliamentary institutions. Perhaps I can do no better than read a sentence from another letter I received the other day from Oak Bay. Westerners will know where Oak Bay is. It is a wealthy suburb of the city of Victoria. The writer of the letter signs his name T. Fox-Decent. This is the part I wish to quote:
The shameful example of grah, and the callous indifference to the plight of the burnt-out and old age pensioners, and the blind, . . .
Commons votes billions to combat communism but is indifferent to the fact that this constant grabbing for themselves will swell the ranks of communism by many thousands.
There is no doubt in the world, if we read the press and if we take heed of the letters we get, that there is strong resentment in the hearts and the minds of the people who are being neglected while we are looking after ourselves so generously.
As I mentioned in my remarks at the resolution stage of this measure, I am opposed to increases to members of parliament and members of the other place, because they tend to separate the public representatives from the people whom they represent. I am afraid it is not recognized by members of this house that with our present income we are already in the high-income bracket. I hold in my hand the taxation statistics of the Department of National Revenue for the year 1951. It is entitled "Taxation Statistics 1953," but the figures are for 1951. With our present indemnity, members of parliament are already receiving incomes higher than 89-3 per cent of those paying income tax or making income tax returns. If the increases proposed go into effect members of parliament will be among the top 1 per cent of income receivers in Canada. I am afraid that position will make things rather difficult for some people. It is my contention that people so far removed from the trials and struggles of the average individual cannot feel those trials and struggles and will not work to remove them.
The history of all nations demonstrates that improvement never comes that way. The dynamic strength for improving social conditions has always come from the bottom and not from the top. For the benefit of my Liberal friends I should like to quote a saying by the late William Ewart Gladstone many years ago:
I painfully reflect that in almost every political conflict of the last fifty years the leisured classes, the educated classes, the wealthy classes have been in the wrong. The common people-the toilers, the men of uncommon sense-these have been responsible for nearly all the social reform measures which the world accepts today.
If we are going to put ourselves among the top 1 per cent of income receivers in this

country we will come to fear changes because things are good for us as they are. The poor get very little thought now, but they will get less then because we will not feel any of the discomforts that the poor feel.
I have not much more to say, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote from an editorial in another Vancouver paper, the Province, which appeared long before this proposal came before parliament. The Vancouver Province is a paper which has a reputation for conservatism with a small "c". For that reason we should pay some attention to it. The editorial commented on some remarks I made when I spoke on the debate on the address, and said:
British Columbia probably has, proportionately, more of these people than any other part of Canada-
That is, more old age pensioners.
-because of our mild climate. In Vancouver many live in poorly-heated bedrooms, attic rooms and improvised basement suites.
I want the house to note this:
They seldom have enough proper food. Never do they have enough for the small luxuries that make life worth living.
I challenge any member of parliament here to say that he goes to bed hungry at night and that he is denied the small comforts that, as this paper says, make life worth living. But I tell you that in the city of Vancouver thousands go to bed hungry every night, and they have nothing left to buy these little comforts which make life worth living.


Hector Dupuis: Social Credit will look after them.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps it will, but the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) did not give any indication of that the other day. There was no debt-free money in his speech when he spoke the other day. It was quite impossible to find money for old age pensioners, but it was easy to find money for members of the House of Commons and senators because it was only a little bit of money.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: That is not right at all.


Solon Earl Low: That is utter foolishness.


Angus MacInnis: Read what the hon. member said. If you want to raise any further question about it I will read some of the things he said and indicate the only inferences that can be drawn from them. If you do not want to have it I shall not bother with it. The editorial goes on:
There are also many who, for other reasons, find life hard. There are women trying to raise families on mothers' allowances that are hardly adequate to keep a bachelor alive.
Senate and House of Commons
That is important. Those women have children, and those children will be the future citizens of Canada. They are being brought up without proper food; they are being brought up without proper education, because they will have to go to work as soon as they are able to work. They will be handicapped all through life because of a lack of nourishment in their growing years and because of a lack of education. They will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for those who are in the higher income brackets, whose children have enough to eat and who will get an education.
I wonder why we cannot think of these things. It should be important to us as representatives of the people of Canada before we deal with anything for ourselves. After all, we are not suffering. I shall bring these remarks to an end by quoting my last words when I spoke on January 26. Regardless of what anyone else does in regard to this bill, that is going to be my decision. I should like to quote from page 1467 of Hansard as follows:
I am not going to support any increase in income for any member of parliament until we have made some attempt at raising the incomes of the poor in this rich country.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to be helpful, and I do try to be helpful, I warned the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) before he read a letter that if he did read it he should disclose its source. I gathered that perhaps he did not understand fully my intervention. In order to assure him that I did not interrupt him without reason I should like to refer him to citation 265 of Beau-chesne's third edition which reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
Then citation 270 of Beauchesne's third edition reads:
An unsigned letter should not be read in the house.
The citation then goes on to give instances where the Speaker suggested that such letters should not be read into Hansard, and I quote:
Such a letter should not be read into Hansard; all letters when read must be signed and they become part of the documents of the house.
I should like to explain what I consider to be an unsigned letter. If an hon. member reads a letter and does not disclose its source, it appears in Hansard with no source being divulged. In my opinion that is tantamount to being an unsigned or anonymous letter, and such letters must not be read. The hon. member will perhaps recall the two occasions

Senate and House of Commons on which I can place my finger at the present moment when my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Macdonald, ruled in identical terms. I would refer the hon. member to Hansard of December 19, 1951. On that day the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) was speaking and the leader of the C.C.F. party inquired whether there was a ruling that required private letters to be identified. Mr. Speaker Macdonald then said, and I quote from page 2210 of Hansard:
I am not requiring the hon. member to disclose the source of the two letters he has just read. If that was to be done, I should have requested it earlier. However, if he intends to read other letters, he should disclose their source.
Another occasion was on November 28, 1949. The incident at that time was one with which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) may be familiar, because he was the one who was called upon to divulge the source of the letter.
I should like to make it clear that this is the reason I warned the hon. member. It may be that when an hon. member is warned before he starts to quote a letter he may decide that if he has to divulge the source he will not quote the letter. That is why I thought I was being helpful in advising the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway of the rule.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say with all due
respect that for many years it was the custom in this house that if an hon. member gave assurance that a letter was signed and was not anonymous, he could give his word as a member of parliament and it was always taken. It is only in the last few years that this procedure seems to have crept into our proceedings. We used to understand that it was only when a minister was quoting from a document that he was required to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there not a little distinction between those two cases? If an hon. member wishes to paraphrase a private document and takes the responsibility for what is contained in it, then it becomes his own words. But when he wants to quote a letter verbatim which he says he has received, then for my guidance I have the latest rulings of my illustrious predecessor. I shall be willing to look into the matter. Perhaps the committee on procedure could look into this question also.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this matter which is now before us is one on which every member of the House of Commons should take his own stand. I would not like to think that this was a party matter in any respect, and for that reason I hope hon.
fMr. Speaker.]

members will be prepared to make their stand known, as I certainly shall.
I was not able to be here last Tuesday when the resolution was discussed, and as a consequence I did not have a chance to express my opinion on the principle of the resolution. But my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) did so on behalf of our group, and I concur fully in what he said.
The principle of the bill now before the house is to provide increases in the indemnities and allowances to members of the House of Commons and certain salary revisions for officers of the two houses and cabinet ministers. With that principle I am in agreement and I have my reasons for being in agreement. I look upon this whole matter, not as a measure to increase the personal income which members of parliament may enjoy, but as a measure to make it possible for every member of parliament to be a better member and to serve his country and his people as they expect to be served. That is the way I look upon this bill.
I am afraid there has been too much inclination in some quarters to consider that we were simply meeting here at this time to vote ourselves an emolument that would put us into a preferred class. That is not so. I am perfectly satisfied that any increase in the indemnities of members of parliament will be reflected in better service to the people of this country. I am satisfied that that money will be spent by members in trying to serve the people who sent them here.
With that as a background I would like to deal briefly with some of the things said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis). It seemed to me that the whole burden of the speech given this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition was that we had been shown no justification for the figures which are presented in the bill. "What justification is there?" said the Leader of the Opposition. Well, I should think, Mr. Speaker, no one would be in a better position to answer that than the Leader of the Opposition. Statistics are the best justification I know, and he ought to be familiar with statistics for he has quoted them often enough in this house. Anyone who examines the statistics of the time, who has made any study whatsoever of increases in costs and prices since 1945, ought to realize that since that time there has been no less than a 100 per cent increase in salaries and wages generally over the country, and from 100 to 150 per cent, and more in many cases, in prices. What more justification does anyone want?

The Leader of the Opposition must know that when it is necessary for a member of parliament to visit his constituency today he is out of pocket two or perhaps three times more than formerly. For example, let him buy an automobile-not be furnished with one-and he will find that he is paying just about twice what he would have paid in 1945 and before, and he will buy one today that will hardly withstand the shocks of the road as the old one did. You can almost put your fist through one today, whereas formerly the steel gave some protection to a man. Let him buy gas and oil to visit his constituency and get around there; let him pay for his meals or transportation by train and all these things, and he will find that costs have increased by twice and in many cases more since 1945. I would think the one thing to do is to take a good look at the statistics, and he would have ample justification.
The Leader of the Opposition also referred to what happened in the United States. They did appoint a commission, as the hon. member is suggesting in this case, and that commission investigated, heard evidence, and brought down recommendations. But these recommendations went far beyond what the Prime Minister and the cabinet have decided here.
I think the Leader of the Opposition should have pointed out to the house how moderate was the position taken by the Prime Minister in the introduction of this bill. If we had had a royal commission to investigate and seek justification for certain figures, it is quite possible that such royal commission would have brought down a recommendation similar to the figures presented by the commission in the United States. Perhaps that is what the Leader of the Opposition seeks. I am not saying that, but at any rate it appears to me that we have some guide for our actions here when we reflect that in the United States it was decided to increase sessional allowances to members of congress to $25,000 a year, plus certain perquisites which I think bring the total up to something around $41,000.


An hon. Member:: 


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I think that is it. There was a principle established in the United States a good many years ago which some of us in this house have on occasion put forward, and that was this. The members of the House of Commons ought to have assistance in research. They ought to have made available to them means by which they can get the facts and figures with respect to the problems that
Senate and House of Commons come before them in order that they may put forward sensible solutions, based upon facts instead of fancy. We have tried to get that introduced in this house, but the principle has never been adopted.


An hon. Member:: It has never been
recognized.


Solon Earl Low: In the United States that principle has not only been recognized but adopted, and the practice has been followed for many years; I think it was adopted as long as eight or ten years ago; certainly for as long as I have been in this house. I believe congressmen are granted something like $10,000 a year with which to secure assistance for research work. As a consequence one would expect the debate and discussions to be on a higher plane, as it would be here if members of the House of Commons had a similar allowance. We have not had the means with which to carry out this research, and I am afraid that as a consequence some of our debates have suffered.
There is this to be said also, that you cannot expect members of the House of Commons to serve their constituents as they wish to be served and still be their own research assistants on $6,000 a year. It is quite impossible when you stop to consider the increasing needs of the members from year to year. In a growing and more complicated society such as Canada, $10,000 a year will not go very far and will not more than make it possible for members of this house to enjoy a reasonable standard of living and at the same time discharge their responsibilities. Anyone who has given the slightest consideration to the facts and the statistics would never ask that question, "Where is the justification?"
When the Prime Minister said to me, as he did, "We have given this whole question of increased sessional allowances deep and earnest consideration, and we have decided to bring in a measure to make certain changes;" and then when he had the courtesy to outline what the changes were, I took it for granted that he meant that he and his colleagues had given the matter study. I believe he did.
I know this matter has been talked of around the corridors of this house for at least two years that I know of, and perhaps more; and I feel certain, knowing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) as I do, that he and his treasury board would never consent to increased sessional allowances without giving the whole matter the most earnest consideration. I have seen his work before, and I have every respect for the manner in which
1650	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons he discharges his duties. Anyone who stands up in this house and says there has been no consideration, no basis on which to decide how much the increase should be, is, I believe, stretching it a little bit too far.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I need to deal with that part of it any further. I recognize that there is a difference between the Senate and the House of Commons. Certainly there is a difference in the responsibilities attaching to each. I do not know, though, whether this is a proper occasion to speak of Senate reform. I will not. I will simply say this. Perhaps the Senate ought to be reformed; but, Mr. Speaker, it certainly ought not to be reformed by an annex to a bill of this kind.
That is all I am going to say. If the other place is to be made the useful body that I believe it can be under our system, then certainly the way to go at it is not the way we have been going at it here since this measure came before us. I believe there is lots of room for improvement, and maybe the government will pull something out of the hat before the twenty-second parliament is completed that will help make the other place the useful instrument that it can be in a democracy.
I have never been one to suggest that the Senate be abolished, because I believe there is a place for a bicameral legislature in Canada. I believe it is useful, and I think it is unwise for us to enter too freely into a discussion of the comparative merits of the two houses of parliament. But I will say that certainly senators have no elections to fight, and as a consequence they are not out of pocket as members of the House of Commons are. Certainly the expenses of senators are nothing like those of members of the House of Commons, and certainly it must be conceded that the Senate indemnity-I am not speaking of the senators but of the Senate indemnity-is in the nature of a pension. We have to consider that. It is in the nature of a pension, and because that is so maybe there is some difference. Maybe there should be a considerable difference between it and the sessional indemnity of a member of the House of Commons. I am not going to make that an issue; I am merely pointing it out.
On the other hand, members of the House of Commons work barehanded. They work very hard to dig out facts and figures to keep themselves informed, and I believe everyone in the country must recognize that they do a pretty fair job, carrying on as they do without staff. I say it is not possible for members of the house to do effective work


without research, and I hope the government will give consideration to the introduction of some kind of research assistance for every member so he can discharge his duties and discharge them well.
Let me point out that originally the sessional indemnity for the House of Commons was based on a five-year term. In principle that is what we have now, but everybody knows that in recent years no government has dared to go the full five years. Consequently we have had an election every four years, which has made it necessary for members to go to the country and spend their money more often than they did in the days when there was really a five-year parliament. That is something that should be considered and that many people do not think about.
Then there is another point. Many members of the house, perhaps most of them, now consider that the work of a member of parliament is a full-time job. I know it has been with me. Since I came into this house it has been impossible for me to spend any time whatsoever in trying to supplement the income I have had from the House of Commons. There must be a good many hon. members in the same position. Consequently what they receive by way of indemnity has to cover their living expenses plus the cost of their service to the public, and that of course often means maintaining two home establishments. I say to hon. members that this is not commonly known, that it is a consideration, and a big one.
As I listen to people outside of the house talking about things, I gather that they believe that the work of a member is over when a session ends, and that all hon. members have to do is go home, bask in the sun for the rest of the summer and fall, go hunting and fishing and what not, and wait until another call comes to return to the house. That of course is the greatest of errors. The work of a member of parliament does not end when a session of the house closes, and that must be kept in mind. He really has to start on his hard work then. He has to get around a very large area and pay his own expenses while doing so. If he does not visit his constituents in every part of his riding, report to them, talk to them, help them to open fairs and start drives of one kind and another during the period between sessions, he is not considered to be doing his duty.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the demands on members of parliament are very great, and I am not prepared to say that members are not entitled to an indemnity of $10,000 with

which to discharge their responsibilities. I certainly would not be in a position to make any such claim. I say that adequate pay to members of parliament, whatever that adequate pay may be, would make it possible for members of parliament to give their constituencies the kind of service that is required in a democracy. Let me go a step further and say something that I believe can be proved to be the case. I think an adequate sessional allowance for members of the house would be one of the greatest inducements toward better service because there would be keener competition for the job of member of parliament. That would force present members to extend themselves in giving service. There is no question about that, and if the people want good service I am satisfied that they are prepared to pay for it.
Let me come now for a moment to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis). He quoted some letters. As the leader of a party, Mr. Speaker, I have received but two letters. In the past two weeks I have had fifty times more letters about a flag than I have had with respect to the sessional indemnity. As the leader of a party I imagine that I would receive quite a number of letters if there was widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country with what parliament is doing.
I have been trying to keep my ears and eyes open, but as I say, I have received only two letters. One of them was strongly critical and the other simply said, "under the circumstances, do you not think you ought to be improving the lot of the old age pensioners and the recipients of war veterans allowances?" That is all.
Maybe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway draws all these letters. Maybe he has received more than I have. Maybe Vancouver is a place where people feel more strongly about these things. I am giving him every benefit of the doubt, but I do not believe for one moment that the number of letters members are receiving can be very great. Otherwise I am sure my group would have received their fair share, and they have not so reported to me. In 1945 I listened to an almost identical speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He made the same dire predictions he made today; not a bit of difference in the world. He told us at that time that he would vote against the $2,000 expense allowance because he was a socialist. Well, he took it just the same.


Mr. Blackmore:: He is still a socialist.


Solon Earl Low: He is still a socialist. He is going to vote against this measure. That is
Senate and House of Commons his privilege. I do not want any person to have to take something he does not want, and when the bill is in committee it may be possible to make some arrangement so that such people will not be embarrassed. Maybe it can be arranged that the increase over the $4,000 now paid will have to be applied for, a system of election, much the same as we had to do in the case of the pension. In that case we had to elect. Well, I am just giving a notice that I have a little amendment that will help the situation along when the bill goes to the committee. Then we shall see just how much of this talk is on principle and how much is for political purposes.
I sat here today and listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway make a few rather sly remarks about the Social Credit member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), and Social Credit governments. He was speaking about old age pensions, and that sort of thing. I want to remind him that for a good many years the Social Credit government of Alberta has been making a $10 supplementary allowance, above the $40 given by this government, to old age pensioners, while the socialist government of Saskatchewan has only been giving $2.50. If that is socialism'-well! I shall go further and say that the Social Credit government of British Columbia is doing the same as the Alberta government.
I am going to let matters stand, Mr. Speaker, by saying this. I look upon this as a measure designed to make it possible for the members of this parliament to give the people the kind of service that the people deserve and want. I stand in support of the principle of the bill.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Measures such as this, Mr. Speaker, are always difficult to consider dispassionately in the house. In my remarks today I am not questioning the good faith of any member in any part of the house. I was unable to be here on Tuesday when the debate on the resolution took place, but in reading Hansard I thought the Prime Minister had ended his remarks with a very worth-while suggestion. These words are to be found on page 1454 of Hansard for January 26, 1954:
These matters should be dealt with exclusively on the ground that the opinion expressed by each individual member will be his opinion as to what will really in the long run serve the interests of the Canadian people whom members of parliament are here to represent.
Today I propose to follow his suggestion and give my opinion. Incidentally, earlier in the same paragraph the Prime Minister intimated to his own followers that they were free to vote on this measure as they

Senate and House of Commons saw fit, and that the life of the government would not be in jeopardy by reason of the vote. Those words were as follows:
I would say to hon. members on this side of the house that if they honestly believe these increases are not in the long run to be in the best interests of our democratic institutions, they should not feel that because I am the one recommending them at this time they should submit their judgment to mine.
I am very much disturbed, Mr. Speaker, about this plan because I believe, in the first place, that it will weaken the prestige of parliament. Some hon. members have argued it will increase the prestige. My personal opinion is that it will do the opposite.
I am disturbed also about it because I believe it will tend to bring into public life in Canada people who are more concerned about the salary than they are about the service they can render to their fellow Canadians.
I should like to place three considerations before my fellow members. The first is this. The election was fought about six months ago. The Canadian people were not told at that time of any plan to increase the indemnity. The Prime Minister in his speech the other day rather intimated that the people had been told the indemnity would be increased. Here is what he had to say, and it is found at page 1452 of Hansard for January 26, 1954:
My colleagues and I came to the conclusion that this problem should be tackled from two angles, and that was the reason why I stated in the national broadcast I made from Vancouver on July 9 of last year that it was our policy-
Then I go on to quote what he had to say in Vancouver, that part of his speech being in quotation marks in Hansard.
"to seek appropriate amendments to the rules of parliament with a view to ensuring speedier and more orderly conduct of the nation's business without any abridgement of the rights of the opposition or of any minority to give expression to its views. We believe that if men and women of ability are to continue to be attracted to public life some way must be found to reduce the length of some of the debates in parliament, and to make the conditions of membership less burdensome than they have become in recent years."
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, in that statement there was no direct reference to any increase in the indemnity. I presume the Prime Minister had that in mind when he uttered these words, "to make the conditions of membership less burdensome", but the ordinary person hearing that would think he was referring to the length of time the session lasted. If it was the intention of his party to increase the indemnity, then I think in fairness to the Canadian people a clearer statement to that effect should have been made. We get to this position, therefore,


that the members of this parliament stood for election, and were elected, on the basis of the present indemnity.
The second consideration is that the Prime Minister is now bringing in a proposal which, in effect, is to increase the indemnity 100 per cent. I admit that in one or two years there were two sessions which meant, of course, a double indemnity, but I think it is fair to say this proposal means an increase of 100 per cent in the indemnity. The expense allowance was introduced and passed by the house on the basis that it was to cover expenses, and that it was not to be considered in any way as pay; of course there was a difference between the House of Commons and the Senate in so far as the $2,000 was concerned, in that the allowance to the senators was made taxable.
I do not believe the Prime Minister has said anything today that constitutes a justification for an increase of 100 per cent. Perhaps there should be some increase; I am not disputing that. But from one coast of this country to the other this increase of 100 per cent in our indemnity will start demands for increases in pay. Within the next few weeks it will be used in dozens of bargaining negotiations. We have the hint also that our high court judges are to be the next to get increases in pay. They have had two increases within a very few years. The argument is being made now that because members are having their indemnity doubled there should be an increase for the justices of the high courts.
I do not believe an increase of 100 per cent can be justified at any time, under any conditions, and certainly not at this particular time. I believe that for several reasons. In the first place, Canada has moved into a high priced economy. We have had warnings from responsible men across this country within the last few weeks that that is the position in which we now find ourselves. We are having more and more trouble selling our goods abroad because we are having trouble competing with other nations. So I say this is a time when this nation is in considerable danger because she is getting into a high priced economy. For that reason this is no time for the House of Commons to be setting an example by doubling our own pay.
Then, this is a time when unemployment is a grave threat. I hope it will not become any more serious than it is at the present time, but from one coast to the other today unemployment is extremely serious.

There is one other reason which is close to my heart, and I hope I shall not be accused of using an emotional argument. If so, I cannot help that. However, I must say that the House of Commons has failed to take into consideration recommendations made unanimously in 1952 by a special committee on veterans affairs that the ceiling on the permissive income of recipients of war veterans allowance should be increased. This is not only a case of people outside the house asking for an amendment of that kind; it was a unanimous recommendation by the special committee on veterans affairs.
These men, the great majority of whom were front-line troops, are in the position that if, for example, they reach the age of 70 years, they cannot get the full benefit of the old age security payments, because when they take those payments their war veterans allowances are cut so that the total income will not be more than $60 a month. That situation should have been remedied long ago, and in my opinion should have priority over an increase at this time in our own indemnities. Many of these men are on a starvation basis. We have hundreds of them in British Columbia. On a basis of comparative population we have more war veterans allowance recipients in that province than in any other province in Canada. There is a crying need that their problem be met before ours is dealt with.
The third consideration is this. Obviously this proposed indemnity of $8,000 plus the $2,000 for expenses is meant as pay for a full-time job. There will be monthly payments of indemnity amounting to $666.66. In addition to that there is the tax-free expense allowance of $2,000. And yet, Mr. Speaker, this is not a full-time job. No matter what hon. members may argue to the contrary, I submit it is not a full-time job, and I have as my authority for that statement the Prime Minister himself. This is what he said, as reported at page 1452 of Hansard:
It was never intended, and it is not now intended, that members of parliament should be salaried servants of the state. Members of parliament are representatives-that is true of members of both houses of parliament-and, to be truly representative, it is desirable that they should be drawn from a wide variety of occupations and walks of life-
And I stress these words.
-and that they should be able to retain, while they are members of parliament, their connection with the occupation or walk of life and the area from which they were chosen to be representatives in parliament.
I could not agree with any statement more thoroughly than I do with that statement of the Prime Minister. I believe it goes to the root of the democratic system. Are we to
Senate and House of Commons have here representatives, or are we to be paid as civil servants? Then he said at a later point in his speech:
While membership in parliament should not be, and should not be regarded as being, a full-time occupation-
And so on. We must be in our constituencies at least half the year. Most of us are able to be, even those of us who represent constituencies on the west coast. When we are in our constituencies for that length of time, I do not know how a member could sit around and do nothing for six months. There is some political work to do, but there is opportunity for a person to earn at least something. And I think it is of great benefit to the member to get back into his own business and get right down among the people so that he may learn something about the problems they are meeting. I always consider it takes a lot of foolish ideas out of my head when I have to go back and do a little of my regular work. It is of great value that the members should resume their places in the life of the communities from which they come for at least a portion of the year. So let us not say that this $8,000 plus the $2,000 free of income tax is for a full year. It could be much more accurately described as payment for half or three-quarters of a year.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the doubling of the indemnity is bad enough in the case of members in the House of Commons, but this same increase for senators cannot in my opinion be justified on any ground whatsoever. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister made the argument this afternoon that they had to be treated the same. Well, they are not treated the same in the expense allowance. A difference is recognized right there. They pay income tax on their $2,000, but we do not.
I am afraid there enters into this picture the fact that the Senate has the veto on legislation passed by the House of Commons, and that they may say, "Here, we will not pass this bill at all until we get exactly the same as the members get". That is a situation that might as well be faced by hon. members of the House of Commons and by the Canadian people.
There are long periods when the house is sitting and the Senate is not. They rarely sit on Mondays or Fridays, even when they are here. And the amount of work done in the two houses, when both are in session, cannot be compared. For example, we have to deal with the estimates, but the Senate does not have any work of that kind.
Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
1654	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I had almost completed my remarks. If Your Honour will recall, at that time I was pointing out why I thought this doubling of the indemnity to the senators could not be justified on any grounds whatsoever. I had explained three of my reasons, and I should like to add one more. It is this. Unlike the members of the Commons, once the senators leave Ottawa their responsibilities end; for if they have any responsibilities out in the provinces it is very difficult to see what they are. They have no constituents; they have no elections to face. Their position in the constituencies is entirely different from that of the hon. members.
I do not criticize the senators as individuals. About one-third of the present Senate have served with me in the House of Commons, at one time or another, since 1935. I think they are all my friends, at least they were until today. I do not blame them individually; they are victims of a system.
At the present time all those in the Senate, with the exception of seven, are followers of the present Prime Minister. There are 15 or 16 vacancies, and I believe there have never been fewer than 12 vacancies since he became the Prime Minister of Canada. That fact in itself shows how little value he places on the Senate, and I am rather surprised that he can come into the house today and ask that they should be given the same increase as proposed for the members of the Commons. No Prime Minister has ever had a finer chance to do something about meeting the situation in the Senate; yet, instead of making any move to reform, our Prime Minister is doubling the indemnities of the senators.
For the reasons I have outlined I repeat that I believe this bill in its present form is unfair to the Canadian people. They are entitled to better leadership than is being given in this instance.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should take part in this debate, not because I think I can throw any new light on the subject but because I have been a strong advocate of better indemnities for members of parliament. I have been in this parliament for a good many years. In that period I have talked to a good many members of parliament about their financial problems. I have known men who saw their livelihood going to pieces, who have not been able to get along on their indemnities, and they had
IMr. Green.]

to go back to their professions or their businesses. I have known men in this parliament who have seen themselves getting deeper and deeper into debt without any real hope of improving their position. That is not a healthy situation.
I was an employer of men before I came here, and I always considered it my business, if I thought one of my people was getting into financial difficulty, to see him and find out what the trouble was and to help straighten out his affairs. I do not believe that people who are worrying about financial problems can do their best work in this House of Commons.
I think hon. members will accept the fact that I have no personal axe to grind in this debate. I was more fortunate than most hon. members in that I was able to practise my profession for 30 years before I came to this parliament. I was fortunate in having an earning power when there were no income taxes, and later when the income taxes were not heavy. I am old-fashioned enough to think that when we are earning we should save for our old age, and I did that. The result was that when I was invited to stand for this parliament in my fiftieth year I was able to assess the situation, as most people must do when they are asked to stand for parliament, and accept the invitation.
I think every man in Canada is attracted by the thought of serving his country in the parliament of Canada, but it has been my experience that a great number have had to say "no" simply because they could not see any possibility of making both ends meet. I know I have asked a number of people to stand for parliament. Any member of the government is interested in building up the strength of the party he represents.
I have had a good many people consider coming to this parliament, and many people, in fact the majority, have said: "I cannot see how I can support my family and do what you are asking me to do".
I think that most men, surveying the situation, view it in that way. I know I did.
I was willing to sacrifice my earning power- that was unimportant-provided that I did not have to sacrifice the standard of living of my wife and children. I think that is a reasonable attitude. I believe a man, when he marries and is raising a family, is under obligation to do the right thing by his family. If he has built up a standard of living for them I do not think he should take on any work that means a lowering of the standard of living or a lessening of the chances of a good education for his children.

I examined the situation in that way, back in 1935, and found that I could afford to stand for parliament. I have been very happy with the remuneration I have received since then, and I would be very happy to finish my term in this parliament with the same remuneration. That is the personal position. But I suggest to this parliament that personal views should not govern. After all, is not the problem this? We are fixing the remuneration for people from coast to coast, in order to arrive at an average that will bring to this parliament the kind of people that we should have in it. You say, "How do we determine that average?" Well, I think the people most capable of determining it are the people who have had experience in living the kind of life that members of parliament are required to live.
It has been said often that there are only two classes of people who can afford to stand for parliament; people who have considerable capital, and people with no money at all. It is a well-recognized fact that if a man comes in here with a small capital, a capital that would mean a great deal if he could go on accumulating, he is bound to dissipate that capital, not in extravagant living, but for purposes that are proper for those who occupy our positions.
I have heard an hon. member say that he is not called upon to make any expenditures in the constituency. Well it has not been my experience to have that kind of constituency; I do not think it has been the experience of many people in this parliament to have that kind of constituency. I would not want to operate that way in any constituency. When I lived in Port Arthur, before I entered this house, I tried to enter into the activities of the community, to support worthy causes, and I would not want to change my position in that regard just because the people of Port Arthur have sent me to represent them in this parliament. I do not think any of us want to change our ways completely to settle down to an isolated life, to not be able to take part in community activities or in the activities of the district we represent, just because we are in this parliament.
The question is this. What is a reasonable remuneration, on the average, to compensate hon. members for the loss of income they suffer in coming to this parliament? It was said by the hon. member who spoke before me that many members can use the summer months to supplement their incomes. I think that situation varies. Professional men can do that. In fact when I entered parliament that was one of the factors I took into account, that I would spend six months at Ottawa
Senate and House of Commons but would have another six months in which I could practise my profession. It so happened that I was taken into the cabinet before I entered the House of Commons and was not able to do that. Perhaps you may think that cabinet ministers are very well paid, but I would exchange what I get as a minister for the privilege of having that six months in which to practise my profession.
We are determining what indemnity will attract able men to parliament, the type of men that we think the various constituencies would wish to choose to represent them in parliament. As I say, his indemnity should compensate a man for the time he loses from his own work and for the cost of maintaining two domiciles, as many members must. I take the view that if a man has a wife and five children, as I had when I ran for parliament, he should not have to leave his family at home for six months in the year. His indemnity should be sufficient so that he can provide a home and thus enable them to live with him when he is here in Ottawa. Just to look at the statistics, the increase that is proposed now does not seem unreasonable. It has been said that we should not have an increase here in this parliament because other people have not had increases. I do not know of any class of people who are working for a living, people who are willing and able to work, who have not had an increase since 1945. Since 1945 the cost of living has increased about 60 per cent, and wages and salaries have increased much more than that in proportion.
We regard our work as important. We say that we carry the responsibility for government, and so we do. I suggest to you that no successful business that I know of believes that it can succeed by holding down the salaries of its executives below the point that enables them to live in a way their occupations entitle them to live. That is not considered good business outside this house, and in my opinion it is not good business inside this house.
The people in this house are in various circumstances. As I say, a professional man can supplement his earnings in the recess. The businessman very likely has an income that goes on whether he is in parliament or whether he is in his place of business. But there are a great number of members who are neither professional men nor businessmen. They have been chosen by their electors to represent them here, and it is not easy for many hon. members to get the supplementary income necessary to supplement what they receive here.

Senate and House of Commons
It has been said that we should go outside this house and appoint a royal commission to determine the proper scale of parliamentary indemnity. I do not know where we could get more information about the situation than from hon. members themselves, who are experiencing the situation we are trying to remedy. I am sure that if we had a royal commission made up of business people who were getting business salaries they would recommend indemnities which the government could not recommend to this parliament. I am sure that if we had a royal commission made up of people who earn less than we are proposing we would get recommendations that would be on the scale they found adequate to maintain themselves. In my opinion either finding would be meaningless.
No one outside of this house can appreciate the conditions under which members of parliament live and carry on their work. I am sure every member of the government has had conversations with a considerable number of members; and it seems to me, therefore, that the government is in position to recommend an indemnity which is proper under the present circumstances.
It may be that if we enact this legislation, some of us will not come back to the next parliament. I know there are a number of capable young men in Port Arthur constituency who would be likely to stand for my seat if they believed they could make both ends meet while doing it. I think they should have their opportunity. Just because I was able to live and earn in a rather exceptional period and they have to contend with present scales of taxation, I do not see why I should be the man to represent Port Arthur and they should be debarred from standing for office.
I daresay the same situation obtains in many constituencies, in that there are a number of able men who are not presently in a financial position to stand for office but who would be able to do so if this change in the indemnity is carried.
I think that is all to the good. I believe it tends to make for a better parliament. I believe the people of Canada will support the action we propose in this bill. I have had a good deal of experience with working on the prairies. There are many representatives from the prairies in this house. I worked there as a professional man for many years, and I never found the people of the prairies a bit reluctant to pay the salaries or compensation that the service justified. Incidentally the farm organizations pay as high salaries as any other business organization. I have never found any feeling of reluctance to pay for the service that was needed at the going rates.


I have had some experience with other classes of people. I notice that the representatives of labour here in parliament are not dissenting from this bill. Why? Labour believes in paying its officers and its representatives rates of remuneration that will allow them to live properly and carry out their functions adequately. I think that that is the real feeling of the people of Canada. They want good representation in this parliament and they are willing to pay a reasonable indemnity for that representation. Therefore I have no hesitation in supporting this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us in the house appreciate the moderate and dispassionate manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just discussed this very important question. I want to say that I could not agree more with him than I do when he says that we should look at the issue on principle, not in terms of personal situations.
I may say further that I could not agree more than I do with the Prime Minister in the closing words of his remarks of last Tuesday. If I understood him correctly, he addressed those closing words primarily to the members on his own side of the house, but they might well have been directed to members in all parts of the house. I refer to his suggestion that members should make their own decision in respect to this matter in the light of what they feel to be best for our Canadian democratic institutions.
It is on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that I approach this question. I could do it on a personal basis. I could discuss my personal situation and that of others, but I do not propose to do so. Rather, I feel it is incumbent upon me, as I feel it is incumbent upon others, to answer this question:	What
is best for parliament? What is best for democracy? Is it a good thing for the Canadian parliament, for Canadian democracy, to provide for an indemnity and allowance to members of parliament totalling $10,000 a year?
I want to say right at the start and in as clear terms as I can that I do not believe it is good for parliament, for relations between this Canadian parliament and the people of this country, to pay that much and thereby create the economic difference that it will establish between members of parliament and the people whom we represent. I do not go to the other extreme. I do not suggest that it would be good for parliament to have the members of this house paid so little that they would be up against it all the time. That would be just as bad for

parliament as to pay an amount of such size that it separates us too far from the people we represent.
I said a moment ago I did not believe we should go to the other extreme and pay members of this house too little. On the other hand, bearing in mind some of the arguments that have been put forward from time to time during the course of this debate, I cannot help but note it is a matter of history that when the indemnity was only $600 a session-it is true that was a long time ago, and it cost a lot less to live in those days- the fact that the indemnity was only $600 did not fail to attract to the parliament of Canada such an outstanding person as Sir John A. Macdonald. I draw attention also to the fact that when the indemnity was only $1,000 a session it did not fail to attract to the parliament of Canada such persons as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden. In the same vein-


An hon. Member:: It is not the money that attracts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An hon. member across the house interjects that it is not the money that attracts. That is the point I am trying to make. That is a statement with which I thoroughly agree.


An hon. Member:: That is what brings you here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend knows far
better than that. Hon. members of this house know for a fact there have been many great Canadians across the years this parliament has been in existence who have come here because of their desire to serve the nation or because of certain principles for which they were crusading.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, if I may make a more modern reference, that I am thoroughly satisfied that when a certain gentleman by the name of Louis St. Laurent back in 1941 was approached to enter parliament, it was not the money which attracted him here at all. Neither was it the money which attracted a certain C. D. Howe back in 1935. My plea is that hon. members should not promote the idea that we have to have a sizeable indemnity in order to attract good men to parliament. The record of the Canadian parliament is a splendid one, and good men have been attracted to it across the years because of a desire to serve the nation, or because of a crusading spirit which has brought many outstanding men and women to this House of Commons.
I simply wanted to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe we should pay too little, nor should we pay too much. It seems to me the problem that faces us is one of degree; one of finding an amount that 83276-105
Senate and House of Commons will make it possible for men to fill this position and carry out the duties of a member of parliament without having so much that they are too far removed from the ordinary people of this country.
It is all right to quote statistics about the rise in the cost of living; it is all right to quote statistics about the increase in the levels of wages and salaries, but everyone in this house knows that the great bulk of the people in this country today, both salaried people and wage earners, are in the bracket between $2,000 and $3,000 a year. Also bearing in mind, as so many hon. members have stressed, the large number of old age pensioners and people on war veterans allowances who are down in the economic cellar, I suggest we should consider seriously the distance $10,000 a year removes us from the people we represent. I think that amount is too much, for the good of the parliament of Canada.
My leader has already mentioned, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out this afternoon, that we recognize that a case can be made for some increase over the amount which is provided in the statute at the present time. We will indicate again, as has already been done, what we think would be a reasonable amount when we go into committee on the bill, if the bill receives second reading. At this stage, when the government is proposing a total figure of $10,000 a year, most of us in this group believe-and we are all free in this group to have our views on this question-that it is not the best thing for the parliament of Canada and it is not the best thing for democracy to remove us that far from the great mass of the Canadian people by paying ourselves that much money. That is the reason we are voting against this bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his remarks today-and he, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce just now, dealt with the matter very dispassionately and in very moderate tones-did suggest that perhaps one of the reasons some hon. members voted against the resolution last Tuesday was that it was a package proposition. I think that is probably true with respect to the reason for the vote against the resolution on the part of some hon. members.
But may I draw to the Prime Minister's attention the fact that what we have before us in this present bill is still quite a package. There are still quite a number of items in it, so it is not just the one question of increasing our own indemnities in this house which is now before us; it also includes the same increase for the members of the other
1658	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons house of this parliament. In addition there is the provision for an increase in the salaries that are to be paid to various officials-the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in the other house; the Speakers of both houses, and the Deputy Speaker of this house. I am not going to take time to deal with all these various increases; but I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that back in 1947 when it was first proposed that there be any salary at all for the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate-in addition to their regular indemnities-we took very strong exception to that proposal and voted against it, and in taking that position we had the support of most if not all the members of the Progressive Conservative party and I believe most, if not all, the members of the Social Credit party at that time.
That is still our view. We feel that the total emoluments being paid to these gentlemen are adequate for the job they are doing, and that just because other increases are being provided-and they share in these other increases-there should not be these additional increases in their salaries as well.
So far as the Senate as a whole is concerned, my views on that question are so well known that I do not need to take much time to develop them at this point. I was a little surprised this afternoon when the Prime Minister said he was not concerned even about any modification of the Senate. I would not have been surprised if he had said he did not agree with those of us who favour abolition of the Senate, but he did not even use that word. He just referred to modifying or reforming the Senate in any way, and he said there were other matters which were of more immediate concern to him.
I am interested in the fact that no less a person than George V. Ferguson, who knows a good deal of what is going on in the Liberal party, in a book that he wrote a short while ago entitled "It's Our Business" had something to say about this matter. He said:
Nevertheless, Senate reform has been a plank of one or more Canadian political party platforms for more than thirty years. It made its appearance first in the Liberal platform of 1919, doubtless because the Liberals were looking forward to power and feared what a Conservative Senate might do to its legislation. The plank is still there, but nobody does anything about it.


Mr. Pouliot:: May I ask a question of the hon. gentleman?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why does he give more importance to the views of an outsider than to those of his Liberal colleagues in the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was merely quoting an *outsider to support my statement that it is the general belief in this country that the Liberal party has stood for Senate reform since 1919. We now find in the words of the Prime Minister today that what George Ferguson said is perfectly true. The plank is still there but nobody does anything about it. Apparently it is the intention of the Prime Minister not to do anything about it as long as he is Prime Minister.
But it does seem to me that at a time like this, when we are being asked to increase the -amount of money paid to those who serve in the other place, it is appropriate for some of us who feel strongly about it to say again that we believe there is no need in the Canadian parliament for a second house, particularly one as unrepresentative of the Canadian people as is the Canadian Senate. Therefore if we are opposed to a Senate at all, we are by virtue of that belief opposed to increasing the indemnities paid to members of the other place.
I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that a great many people and a great many newspapers in this country who do not share our view that the Senate should be abolished are nevertheless shocked at the proposal to increase the indemnities of senators to the figure proposed in this legislation. I hope that even yet-I dared to hope it particularly this afternoon, when I thought the Prime Minister was not too sure of his case on this point-consideration will be given to leaving the indemnities paid to members of the other place where they are at the present time.
There are one or two other matters in connection with the bill before us about which I feel I should say a word. The Prime Minister has detailed the history of the Senate and House of Commons Act in respect of the changes that have been made from time to time in the indemnity. I have not gone back to 1867 to check the point about which I am now going to say a word, but I have checked back through two or three of the changes and I find that when the indemnity stood at $2,500 a session the provision with respect to the amount of money that a member would lose for lost time, that is absence in excess of 15 sitting days in a session, was $15 per day. When the indemnity was increased to $4,000 the figure of $15 per day was raised to $25. Again

in 1945, when the $2,000 expense allowance was added, it was provided that for every $25 lost in respect of the indemnity there would be a loss of $12.50 a day with respect to the expense allowance. In other words the total loss for days absent in excess of the 15 per session that are allowed was raised to $37.50 per day.
My point is that on each of the last few occasions when there has been a bill like this before the house amending the Senate and House of Commons Act for the purpose of increasing the amount paid to members, a corresponding increase was made in the amount to be deducted for days lost in excess of 15 per session. But I look in vain for any such change in the bill now before us. It seems to me that the Prime Minister should follow suit, and just as on each of the previous occasions to which I have referred the penalty for lost time was increased, so the penalty should now be increased.
The figures I have given, $15 per day when the indemnity was $2,500, $25 per day when the indemnity was $4,000, and $37.50 per day as it is now, are all roughly proportionate. They are not exactly the same. On the basis of the same proportion the amount should now be either $60 or $62.50 per day. I suggest that when we get into committee the Prime Minister should consider putting another section in the bill to change the appropriate section of the Senate and House of Commons Act that deals with the question of lost time.
I may say that I believe the government should go a great deal further. I think the whole question of attendance in the house should be reviewed, perhaps by a committee of the house, and some more satisfactory means should be found of keeping a record of the attendance of members and of making sure that indemnities are not drawn unless members really perform the service for which they are elected to the House of Commons.
As a matter of fact there are two or three other changes of that kind that it seems to me should be made at a time like this, but I shall leave them until we get into committee on this bill or on the bill that is to follow amending the Salaries Act. The Prime Minister no doubt knows some of the things I have in mind. I have before me a memorandum prepared some years ago by Mr. Watson Sellar, the auditor general. The whole point I am making is that things that need to be tidied up in the Senate and House of Commons Act and in the Salaries Act do not get attended to in the periods between the major changes that are made. Therefore 83276-1051
Senate and House of Commons now is the time to make changes with respect to these ancillary matters, or we all know they will not be made at all.
I shall not take the time of the house to deal with details of that kind now but will do so when the appropriate time comes. In the meantime I hope that hon. members generally throughout the house will agree with the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and with me that it is up to each one of us to make our decision with respect to the bill now before us on the basis of what we think to be best for parliament, best for our democratic institutions, and best for the relationship between us and the people of Canada whom we were elected to represent. On that basis I shall vote against the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker-*


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Mountain has risen on several occasions to get the floor. Therefore I feel it is time that he should be given a chance.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise and make my position quite clear on this matter. Stated quite simply, it is that I am not in favour of any increase as suggested in the bill.
I might say that the right hon. Prime Minister did a fair thing, and should be highly commended for the manner in which he introduced this bill. He should be commended particularly for the statement he made at the conclusion of his remarks. What I have to say and the position I take on this matter do not and should not, I think, reflect on any member in this house. I believe it is our responsibility to come to our own conclusions, in conformity with what the Prime Minister said during his introduction of this bill.
I should like to read that to the house, as reported on page 1454 of Hansard of January 26, 1954:
I would say to hon. members on this side of the house that if they honestly believe these increases are not in the long run to be in the best interests of our democratic institutions, they should not feel that because I am the one recommending them at this time they should submit their judgment to mine. These matters should be dealt with exclusively on the ground that the opinion expressed by each individual member will be his opinion as to what will really in the long run serve the interests of the Canadian people whom members of parliament are here to represent.
I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister, and it is entirely on that basis that I have come to the conclusion not to support any increase at this time. I know that every hon. member

Senate and House of Commons in the house will readily agree with me when I say that there are members in this house who are here for no other purpose than public service. This is certainly true in the case of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as well as other members. We do know that in the introduction of this bill they have no personal axe to grind. They are doing it because they believe it is in the interests of parliament and the country that such a bill should be passed at this time.
I think I can speak with some degree of authority on my own position at least, because I am not a new member in the house, having represented the old constituency of Assiniboia from 1945 to 1949. I appreciate the difficulties, of course, that some of us have to face in being members of this parliament. I accepted the nomination as a great honour. At that time I was a registered Canadian seed grower and a producer of registered Hereford cattle. Having a specialized farm, 1 know some of the things that can happen "to a member when he spends 75 per cent or more of his time in the business of representing his people. I do appreciate the financial position of some hon. members.
Again in the last election the people came and persuaded me to accept the nomination to represent them. I accepted it knowing full well that there might be financial considerations and perhaps certain sacrifices to make. I did this, sir, without any knowledge whatever of any intention on the part of the government to increase the indemnity. At this time I do not know what my constituents would think, except that I have had statements from one or two against accepting any increase. It is on my own responsibility, however, after giving great consideration to the matter, that I have decided not to vote for it.
In the first instance, this party is on record as being against the Senate. This in no way reflects on the members of the other place. I know some of those members personally, and I know that they are honourable members. We just do not believe the Senate is a necessary component of parliament, and it costs the Canadian taxpayer well over a million dollars a year. I do not consider it in the best interests of parliament to increase their sessional indemnity.
I want to say that when coming down here I felt there were a great many things that should be done. We still have these recipients of war veterans allowance; we still have our old age pensioners; we still have our superannuated civil servants, who by no stretch of the imagination can be said to be receiving fair treatment from the Canadian government.
(Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).]

Then I should like to refer to the statement made just before the dinner recess by the leader of the Social Credit party, who said it would be very easy to determine the increase necessary for members of parliament on the basis of statistics. This may be true, but I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he said he did not think it was in the best interests of parliament that members of parliament should be too far removed from the people of Canada.
I have a sessional return dated January 29, 1954, which contains the answers to certain questions concerning the incomes of our Canadian people. According to this paper there are 452,427 who earn less than $500; 443,140 who earn between $500 and $999; 601,652 who earn between $1,000 and $1,499; 690,792 who earn between $1,500 and $1,999. In other words, there are 750,889 wage earners who, according to the latest statistics I can find for 1951, earned between $2,000 and $2,499.
Another figure which I have here, Mr. Speaker, shows what sort of bracket hon. members of the House of Commons will be in if the increase is granted. I find that, according to taxation statistics, 1953, from the Department of National Revenue, which outline the position for the 1951 taxation year, there were only 1 [DOT] 2 per cent of the Canadian people earning $10,000 or more.
So far as I am concerned, I cannot favour the increase. I do not think it would be in the interests of the people. There are some other things which should be done, which I have mentioned, before we would be in a position to support this measure.
In conclusion I might say that if I needed any further argument to encourage me to vote against this measure, I received a letter just the other day from my wife. I had written her saying that there was some movement on foot to increase our indemnity. In her reply she said that I was sent to Ottawa to represent the people and get something better for our farmers who were caught in the price squeeze today. She did mention the old age pensioners, too. I believe, Mr. Speaker, on that ground I must take the position I have outlined.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to take a very few minutes of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, to explain why I shall vote against the motion for second reading of this bill. I hope I am not taking myself too seriously in this but I should like to make a brief explanation. I shall not vote against second reading because I am against an increased indemnity. On the contrary, like my leader I believe there should be an

increase in the indemnity. I shall say frankly that if this measure becomes law I shall not refuse the increase.
An hen. Member: Nor will anybody else.


Mr. Croll:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


David Arnold Croll: Will the hon. member say how it is he is in favour of the increased indemnity and yet will vote against the motion for second reading?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am going to try to explain that, and whether or not I shall be successful the hon. member may judge. There have been many good reasons given for raising the indemnity, and I shall mention only one; it was mentioned earlier this evening by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the fact that we often fail to get the kind of candidates we want because they just feel they cannot come here, with the indemnity as it is. That is, I think, a very good reason for being in favour of it, and I am in favour of it.
But my vote is a protest vote. It is a protest against the manner in which this has been carried out. I submit that if this had been carried out properly there might have been no need of my being in the position I am in now.
I wish to compare this situation with one or two other things that have been done. In this case the government, for reasons I do not understand, seems to have behaved in a manner entirely different from that which it adopted when the pensions were introduced. At the time of the pensions there was a consultation with the different parties before the measure was brought to the house. We had a chance of making our contribution, for whatever it was worth. Then there was a committee which studied the matter for a long time, and a great many things were brought to the attention of that committee.
While I admit that pensions are in a somewhat special category, and while I admit that in the long run we do have to be the judges of this thing-because there can be no other final judges-I do submit that by setting up a committee we would be in a better position to reach the conclusion we have to reach. I wish to support what I am saying by pointing out that in a similar situation in Great Britain-entirely similar, so far as I can see -they did appoint a committee; and I wish to read briefly from British Hansard of May 29, 1946, quoting from a speech of Mr. Dalton, who said at page 1233, 5th series, 1946:
We felt it would be very much better for a committee of the members of the house to look into the
Senate and House of Commons question quite frankly without any direct lead from the government as to what was desirable. Therefore, on 15th November last a select committee was appointed, and it issued its report on 6th March. On 30th April, with the authority of the cabinet, I made a statement in the house of the government's proposals, which in substance and on the great majority of points at issue, follow the recommendations of the select committee.
We are very grateful to the select committee for their work, and I am glad that the report of the select committee was unanimous. Upon the select committee there served some members of considerable experience of the house, and also some young members who brought to the discussions the freshness which is appropriate to new arrivals, and between them they agreed on a number of proposals.
I feel that the Canadian people were entitled to a better method of having this done. I feel that if this is passed without any committee being set up-because I do not think the committee of the whole house is the: place to have the kind of intimate discussion* we need in this instance-and if this is passed without any further means afforded for study and consideration, then when I go back to my constituency I shall be in a very awkward position. I shall be asked, "You increased your indemnity?" "Yes". "To $10,000?" "Yes". "On what basis did you do it?"-and. I feel that I may be in a very awkward position, because I really just have to say, "I don't know." At the moment we are in the position of the children who play that game: "Take any number; double it; divide by two", etc. I do not know how these figures are arrived at. I feel that we should have an opportunity to do what we did-and with good effect, I thought-at the time of the pensions.
There are one or two other points I wish to make before taking my seat. This has been said already, but I think I must repeat that it is in the highest degree unfortunate that this increase was never mentioned until recently. And I wish to draw attention ta what was done in 1945, at the time the expense allowance was given. I quote from page 3414 of Hansard, from the speech of Mr. Mackenzie King, where he said:
I had not intended to speak on the resolution but since others have made some comments perhaps I should say a word as to the obligation I have felt in the matter of introducing this resolution. I speak now more particularly to hon. members who have come into the house since the last session, the last parliament in fact. Hon. members who were present at that time will remember that before the end of the session I stated that X thought the allowance paid to members of parliament was wholly inadequate, having regard to their increased obligations, the changed situation in the world, and the corresponding enlargement of their duties since the allowance had been previously fixed.
I think it was unfortunate that that was not done in this instance. It is unfortunate that there was no consultation with other

Senate and House of Commons parties. It is unfortunate that this matter is brought in on a take it or leave it basis and that no committee has been set up, following what seemed to be a sound and wise course taken two years ago.
For that reason, though unwillingly, I shall vote against second reading; though I still hope, even at this late hour, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) may see his way clear to follow the procedure of two years ago and let us have a committee. Because I repeat, it seems to me that the Canadian people are entitled to have this matter dealt with in a better way than is being done on this occasion.
Let me say again I fully realize the truth of what has been said, that in the last analysis we have to be the judges. But in my opinion the last analysis ought not to be until we have done the best we can to inform ourselves, that is, by considering what has been done elsewhere, so that we may have in ourselves-what I have not at the moment

a knowledge of the facts so that I can go to my constituents and justify the particular figures that are decided on.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much time in this debate, because I have spoken on the matter already. At that time I gave my reasons for being in favour of the bill we are now studying.
I prefer being in favour everywhere I go, instead of being in the position of some members in the house who speak for, when behind the curtain, and speak against when they are in the chamber. I am not going to mention anyone, but I am just making this observation so hon. members will know that I am not talking one way outside the house and another way inside.
I listened with great interest this afternoon to the Leader of the Opposition, who said that while there might be reasons members in this chamber should be entitled to an increase, he did not feel the same applied to members of the Senate. He placed some figures on record in which he showed that members of congress in the United States were receiving $27,000, although it is proposed that we receive only $10,000 here. He said it would be hard for us to explain why we give the same treatment to senators as that given to members of the House of Commons.
In the city of Montreal the council is composed of three classes, namely class A, class B and class C. Class A councillors represent the landlords; class B represent the non-proprietors, and class C represent the people sent to council by different organizations. I believe there are 11 of them,
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

among others the board of trade, the chamber of commerce, the University of Montreal, and other organizations of the like.
All three different classes of councillors are given the same treatment. However, the class C councillors are not elected by the people, but are named to council by their own organizations. In the class C group, if one is a member of the executive committee he will receive $7,000 a year, just the same as any other member of the executive who must be elected. Indeed, we find that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) is in class C, in the city of Montreal; and as such he is paid the same amount that is paid to the members who are elected by the people. If anybody thought that we were creating a precedent by giving people who are not elected the same indemnity as people who are elected, then may I say here is a good example. A city of a million and a half people has given the same treatment to non-elected representatives as they gave to the elected representatives.
I shall take my seat after this. I just wanted to give the reasons why I shall support the policy of giving an increase to the Senate. This afternoon reference was made to the poor people, to the people who are on old age pensions, to those receiving blind allowances and all those other social allowances that we give. Well, if for one moment I thought-and I say this because I represent a constituency composed of working class people to the extent of 80 per cent-they would be harmed by the action we are taking here or would be deprived of having more done for them, then I would be the first one to oppose the measure.
I shall not use the word I used the other day, Mr. Speaker; I was told we must not use that kind of language, but it is not right to say that we have no use for the poor people or that we do not care for them because we are giving ourselves an increase. If you took your pencil you would not have to calculate very long to arrive at what this will cost the people of this country. It will cost every citizen of this country about ten cents a year to give fair treatment to their representatives.
I do not know if there is anybody in this parliament who does not need an increase. I would be inclined to vote for an amendment of the nature suggested by the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) when he spoke this afternoon. If any hon. members feel that they do not need the increase there may be an opportunity for them to say whether they want the increase or do not.

Senate and House of Commons
So far as I am personally concerned I am not ashamed to say that after my experience I wonder if I can afford for long the luxury of being a representative of this chamber at the indemnity we are receiving now, namely $6,000 a year. In my last speech I gave the reasons for that. Without hesitation I say I know the mentality of my people, and I am sure they would certainly understand why their representative in this parliament has not been afraid to take his responsibility and give fair treatment to parliamentary representatives, not only for himself, not only for this parliament but for those who will succeed us.
Before taking my seat I want to say that if I thought the action we take here would mean that the poor people would have to endure worse treatment or more hardship than they are going through now, I would be the first one to oppose the measure.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say will be very brief. It is good to have the opportunity to speak one's own mind on this particular question. We of this party, and I expect of the other parties, too, have that liberty because, while we should not discuss personal affairs or our own economic position or that sort of thing-we all have our own troubles-that I think is a purely personal matter. In so far as I am concerned this is a matter of principle.
We should leave personalities out. I do wish the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) had not suggested, after the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway had spoken, that anyone in this party, and I assume he meant the hon. member who had just spoken, was speaking for political purposes.


Solon Earl Low: May I at once on a question of privilege disabuse my hon. friend's mind. I indicated no one whatsoever in what I said.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw that implication. I am sure the hon. member for Peace River would agree with me that if there is any man in this house who would refuse to abandon his convictions for political considerations that man is the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He has proved that time and time again.
I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned money, say, "That is what you come here for". I would suggest that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were sitting on the other side of the house no remarks of that sort would be made about him. I fancy that the hon. members on the
other side would rather welcome the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on that side of the house if he could be persuaded to cross this floor, a contingency which I would say is not apt to happen. With respect to his ability or his earning power, if anyone wishes to sneer at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as one of those who has come to parliament in order to make his living, I would say that a just-minded man on the opposite side of the house, including the Minister of Finance whom I have heard express himself in this regard, would be the first to say that there is nothing in that.
Since I am speaking of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, may I say that he often puts us on this side of the house in a rather unfortunate position, particularly if we have to speak after him, because when he has finished he has said in as precise a manner as can be just about everything that can be said. I had jotted down an occasional note which I wished to develop myself, but I find myself in the position that he has developed those jottings much more adequately than I could have done it myself. Therefore my object in rising tonight is simply to put myself on record as being totally opposed to this bill.
My reasons for taking this position are of course several. The Senate has been mentioned. I cannot see how anyone can consistently vote for an increase in the salaries of a group of men, no matter how excellent these men may be personally-and they are excellent men; I am not criticizing them at all-when he has spoken time and again in favour of that body's total abolition.
There is one thing, and perhaps it is the only thing new that I may mention, and I think it is fair to draw it to the attention of the house. While the indemnity at the present moment is $4,000 on a sessional basis, owing to the fact that it is on a sessional basis and owing to the fact that during the last parliament of four years there were two special sessions, that gave the members of parliament an extra $8,000. If that is spread over four years we find that an extra $2,000 a year has been received-I almost allowed myself to use the words "take-home pay", which is language that I deplore.
What it amounts to is this, that over the last four years each hon. member has received not $4,000 but actually $6,000. If the Prime Minister's bill had proposed an increase in the indemnity from $4,000 to $6,000 I should have found myself in support of that, not because it constitutes an actual increase, since it would not be an actual increase, but because it would simolv out
1664	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons upon an annual and a secure basis which one could expect to receive each year the amount of money which hon. members have been receiving over the last four years.
I think perhaps that would have been more reasonable. I could have voted for it, but I am not prepared to vote for an increase in the indemnity to $8,000. I can see the point that is raised that this would not give an actual increase of $4,000 but that it is really an increase of $2,000 in the amount that each hon. member would receive.
I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway expound the theory of economic determinism. I do not agree with some of my hon. friend's statements, but I do agree with that. I believe all of us, whether we know it or whether we do not know it, are influenced in our thinking by our own economic position. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a point when he says that if our own position is too far removed from the economic position of the vast majority of those whom we represent, we might not have the same understanding or sympathy for those who are less well off than ourselves. I believe that point is well taken.
I know that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and many of my hon. friends who are older members on all sides of this house would not be so influenced. But I believe there is a danger in the indemnity or total take, if I may call it that, which is now proposed, in that we might attract to this house a group of people who were very interested in that higher indemnity; young men who have not had the opportunity, as some of us older people have, of suffering some of the hardships which many of us did during the thirties. I consider that the most valuable education I ever received, either at school, at university or anywhere else, was the one winter when I spent a total of $18 on my keep, a total which was supplemented by the rabbits I was able to catch in the woods. It is not an experience that I would recommend to my hon. friends except as a source of education.
I said I was not going to mention personal things, but perhaps hon. members will excuse that little personal story. I do believe there is something in the theory of economic determinism in that we have to suffer, we have to experience, we have to live, and not always in a sphere of life far removed from the troubles of the people whom we were sent here to represent.
I do not think anyone is going to be accused of being purely political during this
[Mr. Knight.)

debate. I know I am not going to criticize any hon. members or their opinions. We have all been sent here because our constituents thought it was a good thing to send us here. I am sure that whatever our indemnity may be we will continue to serve this country and the people who sent us here to the best of our ability. I shall vote against this bill.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason I rise tonight and that is because my neighbour to the south, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), spoke before the last speaker. There have been a number of angles raised in this debate, but there is one point that strikes me and I shall come to it directly because we have not very much time.
Considerable emphasis has been laid upon pensioners and people who get only $2,000 or $3,000 a year, and it has been contended that before we do anything in this house with regard to raising the indemnity we should consider them. I give credit to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for lofty motives in what he has said.
There is one point which has not been mentioned during this debate. There is another class of people ranging from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland, who spend billions, not just millions, upon beer, wine and whisky. In Saskatchewan last year $40 million was spent on liquor. The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) has said that this increase in the indemnity will represent only ten cents for every person in Canada. That is just one glass of beer.
Let us get a proper perspective of this bill. When any nation can spend that amount of money upon liquor-I am not saying anything against it because we have had this sort of thing going on since the time of Noah when the ark got stuck on Mount Ararat and they celebrated for three days-when any nation considers the liquor industry as being worth more to the people than its House of Commons, then there is something wrong with the perspective of the nation.
We are called upon to do a great many things in our constituencies as members. If we are going to fulfil our duties properly we should have the wherewithal with which to do it. This is going to help us a little; not altogether, but a little. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) is increasing his hardware empire throughout the entire area of western Canada, and he probably does not need it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. An hon. member must not make reference to personal activities outside this house of another hon. member.


Henry Philip Mang: I withdraw, I am new here. I am sorry. What I am trying to point out is that at one time the people of Saskatchewan elected a government which reduced the indemnity of its members, and we got no credit for it. Then in 1944 the people of Saskatchewan elected a C.C.F. government which has from time to time increased the indemnities, has increased the number of cabinet ministers and increased their salaries. 1 find it very difficult to understand some of the people who represent that party here tonight.
I am going to support the motion. I think I can defend it in my particular constituency and in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that at this hour any hon. member who is opposing this legislation is not likely to win friends or influence people, but I feel that the point of view which I propose to advance should be expressed. I do not mind admitting that I make mistakes from time to time. When I was here in 1945, when the last increase was proposed, I supported it. I have been sorry since that I did not stand by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in opposing it.
I think there may be very good reasons for giving members of parliament some allowance for expenses, but that increase came at a time when we had successfully held the price line through some very critical years. Every organization in the country was pressing for increases in prices. They wanted to increase the price of steel, the price of farm implements and so on. Workers wanted increases in their wages. What was a perfectly legitimate piece of legislation to make provision for expenses was understood by the people of this country to be an increase of 50 per cent in our indemnity. There was a tremendous reaction against that throughout the country, and by the time things settled down we realized that $6,000 was not any better than $4,000.
On this question I believe our public relations have not been too good. As recently as a week ago a well-known writer, John A. Stevenson, in his "Ottawa Letter" published in Saturday Night not only made some critical remarks about the $2,000, but gave us an extra $1,000. I must admit I have never been able to locate it. He mentions reduced rates for staying at the Chateau Laurier; mentions that we get a very good meal in the parliamentary restaurant for $1, and that we do not have to pay our stenographers. As a farmer I was never required to hire a stenographer. My wife never charged me $1 per meal, and I find that though the 83276-108
Senate and House of Commons Chateau Laurier gives a reduced rate of $5.50, there is not one of the 23 members of this group who takes advantage of it.


Mr. Nowlan:: Who gets it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand you pay that rate if you stay for the entire session.


George Clyde Nowlan: You are wrong.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, some of the people who have that information ought to put Mr. Stevenson right.


An hon. Member:: We have already done so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is unfortunate that a well-known correspondent such as Mr. Stevenson, who has the advantage of many privileges in this house, should write in that fashion. His paper is the only one I know of which sends a canvasser around from room to room in this house to secure subscriptions for this paper. He has made three visits to my room without obtaining a subscription, and he does not even ask whether or not it is convenient for me to see him. I suggest a paper that takes that sort of advantage of the good nature of the members here should not accuse us of getting $1,000 which none of us ever get.
Before returning to the House of Commons I was one of those fortunate farmers who was in the happy position of being able to pay income tax. I say that sincerely, because I am sure more farmers are worried about not having to pay income tax than about paying income tax. I found when I made out my returns that I was entitled to include expenses. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) supplied us with a very helpful book wherein he gave the financial statement of an unnamed farmer who had a total income of $9,906, but he had expenses of $6,714. It makes a good deal of difference if you take these expenses into account before paying your income tax. If you paid income tax on that gross amount you would have to pay $1,952, but if you took your expenses into account you would pay only $201. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members of all political parties have expenses which should be taken into account before paying income tax. However, that is water under the bridge.
Less than six months ago there were 900 candidates in Canada who wanted to come here very badly, but only 265 came. In my constituency there were five candidates, and I am sure if I decided tonight I could not continue to represent the people of Mackenzie for the present amount of $6,000 a year any one of the four would be glad to take my position.

Senate and House of Commons
The Leader of the Opposition did not make quite clear whether he wanted the sort of commission which investigated congressional indemnities in the United States. On investigation I found that their commission took five months to consider the kind of complicated question we are apparently going to settle in the next day or two. The commission issued a report with some interesting comments. They said the average congressman spends $3,000 a year more than his $12,500 salary; that many congressmen have to return to private life after a few years to recoup. However, they recommended an increase in the salaries of congressmen and district judges from the figure of $12,500 to $27,500. The Leader of the Opposition said that our two countries are somewhat similar, and that the cost of living is similar in both countries. But he did not finish up the point and say whether he considered the United States recommendations to be fair or unreasonable.
I for one have made some inquiries as to how members are treated in different countries around the world, and apparently there are a great many unreasonable demands on congressmen in the United States. I considered the position in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, France and the United States. In the United States members are paid $12,500, but there is rent for office accommodation in your constituency; you are allowed 12,000 words for telegrams, and 30 hours in long distance telephone service from Washington to anywhere in the United States. Many services like that bring the total to up around $40,000.
However, I cannot help but remind myself, as a member of the C.C.F. party, that if I lived in the United States I could not be a member of congress. It is almost impossible for a member of a third party in that enlightened country to ever get a seat in congress or the Senate. At any rate, it has not happened for a long time and apparently it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. In the other countries mentioned members of parliament, prime ministers and cabinet ministers receive much less than in Canada.
I appreciate the point emphasized by hon. members on all sides of the house regarding the contribution the present Prime Minister has made. I am told the return we gave him for coming here was probably less than a third of the amount he enjoyed as an outstanding lawyer. But there have been compensations. The Prime Minister is about to embark on a world tour. I believe there are men in Canada who would give a million dollars if they could exchange places with the Prime Minister just long enough to make this tour around the world. But a million


dollars will not buy that sort of experience; and the Prime Minister did not wait to come here before interesting himself in public service and endeavouring to serve his fellow men. What I said of the Prime Minister could be said of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am sure of all members of the cabinet. I am proud of the fact that although the salaries paid to cabinet ministers during the war years were very small compared with the returns that went to some of the people doing business with cabinet ministers, we did not have any scandal in Canada during that period. Such a scandal would have weakened faith in democracy, and I am glad members of the opposition have not been able to uncover any scandal of any great proportion in connection with Canada's war effort.
I do not care whether I am accused of being a hypocrite by some hon. members opposite. I am prepared to let the people of Mackenzie decide that question. I want to suggest that life is a bit too short to place ourselves in the position that this move is going to place us in. In my opinion the net effect is not going to be nearly as attractive as some of those who are voting for this measure think.
I know the advice I gave to some of my friends on all sides of the house when I was here before was not taken too seriously. I suggested they go back home and get some of their supporters to put some money into their political party every year. The Liberal party, the Conservative party, the Social Credit party and the C.C.F. party-that is the only one I worried about-would all do much better if every person would select some party and support that party as generously as his financial position permitted.
I am in the happy position of having been a candidate on five occasions. I was elected three times and twice defeated, but on every occasion there were at least dozens of people in my constituency who put up more money for election expenses than I did. The net cost for me was very little whether we won or lost. I would prefer to continue my relations with my people on the basis that as a member of parliament I was not in as favourable a position as some of them have been who have operated farms or businesses during these more lucrative years.
I must also say that I do not see how in this day and age we can support an increase for the members of the other place. Surely a cheque of $500 a month for life for people who do as little as the members of the other place-I do not wish to reflect on any of them personally; many of them are friends of mine, although they probably will not be

now-is quite an ample amount, and the proposal to increase their pay by $333 a month is something I cannot support.
Then there is a final point that is important to me. I represent a constituency that has within it a very large number of people unable to pay any income tax. When I spoke on housing the other night I gave figures as to the value of housing in my constituency in 1941. I doubt that there is any constituency in the country with a lower average value for housing. I simply cannot go back to my people and say that I could not get along on $6,000 a year and had to have an increase. Therefore my position will be that I cannot support any increase.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to place some of my views on the record. There would seem to be a feeling among some members, in fact it has been expressed tonight, that there is doubt as to the sincerity of certain hon. members who have taken part in this debate. They may wonder how that suspicion arises. As far as I am concerned it comes about from having followed the speeches made by members in the house in the nine years I have been here. During those nine years I have seen members stand up and vote for increases to all civil servants. That was done without any hesitation. They have also suggested increases in family allowances, old age pensions and every other social service with which the house has to deal.
Knowing that they do not have the responsibility for financing such increases, I wonder if they would have taken the same attitude if they had been in the position of the government. It is very easy to suggest increases for others when you are not responsible for finding the cash to take care of those increases. If you look at the order paper, and the same is true in any session of parliament, you will find that it contains resolutions which if they were all carried out would increase the cost of government by hundreds of millions of dollars. These resolutions are brought forward each year. We listen to them being discussed in the house day after day. Are these resolutions sponsored by irresponsible people or are they really sincere in saying what they have said on the floor of the house?
I have had members come to me [DOT] in the last six months-this was also mentioned by another member a few moments ago-and ask me what I had heard about an increase in the indemnity; and I can say, without any 83276-106J
Senate and House of Commons fear of contradiction, that they used a different tone outside the house than inside the house. I am one who is firmly convinced-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a question of privilege, a reference has been made which would imply that members who have spoken as I have spoken have spoken otherwise outside the house. I want it clearly understood that no member can say that I have spoken outside the house in a different way than I have spoken tonight.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is not a question of privilege.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No member can make that sort of reference without naming the member involved.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have made that sort of reference and I am not naming the members involved. I have made it, and I 'am standing on that ground because they have come to me and asked me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a blanket declaration that members who have spoken in the debate along a certain line have expressed different views outside the house. His statement might imply that most or all of those who have spoken are considered by the hon. member as being of that calibre. I do not think he should make that kind of implication. I do not think he needs to do so for the purpose of his argument.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not have any intention of accusing them all. I said some.


An hon. Member:: Give names.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a question of privilege-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is
rising on a question of privilege.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No hon. member can accuse other members of the house of speaking one way in the house and otherwise outside the house without naming the members involved and giving those who are under a cloud a chance to defend themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who is speaking does not mention any names there is no reason for another hon. member to rise on a question of privilege. Why should the hon. member think he is being singled out particularly? His name has not been mentioned. Realizing that perhaps a dozen or more members have taken part in the debate, and since the remarks of the hon. member

Senate and House of Commons for Charlotte were general in character as if he were implying that all those who had participated in the debate on second reading of the bill were speaking one way in the house and another way outside, I have asked him not to carry on in this vein, and he has explained that if he did cast any implication it was certainly unintentional. I think that is sufficient. I would imagine that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member is now settled.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is another question that worries me somewhat. Many speakers have referred to the Senate. If the Senate had a majority of Conservative members today I wonder if those members of the Conservative party in the house who have spoken would use the same tone they have used in this debate. If there were a majority of C.C.F. members in the Senate I wonder if C.C.F. members of the house would use the same tone they have used in this debate. I am very doubtful that they would. Because there is a Liberal majority in the Senate they have taken advantage of that fact to speak as they have, but I feel quite sure in my own mind, although I have no way of proving it, that if things were reversed they would adopt a different attitude.
Another thought I have in my mind is that this legislation was perhaps designed to keep the good members we have in the house. Let me say at the outset that I do not class myself as a good member. I would say that the legislation was designed to keep the good members and at the same time induce more able and efficient businessmen to enter public life. In the back of my mind there is the thought that some members of the house may be worried about the results of the next conventions. From the discussion that has taken place here it would seem that they fear there may be a little more competition when the next election rolls around. I for one am convinced in my own mind that, with ihe indemnity increased to $10,000, I will Shave to fight to get the nomination in my sown riding. There are plenty of citizens there who can do a better job than I am doing. The increase in the indemnity will induce them to come out, and if they can do a better job this is the place for them. If that is the case I want to see them win the convention \when election time rolls around again.
'Mr. Rowe: That is good.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Comparisons are made in the house as to prices, wages and a hundred other different things. We usually make use of the conduct of the socialists for purposes of comparison. The member who


spoke before me mentioned the indemnity paid to congressmen in the United States. Surely he is convinced that they are receiving a much greater indemnity than we are. He mentioned some of the services with which they are provided by way of supplementing their indemnity. Again this is something we do not have in this house. There is no comparison between the indemnity that is paid to United States congressmen and that received by members of this house.
Another fact that has never been brought to light in this debate is that if a member- I speak now for myself-receives the increase of $4,000 his income tax will be increased by anywhere from $1,600 to $2,000. That is as close as I can calculate it at the moment, but perhaps the minister could help me with the calculation. This would give me an indemnity of about $6,400. I believe that if you took all the members of the House of Commons and the members of the Senate and calculated what they would pay in income tax, you would find that instead of $10,000 they would receive a whole lot less. When the income tax is deducted it goes back into the government pot, so it is not $10,000 the people of this country will be paying to each member of parliament and each member of the-Senate.
In 1S05 the indemnity received by members of parliament was $2,500. In 1920 this indemnity was increased to $4,000 by a Conservative government. I believe you will all agree with me that in 1920 conditions were not too good. I can remember that year very well, and conditions were not good; but the Conservative government saw fit to increase the indemnity from $2,500 to $4,000. If the figures I am about to give are not correct, I should be glad to have them corrected. I believe that prior to 1939 the average total revenue of this country was about $600 million; that is what this parliament had to deal with. It has grown until today the revenue is over $4 billion. In other words you have seven times the revenue to deal with today that you had even 15 years ago. Surely that means longer hours and more work for members of parliament.
I should like to speak for a moment now about my own case, and then I shall resume my seat. When I was nominated in 1945 I was working for the civil service. At the age of 65 I could have taken superannuation which would have provided for my family and myself. I came here in 1945, and I have been here nearly nine years. If I were defeated in the next election, I would be over 50 years of age. No one in industry today wants to employ a man 50 years of age or over. The only hope I might have of finding

employment would be through the sympathy of a friend, and that is exactly the position in which I would be placed.


An hon. Member:: A night watchman.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: A night watchman might be a very good description of the position. I can assure you that since I came here nine years ago I have been able to get by, but I have had to live very carefully. I do not believe the citizens of the county I represent want me to live that way.
Hon. members who have spoken previously in opposition to this legislation have given me the impression that they are placing price tags upon themselves. I have no quarrel with that, but I do not want them to put a price tag on me. If anyone is going to put a price tag on me I want the electors of the county of Charlotte to do that. When the next election rolls around they will have an opportunity to decide if I am worth $10,000 or whether they would rather have someone else represent them.
Those are my views. I feel that the majority of the members in this house will support the increase in the indemnity before this debate is finished. There may be some who will change their minds and support this legislation. Again I want to say that if there is any member here who does not want to accept the increase, I do not believe he will be forced to do so. If he is happy with the $6,000 he is receiving, and is sincere in what he has said in this debate, I believe the Red Cross or some other charity would be happy to receive the $4,000 he does not need. I can use it, and I am going to support the legislation.
If I have said anything during this debate to leave the implication that members have not been sincere, those statements were based on the facts I have produced. It would appear to me that these members are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for everyone else. We all agree there are more civil servants than there are members of parliament; there are more old age pensioners and there are more receiving family allowances, so it would appear to me as though they might be playing politics with this measure.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South):
Previous speakers have already referred to the fact that this is a package bill, and package bills are generally difficult to deal with. It is always a question whether we shall support the bill because of the sections in it which we can support, or whether we shall vote against it because there are sections in it which we cannot support. I believe we had an excellent example of that in the
Senate and House of Commons housing bill upon which we voted last week. There were a great many members in this house who criticized sections of that bill, but all of them voted in favour of it on the assumption that they should vote for that part of the bill which they could support rather than against it because of the parts to which they were opposed.
I believe we have to decide how we are going to vote on this bill. I do not think we can escape that responsibility by suggesting that we hand over the decision to some outside group. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to feel it was necessary to set up a royal commission to discover whether the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament should be paid $15,000 in addition to his sessional indemnity. I certainly do not need a royal commission to decide whether my indemnity should remain at $6,000 or whether it should be raised to $8,000 or $10,000. I fail to see: why 265 members of parliament should require a royal commission to enable them to decide what their indemnity should be.
I am going to support this bill, notwithstanding the fact that there are some things in it of which I do not entirely approve. I cannot support the increase proposed for senators, since the party to which I belong and to whose policy I subscribe is pledged to the abolition of the Senate. The only advantage I can see for the interests of Canada in the proposal to increase the sessional indemnity of senators is that it may hasten the day when the country will demand the abolition of that institution. I presume that if we were to pass this bill providing an increase in indemnity for members of parliament but no increase for the members of the Senate, the bill might be sent back to us. I am not sure that would not be a good thing. I think it would do a good deal to arouse public opinion in support of the idea which this party has supported.
I am supporting the bill in so far as increases for members of the House of Commons are concerned. I am supporting it on the ground that I have every reason to believe my constituents feel I am worth as much in the House of Commons, as a member of parliament, as I would be back in my own constituency, in the classroom of a collegiate. The position I vacated to come here in 1942: now pays a salary of $8,000 a year. That $8,000 would be worth much more to me as a teacher in that school than the $10,000 will be to me as a member of the House of Commons.
I think most of us are agreed that it is in the best interests of Canada, that, since parliament legislates for all classes of Canadians, all classes of Canadians should be represented

Senate and House of Commons in it. I am not satisfied that it would be in the best interests of Canada that we should have a House of Commons made up of 265 members from any particular class in Canada, whether it be industrial workers, farmers, or any professional or business group. Of course if there is any one profession that would be entitled to send 265 members here, and to provide a good parliament, that profession would be the teaching profession.
Since in a sense every Canadian is 'a shareholder in this parliament, I think it is in the best interests of Canada1 that all classes of citizens should be represented. If all classes are to be represented, then there are some to whom this must of necessity be a full-time job. To name only one profession, no school teacher in this country could undertake to come to Ottawa as a member of parliament and at the same time maintain connections with his profession. For him it must become a full-time job. I doubt whether any labour man working at his trade or in a shop could come here as a member of parliament and retain his former job. It must be for a labour man, as it has become for my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kings-way, a full-time job; and the indemnity must take that into consideration.
It is unquestionably advantageous that those who come here from business, from the professions or from the farms should be able to maintain contact with their businesses, their professions or their farms. I think there is an argument that members of parliament who belong to those groups can keep themselves better informed and in closer touch with the problems of those whom they represent by so doing.
However, I do not agree with those who maintain that the length of our sessions or

the number of times we are called together should be determined by the class of private businesses or professions in which those particular members are engaged. I am convinced that every member who comes here should make his position as a member of parliament his primary job, his most important job, his first job; and that any association he may have with his profession, business or farm should take second place to his position as a member of parliament. Consequently he should be available for any sitting, no matter how long, if the business of parliament requires that he be here for that length of time. He should be in a position to be here *as often as the business of the country requires.
Taking that into consideration, I can well understand how those who come here from business, the professions or even from the farms make a considerable sacrifice. I can well understand that if we are to have successful professional men, businessmen and outstanding farmers to serve as members of parliament, then of necessity we must be prepared to pay an indemnity that will help to make up for any sacrifice they may have to make.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate, and when we have disposed of it we will take up the Salaries Act amendment, and then the Post Office Act amendment.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Commonwealth Finance Conference
Appendix

[Stage Direction]
We have met as the financial representatives of the United Kingdom, including its colonial territories, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and the new Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
We represent not only peoples and governments devoted to the full spiritual life of the individual, but also between us, the greatest mass of resources, developed or potential, in the world.
We have discussed many matters of supreme financial and economic importance. We have carried on the work of the London conferences, reviewing the policies we then adopted and reporting to each other the progress made under those policies. We have been informed of the discussions between the United Kingdom, representing us, and the western European nations, and the United States of America. The relevant facts have been faced and future trends estimated. We have envisaged the development of our commonwealth, and have found ourselves confident of its strength and sure of its high destiny. The matters which we have to report may seem prosaic. But we ourselves have seen in them great possibilities and widening vistas for our own countries, for the commonwealth of nations, and for the world.
Great edifices must be built upon solid foundations, patiently constructed. We do not expect the complete building in a few months; but we have met in a spirit of self-reliance and of determination that success will be achieved.
In that spirit, we look with friendship at the other great nations, and invite them to be our collaborators in problems which may appear technical, but which are in reality the common problems of peace and prosperity.
We now state the considerations which we have had in mind, and the conclusions which we have reached.
1. The object of our present meeting was
to consolidate the economic progress made by
the sterling area and the commonwealth during the last twelve months to seek means to accelerate that progress and to ensure that they make their full contribution to world prosperity.
2.	During the last year the sterling area countries of the commonwealth have made great strides towards the objectives which they set for themselves in January, 1952, and confirmed and amplified in December,
1952.	The commonwealth countries rejected then, and we reject now, the view that any solution of our problems can be found in the creation of a closed system of discriminatory arrangements, which could lead only to chronic restrictions and recurring crises. We therefore reaffirm our agreed objectives, which are to strengthen the position of each country and of sterling as a currency, and to establish with other countries a wider and freer system of trade and finance in which convertibility of sterling is an essential part. Thus we shall serve the best interests of all, not only in our own countries but in the world as a whole.
The Outlook for World Trade
3.	We have considered the outlook for world trade. The commonwealth is responsible for about one-third of that trade. We are conscious of the vital importance which the actions and policies of our countries could have when, as must be the case from time to time, there is some uncertainty about the future.
4.	Our first resolve is to ensure that our own actions and policies will be such as to inspire confidence. We stand prepared to take appropriate steps, both individually and in concert with each other, to sustain production and trade and the sound development of resources, and to ensure that temporary economic fluctuations are not permitted to interfere with our progress towards our longterm objectives. We are also ready to cooperate with other countries and international institutions to this end.
[Stage Direction]
Commonwealth Finance Conference
5.	In this co-operation the United States of America and Europe have a special part to play because, with the commonwealth and sterling area, they are responsible for three-quarters of world trade.
6.	We were therefore encouraged by the recent message from President Eisenhower to the United States congress in which he said:
This administration is determined to keep our economy strong and to keep it growing.
At this moment, we are in transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy. I am confident that we can complete this transition without serious interruption in our economic growth. But we shall not leave this vital matter to chance. Economic preparedness is fully as important to the nation as military preparedness.
7.	The chancellor of the exchequer reported to the conference developments during the last year in Europe and in the organization for European economic cooperation, and called attention to the expansion of production and the strengthening of the position of European countries generally.
8.	We also noted that the international monetary fund, in its report to the economic and social council of the United Nations, stated that-
-in order to prevent small depressions from growing into large ones, such supplementary reserves (i.e. international reserves in the international monetary fund) should be supplied early, on liberal terms and in adequate amounts . . . But primary reliance for the avoidance and cure of depressions must be placed upon appropriate measures at the national level, especially in industrial countries.
9.	The sound economic policies pursued by the commonwealth countries, the publicly expressed resolve of the United States government to keep the economy of the United States strong and growing, the expansion of production in Europe, and the substantial increase in monetary reserves outside the dollar area provide, in our judgment, solid grounds for confidence.
Progress in the Short-Term
10.	The conference then discussed current policies, namely:-
(a)	the maintenance of a strong balance of payments position and the strengthening of the central gold and dollar reserves;
(b)	sound internal policies and the need to restrain inflation;
(c)	economic development of resources.
11.	Considerable progress has been made in the application of these policies during the past twelve months, a period when, despite weakness in certain commodity prices, economic conditions have been generally favourable. In the result the over-all deficit in the sterling area balance of payments in 1951-52 was turned into a surplus
in 1952-53, the position of sterling in the world has been strengthened and the central reserves have steadily increased. But we realize that much still remains to be done.
Short-Term Balance of Payments
12.	The policies adopted since the meeting of commonwealth finance ministers in January, 1952, have been at the base of the remarkable change in the balance of payments of the sterling area. In the year ending 30th June, 1953, the sterling area had a surplus of over £400 million in transactions with the outside world, compared with a deficit of nearly £1,000 million in the year ended 30th June, 1952. This marked improvement in the fortunes of the sterling area, to which all members have contributed, brought with it an increase of about £250 million in the central reserves of gold and dollars. These reserves have continued to increase, although rather more slowly, in the second half of 1953, and at the end of the year stood at £900 million. Throughout the period sterling has gained strength.
13.	The conference reviewed the prospects for the coming year. We agreed that the sterling area as a whole would seek to maintain a substantial surplus in its payments with the rest of the world. Earlier the main emphasis was placed on dollar earnings. Although the dollar situation has improved, we should not relax our efforts to achieve a dollar surplus; but it is just as important today that we should earn a substantial surplus in other non-sterling currencies. We recognize that success in these aims will depend in part on the level of world trade, but we emphasize that the primary task of all sterling area countries in the forthcoming year is to increase their earnings by intensive efforts over the whole field of exports.
14.	In this task we must show ingenuity, increased efficiency and competitive strength. We cannot afford to disregard any market, and we must develop our exports wherever we can. While we must continue to expand our traditional major exports, we must also expand our exports of the immense variety of other products which in the aggregate form so large a proportion of the total earnings of the sterling area.
15.	The communique of the commonwealth economic conference in December, 1952, referred to the extensive restrictions which some countries of the sterling commonwealth had needed to impose upon imports from the United Kingdom and other commonwealth sources. There was agreement at that time that these restrictions should be relaxed as the external financial position of these

countries improved. We note with satisfaction the progress in this matter which has since been made by several sterling area countries and the prospects of further progress made possible by continuing improvement in their balances of payments.
Internal Policies
16.	We have reviewed the internal policies of our countries and have observed that considerable improvement has been made during the past year. But more remains to be done and the importance of this part of our task cannot be over-emphasized. On the application of sound economic policies depends the purchasing power of money, the cost of living and the ability to sell exports in increasingly competitive world markets. Shortcomings in the internal policies of any one member affect the external fortunes of the whole sterling area by creating excessive demand for imports, diverting resources from export industries and throwing the balance of payments out of equilibrium. Our governments will continue to follow the policies which have served satisfactorily in the past year. Where necessary they will be adjusted so as to encourage increased production for export and to stimulate savings, upon which the development of the commonwealth substantially depends.
Development
17.	The commonwealth has great resources, natural, human and industrial. The need for their development is urgent, and indeed, vital. The aim of all sterling area commonwealth countries is to concentrate on the development of those resources which, directly or indirectly, contribute on an economic basis towards improving the balance of payments of the sterling area. In some countries of the area, however, development plans have been made to provide for some basic improvement in the standards of living, which is a necessary foundation for further economic development.
18.	The outstanding impression given by the reports made to us by our colleagues is of the immense variety and intensity of the efforts which are being made to turn to productive use the many resources, both large and small, of the commonwealth countries.
19.	It is impossible to describe briefly all these activities. The following are examples. The development of food production has been intensified throughout the commonwealth. This has called for irrigation and other schemes for bringing more land under cultivation, technical improvements, mechanization and training. The production of such commodities as cotton, jute, wool, wood pulp,
Commonwealth Finance Conference timber, tobacco and sisal has been maintained. There has been continued development of the mineral resources of the commonwealth, in particular, uranium, gold, copper, nickel, chrome, asbestos, coal, iron ore and bauxite. The production of some commodities, such as tin and rubber, has been affected by fluctuations in world demand. In a number of countries the search for oil and the development of oil and production of natural gas are in progress. The development of heavy industries continues to have an important place. The expansion of iron and steel production and the production of aluminium are proceeding in a number of countries. A great variety of other industrial development is also taking place. Efforts to improve and extend transport facilities have continued and there has been considerable expenditure on road, railways and harbour works. Substantial programs for increasing electric generating capacity, both thermal and hydroelectric, are in progress. Schemes for improvement of housing, education and health services are under way.
20.	There is much evidence that development has everywhere gone ahead more smoothly and economically as inflation has been checked and excessive competition for resources has been materially lessened. This makes it clear that sound internal policies are just as important to economic growth as they are to a healthy balance of payments.
21.	We have reviewed the factors which affect the scope and pace of development. Supplies of goods for development have much improved. But in most cases finance is still the major factor limiting development. Each of our governments will continue policies designed to secure the highest possible level of internal savings. However most individual countries and the sterling area as a whole still need additional financial resources from outside.
22.	At the commonwealth economic conference of December, 1952, the United Kingdom government undertook to make a special effort to provide additional capital for commonwealth development, in the knowledge that this required an adequate level of internal savings and an adequate surplus in its overseas accounts. In 1953 the United Kingdom government authorized loans and grants totalling £120 million for development in the sterling commonwealth, including the colonial territories for which the United Kingdom has a special responsibility. The loans were made through a number of channels, including the London market, the export credits guarantee department and the colonial development corporation. Grants were
[Stage Direction]
Commonwealth Finance Conference made to the colonial territories from colonial development and welfare funds. The United Kingdom government will continue this policy in 1954, and will make special efforts to develop its own resources. While this involves burdens and risks, the United Kingdom government has consciously undertaken the task in the faith that sound development is the basis of the future prosperity of Britain and the commonwealth, that such development is needed in bad times as in good, and that the provision of finance from the United Kingdom will substantially help its own exports.
23.	Finance from the United Kingdom for commonwealth development flows through many channels. Two new channels were opened up in 1953. The Commonwealth Development Finance Company has started operations, its role being primarily to help the financing of development undertaken by private enterprise. A beginning has also been made in the use of the sterling which the United Kingdom made available for lending through the international bank for reconstruction and development. There are cases however which international bank finance does not fully cover, for example, where development consists of large self-contained projects combined with a mass of small items involving over-all a high proportion of local expenditure. Commonwealth governments may now approach the London market after consultation with the United Kingdom government, not only in relation to particular projects, but also in support of general programs of development, provided the necessary conditions have been fulfilled. In view of the many claims upon this market, including provision for development in the United Kingdom, access has to be limited. The United Kingdom government will therefore wish to be sure, first, that the programs as a whole are in conformity with the general policy of concentrating on the improvement of the sterling area's balance of payments, and secondly, that the country concerned is making an adequate contribution from its own resources. It is also necessary in the general interest for the timing of any such borrowing to be carefully regulated.
24.	We have reaffirmed our determination to press on with development, in conformity with our general policy, to the limit of available resources. In some of our countries private enterprise is making a large contribution to development. Governments will be concerned to promote balanced development, whether public or private, to pursue policies designed to increase the flow of savings, and to encourage private investment from both internal and external sources.
[Stage Direction]
The Collective Approach to Freer Trade and Payments
25.	We reaffirm our support for the proposals, shortly referred to as the collective approach, which emerged from the commonwealth economic conference of December, 1952. These proposals, which are set out in full in paragraphs 17 to 22 of the communique of that conference, are designed in general to bring about the widest possible system of multilateral trade and payments, the reduction and progressive elimination of import restrictions, and the convertibility of sterling and other important currencies. They are based on collective action, by debtor and creditor countries, to bring about a balance in the world economy on the basis of "trade not aid".
26.	The growing confidence in sterling and the increasing strength and flexibility of the economies of the sterling area countries have enabled them to make progress in the move towards expanding trade and freeing currencies. But decisive action must be related to the fulfilment of the conditions indicated in the communique of the commonwealth economic conference. These conditions are:-
(a)	The continuing success of internal policies of sterling commonwealth countries;
(b)	The prospect that trading nations will adopt trade policies which are conducive to the expansion of world trade;
(c)	The availability of adequate financial support, through the international monetary fund or otherwise.
27.	We have noted with great satisfaction the passage in President Eisenhower's recent message to congress in which he referred to the creation of a healthier and freer system of trade and payments in which others could earn their own living and the United States economy could continue to flourish. All commonwealth countries await with interest the detailed recommendations which the President will make to congress after the joint commission on the foreign economic policy of the United States has made its report. While stressing the importance of the policies, external and internal, which our own countries should pursue, we believe that the forthcoming declaration of United States policies will have a profound significance for the free world.
28.	We reaffirm the intention of our governments to work as far as possible through existing international organizations dealing with trade and finance.
29.	The functions which the GATT and the IMF perform will become even more important when moves to freer trade and currencies are concerted; their rules, procedures and organization need close examination and

review in some respects if they are to play a full and effective part. We note the forthcoming review of the GATT and agree that there should be prior consultation among commonwealth countries about this in the light of the circumstances then existing.
30.	The sterling area has a close interest in the European payments union through the membership of the United Kingdom in that union and the use of sterling in it. We will follow with interest the studies now proceeding in the OEEC on convertibility and how a transition can be best effected from the EPU to a wider system of trade and payments.
31.	We conclude by saying something about great, though intangible, matters. We come from the ends of the earth. We represent nations, varying in language, religion, and in tradition, developed or underdeveloped, divided physically by the mountains or by the waste of seas. But we have met not as strangers but as friends. We have not met to discover how we can strengthen each of us himself at the expense of the other, but ourselves as a family of nations. For we have faith in ourselves, and in our future, and in our enduring company,
Commonwealth Finance Conference one with another. Our congress, however, does not end there. We are not a commonwealth of nations, arrayed against the rest of the world. We are for the world. The free world is built upon freedom. Freedom is built upon strength.
32.	The underlying element of thought and feeling at our meeting has been our deep and united faith that the strength of our commonwealth is the strength of freedom; that the freer exchange of currencies and trade can be best assisted by the strength of our own currency and the expansion of our own trade and commerce.
33.	We avow ourselves, and the nations which it is our honour to represent, the friends of peace, the advocates of peaceful trade, the apostles of understanding. We even venture to look forward to the day when the developed wealth of our own nations will serve all others; when trade and prosperity will know no inhuman barriers; when the raising of living standards will be the common endeavour of all; and when the friendly brotherhood which we have experienced in this conference will have become the common lot of mankind.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 2, 1954