1954-02-02

Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last night, speaking in this house, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) rather left the impression that as a member of the council of the city of Montreal I was making more than I am per year. He said, as reported at page 1662 of Hansard for February 1, 1954:
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 . . .
I should like to inform the house that as a class C member I am making only $1,500 per year, and not $7,000, although sometimes I feel as though I do $7,000 worth of work.



MR. MACINNIS  CHANGE IN REPORT BY MR. LOW

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I wish to rise on a question of special
privilege. At the adjournment of the house last night a member of the press gallery called me on the telephone and told me that when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was speaking in the house yesterday afternoon he said that in 1945, when the expense allowance was proposed, I had stated that I would refuse to take it. Then, the hon. member said, I did take it.
I waited until I saw Hansard this morning, and I found that was not the way it appeared in Hansard. I went to the Hansard office to see the typewritten report. This is how the report read, and it was changed:
He told us at that time that he would refuse the $2,000 expense allowance because he was a socialist. Well, he took it just the same.
In the Hansard report as it appears today the word "refuse" was deleted and the words "vote against" were inserted. I am not objecting to any member making small corrections in Hansard. We all do it. But the change the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) made was not a small correction. At the time he made the statement, he either
knew what I said in 1945 or he did not know. If he did not know he should not have attributed to me words that I did not use.
I have looked up the words which I used, as they appear in volume III of Hansard for December 14, 1945, page 3482:


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


Angus MacInnis: Certainly.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will he accept the additional $2,000 if it is offered to him?


Angus MacInnis: The $2,000 is not offered to me. If this house approves this bill, then it becomes law-


Frank Exton Lennard: Will the hon. member accept it?


Angus MacInnis: Then it becomes the law of the land, and I will accept the $2,000-
Before the hon. member for Peace River made an allegation such as he made yesterday, and which is particularly strange coming from a man who asserts his Christianity every time he speaks in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Angus MacInnis: -he should have consulted the record and ascertained exactly what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should not go beyond stating his question of privilege.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Speaking to the question of privilege, may I say that it is correct that I made a correction in Hansard yesterday. When I was leaving this house in the afternoon one of the members of the C.C.F. party drew my attention to the fact that he gathered from what I said that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) was reputed to have said he would refuse the $2,000 expense allowance in 1945. I told this gentleman that it was not my intention at all to impute to the hon. member anything that was wrong. I said that if upon examining the Hansard record I discovered that was the way it was worded I would certainly make a change, because that was not what I meant. Often, in speaking without notes in debates in this house, even the hon. member has made statements which he has later changed. I leave it to the hon. member himself to say whether he has made any changes. I made the change because I knew that was the correct thing and I would not, Mr. Speaker, impute to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway anything that he did not say or did not do.

Privilege


Angus MacInnis: I must say that I am not finding fault with the member for making the correction in Hansard. We all do it. But if the hon. member for Peace River found out that he had made a mistake of that magnitude in this house, a mistake which went out to the press, then it was his duty to make the correction in the house before the evening was over.


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not been given any chance whatever, so may I take this opportunity to say that yesterday in the debate I did make a statement which later, having found it was incorrect, I corrected in Hansard. I correct it now and say to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that I would not, under any circumstances, try to put on the record something about him that was not true.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 177, to amend the Patent Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to authorize certain increases in statutory fees provided under the Patent Act, in accordance with the policy of the government to make sure that services of this character are paid for by those to whom they are rendered, and not by the taxpayers generally.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH-JAPANESE AGREEMENT  EFFECT ON

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN INDUSTRY On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press dispatch on the question of the British-Japanese agreement to allow

Japanese goods into British and colonial markets? Can the minister tell the house what effect if any this might have upon Canadian industry, with particular reference to textiles?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I read in this morning's paper an account of the debate in the British House of Commons. I would point out, however, that the agreement in question touches only the United Kingdom and its colonies. It would have no material effect on Canada that I know of.



INTERIM SPRING PAYMENT


[Stage Direction]
1952 WHEAT CROP
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the possibility that there may be no additional quotas on grain announced before the opening of the great lakes shipping season, would the minister be in a position to comment on the prospects of the producers receiving an interim spring payment on the 1953 crop, and has he any further comment to make regarding the final payment on the 1952 wheat crop?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot give any definite information at this time. It is my intention, the week end after next, to visit Winnipeg and confer on these matters with the wheat board and with certain officials of my own department who will accompany me. When I return from there I hope to be able to make a statement in the house; but I can say in the meantime that a payment will be made, of some sort or from some source, before next seeding.



ESKIMOS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I sent him notice of a question. Perhaps he can answer it today. In view of the press reports that a Royal Canadian Air Force Dakota had been held up in its attempt to bring food to a number of starving Eskimos near Perry River, can the minister give the house any information as to whether that food has yet been delivered?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to thank the hon. member for having

given me notice of his question. Perry River is an isolated community on the west of Queen Maud gulf. It is one of the more inaccessible parts of the Arctic area. It is on the mainland, but the closest R.C.M.P. post is at Cambridge Bay on Victoria island.
The report I received on Monday morning, January 25, stated that the caribou on which these people largely depend had moved out of that area during the winter, and that fish also had been comparatively scarce during the fall. The report further stated that some of the Eskimos had lost their dogs and had had to walk to the post in order to obtain food. The remaining dogs were in poor condition, and in order to save them dog feed was urgently required.
It will be noted from what I have just said that no Eskimos were starving, as the hon. member has just said in his question. Dogs, huskies, were starving. This was on Monday last, January 25, and it was the first intimation the department in Ottawa had about this situation.
The trading post at Perry River is operated by an Eskimo named Angulalik, who has a radio receiver but no transmitter. The area is patrolled twice a year by the R.C.M.P. detachment at Cambridge Bay, and it was while on his regular semi-annual patrol that Constable Ferguson became aware of this situation. Ordinarily he would have advised headquarters of "G" division of the R.C.M.P. here in Ottawa. However, in view of the urgency the constable apparently radioed the subdivision headquarters at Fort Smith. The inspector there immediately conferred with our district administrator at Fort Smith, and together they arranged with the R.C.A.F. command headquarters at Edmonton to make a plane available to take relief supplies immediately to Perry River. As a result, 2,400 pounds of buffalo meat from the buffalo slaughter at Wood Buffalo park have been sent.
As a matter of fact the R.C.A.F. plane tried to land at Perry River on Monday morning, the 25th, but could not locate the settlement. It will be realized that at this time of the year, with the exception of a few hours of twilight in the morning, it is pitch dark in the Arctic. A radio message was then broadcast on Monday last to Angulalik, asking him to light flares on the following morning. But then the plane was kept to the ground at Yellowknife because of bad weather. It was later on Tuesday that the plane could fly to Cambridge Bay, where it waited for the weather to clear, and landed later on the 27th, at Perry River, with supplies, which it unloaded.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I believe that one has to be very careful with sweeping conclusions with respect to starving Eskimos. I am informed that both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and officers of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources are doing the very difficult job of patrolling these barren lands for thousands of miles. I am informed that there has been no Eskimo who has starved. A few huskies have starved, but the Eskimos went to the post of Angulalik and were fed; and as soon as we were made aware of the situation a plane was flown in with the necessary supplies for the huskies. It might be, of course, that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has got something from Farley Mowat's book. Maybe the sweeping conclusions in the book, based upon false information, are contagious.
And, by the way, I have looked into the matter of Farley Mowat's book, which was mentioned the other day by the hon. member.
I have looked at the book and I have had some of the affirmations of Mr. Mowat checked. I have no time to recount everything that is said in the book, but I think that one of the stories is worth mentioning here. Mr. Mowat says at one point that there was slaughter of caribou-


Mr. Speaker:: Is what the minister is now about to read directly connected with the question of the hon. member for Saskatoon? If it is not, I do not think he can proceed with that statement at this time.


Jean Lesage: I will not insist, but there is a relation.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not in order at this time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have had a very full and lengthy answer, but I want to ask a supplementary question. Did the report which the minister received mention any cases of sickness or death in that particular tribe before or after the food was received? Secondly, was the food that was sent fit for human consumption as well as for dogs?


Jean Lesage: Both, Mr. Speaker, but there were no Eskimos starving. According to our information, there was no sickness and no deaths among the Eskimos themselves.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My supplementary question has not been answered. I asked whether the food that was sent in the particular cargo was fit for human consumption as well as for canine consumption.


Jean Lesage: I have answered already, for both.
1680	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry BUTTER



MEASURES TO PROTECT DAIRY INDUSTRY AGAINST OVERPRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolielte-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware of representations made by the Quebec farmers' associations, and particularly by the dairy farmers' association of Canada, concerning the overproduction of butter this year? If so, are measures to be taken to protect the dairy industry?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me a copy of his question yesterday, which gave me an opportunity of checking in the department with regard to the statements which are made.
The first part of the question asked whether I was aware of representations made by the Quebec farmers' associations. My answer to that, of course, would be yes. I have had some of these representations made to me directly, and particularly by the dairy farmers' association of Canada. I have read the discussions which took place in Hamilton, and those which took place in London recently with regard to the matter. The question then goes on and says, "concerning the overproduction of butter this year", and then asks whether some measures are to be taken to protect the dairy industry. In answer to that I would say that we took the actions that we thought were necessary six years ago when we set up the system under which butter is handled in Canada at the present time.
We had in mind at that time two objectives. The first was to maintain a reasonable return to producers in the summer months. Hon. members will recall that prior to that time there was a margin of 10 cents to 12 cents a pound on butter as between the price paid in the summertime and the price at which it was sold in the winter. Therefore we took the action we did six years ago in order to overcome that difficulty; and, in the second place, to assure a reasonable cost to consumers in the winter months.
The present position is that a story is being circulated that we shall have 43 million pounds of butter on May 1 next. Well, our records do not indicate that. Our records indicate that we may have around 30 million pounds, and that is not an amount which would give any difficulties to those who are handling butter in this country, the reason 

being there are about 1 million people more in the country now eating butter than there were a few years ago. Therefore the amount of butter which has to be in the pipe line in order to assure distribution is somewhat greater than it was at that time.
It was then rated at about 10 million pounds. It is now found that with the wider distribution of settlement it takes something over 12 million pounds in order to keep the pipe line supplied, so that even 30 million pounds of butter is not an amount which would create any great difficulty. The chief reason why it is up 5 million or 6 million pounds above last year is that we were not able to sell any dairy cows in the United States during 1952, and the fact that those dairy cows were still here in 1953 brought about a greater production of milk, and therefore a greater production of butter last year than we otherwise would have had. But at the present time not only are we again selling dairy cows in the United States, but in 1953 we sold 40,000. In the four years before 1952 we sold 47,000, so that last year we were only 7,000 below the four years preceding 1952.
That sale of 40,000 cows into the United States has been supplemented by a very large sale of female stock for slaughter in this country during recent months, so that from now down until the end of the year we do not expect that the production will be so great as to cause any great difficulty here. We require at least 25 million pounds of butter in this country on May 1 in order to make sure that the consumer in Canada is going to be served with butter at a price which is not out of line in the winter months. In order to assure hon. members that that is true this year, butter has sold all this winter at a cent a pound wholesale lower than it did last year. It is selling this year at 61 cents a pound; it sold last year at 62 cents. This is because we have enough butter to supply the trade adequately until May 1.
Therefore the objectives which we have in mind, one, of assuring the farmer a payment on the basis of 58 cents a pound throughout the whole year, and the other of assuring the consumer that in the costly months of the winter he does not have to pay on a basis higher than 61 cents, are being achieved, and we do not think there is any necessity for changing the policy at the present time in any way whatsoever. We think it is succeeding. It has succeeded in the interests of both the producer and the consumer.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the government contemplating closing the post office savings banks? My question is occasioned by a letter which I received from a correspondent who uses the facilities of the post office savings bank and has heard a rumour to that effect.


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: shall be glad to communicate with my hon. friend. I shall check on the information contained in the letter. If the hon. member wishes to give me the letter I shall inquire about it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On January 28 the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) addressed a question to me regarding a reported ordinance of the Tientsin people's government, dated November 11, 1953, which is said to abolish the business of representation or management of properties of third parties by foreign real estate firms.
We have no specific information on this particular ordinance but we have received general reports on the state of foreign business in communist China. From these reports it would appear that the Peking government is moving in a direction which will make the continued operation of many foreign business concerns in mainland China so difficult that they would be compelled to withdraw. This is not surprising because western residents and western interests have been progressively ousted by the communist regime since it came to power four years ago.
The ordinance to which the hon. member referred would appear to be a local implementation in Tientsin of this general policy of the communist government.
We are making further inquiries concerning this case and I will let the hon. member know if any additional information is received.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does
Senate and House of Commons the government intend to grant political asylum to Michal Krycun, one-time consul of Poland in Winnipeg? If not, would he kindly explain why not?
Hen. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I did not receive notice of this question, which deals with a very complicated matter on which there has been a good deal of correspondence. I would be glad to communicate with the hon. member and give him all the facts involved, which I think will show him that no question of political asylum is involved.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 171, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate w;as adjourned last night I had pointed out certain reasons why I supported the increase in the sessional indemnity of members of parliament proposed in this bill. I had pointed out that in my opinion such increase was in the best interests of parliament itself. I had pointed out that in my opinion it was in the best interests of good government in this country that the House of Commons should be representative of a broad cross-section of the Canadian public.
I had pointed out that with the length of our parliamentary sessions running from six to eight months and the additional time required for work in and on behalf of our constituencies very little time was left for any hon. member to devote to his private business or profession. Furthermore I had pointed out that in my opinion it was not in the interests of good government that members of this house should be forced by economic necessity to neglect the business of this house, to shorten its sessions or to limit the number of those sessions because of the necessity of attending to their private business or profession.
Furthermore, I had pointed out that if we are to get representation from trade unions, from workers and from certain professions, those representatives must accept this as a full-time job. There just is no opportunity for certain classes of people who come here for six or eight months in the year as members of parliament to go back and participate in their former jobs or occupations.

Senate and House of Commons
The question comes up of course as to just what is an equitable or fair increase. I have no doubt whatever that we could find in this country 265 representatives who would come here even for $4,000. I think probably we could get 265 members to come here for as little as $3,000 if we set that as the limit. I think we could easily get 265 representatives across Canada who had never earned $3,000 a year in their lives and who would be glad to come here. But I do not think that that would make a good House of Commons.
On the other hand, I am quite confident that we could get 265 members to come here who had reached the age or degree of economic security where they were no longer dependent in any way upon the amount of sessional indemnity that would be paid. They could come here financially independent. But I do not think that that would make for a good representative parliament.
If we are to draw from a broad crosssection of the Canadian public, if we are to draw from all ranks of the Canadian public men and women who have demonstrated their abilities in their own chosen fields, then in my opinion we must be prepared to pay an indemnity that will relieve them of financial worry, that will leave them free to spend whatever time is required by public business in this house, and to devote their time and energies to the interests of their constituencies.
There are in the chamber those who have indicated that they consider the $10,000 figure too high and would like to settle for $8,000. I indicated last night that in my opinion the $10,000 indemnity is not too high. It is not out of line with the salaries that the Canadian taxpayer and Canadian consumer are paying to men and women holding positions of comparable responsibilities. I gave one example. We have only to look over the field of executives and managers in business and industry and compare their responsibilities with those of members of parliament to discover that commerce and industry pay their executives salaries of $10,000 and more.
What we are sometimes apt to forget is that every dollar paid to managers and directors of industry and commerce is paid by the Canadian consumer just as truly as if those dollars were collected in taxes. There are some of us who are inclined to differentiate between money paid to managers and directors of private enterprise and that which is paid to managers and directors and representatives of publicly-owned industries and institutions. It is the Canadian consumer who in the final analysis pays those salaries to private enterprise just as truly as it is

the Canadian taxpayer and consumer who pays the indemnities of members of parliament.
The province of Ontario now pays the members of its legislative assembly $4,000 for a six-weeks session. I have heard no great uproar of public opinion in Ontario against that indemnity. If members of the Ontario legislature require $4,000 for a six-weeks session, then I submit there is every reason to believe that we in this house with a six or eight months session are entitled to at least $10,000.
Objection has been raised that the $10,000 indemnity is going to separate us from the great mass of people whom we represent. The suggestion is made that because the income level of the majority of Canadian people is below the income level that we would be in, we would thus be separated from our constituents. In my opinion the amount of income received by the individual representative is not a main or major factor in separating him from his constituents. If the people of Canada had wanted to send to Ottawa at the last general election members who came within their own income group, that is in the $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 bracket, they had ample opportunity to do so. In nearly every constituency across this country there were C.C.F. candidates standing for office who were in the same low income bracket as the majority of those whom they sought to represent.
The Canadian public gave no demonstration of their desire to send to parliament the representatives who belonged to their own income group. I have had some experience with the Canadian voter and I have found the voter is much more interested in voting for someone who has made good in his own profession or business and who has raised himself above the general economic level of the people he is seeking to represent than he is in sending someone who belongs entirely to his own income group. I believe the idea that $10,000 in indemnities is going to cut us off from association with, interest in, or sympathy for our constituents is fear and nothing more than fear.
We have heard a great deal about the needs of old age pension recipients and those in receipt of veterans allowances, and how we should first attend to them. I hear from a great many people on old age pensions. As a matter of fact, I went through my files last night and I found something in the neighbourhood of 50 letters from old age pensioners in my own riding, all of which were written since my arrival back here on January 12.

Most of these 50 letters from old age pensioners have been addressed to me since this subject we are now discussing became publicized in our newspapers. In not one single instance has any one of them indicated in any shape or form that he considered it would be reprehensible for me to accept an increase in my indemnity until I had secured an increase in their old age pension. They asked for an increase in their pensions; they pointed out their need; but not one has suggested that my acceptance of an increase in my indemnity is going to deprive them of any increase in their pension.
If the government feel they could not increase old age pensions because they are called upon to give members of parliament and the Senate an increase in their indemnities, but could do so were such members to forgo that increase, I do not think there is a member in this house who would object to forgoing this increase until the old age pension was increased. The fact is, there is very little relation between the proposed increases in indemnities and the amount paid to old age pensioners.
Much more could be done for old age pensioners by the provincial governments of the provinces in which they live, if these governments were so inclined to consider it.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Joseph William Noseworthy: As a matter of fact, I am delighted to find that the government considers there are no difficulties in the way of providing us with these increases, and that there is sufficient income in the treasury for that purpose. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would not sanction these increases for cabinet ministers, members of parliament and the Senate if he did not feel there was going to be something in the treasury for our old age pensioners and those in receipt of veterans allowances. If I thought for one moment that the acceptance of this increased indemnity would delay an increase in old age pensions or veterans allowances I would forgo that increase, and I am confident every member in this house would be willing to do the same.
Certainly, there is a crying need for increases in old age pensions and veterans allowances. One of the ways to achieve that increase is to send to this parliament men and women who will show a greater interest in these older citizens and veterans. I do not think they will get that opportunity simply by keeping us on an economic level where year in, year out, we have to borrow and go into debt in order to remain here. That, Mr. Speaker, has been my experience every year since I first came to Ottawa in 1942.
Senate and House of Commons


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, at the resolution stage of this debate I spoke, as usual, without notes and I omitted some matters which I had intended to mention with respect to members of the other place.
Our constitutional system provides for an upper and lower house, and as long as we continue to conduct the nation's affairs in that manner members of the upper house should not be, I believe, on a lower plane than members of the House of Commons. The official opposition has intimated that they do not wish to abolish the Senate. But what do they intend that we should do? Do they want to starve members of the upper house and force them out of the positions as public servants, or are they prepared to offer some constructive measure whereby these members can remain on a level similar to that of members of the House of Commons?
I do not want to be a member of this house and yet feel that I can look upon the members of the upper house with perhaps less respect than I would accord to our protective staff in this chamber. That will be the result if we do not determine that we are going to maintain a proper balance without discrimination.
There are perhaps a few matters which should be brought to the attention of the house at this time with respect to this question of increases in indemnities for members of parliament. As I said the other day, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) was the first member of parliament in my time to broach this question of the inadequacies of the rates of pay and conditions under which members live here in Ottawa. This makes me reflect for a moment. Taking note of the debate in this house, may I say that if I were again in the position of choosing a bargaining committee I certainly would know where to go in this house; it would be to those people who believe that a man is worthy of his hire.
The hon. member for Simcoe North, speaking in the debate on May 1, 1952, had some extremely interesting comments to make relative to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may not quote from a previous debate in the same session.


Mr. Knowles:: It was not in this session; it was last year or two years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. If it is last year, that is a different matter.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is 1952. Certainly the
quotation is relevant. The date of the debate
16S4	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons is May 1, 1952. I quote from the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe North as reported at page 1774 of Hansard of that year:
What can the people of Canada expect when their representatives, who are supposed to hold one of the highest offices in Canada, are shown the lack of consideration which they are receiving from this government.
He was speaking, of course, of the government in power. Then again:
Let me say this to the members of the House of Commons. If the people of Canada want in parliament the men they need, $4,000 a year or a session is far too little to attract such men. It is far too little to bring into parliament the type of men the people of Canada need.
May I say that if ever a party needed a shot in the arm, it is the one to which the hon. member belongs. Again I quote:
The labour unions of this country would consider it an insult to offer their leaders the stipend which is offered to the makers of the laws of this country, the men who appoint the judiciary of this country, namely $4,000 a year with $2,000 expenses.
He continues:
I do not know of a member of parliament who does not know, when he comes here at that remuneration, that he is compelled to live in a room on the third floor of a rooming house in Ottawa.
A day or two ago, in my speech I said that a member should not be expected to live in a garret when he was in Ottawa representing his constituency. I said that I spoke without notes the other evening, but one would almost imagine that I was reading from the speech made by the hon. member for Simcoe North, whose party at this point does not seem to be anxious to make the suggestions that he then saw fit to make. I quote further from his speech:
He cannot afford to live in proper quarters such as the Chateau Laurier unless he takes the money from his own pocket.
I now quote further from the speech; there is here also a relevant matter, Mr. Speaker, that I am leaving out, as it is not as outstanding as are these portions which I choose to quote. I quote again:
If he is the right kind of man he knows of these responsibilities when he offers himself for election. But the members of this government, which has the people of Canada under its thumb, in the length of time they have sat in office have not been men enough to come forward and raise the salaries of the representatives of the people to an amount which is somewhere near what it ought to be.
And this is the crowning statement:
It is a disgraceful situation.
It is infamous, I would say. I quote further:
How can we conscientiously feel that we, as a body, are responsible for appointing judges at $8,000 a year, how can we feel responsible for the making of the laws to be administered by those judges, at this disgraceful and insulting remuneration of $4,000 a year?


If it is that bad, it is worthy of a 100 per cent increase, in my estimation. I quote again:
Surely you are not afraid to stand on your feet and tell your constituents that you believe you are worth greater compensation for your efforts.
I pause here for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to point out that some hon. members have been called to order because they have inferred that the position taken by some of the members may have a political bias. I therefore go on to prove that the hon. member for Simcoe North had that feeling himself. He said:
If the people do not think so, at election time they will tell you so, me included. Most of the members feel as I do, but they sit back and say, "I don't think it is good politics to mention that."
But the hon. member goes on further to say:
I am not built that way. I am sent here to mention matters which I believe are of vital importance to the people of Canada, whether it means my defeat or my re-election. At the end of my term the voters will decide.
When making their estimates of the debate and of the manner in which we vote on this question, I hope the voters will decide as the hon. member for Simcoe North suggested they should.


Frank Exton Lennard: In rising at this time, Mr. Speaker, I do so merely in order to make my position quite clear. I am not one of those members of parliament who say one thing to their constituents and then either say or do something else when they arrive here in Ottawa. In voting against this bill at this time, I am doing so only because I do not approve of the method being adopted. I feel that the matter should have some study by a special committee before being finally decided upon. However, I want it to be distinctly understood that I approve of the principle of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is all right. I feel that an increase in the indemnity of members is long overdue and I speak from some experience. I feel that in this debate things have been said against this bill that never should have been said. For the benefit of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and some others, I wish again to emphasize that, while voting against this bill at this time because I feel it should have been approached in a different manner, I am not against increased indemnities for members.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the last remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he was introducing the resolution foreshadowing this bill,

wherein he said it would be up to each member of parliament, himself or herself, to decide whether to support the resolution or to support the bills that would follow, based on the resolution.
During the last year, both in the election campaign and since then, I have endeavoured to be honest with my constituents and with myself in discussing this particular subject. I said then-and I repeat it now-that as far as I was concerned, if the indemnity was to be placed on an annual basis, there would have to be some revision upwards. I said to them-and I repeat it now-that as far as I was concerned the income of members of parliament was quite satisfactory in the last four years but that if the basis upon which that indemnity is paid should be changed and if, as a result of that change, the indemnity should drop, I for one would feel that the result would not provide an indemnity sufficient to enable the average member of parliament to give his best service to his constituents.
When the leader of this group moves in committee that the $8,000 indemnity figure be reduced to $6,000, thus making the total $8,000 instead of $10,000-I shall be pleased to support that amendment. I cannot support second reading of this bill since it provides a total pay of $10,000 to members of the other place. I believe those hon. gentlemen in the other place are receiving now a reasonable remuneration in keeping with the services they render to the people of Canada.
I should like to see a further provision dealing with absenteeism which would make it impossible for any member of the house, even though no member of the house might do it, to be absent from this house for all of a session and still collect a large part of the pay involved. I have heard speeches for this bill and against it. I doubt if there are many in this house who really believe that the pay members of parliament have received over the last four years has been too much. My opposition to this bill is based, therefore, on the provision that the pay of members shall be increased over what it has been. I do not think that is necessary. I do not think it is desirable.
A great many speeches have been made during this debate to the effect that members of parliament must have a sufficient income in order to faithfully discharge their many duties, and that the remuneration of members must be sufficient to attract outstanding men to the house. I believe that the income members have received over the last four years has been sufficient to accomplish all
Senate and House of Commons of these desired objectives. When I look around the house I find that there are many extremely able members, and so far as I am concerned none of them has been attracted here because of the pay. I believe, rather, they have been attracted here because they believe that by coming here they can provide a service to the people of Canada. I believe that if changes were made in this bill now to provide for members in the next four years the same pay as they received during the last four years, such a bill would pass unanimously or with very few dissenting votes.
I believe the pay members have received has been sufficient in recent years. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that the problem with which we are dealing, wherein members have to come to Ottawa for long periods and have not too much time to spend in their regular professions, must be dealt with in two ways. The first way, he said, would be by shortening the length of the sessions, and the second way by increasing the sessional indemnity of members to $8,000. I say that if we are successful in reducing the length of the sessions- and I believe that is what the committee which has been set up will likely accomplish-then an increase to $10,000 becomes that much less necessary. I have worked out on a monthly basis what $10,000 will mean. Of course the whole sum is not to be paid on a monthly basis but for the purpose of this calculation I have assumed that it is. A married man would then receive $713 per month after having paid all his income taxes and his deductions to the pension fund. I believe that $713 per month is a very large sum of money, an unnecessarily large sum of money.
On the other hand, if the indemnity were made $6,000, along with the expense allowance of $2,000, for a married man that would work out at $583 per month after income tax and pension fund deductions. Speaking for myself, I believe members of parliament can get along on approximately $583 per month, as in recent years. I believe they could provide reasonable and suitable housing accommodation for their families in Ottawa, then could go back to their constituents for the remaining six months and perform a reasonable job for their constituents. I feel that $10,000 total pay for members is unnecessary. It has been said by some that if you put members in the $10,000 category, they will begin to think differently and they may lose, at least to some extent, contact with

Senate and House of Commons their constituents. It is said that will condition their thinking and make them look at problems in a different light.
This may or may not be true. I rather doubt that it would change the opinion or attitude of most members of parliament. I do believe, however, that if you pay members a very high salary you will change the attitude of the electors to their representatives. The people whom the member represents will believe that there is such a disparity between incomes, they will feel far removed from their representative, and that will make it more difficult for the member to perform the functions of a representative.
The Prime Minister pointed out that the sessional indemnity has not been altered since 1920. He went on to say that rising costs since that time made an upward adjustment necessary, and this is the upward adjustment the government felt was necessary. If you look at the cost of living back in 1920, you will find the consumer price index for Canada stood at 90-5; for 1953 the cost of living index stood at 116. In other words, there has been a 29 per cent increase in the cost of living since 1920, when the last increase in the sessional indemnity took place. I honestly feel that a 100 per cent increase in the indemnity at this time is too much. When I consider that there is a $2,000 tax-free allowance included in the $10,000, which means an increase of 150 per cent over 1920, 1 feel that the provisions of this bill are not at all necessary.
I naturally think of the position of my constituents in the agricultural industry. I have calculated the index for farm products in 1920 at 254; that was the level of farm prices. During 1953, and today, the level of farm prices has been well under that of 1920. According to the official statistics of the dominion bureau of statistics, the agricultural industry is in a worse position now than it was in 1920, yet members of parliament are to be put in a much better position by a 150 per cent increase in their remuneration.
As I have said, I believe the pay members of parliament have been receiving for the last few years is sufficient. Members would on that basis receive $583 a month take-home pay. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said an effort will be made to shorten hours, and that would make the burden of members of parliament somewhat less. And if a representative in the House of Commons is elected three times, he can retire then at the end of eight years on a pension of $120 a month for life. Not all members will qualify for pension. But if after having received $583 a month, on the


basis of our income for the last four years, a member is defeated in an election, he will have a nest egg in the pension fund which will permit him to withdraw $960. If he is here for two parliaments and is then defeated, that nest egg will amount to $1,920.
I submit that if the pay of members of parliament is to be placed on an annual basis it should be on a basis which will not reduce the income of those members as compared with the level in the last preceding parliament.
I hope the government will reconsider the measure, and will take steps to reduce the amount of the indemnity in line with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) said that I made an erroneous statement yesterday concerning him. I must say that the hon. member has not taken much trouble to read what I said at that time with respect to the councillors in the city of Montreal.
What I said yesterday appears at page 1662 of Hansard, and it is in these words:
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.
As anyone can see, I never said that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace was a member of the Montreal city executive, and hence receiving $7,000 a year. I note that the hon. member is not a member of the city executive in Montreal, and I never said the contrary. I know also that his pay is $1,500 per annum and no more. I hope that in future the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace will read my remarks in this chamber more carefully, and avoid rising on questions of privilege when there is no ground for that procedure.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday while speaking to Bill No. 171 the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), leader of the Social Credit group, made two or three statements to which I think I should make reference at this time.
In the first place he stressed the fact that it was his conviction this issue is not one of

a party character. Certainly I agree with that. I think it should be considered in any other sense but a party sense. He stressed the fact also that the issue is one upon which every member should take his own stand. I agree absolutely; and I trust that when the vote is called each and every member of the House of Commons will stay in the house and take his stand. I trust we shall not have to witness a rush of humans to the lobbies.
Certainly I am fully prepared to take my stand. I listened with a great deal of interest to the observations of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I was rather surprised to hear him use the expression "take-home pay" in such a loose fashion. After all, his party claims to have the ear of labour. Certainly no member of a labour organization would make the declaration that a member of parliament would have take-home pay of $583 a month. Certainly my hon. friend took into account the income tax, and he took into account the deductions under the members' retirement plan. But certainly he gave every evidence of having ignored such things as driving one's automobile 15,000 or 20,000 miles every year, and not being able to allow depreciation, or one cent of cost of operation, when filing income tax returns.
Certainly, he did not take into consideration the cost of remaining in Ottawa for as many as eight or nine months in a given year-and some of us have done this for the past fourteen years. Certainly he did not take into account at the same time the cost of maintaining a home and one's family elsewhere. Certainly, sir, there were a number of other things, too, which were not taken into account.
I challenge the statement that there has been any such sum, or any sum even remotely resembling $583 a month. Some of us have been here for quite some time. Although I have been a member for only fourteen years, I believe this is my nineteenth session of parliament; and I have had sufficient experience during that time to talk with some slight degree of authority.
Secondly, I find myself exasperated when I pick up newspaper after newspaper and see reference made to a proposed indemnity of $10,000. Certainly it is not that, and it will not be that, even if this bill is given approval. It is an indemnity of $8,000. As all members know, we are not allowed to make any deductions because of being away from home when, necessarily, we are away. We cannot make deductions on that account, as do the railwaymen and many other groups
Senate and House of Commons of employees. My understanding is that the $2,000 is to compensate in part-and it compensates only in part-for our being away during those weeks and months, not only during sessions of parliament but during the twelve months of the year.
I become exasperated when I read, too, the inferences left for the public to draw, that once a session of parliament is prorogued the members have finished their work until the next session begins. Anyone who has done his duty as a member, and certainly anyone who has had experience in parliament, realizes the fallaciousness of that argument.
This position is becoming more and more demanding all the time. Not only is it more demanding on one's time, but it is also more demanding on one's finances. And when one leaves this House of Commons at the end of a session it is to just take up another phase of his work, which costs him money, which requires a great deal of time and involves, I would go so far as to say, innumerable headaches.
While the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) made it perfectly clear that he was expressing his own views, I can assure him that he expressed mine, and I can also assure him that it is my conviction he expressed the views of the majority of the members of this House of Commons. I have listened with a good deal of interest to the arguments which have been advanced in opposition to Bill No. 171. I can do no other than characterize a good number of those arguments as being utterly fantastic.
It annoys me, Mr. Speaker, no end to have some hon. members create the impression- I do not know whether it is by design or otherwise; I am probably not competent to judge-that the passage of this bill will take something away from old age pensioners, or that it will take something away from our war veterans. That is utter nonsense. Not only is it untrue that it takes something away, but it is equally untrue that it would prevent them from securing more in the days to come.
Last week the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) made it abundantly clear that if he felt that by supporting this measure it would prevent our securing more for our old age pensioners or for our war veterans allowance recipients, then he would oppose it. Well, I am sure that we would all oppose it. In this connection I was rather surprised to see an extract or two from the Vancouver Province. On January 28, on the front page

Senate and House of Commons of the Vancouver Province, under the heading "C.C.F. plans battle on old age pensions", it stated:
Several members referred to pensioners during the debate on parliamentary indemnities, but took the attitude, directly or indirectly, that whether or not M.P.'s salaries were increased it would be economically impossible to boost pensions.
E. G. Hansell (Social Credit, Macleod) for instance, said he was sure that if it were a question of raising M.P.'s salaries or pensions that "every hon. member would say, by all means increase the old age pensions and war veterans' allowances."
Yet on the editorial page of that same issue, Mr. Speaker, reference is made to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and he is quoted in this way:
He would not support any increase-
Incidentally, this is not a verbatim quotation; only part of it is verbatim. I continue:
He would not support any increase until parliament "made some attempt at raising the incomes of the poor people of this rich country."
Here is what the editorial goes on to say:
He was the one member who spoke up for the old age pensioners.
How an editor of a paper could write such an editorial in the light of the news item which appeared on the front page of the same issue is more than I can understand. I criticize and condemn any attempt on the part of any newspaper to try to create the impression that there are certain members in this House of Commons who would take an increase in indemnity, knowing that our pensioners and our war veterans would suffer as a consequence.
As I say, I condemn any attempt of that kind. I repeat my conviction, and I think it is the conviction of most of us here, that adequate compensation to members of the House of Commons takes nothing away from these people or from other people whom I have mentioned. It will not lessen in any sense whatsoever our will and our determination to press for more adequate compensation for those groups of people. In fact, this could easily provide means for more concerted pressure on behalf of those people. If this argument that has been advanced, this argument that I have condemned, has any merit, then we would not be justified as a House of Commons in making any move whatever on behalf of any group of people in this country until we were prepared to act similarly on behalf of all people countrywide. We would not be justified under any guaranteed floor price set-up to pay any producer of this country a cent more than he is getting simply because, if what is said is true, it would be most unfair to all other groups within the country. It is a fantastic argument.

I was amazed also to hear it said in this house that adequate compensation for members of parliament would separate us from the people whom we represent. Whoever makes a declaration of that kind is the very one who would say, if put under pressure: "It will separate you, but it will not separate me." I believe under pressure that is what would be said. I am amazed that any hon. member in this house would state that adequate compensation could offer the least threat of separating him from his people. I am amazed also at the suggestion that that hon. member's relationship with his constituency is governed by dollars and cents. I would suggest that such a declaration does in effect condemn all those members of parliament who had, when they came into this house, means which might have set them economically above some of the people in the country; but I would not be a party to any such condemnation, because I have known members of parliament of this house too well and too long to make any such assertion.
If any member of parliament, by virtue of the fact that he receives adequate compensation, is separated from his constituents as a consequence thereof, then I am certain that when the next election comes along the electors will take care of him. I doubt whether it is a matter that we should concern ourselves with. It has no validity in fact.
I have heard references to letters, Mr. Speaker. One would almost conclude that half a dozen letters represents the general opinion of probably 50,000 people in a constituency or 14 million people across this country. Probably I am as close to the people whom I represent as are other hon. members. I have not received a single solitary letter condemning members of parliament for accepting this contemplated increase, not one single solitary letter, and I know there are over 50,000 people in my constituency. In fact, the only references that have been made to it have been made just as an aside in another letter, and in every case they have expressed gratification that we were going to be adequately compensated, Mr. Speaker.
I am one of those persons who have never hesitated to keep their electors informed with respect to their financial problems, and probably because of the fact that I have kept them informed they see this thing in the light in which it should be seen. In glancing at newspaper editorials I have noticed general agreement with the idea of adequately compensated members of parliament. In fact I have seen the figure of $10,000 at the head of more than one editorial.

One or two ideas have been expressed. One was relative to the other house and others were relative to the $2,000 tax-free allowance. However, by and large the newspaper editorials have supported the type of compensation for members of parliament envisaged in the bill now before us. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that it meets with the approval of the majority of the people from coast to coast.
Someone referred to a Gallup poll. If I could take a Gallup poll and make sure that I "galluped" the right people I could probably get a majority of them to agree that the indemnity should be cut by 50 per cent. I do not put too much stock in that kind of so-called evidence.
I have no desire to take up too much time but I was interested in some of the observations of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). It so happens that he and I were members of the same profession. It also happens that this is one of those cases where when you are chosen as a member of parliament you must give up the work you are doing. How in the world could one carry on as a school teacher when the house from time to time is in session from September to December and from late January until June? It would be utterly fantastic.
It is not up to this House of Commons to say whether I should or should not devote all my time to my work as a member of parliament. That is up to the electors in my constituency to decide. During each of the last four elections I have told them that there was one thing they could be certain of: that if I were elected I intended to devote my full time to what I considered to be a full-time job. They made their decision as to whether I should be their member of parliament or whether somebody else should be their member. I am not saying that they made their decision entirely on that basis, but certainly they have come to realize that it is a twelvemonth job. Even if someone is in another type of profession or occupation or business and is able to carry on, the fact is that some of them certainly have not been able to do so completely. In fact, some have been ruined as a consequence of having served as members of parliament. They have been ruined as far as their private businesses are concerned. It is too much of a sacrifice even for those who are desirous of making sacrifices to be called upon to make.
I have heard a great deal of reference to this figure of $8,000 as an indemnity. I agree with the hon. member for Peace River and am absolutely confident that the government and the treasury board did not say "eeny, 83276-107
Senate and House of Commons meeny, miny, mo" and pick a figure out of some hat. They must have given long and earnest consideration to this. It is the easiest thing in the world to say that $8,000 is too much and that $6,000 is enough. It is easy enough to say a good many of the things that have been said here, but I do not intend to be swayed too much by that kind of argument.
I am confident that the people I represent desire that a job should be done by their member. They are willing to pay what is required in order that that job might be done in the way they want it done. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying to this House of Commons that the proposal contained in this bill represents nothing more than what to me appears adequate at this time under current conditions. We do not live in anything but a moderate fashion.
I say without hesitation that it is most difficult for a member of parliament who is called upon to do certain things on behalf of the people he represents to find that he must curtail his activities on their behalf because he simply has not the money to do it or because he realizes that he would have to go into debt to do it. I would have no hesitation in opening my financial accounts to the membership of this house after having been a member for fourteen years. I am not ashamed of them, because I think they would be a reflection of the conditions which have faced a good many members of this house.
I notice that it is not only here that these matters are being considered. Provincial governments have considered this matter from time to time and have made adjustments in the indemnities payable to their members. It has already been pointed out that in one province at least they receive more than we do now in the way of actual indemnity and that in the province in which we find ourselves now they receive an equal amount.
I am not complaining about that, but I do contend that there is something wrong in the relationship that exists between the two. For example, I find that in some provinces they are considering paying pensions to their cabinet ministers. I am not criticizing that. I have a Canadian Press clipping here which appeared in a local paper on Saturday which states:
A plan to provide pensions to Saskatchewan cabinet members may be considered by the government before the legislature opens February 11, it was reported Friday. Only one provincial government, Nova Scotia, now has a pension plan for cabinet members.
I am not criticizing that; in fact I would be the first one to say that when a man has

Senate and House of Commons served in a provincial cabinet for a period of years, when he gives his full time to that service, he should receive a pension. I simply remind the house that these matters are being considered, even pensions for cabinet ministers, by certain provinces, Saskatchewan in particular. I do not refer to this in any critical way because I believe it should be done in every province across Canada.


Mr. Coldwell:: I agree with that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Having said that, perhaps I have said enough. I think I have given the house a pretty clear picture of where I stand. I have not asked my colleagues, but I think if I took a vote right now I would have them with me on this matter.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my position briefly on the record. I believe the house should feel indebted to the hon. member who has just spoken for answering the rather specious argument which has been made with regard to the $583 take-home pay by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). If I had not had any previous experience about members' remuneration, or if I knew nothing about it, I would gather from the hon. member for Assiniboia that he had no expenses at all at home or elsewhere. I would gather that he was making no coverage whatsoever of his riding.
I would assume also from his speech that all ridings in Canada are alike and that the expenses in connection with one are the same as the expenses in connection with all others. Let me say to him that there would be a difference of at least $3,000 a year between providing an adequate coverage for his riding and for my own.
My riding is one of the largest in Canada, occupying as it does a geographical position in the northern part of Saskatchewan. It covers 40 per cent of the physical area of that province. The people are scattered in many remote areas. Some hon. members might say that they did not need to see their member, that they did not need the same service as other people; but that is not my attitude toward my constituents. I feel that the person in the most remote part of my constituency is entitled to see me at least once a year. That is what has always happened as far as I am concerned, and that is what is going to continue to happen-he is going to see me at least once a year.
Ninety per cent of the area of my riding must be covered by plane. As hon. members know, we are away from here for only a few months in the summer and that means that it must be covered by pontoon-equipped
[Mr. Shaw.J

planes. It costs a minimum of $35 an hour for such a plane to fly a short distance, and if you require to fly in the northern areas a plane will cost $70 an hour. I do not want to say to members of this house that you pay for every hour you have a plane. You do it in terms of flying hours and, depending on the type of plane, they have a minimum which they charge per day. To adequately cover my own riding, and it takes from ten to twelve days to cover the remote parts, on the basis of $50 an hour on an average, it costs $3,000 a year to cover the northern area.
I do not believe my constituents are going to suggest they do not want that service, and I do not think they are going to suggest that I pay for it. They do know that in the past I paid a portion of it, and I was able to do so out of the conduct of my own business.
I take the same stand as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), who I think did a very remarkable job in this debate in telling the house and the people of Canada that he is actually worse off by being a member of this house, and that he would be far better off in his profession of teaching where he would get a higher salary. I think the argument that we are getting $10,000 does not hold. Even if we made $25,000 it would not make any more difference, if our expenses ran to $20,000, than if we received a salary of $10,000, and the expenses ran to $5,000. The net result is the same.
It is rather odd to find the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) stating that we have take-home pay of $583 a month. No such pay is obtainable or will be obtainable even if we get $10,000 a year.
I made my position clear in my own riding on many occasions before I ever came down here in 1949, and certainly in this last election campaign. I said then that this very situation might arise, and that definitely I was going to support higher pay for members. In Ottawa here, I am 2,100 miles from home. I found it impossible to continue the business that I carried on until a year ago, and I had to dispose of it. In that position, I am like the hon. member for York South, and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), who has just spoken.
I believe this is a full-time job as far as giving full representation to the people we represent is concerned. I have so told my constituents, and I have been elected twice on that very ground, or at least that was part of the reason people voted for me at that time. Certainly I did not hide the light under

a bushel. I made it plain to them I would cover all parts of the riding and would regard the job as a full-time job.
If, as an uninitiated member, I accepted the remarks of the hon. member for Assini-boia I would conclude that as soon as the house rose I would be immediately free to go on holidays. That is not the case. That is when I do my travelling in my own riding, and during that time I cover no less than 20,000 miles. The hon. member for Red Deer mentioned his car and the depreciation on it. I do not believe our constituents expect us to pay these expenses, because we would not travel these distances if we were not members.
The C.C.F. government in the province of Saskatchewan saw fit to raise the pay of provincial members. I have no argument with that. I do not believe they are overpaid. But my own constituency covers the major part of five provincial ridings. They cover that area with provincial members at a cost of $15,000 a year; yet I understand that they sit for only six weeks in the year. Certainly some of them give additional time to covering their own areas, but there is no comparison whatsoever with our position.
If you consider our $10,000 a year on the basis of what the hon. member for Assini-boia said, you earn it during the time here and then you are off on holidays. These provincial members receive $15,000 a year and work for a period of six weeks. We are here seven or eight months, and we will receive $10,000 if the house passes this proposed increase.
I think these remarks set forth my position. Even with the increases now forecast I would definitely be better off in the business I previously had, as far as actual money left over is concerned. I have pointed out that it takes about $3,000 per year for plane travel in my riding. There is at least another $1,000 to cover travel and depreciation on a motor vehicle. The Minister of National Revenue is interested in another couple of thousand dollars, and various other organizations in my riding are interested in small portions which I am pleased to give. If I have a minimum of about $3,500 of actual take-home pay I think I am doing fairly well.
The $10,000 does not mean anything at all. I am interested only in the $3,500, and I would suggest that on the basis of the pay we have been getting here and the services we give to the people of Canada, most of us are making great sacrifices in order to carry out our duties. Certainly I am prepared to go back to the people of the constituency of Meadow Lake and put it to them as to 83276-107*
Senate and House of Commons whether they think $10,000 a year is too much for me, and whether they believe I am telling the truth in outlining my expenses as far as they are concerned. If they do not think so, and if they believe the services I render are not adequate for the money expended, I have no doubt they will dispose of me in the usual and traditional manner.


Mr. Elmore Philpolt (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with one or two points in connection with this bill. As a new member I would not presume to pass any opinion on how much it costs members to stay here and survive, but I think we have heard obviously sincere speeches in this house on this question, even from the members of the group opposite me.
We had one obviously sincere speech from the veteran member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), who had his own ideas. I thought the most effective speech I heard in the whole debate was that from the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who told a calm unvarnished tale of just what happens to a private member without any backing when he comes into this house.
I will say very frankly that I might have had some reservations about this bill, but they vanished yesterday when it was made very clear that the increased indemnity did not include any increase in members' pensions. Beyond that, I find myself in complete agreement with the principle of this bill. I think that anyone in an executive position on a newspaper, in any business, or in any job in this Dominion of Canada who was asked to rate members' duties and responsibilities in comparison with any similar responsibilities in Canada would say that an indemnity of $8,000 a year was not too much.
While I myself during the course of my life have occasionally taken a crack or two at the place sometimes referred to in this chamber as "the other place", let me say that I for one have no sympathy whatever with the argument I heard within the past few days that since we are going to have the other place we should somehow or other starve them into slow disappearance or strangulation so that perhaps, as in the kids' game, "let the old cat die out".
I believe, on the contrary, the upper chamber is an integral part of this parliament of Canada, and the question is: Do we want our House of Commons to be an efficient and effective organization to serve the people of Canada, and do we want the Senate or upper chamber to be an effective instrument to serve the people of Canada? I would submit just one question, Mr. Speaker, and it is this.
1692	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Would it contribute to a strong Senate or a weaker Senate if we were to leave the Senate indemnity as it is and raise the House of Commons indemnity 100 per cent?
I think the answer is self-evident. I rise, however, to speak in this debate on one simple point. If I were asked to vote for or against this bill on the ground of whether or not the old age pensioners and those on war veterans allowance were or were not going to get a better deal, then I would certainly stand with those on war veterans allowance and the old age pensioners. As the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Hansell) said the other day, if that were the only choice in this house, we would get a 100 per cent vote on that question. If I were asked to name the one thing which I think would be most desirable in this Canada of ours, in order to make it a happier and more prosperous place for all of us, at the head of the list I personally would place more generous allowances for those on war veterans allowance and on old age pensions.
Here in my hand I have clippings from all three Vancouver newspapers of all different stripes of politics. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to read them at any length. By and large, over a period of months, all three papers of all political stripes have urged the necessity for having the indemnity of members of parliament fixed at a level which will assure the perpetuation of this House of Commons on an efficient basis. I find that all three papers in Vancouver now take much the same line. All of them take the same line. They say that if it is true that our members of parliament require more of indemnity, they should be more receptive to the arguments about the people who are in a much more desperate plight than is anyone in this house, namely the people who are trying to eke out an existence on $40 a month and are living in a state of almost slow or semistarvation. One paper asks:
How can our members of parliament now in the act of practically doubling their own pay justify their neglect of the pensioners in their present plight?
That is the Vancouver News-Herald. The Vancouver Province, which sometimes supports the Conservative party, says:	"M.P.'s
should remember O.A.P.'s", and the editorial ends up in this way:
The M.P.'s generous stipend and the pensioners' pittance come from the same purse. Why is one so handsome? Why is the other so mean?
The paper which writes the most intelligent comment of all, namely the Vancouver Sun, in a very lucid editorial says that there should be a streamlining of all the welfare


payments in Canada, that we should have a dominion-provincial conference to get some kind of order and to tidy up the loose ends of all these things like assistance grants, war veterans allowances, pensions for the blind; and it goes on to show the wide discrepancy there is between the various groups. The editorial is headed "Equalize Payments to Needy, Then Increase Them All".
My point is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. In this vote we are not called on to vote either for a modest and, I think, reasonable increase in the indemnity for members of parliament as against and as a substitute for a more generous outlook towards old age pensions and war veterans allowances. On the contrary, we are asked to decide a very simple question:	Is the member of
parliament worthy of an indemnity which enables him to stay here and to survive? When the majority of this house votes a decisive yes, I submit that by that decisive yes vote they are establishing a principle that if the member of parliament is worthy of a survival indemnity, then that same principle applies to all other elements in Canada, this great country of ours; and instead of its being a less generous outlook toward old age pensioners and those on war veterans allowance, I submit it is an indication of better things to come as soon as this country can afford it.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take long. In fact, my remarks will be concluded within five minutes. Most members from British Columbia have spoken, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), in his usual honest manner, has made his stand. Because I am a Liberal member from British Columbia who represents more C.C.F. supporters than does anyone else on this side of the house, I think I too should take my stand because there will be some discussion at home with regard to this matter.
I think the honest point of view with regard to a member of parliament is that he should say what he has to say here and nowhere else. I am going to support this bill, and I am going to do so on one premise perhaps more than on any other. In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) brought to the attention of this house the dignity of a member of parliament; and in doing that he did not refer to the dignity of a member of parliament only during a session of parliament but rather to the dignity of a member of parliament for twelve months of the year. My riding demands a twelve-month service. Not only am I serving here but when I go home I have an office in my home to which anyone can come at any

time and tell me his problems. As I understand it, the method of payment under this bill will be one by which we shall secure the money every thirty days. I think that is only right and proper.
One other thing I wish to mention is the fact that some members of the C.C.F. party- as represented by the speech of the leader of the party who, I am glad to see, is in the house at the moment-tell me that they are going to support a $2,000 increase. I wonder how much the viewpoint of the leader of the C.C.F. is reflected in that $2,000 increase. I believe that this matter has been considered by their caucus or by some meeting and that this is a compromise between consciences. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no denial from the party when I said that. I quite understand the position.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on a supposition or rumours as to what occurred in our party. It would not be proper for me to do so any more than it would be proper for a member of the Liberal party to comment on any discussion they have within their party.


Mr. Castleden:: Maybe this bill is a compromise.


Tom Goode: Then may I say it is a compromise of the C.C.F. consciences in the house.


George Hugh Castleden: I think the bill is a Liberal compromise.


Tom Goode: That may be. Not only do I believe that this bill ought to be supported by every member of the house, but I believe it will be supported by my people at home. I make no apologies for voting for it. I think a good member of parliament is worth this kind of money, just as any executive is worth this kind of money. I will vote for the bill when the question is put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Major James William Coldwell: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one word. Once again I think there has been a considerable amount of confusion with regard to this matter. When the division is called and we are voting, what are we voting on? We are voting on the principle of the bill. We are not voting on the details of that bill. There may be disagreement among us with regard to the details, but are we or are we not in favour of a principle, namely, shall the indemnities of members of parliament be increased?
I have no hesitation in saying that I am going to vote for the principle of this bill.
Senate and House of Commons I have felt-and I have said so for a good many years-that members of parliament whom I have known in this house have made personal sacrifices that should not be expected of members of parliament who represent any constituencies in Canada.
A great deal has been said about what is being said in the country, and so on and so forth. I am going to say this. Yesterday, by fortuitous circumstance, I saw in the gallery an outstanding farmer who lives just across the border of my constituency. I saw him listening intently to the debate all afternoon. I went up into the gallery about half past five and asked him what he thought about this. He said, "Well, it is about time members of parliament had something of this sort done for them." Last evening I met two other outstanding farmers from my province, one of them from my own constituency. They occupy important positions in the agricultural organizations of which they are members. I asked them the same question, and I got precisely the same answer.
I know that, so far as the executive in my own constituency are concerned, they know exactly what membership in this house involves. They know that the proposal to increase indemnities is warranted by the circumstances under which we have operated in this house. I have no hesitation in voting for the principle of this bill. As I said in my address the other day, I am not in agreement with some of the details of this bill and I shall say so when the time comes. This is not the time. If any hon. member in this house believes that the indemnity should be increased, that hon. member should rise in his place and support the bill. My hon. friends of the official opposition say they are going to oppose this bill.
Last Friday evening we had before us a motion for second reading of a bill in connection with the housing act. There was bitter opposition to the details of that bill from this side of the house. When the vote was called all of us on this side of the house, with two exceptions, voted for that bill. We did not vote for the details of the bill. I did not like some of the details. I rose in my place and voted for that bill because I believed in the principle of the bill.
I say to my hon. friends that exactly the same situation faces the house at this moment. If we are going to vote we shall vote for the principle and not the details, just as last Friday evening when members who had bitterly criticized the housing bill rose in their places and supported the principle of that bill. Members of this house who believe, as I think most hon. members do believe,
1694	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons that there should be an increase in this indemnity should get up and show where they stand by voting for the bill.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: should like briefly to put my personal position on the record, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this matter. First of all I may say, sir, that I support the general objective of this bill, that objective being to so improve the financial aspect of service in this parliament that the government of Canada may be served better by attracting men of talent across this nation to serve in parliament. However, I am voting against this bill because I disagree with the method, and I do not like the contents of the act as it will stand if this bill is passed in its present form.
Before listing three of the objections I have, may I say that as a comparative newcomer to this house with service of something over a year at the time of the last general election, I had to make a decision as to whether or not I could afford to continue in parliament should it be the desire of the people of Calgary South to re-elect me. After a fairly careful study of the situation I found that during my first term in parliament I was a subsidized member. I was subsidized by myself and by my business to the extent that for every single dollar I drew as a member of parliament I had to take from my personal assets or my business more than $3.
In the light of those circumstances I feel quite firm in my conviction that the present indemnity is far from adequate. I do not think any of us in this house should be required to draw heavily upon our personal resources, nor should we be forced into the position of having our business subsidize us in our service to the public of Canada.
However, sir, I come now to the three points which I feel would be wrong in the Senate and House of Commons Act should this particular bill pass in its present form. My first objection is to the tax-free expense allowance. I believe, sir, that all payments received by members of parliament should be taxable income. I believe that our earnings as members should be treated in exactly the same way as the earnings of other citizens in this country. I believe there should be provision for a deduction from income tax for a member's legitimate expenses in carrying out his duties.
Then, sir, I do not like the loose rules covering attendance. I believe that in any general revision of the Senate and House of Commons Act steps should be taken to tighten up the rules which are now honoured in some degree more in the breach than in
[Mr. Coldwell.)

the observance. I might say that I have been absent on a number of occasions during my two years in Ottawa. I have not yet drawn a full sessional indemnity. In my own rather strict interpretation of these rules I have believed that my time devoted to travel back home on matters not entirely related to my work as a member is time for which I should not charge the public of Canada. This is one phase of the subsidy which my business pays toward keeping me here.
Finally, sir, I do not believe that, despite the many fine men who have served and are still serving in the Senate, the duties and functions of the Senate justify treating the members on the same financial basis as the members of the House of Commons.
With these objections in mind, sir, I trust the government will reconsider its decision and withdraw this bill for further, independent study to determine what complete and detailed amendments to the Senate and House of Commons Act might best be submitted to this parliament in order to achieve, on a sounder basis, the general objectives involved in Bill No. 171.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, because much of what I intended to say was said a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
We are considering a motion for the second reading of this bill, when it is the principle of the bill that is submitted for approval or disapproval, and when it does not mean that those who vote for the bill are voting for everything the bill contains. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar clearly indicated, that was illustrated in the conduct of hon. members in this house no longer ago than last week when after, I think, four days of critical debate of the contents of the housing bill, one amending the housing act and making further provision to encourage housing, that bill was approved by the vote of all but two members of the house. It was a vote in which not all those who had spoken took part; but very many of those who had been critical of the bill did vote in favour of second reading.
That is the situation here. A vote for the second reading of the bill will be a vote to confirm a principle that many have declared their intention of voting against, although one they agree with, namely that there should be some increase, some revision upward of the indemnity of members of this house. One

would gather from the tone in which they expressed their intention to vote negatively on second reading that, notwithstanding, they do expect that second reading will be passed, and that their vote will not mean the end of the bill.
There is one other point that I do wish to mention again. Our constitutional system being what it is, the government felt it should not come to parliament recommending a bill that would provide for a more substantial indemnity for members of this house than for members of the other house. It is quite true that in all the reasons we have giveh in attempting to justify an increase in the indemnities or allowances of members of this house, we have given reasons that apply to members of this house and do not apply to the same extent-I am free to confess it- to members of the other house.
This bill, if and when it is passed by this house, will go to the other house; and if the members of the other house were themselves to say that, taking into consideration the reasons that motivated the increase here, and the fact that many of them do not apply to their situation, they would not feel it proper to have the same indemnity provided for them, I am sure if it came back in that shape to this house, this house would agree.
But I am not asking this house, nor am I suggesting that this house should take the position, that it will not agree to a similar indemnity being provided for all members of parliament. And members of the other house are members of parliament, just as we are. I am not suggesting that this house would not agree to their being treated in the same way.
Now, that is the situation. I repeat that I am not asking any member of this house, on whichever side he may sit, to vote yes on this motion because I make the motion and because the government recommends this bill. Again I think it is the responsibility of each one of us to express his own honest conviction as to whether or not there should be an increase.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is five o'clock, the house will now consider private and public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 12, for the relief of Catherine Miller Mary Harris Dawson Coutts.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will notice that there are several divorce bills to be considered in committee of the whole. Is it agreeable that the one motion should cover their being sent to the committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before clause 1 is carried I want the record kept straight as to what we are doing. I have agreed already, and I stand by that agreement, that so long as the question as to how we are to handle divorce bills is on the agenda of the special committee on procedure I for one do not wish to take up the time of the house to deal with these bills individually. However, I think the record should be straight as to what we are doing. In about 30 seconds on January 12 we gave second reading to some 60 divorce bills. In another 30 seconds on January 15 we gave second reading to another 80 divorce bills. We now have before us those two batches or a total of 140 divorce bills which apparently the committee is prepared to process through the committee of the whole in very short order.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Hunter Daykin.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Martha Anne Sutherland Clarke.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Phyllis Best Childs.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Marilyn Clerk Merlin Clarke.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Kenneth Urban Lunny.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Florence Bella Davis Baines.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Claude Arlington Root.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Lizzy Weiss Nomberg.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Mildred Elizabeth Sears Leighton.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Margot Land-wirth Steinbach.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Pauline Noel Lapointe.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Joseph Philippe Marc Andre Fortier.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Nancy Rachel Bonnar Barclay.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Marusia Zozula Hempseed.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of James Alexander Stevenson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Vyvyan Holcombe Hervey.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Gilberte Drouyn Serres.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Margaret Alice May Plinn Cote.-Mr. Weir.
Bill	No. 35,	for	the relief	of	Stanislas
Anthony Placzek.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Rose Enkin Carriere.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Lottie Levine Lubotsky, otherwise known as Lottie Levine Kuznicki.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No. 38,	for	the relief	of	Solanges
Laperle Desjardins.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Jack Kaufman. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Selma Sara Schachter Lande.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Paul Joseph Simard.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of John McCullough Gasken.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Joseph Louis de Gonzague Giguere.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Jean Hunter
Bercovitz.-Mr. Weir.

Bill No. 45, for the relief of Diane Lorraine Cleveland Morgan Stewart Patterson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Elsie Eleanor Bennett Kirkcaldy.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Bernice Margaret Vizzutti Charters.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Archibald Christopher Mottley.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Bessita Asaria Farchi Lotenberg, otherwise known as Bessita Asaria Farchi Lotey.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of George William Bonfield.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Marjorie Joan LeRiche Dunphy.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Geraldine Donovan Wilcox.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Norma Mary MacKenzie Benton.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Anna Smilo-vitch King.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Kathleen Dempsey Robertson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Joyce Delia Pierce Korenberg.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Alfonsas Jankus.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Michael Lansky. -Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Wilma Elizabeth Dalglish Rochon.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of John Cromkie Nicol.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Tyrus Raymond Markham.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Thelma Louise Heinz Finlay.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Dorothy Joan Glegg Statham.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Laura Olive Coote Laflamme.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Sadie Denen-berg Rockman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Yukiko Takeu-chi Zusko.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Joan Gooder-ham Wyman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Guy Favreau.- Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Elizabeth Stewart Hughes Koren.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Esther Wray Carpenter Batt.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Shirley Mary Davis Robertson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Carlo Castelli.- Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Eveline Shaheen Sauvageau.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of George William Swinwood.-Mr. Weir.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Marguerite Frances Wiggins MacKay.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Marie Jeannine Bisson Lecuyer.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of George Joseph John Louis Gustav Brisebois.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Ivy Isabel Brown Wilkinson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Eileen Sybil Fels Goldstein.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Liliane Bernier L'Heureux.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Andrew Warden Clark.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Frances Hersco-vitz Hershon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Mary Frances Beatrice Lord Tomkinson.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Roslyn Belkin Cohen.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Phyllis Mildred Brohart Stephens Mowat.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Anna Lillian Montague Maye.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Gerald Fry.- Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Gordon Amos Finlay.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Eleanor Mary Hastie Moon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Jean de Tonan-cour Racette.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Pauline Frances Elizabeth Appleton	Powell.-
Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Joseph Anthony Albert Britt.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Violette (Labeebe) Zakaib Kenemy.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Elizabeth Josephine Grant Drummond.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Joseph Georges Roger Dufort.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Max Wulfo-vitch.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Jessie Moffat Luce.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Julia McKenzie Clarke Smith.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Phyllis Matthews Cloutier.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Rose White Bishop.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Victor Della Porta, otherwise known as Jack William Taylor.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Edith Hersh Beck.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Hockley Burne.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Dora Garoff
Bernstein.-Mr. Croll.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Phyllis Weiss Cohen.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Rose Lillian Budd Cooke.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Jeanne Delattre Toubeix.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Esther Smilo-vitch Benjamin.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Shirley Ann Slayton Dubuc.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Grace Mary Harrison Laycock.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Lawrence Druxerman.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Shirley Catherine Bradley Boyd.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Ferdinand Nunes, otherwise known as Ferdinand Numes.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Sarah Este-pnanie Debonnaire Johnson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Sarah Ida Rishikof Neidik.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Harold Goldstein.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Mary Kathleen Hayes MacDonald.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Brewin Lovegrove.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Barbara Jean White Simpson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Donald George Kirk.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Joseph Wil-mott Albert Parmenter.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Margaret Agnes Dupont Legault.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Jack Merson. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Philip George Ralph Anley.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Rebecca Joyce Isobel Hahn Vengroff.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Mary Szabow-ska Skowron, otherwise known as Marie Szabowska Skowron.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of George Arthur Crittenden.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Evangeline Emma Bonner Dancsak.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Reginald George Silversides.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of John Partridge. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Jacques Labonte.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Laura Solow Schwartz.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Leona Kuprasz Veremchuk.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Mary Bernice
Patricia Mullins Coristine.-Mr. Weir.

Bill No. 146, for the relief of Evelyn Saxe Harris.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Catharina Elizabeth van de Casteel Fortune.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Hazel Viola Christena Darey Moore.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Leontine Pelletier Lamothe.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Lillian Hazel Welch Alexander.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Therese Perrier Langlois.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Anita Eleanor London Lewy.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Norma Patricia Cooke Campbell.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Alexandra Morgoci Cucu.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Daisy Helen Dean Harpes.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Gerald Gaudet. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Genevieve Mary Emily McGuire Carragher.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Sydney Silver-man.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Nadon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	160,	for	the	relief	of	Patricia
Louise Noseworthy St. Laurent.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Joseph Octave Leopold Richer.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	162,	for	the	relief	of	George
Gerald Patterson.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	163,	for	the	relief	of	Marcel
Berube.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Gertrude MacDonald Watt.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	165,	for	the	relief	of	Claire
Pierrette Desrochers Dixon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Fernand Laurin.-Mr. Croll.
The Chairman:: Shall I report these bills?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bills reported.


William Gilbert Weir: the third reading of these bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall these bills be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the third time and passed.


GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE COMPANY
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 174, respecting the Great Lakes Reinsurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this company was incorporated by the Statutes of Canada, 1951,

chapter 69, with a capitalization of $500,000. The bill is for the sole purpose of increasing the capitalization to $2 million.
The company is licensed by the dominion insurance department and the provincial insurance department to carry on the business of reinsuring received from other insurance companies.
There is a relationship between the company's capital and the amount of business which it can safely and reasonably do, and owing to the increased demands of further business it is necessary to increase the capitalization.
The dominion superintendent of insurance is satisfied, so far as he is concerned, that the company should be permitted to increase its capitalization; and, of course, will appear before the committee to whom the bill is referred, as is his usual practice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balllefords) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 175, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (protection of rivers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, never have I stood in the House of Commons to discuss a matter which has affected me more or given me more concern than the matter I propose to discuss at the present time.
I expect most people know the value of water to health, but perhaps some people do not know what it is to do without a good drink of water. Perhaps some people do not know what it means to have to go without water and to be really thirsty. I know from experience that one of the greatest discomforts anyone can have is to be without a proper supply of water. I once travelled over the western plains and went without a good drink of water for as long as two weeks, and when we came across a spring the whole caravan I was travelling with stopped, lay down and put their heads in that stream, took their fill and then went back time and again to enjoy that pure water.
In my constituency today thousands of people have no decent water to drink. The people mostly affected are in the town of Battleford and in the mental hospital in the city of North Battleford. Something has happened to the water supply in the North Saskatchewan river at the present time, and no one seems to know what it is.
83276-108J
Navigable Waters Protection Act
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has brought this matter up on a number of occasions and had asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) several questions along these lines. Up to date we have no knowledge of what has happened to the water of the North Saskatchewan river, but we do know that it is in such a state that the people living along that river in the city of North Battleford, in the town of Battleford, in Prince Albert, and again in The Pas are unable to get a decent drink of water unless they bring it in from outside.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a horrible situation. I say it is time this parliament did something about it. I want to put on record some of the things that are happening in the town of Battleford. I have here a long letter I received from a housewife telling me of the conditions in that town. She writes:
After all the conferences and correspondence and travelling back and forth the latest thing to be announced is that Premier Douglas has written a personal letter to Premier Manning telling him Alberta is responsible for the pollution.
Some industries in the province of Alberta have been dumping some sort of element into this water which is poisoning the water or making it unfit for human use. This lady's letter continues:
Meanwhile the water situation here is worse if anything. In the past two weeks several children had to be taken home from school when they became ill after drinking the water while many older persons have had gastro-intestinal trouble and have been advised by the doctor not to drink the water. Most people are boiling the water but that doesn't solve the problem in the schools where children are bound to get thirsty and what are they to do?
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have healthy children they must have an adequate supply of good, pure water. Those hon. members who have raised families can all remember how many times their children would go over to the tap or to the water pail to quench their thirst. Here we have the situation that the children in these towns are unable to get a good drink of water.
The letter goes on:
The people in town and at the Saskatchewan hospital-those who live on the grounds that is-are getting their water in containers either from friends in the country, North Battleford or the irrigation hospital where the water supply is taken from the Battle river. The mayor and the local doctor, J. E. Nunn, both told me they can't and won't drink the water.
I want to draw attention to the fact that patients in the mental hospital are unable to obtain a supply of fresh water. The attendants and members of the staff are able to get in their cars and drive out into the country where they can obtain good water,

Navigable Waters Protection Act but the patients, these people who are ill, these people who cannot understand why the water does not taste good, are being subjected to bad psychological effects which will certainly retard their recovery from their present ailments.
This letter I have already quoted from goes on to relate how a couple of high school boys have been operating a small laboratory for some time past. They took some of this water and distilled it and after distillation all that was left was a yellowish residue. The letter continues:
The water supply at North Battleford has not been affected yet but in checking with F. Holliday, the water engineer, I was told they felt it was only a matter of time until North Battleford would have the same trouble. You see their wells are situated far enough back from the river that when the water level drops down and when it freezes over, no water flows through the back channel to get into the wells.
I might say in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that the water level of the Saskatchewan river is extremely low at the present time. I do not know how long this rubbish, or whatever it is, has been dumped into the river at the city of Edmonton, but obviously it has been going on for a year or more, and it is quite possible that with the water at a high level whatever was put into the river was diluted sufficiently so that it did not cause the trouble which has now developed.
I quote again from this letter:
The one place which has had the most trouble and of which barely anything has been said, is the provincial hospital across the river.
That is the mental hospital. The writer of the letter goes on to say something of what the patients in that mental hospital have to put up with. They cannot get a drink of water without being nauseated and made ill in many cases. The letter goes on:
I have checked with Dr. Nunn and he said the incidence of gastro-intestinal trouble in Battleford has definitely risen in the past month. My own ten year old son was brought home last week from school. He has been drinking only boiled water and was warned against drinking water at school. He became so thirsty one morning, however, that he simply had to have a drink and little more than an hour later, he was brought home, sick to his stomach and with severe abdominal cramps. That's the way it affects you, apparently. Many people thought they had stomach flu' and it also causes dysentry, I am told. I heard of a case yesterday where a small child of a provincial hospital employee is in hospital. Apparently she has an allergy to whatever the element in the water is and every time she drinks it she breaks out in a terrible rash and her face swells up. All these things seem to be rather trivial but I feel very strongly that the human element is the one thing that must not be overlooked in this controversy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the matter was put to the Minister of National Health and


Welfare several times during the session he stated the federal government was not competent to do anything about the matter.
I shall now deal with my proposed amendment to the bill. As the bill states, this is an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act which is for the protection of rivers. Section 18 of the act, as it is at present, reads as follows:
No owner or tenant of any saw-mill, or any workman therein or other person shall throw or cause to be thrown, or suffer or permit to be thrown any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever into any river, stream or other water, any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water.
There is no doubt that this act was passed many years ago, before industrial plants were built on rivers. I want to direct attention to the fact that the city of Edmonton in particular, in common with many other parts of Canada, is becoming highly industrialized. I can remember driving not many miles north of the city of Ottawa when I passed a plant, and I was hardly past it until I noticed a stream of whitish-looking liquid running away from the plant, under the highway and into the Gatineau river.
This matter of dumping this sort of stuff into rivers is becoming of great concern to many of our people. When the government built the Chalk River plant I notice that they took care to see to it that a ditch was dug and that the residue from that plant was taken away from the river into a swamp not far from the plant.
The situation has changed. The present navigable waters act is a federal act which gives this government jurisdiction over any navigable waters in Canada, and prohibits a saw mill from throwing rubbish of any description whatsoever into any river, stream or other water, any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water. I have looked up the definition of "rubbish" in the large Oxford dictionary. "Rubbish" is defined as waste or refuse material, debris, litter, refuse; rejected and useless matter of any kind.
The first point I wish to make tonight is that this government is competent to prevent the dumping by saw mills of rubbish into navigable streams. The act discriminates against saw mills. A saw mill is the only industry which, under the act, is prohibited from dumping rubbish into a river. Any other industry can build on river banks and dump all its rubbish or all its refuse into a navigable river without any hindrance from this government. My amendment to this act would expand the scope of the act to the

extent of adding the words "or other industrial plant". Section 18 would then read:
No owner or tenant of any saw-mill, or other industrial plant, or any workman therein or other person shall throw or cause to be thrown, or suffer or permit to be thrown any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever into any river, stream or other water, any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water.
On January 19 the hon. member for Prince Albert asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare what action the federal government intends to take to preserve from pollution the waters of rivers that flow through two or more provinces. In his reply, as reported at page 1235 of Hansard, the minister stated:
The responsibility for remedying the situation is recognized by both provinces as not coming within the competence of the federal government.
He went on further to say:
Indeed, whether or not there was that acknowledgment I would have to submit that would have to be the situation as far as the federal government is concerned, for this is clearly a matter that does not come within the competence of the federal government.
I cannot understand the attitude taken by the minister. Here we have a terrible situation where thousands of people are concerned. Water is of primary importance to the health of our people, and we have a situation where one or more industries are dumping their refuse and rubbish into the Saskatchewan river at Edmonton in the province of Alberta. Pollution of the Saskatchewan river in the province of Alberta does not affect the people of Alberta directly, because no water is used out of the river below Edmonton until it gets to Battleford and North Battleford in Saskatchewan. The citizens of the town of Battleford use the river as their sole water supply. The mental institution in North Battleford, housing some 2,000 patients besides the staff, depends on this water for human consumption. The river then continues on till it comes to Prince Albert, a city of some 6,000 or 7,000 people. Again these people have to put up with a terrible situation.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Twenty thousand.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I stand corrected. I understand from the hon. member for Prince Albert that the population of the city of Prince Albert is 20,000. That emphasizes my case, Mr. Speaker. From there the river runs on into Manitoba, through The Pas and into Hudson bay.
I would point out that this matter which is put into rivers does not respect provincial boundaries. This river runs through three provinces, and the minister says the federal
Navigable Waters Protection Act government has no jurisdiction or is not competent to deal with the matter. Surely it is time this parliament took action to stop the dumping of whatever element it is that is being dumped into the river at Edmonton. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare why it should not come within the competence of the federal government, if the federal government expects that a conference is going to have to be held after damage has been done to a river which may take years to clear up. It may take years to clear the situation up because of the fact that the water is very low and this matter, whatever it is, is no doubt soaking and working itself down into the silt; it may take only months or it might take years before this river is able to clear itself. We should have legislation in our federal statutes so these rivers can be policed to make sure that no industry will be allowed, under federal law, to dump its refuse into navigable waters or streams that are being used or might some day be used for human consumption.
In the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert on January 19 he stated that he had brought this matter to the attention of the department some three weeks previously, so the department would know of the situation on or about December 20. On January 25 the hon. member for Prince Albert, as reported at page 1407 of Hansard, asked the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, bringing to his attention again the emergent situation, in Prince Albert and also in North Battleford, which is becoming more serious rather than better. In an editorial I have here in my hand I see a description of conditions of the water at Prince Albert. Those who speak with authority describe it as "water comparable to low grade swamp wash laced with crude oil."
In view of the fact that this situation has continued for a considerable period of time, I would ask the minister what stand the federal government is taking with reference to this matter and the removal of this nuisance, or at least to give assistance in that direction. I would also ask whether, under all the circumstances, regardless of federal responsibility or otherwise, he would make available and send out to Prince Albert one or two of his officials to see what they can do to solve the problem there and to preserve the health of the people. The situation is serious.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare replied as follows:
My hon. friend does not now deal with the question of competence. That was dealt with in the question which he put to me the other day. He now asks me if we would be prepared to send out to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan officials of our own department who are technically qualified to assist in this matter. I am happy to be able to inform my hon. friend that not only will we be able to do so but that we have already done so. Last Friday the supervising engineer of the public

Navigable Waters Protection Act health engineering division of our department attended a meeting in Edmonton with the representative of the company and the department of health, and the matter was fully reviewed. The technical officers, including our own officials, are now engaged in determining the precise cause of the pollution. The supervising engineer has also been in touch with the officials of the department of health in Regina. My hon. friend may be assured that, without in any way begging the question of competence, the federal government will do all it can do to assist the provincial authorities to carry out their constitutional responsibility.
The hon. member for Prince Albert replied to the minister as follows:
I thank the minister for his reply, and I should like to ask a supplementary question. The other day I asked him to ascertain the responsibility of the federal government in connection with rivers that traverse two or more provinces. Has he had any legal opinion on that matter? Is it not a fact that, under the situation disclosed here, there is a distinct responsibility federally to look into this matter and to act?
The minister replied:
I do not believe I can add anything to what I said in answer to the supplementary question put to me by my hon. friend about four or five days ago.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Prince Albert on January 19, stated, as reported at page 1235 of Hansard for that date:
My hon. friend will find that this matter-I do not mean this particular situation but the principles involved-was fully discussed in the house in 1949, and the discussion can be found at page 571 of Hansard of October 6 of that year.
The discussion to which the minister referred related to an amendment moved by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) to section 19 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and had to do with the pollution of the waters along the shore line of lake Ontario, while the case which I am arguing refers to a river running through three provinces. During that debate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) argued that the federal government was not competent to deal with the situation, and the amendment was voted down. I believe the minister was correct, because this is a completely different situation.
Again on January 28 the minister referred to the matter of competence in reply to a question of mine as to whether or not he had received a report from the supervising engineer of the public health engineering division concerning the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river. At the time the minister said he had nothing to add to the reply he had made to the hon. member for Prince Albert a few days previously.
In a press report received from Prince Albert a few days ago it was stated that this


condition has been continuing since November 15 last. Surely it is time this federal government accepted the responsibility of looking after the health of our people, and corrected this situation which has been known since last November.
Another press report states that health minister Cross of Alberta stated last Tuesday that a dam on the North Saskatchewan river 100 miles west of Edmonton had been mentioned as a possible solution to the pollution of the river waters. It was estimated this dam would cost between $3 and $4 million. I should like to ask this house who would pay for a dam of that description? Would the people of Canada be asked to put up between $3 and $4 million in order to avoid the pollution of the river by some industries? I am sure that this condition is not limited to Saskatchewan, but that industries are doing the same thing in other parts of the country.
Health minister Cross goes on to suggest that such a dam would permit control of the river level in winter periods of low water when there is greater risk of pollution. If we had a federal law that would prevent the cause of pollution there would be no necessity for building dams or forcing our people to drink such horrible water. Another press report from Prince Albert reads as follows:
Local water drinkers can expect to have tasteless water again in approximately one week, it was reported at Monday night's meeting of city council. The North Saskatchewan river, from which this city draws its drinking water, has been polluted by industrial wastes from Alberta since early last November.
A report by J. G. Schaeffer, chief sanitation officer to the provincial health department, revealed that the addition of chlorine dioxide to the water would remove the taste and smell. The chemical treatment was discovered after extensive tests were made on samples of river water taken right at the site of the Edmonton factory blamed for the nuisance.
Here we are going to have another horrible element added to the water in an effort to counteract the elements that are causing the pollution. This sort of thing has been going on in the United States for many years. They have arrived at the point where most of their rivers are polluted to such an extent that the water is not fit for human consumption. The estimated cost of the treatment of industrial wastes from major industries contributing to the pollution of surface water in the United States is $694 million. The source of my information is a pamphlet entitled "Water Pollution in the United States", pages 31, 53 and 54.
Because of the rapid expansion of industry in Canada, especially in the province of

Alberta, this problem will become more and more aggravated unless this parliament agrees to take action to stop the pollution of our rivers at the source. The problem will not be solved permanently by building dams or by adding more and more chemicals to the polluted waters.
I hope the government will agree that the time has come to take definite action. If they are not prepared to support this bill, and if they have a better method of tackling the problem, I hope they will reveal it to the house now. Surely it is the duty of this parliament to make sure our people are not subjected to possible sickness or disease merely because parliament has refused to face up to the problem.
I have informed the house what the problem is, Mr. Speaker, and I have made suggestions. I hope the Minister of Transport or some other minister will either agree to accept this bill or come forward with a better proposition.


John George Diefenbaker: First I wish to congratulate the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) upon having introduced this amendment. Few members in this house have any realization of the situation which prevails in the cities of North Battleford and Prince Albert, and in the town of The Pas.
The people in the city of Prince Albert were the first to have this problem. As a result of the dumping of deleterious substances into the river below Edmonton, 50,000 people in Saskatchewan are indirectly affected and 30,000 people are in the position that they cannot drink the water which flows in the Saskatchewan river. "Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink"; that is the position of these people. As the hon. member has pointed out, this has become a national emergency. If not met as a national emergency, it will become a permanent problem for the people along the northern Saskatchewan. There is no description of the bad odour of the water that is more fitting than the words of Shakespeare when he said:
The rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended nostril.
That is what we are putting up with on the northern Saskatchewan. Everyone seems to contend that someone else must accept the constitutional responsibility. We in Prince Albert were the first to suffer. My hon. friend's city of North Battleford and town of Battleford did not come into the picture for several weeks because of the location of the water intake in these two urban municipalities. Prince Albert has experienced
Navigable Waters Protection Act this situation since November 12. An appeal was made to the provincial government of Saskatchewan and the stand was in effect that it was not a provincial problem.
The inception of it is in Alberta. The department of health in Alberta has taken a benevolent interest in the subject, and says in effect "This is not our problem". Recently the province of Manitoba has made representations because the problem has finally reached The Pas. Certainly this is a national problem, and something must be done to meet it.
I am not going to quote newspaper references extensively, but while my hon. friend was speaking I sent to the library to secure the Prince Albert Daily Herald so I could give the house something of the picture, and in a few minutes show the conditions prevailing there. I find that in the issue of January 29 this newspaper states:
Manitoba and Alberta have asked federal aid in ridding North Saskatchewan river of pollution. Request from Manitoba came to federal government when The Pas appealed to Manitoba government for aid in clearing up a water condition similar to one prevalent in Prince Albert.
In letter to city council from Hon. Paul Martin, federal minister of health, it was stated that results of tests on water from the river are not yet available.
The federal health minister has twice stated in the House of Commons that solution of water problem is not responsibility of federal government.
Prince Albert is asking for some action. On the 28th of January officials from the federal and provincial authorities met there. The heading of the article on that date is "Officials Here to Talk Water." They talked water, and while they talked the people thirsted. And that has been the condition that has continued for a period of almost two and a half months.
I could go back day by day in this newspaper file, and find each day a reference to the situation. Someone says, "Why do not these cities do something to meet the situation themselves?" The city of Prince Albert has made some investigation into the question and has found that it would be financially impracticable for the city to handle this problem alone, as was pointed out by the superintendent of utilities. He said it would cost the city at least $60 a day to meet a problem that results from a condition of affairs outside of and beyond the city, and also beyond the province of Saskatchewan.
Day by day the city council of Prince Albert has been asking for action, and the health authorities and representatives of the various western provinces have been discussing the matter. The people of Prince Albert

Navigable Waters Protection Act depend for their water supply upon what can be obtained from wells in the neighbourhood. I wonder at the self-restraint that has been shown in trying to get action.
The answer by the federal authorities has been in effect: Are we, in effect, our brother's keeper, under the legislative distribution of powers in this dominion? Certainly it is not the government of Saskatchewan that is alone responsible, nor is it the government of Alberta, and the government of Manitoba has no direct responsibility.
I make an appeal to the minister to brush aside for the moment some of these constitutional difficulties that can be raised on every occasion and on every matter in respect of the distributed powers of legislative authority. Give us assistance. I repeat that the hon. member for The Battlefords deserves high commendation for offering this amendment. I am wondering, though, whether it would actually cover the situation. The section as amended would read:
No owner or tenant of any saw-mill, or other industrial plant, or any workman therein or other person shall throw or cause to be thrown, or suffer or permit to be thrown any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever into any river, stream or other water, any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water.
This section would create a new offence. As it is today I do not think there is any offence under the law covering the problem I have described; for certainly what is being dumped into the river is not sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description. And those latter words would be interpreted, I would say, in their relationship to the words preceding them.
If this amendment were carried, I think there would still be no offence created to cover the prevalent situation. Having that in mind, and subject to my hon. friend's agreement, I suggest that these further words be added to section 18 in question, the additional words to begin after the word "whatsoever" in the fifth line of section 18. Those words would be, "or chemicals of any kind, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing any substance which, although not deleterious or harmful to human health, causes discomfort or annoyance to users of water".
This would make it an offence which would cover the situation in question, the one we face. I am not going to talk this bill out, although I could say a great deal more. This problem has continued since November 12. Anything I have done in bringing it to the attention of the house has not been done in any critical attitude. I
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

have tried to get the co-operation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), and the minister has promised co-operation and has sent representatives. But while the representatives meet the problem intensifies and becomes worse.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: They used imported water while they were staying there.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and in Prince Albert we are reaching the position that is found in Mexico city, where one cannot drink the water available but has to have bottled water. Surely our health authorities in this country are not going to permit the existence of a condition like that in rivers where the water should be pure, rivers upon which cities dependent on the purity of these waters are located.
I make this appeal, and join with the hon. member in asking action. Also, in order to assist him in what he has done in bringing this amendment before the house, may I move, seconded by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
That after the word "whatsoever" in the fifth line of section 18 in the bill the following words be added:
"or chemicals of any kind, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing any substance which, although not deleterious or harmful to human health, causes discomfort or annoyance to users of water".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Before the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) speaks, may I point out that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) I am afraid is not in order at this stage. Although I realize the bill before us is a one-section bill, nevertheless the motion before the house is that the bill be read a second time. I am of the opinion that the amendment should be moved when we are considering the section in committee.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I was going to draw attention to that fact. However, I was going to add- and I do not want to talk the bill out-that I agree with all that was said by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I think there is some federal responsibility, and that if the federal authorities wanted to find authority for action they could find it, as a matter of fact, in the Fisheries Act. Anyone who will look at section 33 (2) of the Fisheries Act will find this:
(2) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass inito, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof,

mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, or that flows into such water, nor on ice over either such waters.
Now, the Saskatchewan river is frequented by fish. Is it more important to protect the lives and the health of fish than the lives and the health of people who live along this river? I am not a lawyer, of course. There are strange quirks in the law. It seems to me that if we can protect the fish in that river-and there are goldeyes in it; there are sturgeon in it; there are lots of fish in it-and if we cannot protect the people of Prince Albert, the Battlefords and The Pas, then I suggest that you make some attempt to look after the poor fish in that river and relieve human beings too.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I was a guest in Prince Albert on January 21 and January 22. I want to endorse everything that was said by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
During my lifetime I have been forced to live in quite a number of places on the prairies where we were dependent on sloughs, rivers and lakes for our water supply. I have had my share of water that really was not fit for human consumption, but never in my life did I encounter any water quite as unpleasant as the water in Prince Albert. My hosts wondered whether I would try tea or coffee. I tried both. I am not too hard to please, but it was impossible to drink a cup of either tea or coffee. I was about to have a shower. My friend suggested that one would be sufficient. After a very brief pause under the shower I came to the conclusion that I would be better off to stay without a shower than to have one. It would be difficult to exaggerate the condition of the water that is used in Prince Albert.
As the leader of this party suggests, since we could make some changes to protect the fish, the good people living in The Battlefords, North Battleford, The Pas and Prince Albert should be considered, and the federal government should give them the necessary protection.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which my hon. friend has been discussing the last few minutes was moved for the first time, I believe, on Friday of last week. At that time it was given first reading, and it comes up now for a discussion of the principle on second reading.
I have not had an opportunity of studying the bill as carefully as I should have liked,
Navigable Waters Protection Act but on the other hand, this is not the first time since I have been in the Department of Transport that efforts have been made to amend this act for the purpose which the hon. member for The Battlefords has in mind now. I am not at this moment discussing the laudable attitude of the hon. member in seeking to rid the locality in which he lives of the pollution of waters and in raising the question which he does. Naturally I have, as I am sure most hon. members in this house have, a great deal of sympathy for the position in which he and the hon. member for Prince Albert find themselves. But I am sure he would not want either myself or any other minister of the crown to consent to an amendment to an act which, if it were tested in the courts, would be found to be unconstitutional or ultra vires.
As I understand my responsibility with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, it is clearly set out in part II, which defines the minister as being the Minister of Transport. It describes "owner" as the owner of any wreck, obstruction or obstacle as referred to in subsequent sections, and also gives a definition of "vessel". That part deals with obstructions to navigation, and all one has to do is to read the marginal notes against the different sections to ascertain for himself what the meaning and the intention of parliament was when all these sections- and that includes section 18-in part II of the act were enacted.
There is no doubt that section 18, and all the other sections in that part, have to do with obstructions to navigation. That is the intent of the act, and that is why this particular part of the act has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, because I am charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that navigation or navigable waters are not obstructed.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) raised an excellent point when he queried whether or not this is the act under which the hon. member should seek the redress he wants.


Major James William Coldwell: I think you have the authority to make the redress right under the Fisheries Act.


Lionel Chevrier: I intend to deal with that at a little later stage, if I have an opportunity. But I do want to make it clear, as I have on more than one occasion in this house with reference to other proposed amendments to this section, that part II relates to navigation and shipping, for which responsibility, under section 92(10) of the British North America Act, lies with the federal government alone.
170B

Senate and House of Commons What my hon. friend is seeking to do is to amend an act dealing with navigation-over which we in this parliament have jurisdiction-to remedy a pollution problem, a health matter, which under normal conditions comes under provincial jurisdiction.
The amendment which the hon. member for Prince Albert brings in only accentuates that point, because he clearly sets out that the matter to be remedied is one having to do with health. I have not the amendment before me, but there was mention of chemicals of every kind and deleterious substances which affect health. Normally these are provincial matters.
I have in mind a matter exactly the same as that, which I discussed with the crown attorney of a constituency in the province of Ontario where a deleterious matter was being dumped into a river by an industrial plant and was not only killing the fish but was affecting bathers, who could not even go in the water because their bathing suits would be soiled. After a discussion with him on the suggestion to amend the navigable waters act in an attempt to remedy the situation, he came to the conclusion that the thing to do was to consult the provincial authorities, which he did.
On motion of Mr. Chevrier the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it is six o'clock. At eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now revert to the business that was being considered at five o'clock.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS
Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 171, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Salaries of Speakers and Deputy Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just one word I should like to say, and I do this at the request of the one member of our group who is not able to be here at the present time because of illness. The hon. member for Kootenay West asked that it be placed on record that had he been able to be here today he would have voted against the second reading of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Sessional allowance.
Major James William Coldwell: When we were discussing the resolution I suggested that we might move some amendments during the discussion of the bill clause by clause. Therefore I move:
That section 2 of Bill 171 be amended by deleting from line 20 the words "eight thousand" and by substituting therefor the words "six thousand".
I am not going to speak at any length because I did so before. The experience of the last four years has probably shown us that $6,000 would be sufficient to meet the needs of most hon. members. We have as a group discussed this pretty thoroughly, and those of us who believe in the increase in the indemnity, with some exceptions, in the main agree that this is the amount that should be in the bill.


Mr. Drew:: I should like to make it quite clear that my remarks about the procedure apply as much to the attempt to fix the amount in this way as to any part of the act. To indicate how wise it would be if this whole subject were approached in a quiet, orderly manner of examination, I cannot help placing before the committee certain comments made yesterday by one hon. member which indicate what heady meat we are dealing with in this case. I find evidence that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was not pleased with the reception he received at the opening at the airport at Sudbury.
He is quoted as saying:
"And I intend to continue being a good citizen, despite the insults and injustices."
"Tomorrow," he shouted, "I will be a $10,000-a-year-man-"


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt):: Let him go on.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member is proposing to read a reference to the conduct of a member outside the house I should think he was not in order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, naturally this subject is one of interest and the impact it has on those who are discussing it is a subject of interest. Without referring to any specific statements that might have been made in the last 24 hours one can well

understand that there are those who take very much to heart the impact of this proposal upon their own personal affairs.
I only hope that the reason this provision is being made for the other house has no relationship to the suggestion that it is tactically wise in order to promote the passage of the bill. Certainly as yet I have heard no argument put forward which indicates a single reason' why one figure or another would be a satisfactory figure. I pointed out yesterday that when the Prime Minister had suggested that with our respect for the constitution at Westminster we should remember their success with a parliament of two houses, we might also remember that Westminster offers no suggestion to us that the salaries should be the same because at Westminster the upper house receives nothing.


Mr. Abbott:: Just a title.


George Alexander Drew: The title gets them in there; they do not get the title because they are there. They receive nothing. Members of parliament have had their indemnities increased without any suggestion that there be some provision of this kind so the House of Lords would deal satisfactorily with the measure before them.
While I do not think that there is any evidence before us that the members of the Senate should receive this amount, I say with equal force that there is no evidence before us to show what they should receive. I for one believe that the whole method is wrong, and that we should not be attempting to deal with this without further information than has been placed before us.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Angus MacInnis: Just a moment, please; you will get your increase in indemnity in due time. There is no reason why we should not proceed properly despite your hurry.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You will get it, Angus.


Angus MacInnis: If I were in such a hurry I would be wise enough not to let the public see it. The haste of my friends opposite is absolutely indecent. Mr. Chairman, if you are making the ruling that something said by a member outside this house cannot be repeated in the house I should like to know the citation covering that. My experience has been that what members say outside the house is quoted here every day.
I am going to vote for this amendment, although I am opposed to any increase. If we are going through with it I would rather
Senate and House of Commons have a smaller increase than is in the bill. For that reason I am going to vote for the amendment.
Yesterday I said that these increases would separate members from their constituents, it would make a difference each would feel. I did not think we would have an example of that so soon. Apparently the hon. member for Nickel Belt thinks the bill will have royal assent by tomorrow, because he is reported as saying that tomorrow he will be a $10,000 -a year man and he is not going to be pushed around by any $50 a week penpusher.
There you have it. I do not require to say any more.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words on this amendment, to point out something which has not been mentioned in this particular part of the debate, namely that the cause of this demand for an increase stems from the fact that it costs so much for members of this house to live, and that the cost of living applies not only to the members of this house but to people all across Canada.
For years this group in this house has urged that the cost of living be kept down, that the old price controls be kept on in order to prevent this kind of thing, but the cost of living has continued to rise. The official opposition opposed the attempts of this group to maintain price controls in order to keep down the cost of living. You sowed the seeds ten years ago and you are now reaping the harvest. The whole question is related entirely to the cost of living.
What position are we going to be in as members of parliament if the cost of living goes down? The cost of living index today stands at a level of around 184 based on the 1935-39 index of 100. If the cost of living goes down within the next five or ten years 

and it probably will-this proposed $10,000 indemnity will buy $17,000 worth of goods. Then when the rest of the people of Canada are down in the depths, with low wages and low salaries, and with hundreds of thousands of unemployed, members of parliament will be in a very preferred position.
This question is related to the cost of living, and the government must face the fact they are responsible for the cost of living in Canada and for the costs which members have to bear in living in Ottawa today.


Mr. Sluder:: They are responsible for prosperity, too.


George Hugh Castleden: There is no reason why members of parliament should be placed in a preferred position in relation to the rest of the people in this country. It is for that

Senate and House of Commons reason we are trying to bring to the attention of the government that this bill is not sound, and that in principle it is wrong. We oppose it. We are now trying to amend it to keep our indemnity somewhere within the realm of reason so that our position can bear some comparison to that of the people who have to pay high rent and who have to spend what little money they have, whether from old age pensions or war veterans allowances, in getting the things they need.
While these people are still in that position we maintain it is morally wrong for members of this house to vote themselves this amount of money. We want the amount brought within reason. Some hon. members here said, "Oh, yes; the people of Canada can judge this at the next election, and if they do not like what we have done they can throw us out". It would be what a lot of members deserve. An opportunity existed for the government at the last general election to ask the people of Canada what they thought of an increase, or at least to officially inform them that six months after the calling of the new parliament members' indemnities would be doubled.


Irvin William Studer: Did they do that in Saskatchewan?


George Hugh Castleden: Will the hon. member
repeat his question?


An hon. Member:: He is only worth $1,000.


Irvin William Studer: Did they do that in Saskatchewan?


George Hugh Castleden: I am glad the hon. member brought that matter up. As soon as the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan came into power the members of the cabinet reduced their salaries by $1,000. The cost of living had then dropped slightly, but ever since it has been up in Saskatchewan as it has been up everywhere else.


An hon. Member:: So have the taxes in Saskatchewan.


George Hugh Castleden: Of course the cost of living is going to go up. The ten legislatures across Canada will be facing exactly the same problem we face today, and they will want to increase their indemnities. The cost of living has gone up for the legislatures, but it has also gone up for the people. Why did the government not indicate to the people of Canada that they were going to do this, so the people would have an opportunity to indicate what they thought about it?
For these reasons we are opposing this measure. This government are responsible


for the high cost of living. They are responsible for the very conditions which have created this demand-and it is a natural demand-and they must bear the blame for it. What of the situation we find ourselves in today with regard to the rank and file of the people who have no opportunity to raise their own salaries? We protest that this is morally wrong, and we are going to continue our protests all the way through.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Coldwell) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 96.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the
amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, while we are still on clause 2 there is another aspect of the matter which I wish to ask the house to consider. As hon. members are aware, the clause now before us provides for the proposed increase to be made available to senators and to members of the House of Commons. I am aware of the position the Prime Minister has taken with respect to this matter, namely that he feels the Senate is here to stay as part of our constitutional set-up and that so long as this is the case they should be treated on a basis of equality with the members of the House of Commons.
I do not agree with that position. As a matter of fact, I might point out that even in terms of dollars and cents the respective positions have not been equal since 1945. When Mr. King first brought in a resolution regarding expense allowances, if my memory serves me correctly, these allowances were to be provided only for the members of the House of Commons. Later, after newspaper reports to the effect the Senate would not agree to the proposition if it were passed in that form, Mr. King withdrew the resolution and placed another one on the order paper. It provided for the expense allowance to be paid to members of both houses but made a distinction or a difference, namely that in the case of members of the House of Commons, except cabinet ministers and the Leader of the Opposition, that $2,000 would be tax free but in the case of senators it was to be taxable. Hence in terms of actual dollars and cents there is a difference already, and I suggest that fact invalidates the argument that we have to be kept on a basis of equality.
It has also been pointed out that, in so far
as the Prime Minister contends that the

parliament at Westminster is a model for us to pay some attention to, the members of the House of Lords serve without any indemnity paid directly from the exchequer of that country. Most of us feel that there is a tremendous difference between the amount of work that has to be done by members of the House of Commons and the amount of work that has to be done by members of the other place. I think it is significant that in the editorial columns of the newspapers of this country during the past week or so considerable opposition has been expressed -indeed, from quite unexpected sources- against this increase being given to Their Honours in the other place.
I am sure the Prime Minister was not surprised this afternoon when the house smiled somewhat at his suggestion that we send the bill over to them with the increase for members of both houses written into it, and leave it to them to reduce it if they saw fit. The number of amendments which Their Honours make to important bills is not great; and the likelihood of their proposing such an amendment is, I suggest, somewhat remote. But whether or not that is the case, it seems to me that we in this chamber have a responsibility to decide whether, as a matter of public policy, an increase to a total of $10,000 should be made with regard to the members of the other house at the same time it is being made with respect to members of the House of Commons. Although it may be the Prime Minister's view that this should be done, it seems to me that the House of Commons should have an opportunity to decide whether or not, in our judgment, that is good public policy.
In order to give this committee an opportunity to decide whether or not this increase should be made with respect to members of both houses, I propose to move an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the wording of this amendment because, of necessity, one has to draft it in such a manner as to fit into the clause which is before us. My amendment is:
That section 2 of Bill No. 171 be amended by deleting from line 19 the word "and" and by substituting therefor the words "a sessional allowance at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum and to every member of the".
That is the end of the amendment, but it would be only fair for me to read the subsection as it would appear as amended, so that it will make sense not only to persons who may read Hansard but to members who are listening to me at the present time. The subsection as amended would then read as follows:
For the sessions of each parliament there shall be paid to every member of the Senate a sessional
Senate and House of Commons allowance at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum and to every member of the House of Commons a sessional allowance at the rate of eight thousand dollars per annum.
I wish to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to the latter figure-I refer to the figure of $8,000 per annum for members of the House of Commons-that is not the figure that I think should be there, but that figure has now been decided by two votes of the members of the House of Commons. So far as the former figure is concerned-and I refer to the figure of $4,000 per annum as a sessional allowance for members of the Senate-again I am not picking that figure out of a hat. That is their allowance at the present time. Therefore the effect of my amendment is to provide that Their Honours in the other place be not given the increase which this bill provides for members of the House of Commons.


William Alfred Robinson: I may say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I am in some doubt whether the amendment is in order. I would refer him to citation 684, third edition of Beauchesne, which reads in part as follows:
The chairman stated that, though the committee had full power to amend, even to the extent of nullifying the provisions of the bill, they could not insert a clause which reversed the principle which the bill, as read a second time, sought to affirm.
In one view of this amendment, it would reverse a principle which was agreed to on second reading. However, I am not going to labour the matter. I express the doubt, but I think I would be inclined to allow the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since you have said that you are not going to make a ruling, there is no necessity to discuss the matter; but as it has been recorded in Hansard I do not think the matter should be left there without comment.
The Prime Minister this afternoon made some point about the figures not being involved in the principle. If that argument was correct, then most certainly the decision on second reading could not have any bearing on any figure that is contained in this measure. My own belief is that the principle was much more than just the decision that there should be an increase, and that it involved the whole method.
I simply want to repeat that what I said before applies to the present suggestion. I do not believe we have the necessary information before us. We have not the information
1710	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons before us on which we would be justified in supporting this payment for the members of the Senate, nor have we any evidence before us to indicate why the members of the Senate should remain in exactly the same position while these increases are being made for the members of the House of Commons. There may be some intermediate figure or there may not be; at least, the matter should be a subject for inquiry.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose this amendment; and the remarks I now make apply to every clause of this bill. What is now being done merely indicates the extent to which we are proceeding without the kind of information that we would or should demand with regard to any measure coming before us when public funds are involved.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an extremely interesting question, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon the Prime Minister got as far as the opposite pole from the stand taken by his predecessor in office when, over the years, he spoke long, lustily and with tremendous effect to the electors on the question of Senate reform. I can still remember those eloquent speeches of 1925 and 1926-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the tremendous reforms that were going to be effected.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member will recall that His Honour has expressed the view that the question of Senate reform is out of order in this debate.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, Mr. Chairman.
I will just say that this is a new form of reformation by an additional allowance, and leave the matter there. I could not help but recall those former days, Mr. Chairman.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that the increase in the indemnities of both houses to the same extent cannot have the support of the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister. The reasons for this precipitate haste in increasing our emoluments, no one has yet put forward. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether any of us would have been returned had we had this measure before us in April last, and voted for it. Courage after an election is scarcely in keeping with the principle of giving leadership to public opinion.
I say no more about the precipitate haste. Some have said the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a full investigation received no support. Public opinion does not want this increase, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the public's attitude


towards the increase of our indemnity, someone has said that Gallup polls mean nothing. They are quoted at every election.


Mr. Sinclair:: Against the Tories.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Sinclair: And rightly.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, quoted against us; and what does the Gallup poll say now? A Gallup poll conducted the other day concerning this increase showed-


Mr. McCann:: Where?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, could you call for order?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. At the same time I am calling for order I want to remind the hon. member that we are discussing clause 2 of this bill, and not the Gallup poll.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment before the committee, and I am discussing the question of whether or not that amendment should receive the support of this committee. I am advancing arguments in support of the stand I take, and I say that public opinion in this country is usually explained as the reason parliament cannot act. We must first educate public opinion. According to the last Gallup poll, public opinion was 64 per cent against this increase.


James Joseph McCann: In Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition said that something should be done by way of investigation, but that suggestion was not accepted. Certainly the reasons why our indemnity should be increased have no application in their entirety to similar increases for members of the Senate. I am going to quote from the Leader-Post, a Liberal paper published in Regina. The editorial is entitled "Enough is Enough". After dealing with the tremendous increases asked for in our indemnities, the editorial goes on to say:
Even more open to question is the proposal for senators also receiving an increase in their indemnities which, with the $2,000 taxable allowance, will bring their annual pay to $10,000. They do not have to go to the expense of fighting elections. Their less onerous duties keep them sitting only a portion of the time that the House of Commons requires. Generally speaking, a senatorial appointment is a help and not a handicap to senators in carrying on their private affairs.
The arguments that have been advanced with such power and eloquence in support of our increases certainly do not apply to the adoption of a similar rate for the other place. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, much is said of the British system, but members of the House of Lords receive no

indemnities. It is for that reason the Regina Leader-Post ended this editorial by saying:
There is, however, merit in the proposal that it be placed before a parliamentary committee for thorough consideration instead of being railroaded through parliament.
This is the comment of a Liberal newspaper which, while disagreeing with the question of a royal commission, supports in general the stand taken by my leader. Give public opinion a chance. A few days ago the pension privileges would not have been dealt with had strong opposition not been taken by us on this side of the house. Public opinion was aroused. A few nights ago the Prime Minister would give almost no consideration to the question. Then public opinion was aroused, and public opinion still rules in this country.
I say to you, sir, that even now the setting up of a committee such as is suggested in that editorial would give an opportunity for the Canadian people to speak. This time parliamentary action is so far ahead of public opinion that it has never been equalled during the period I have been here. In other words in a matter such as this we hasten, but when other questions come before the house the answer is so often that we must wait for public opinion.
Certainly the arguments that were made as to the detrimental effect upon the high standard of the House of Commons if there is no increase in indemnity have no application to the other place. I suggest once more a reconsideration of the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, which at least would give public opinion an opportunity to be heard. The public would have an opportunity of voicing its disapproval, as the public's disapproval was voiced when it was generally understood that the pension act was not to be amended.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 122.


Mr. Hansell:: Yesterday when the leader of this group was speaking to this measure he stated that when the proper time came he would propose an amendment, and indicated what kind of amendment this would be. It appears that the time has now arrived, and that the amendment can be moved on this section of the bill. We are sorry the leader of this group is unable to be here this evening, having another rather important speaking engagement.
I confess that I was somewhat disturbed and I am still somewhat disturbed, as I think all must be, when members oppose a measure of this kind, which they may think is unpopular, yet at the same time accept the advantages of the legislation. This leads
Senate and House of Commons me to say that I do not know whether it is popular or unpopular. I can only go by the correspondence I have personally received; and I stated when I spoke on the resolution that my correspondence would indicate that there was not too great opposition to it.
If there is any unpopularity in the country in reference to the measure, those who favour it would take the chance of being unpopular; yet those who may oppose it, thinking they will become popular, are in a position where they can take advantage of it at the expense of those who are in favour of it. That disturbs me.
The hon. member for Yorkton in his speech a few moments ago stated that the cost of living had risen in this country and that there were many people, particularly those on pensions and receiving other social service benefits, who found it extremely hard to get through. I know that. We all know that. And as I said before, if it were a choice between our receiving this increase and that part of the population receiving an additional amount, then I think we would all oppose it, and we would let them have it.
But that is not the case. It is not going to make any difference to them whatsoever. The hon. member for Yorkton on that basis said that it was morally wrong to adopt it. Let me say to him that in my opinion it is morally wrong to oppose it, and then accept it. One hon. member this afternoon, referring to the measure brought down some years ago granting a tax-free allowance, said that when asked if he would accept it he said he would, for the simple reason that it became law, and that he had a perfect right to what was law. I am not going to argue that point at all; I think perhaps he is right there. And I would not say anyone would hide behind the law; I do not think they would.
But I believe there is a way of expressing this in law so that members can refuse to take the additional amount, and yet be within the law. If this measure goes through, as in all probability it will, those who oppose it can use the same argument: "Well, it became law, and I am entitled to it". Yes, that is so. But it is a law which those who oppose it will be able to take advantage of. We think those who oppose the measure should be in a position to show by their actions that they conscientiously oppose it, by being within the law in their active opposition.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment:
That clause 2, section 33 (1), be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
Except that for the sessions of the twenty-second parliament there shall be paid to every member

Senate and House of Commons of the Senate and House of Commons a sessional allowance at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum, plus such portion of an additional four thousand dollars per annum as he may elect to apply for in writing to the treasury officer not later than thirty days after this act comes into force.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the great levity with which this amendment is regarded in the house, and I submit that is the only way in which it could be regarded; because in the six sessions of parliament I have attended I have never heard anything so childish expressed in the form of a motion. Certainly the hon. member cannot be serious in moving such an amendment.


An hon. Member:: Don't talk about it; vote against it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I submit the time will come when we will know who are the wrong-way Corrigans. I think they are all on the other side of the house.
In the first place, for those who oppose the increase in the indemnity this motion of course means nothing at all, because if we are voting against an increase, then we have already expressed our opinion as to what the law should be. Therefore this does not enter into the situation at all. For those who are in favour of the increase, however, there might be something in it, because I am sure they are going to think about it and they will change their minds before very long.
However, to speak more seriously on the matter, let me point out, sir, that if there is any logic at all behind this motion, then certainly the same argument and the same logic could be applied to every vote that we take in this house. The hon. member for Macleod prefaced his argument by saying that this measure may be unpopular. He did not know whether it was or not, but he felt that some hon. members may be opposing it because it is unpopular. That same argument could be made on every motion that is put forward in this house, and that is just the grand over-all way of imputing motives to every hon. member who votes on this motion.
In the first place, I do not believe it is the duty of any hon. member, or that it is even the privilege of any hon. member, to doubt the sincerity of any other hon. member in this house; and certainly this motion in the way it is phrased, and the speech that was made in connection with it, were designed to create doubt in the minds of people as to the sincerity of hon. members who have taken a stand on this matter.
My stand, sir, is perfectly clear. I spoke at the resolution stage. My vote is already

on the record on second reading of this bill. I am opposed to this measure, and I am opposed to it as a member of this house expressing my best judgment as to what is best for this parliament and for the country as a whole; and I will not have anyone imputing motives on an occasion of this kind, trying to create any doubt in anyone's mind as to the sincerity of hon. members. I have too much respect for hon. members who are on both sides of this question to accept this kind of childish motion.
I will go this far with the hon. member for Macleod. He apparently wants to throw out a challenge. I am willing to take up the glove, and I will give him this deal. If he is willing to accept his increase for which he voted in Social Credit scrip I will be glad to take nothing at all.


Mr. Michener:: It seems to me that the
last hon. member who spoke misconstrued the amendment. It is an amendment which to my mind makes as much sense as most of the doctrines of the Social Credit party which I have had expounded to me in the past. It seems to me that probably we shall have difficulty in refraining from supporting this amendment. The only thing is that it will produce the odd result of having two scales of pay for hon. members, one for the government and one for the opposition, which might seem a little incongruous in all parts of the country except in those constituencies represented by Social Credit members. Of course it would be an interesting thing if we could carry this a little further, so thv.t when it comes to tax laws only those members who vote for taxes will have to pay them.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, since my name has been mentioned by the mover of this amendment, and since it casts some reflection on my honesty and integrity with respect to what I said, I shall be very glad to say to him here and to the rest of the house that I was elected to come to this house on an indemnity of $4,000 a session with $2,000 expenses. I expected nothing else, and if this amendment carries I shall be pleased to put my name to such a document. I throw that in the mover's teeth.


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Chairman, I have hesitated to speak in this debate. I have been in this house a long time. On many occasions I have felt that it was almost impossible for me to remain because of the smallness of the indemnity. I remember that when I entered municipal council I got $60 a year.


James Sinclair: You were overpaid.


William Earl Rowe: Some of my Grit friends thought I was overpaid; but, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to review what has happened over the

years of my public service. Something more than indemnity and salary, so-called, is in issue here. I am not going to go back to the logic that prompted the Prime Minister and his government to propose and support this measure. Probably I would be misunderstood. Certainly it would not be appreciated by some of my hungry friends who I see gazing at this increased indemnity. Perhaps they were not worth more than they are now receiving.
Personally I think this law should have been amended long ago. Members of the House of Commons should receive more than they are receiving. I am very sorry for members of all parties in the house, but I am sorrier for the Conservatives than I am for those on the other side. I know what goes through the minds of hon. members. They are away from their families and their small children. They are paying taxes and insurance and all that is involved in raising a family. I have been through all that. No hon. member in the house, except the hon. member for Quebec South and the hon. member for Temiscouata and a couple of others, has been here as long as I have. We realize what the younger members have to go through. I realize now that I am probably in the twilight of my political career.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member is probably in the morning of his, but the twilight will come. In fact before the hon. member reaches the twilight of his career he will be in a twilight sleep, I expect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You meant the morning after.


William Earl Rowe: What has been suggested by the hon. member for Macleod? There never has been a time in this house when hon. members should be good sportsmen and accept each other's point of view on this issue which involves themselves more than at this time.


Walter Edward Harris: That is what we thought.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. members to. my left with whose doctrine I have never been in full agreement have now put forward this amendment. I was rather impressed with the leader of the party to our immediate left and his right bower who sits to his left, who are diametrically opposed to each other on this issue. It shows they must be sincere. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, to whom I rarely if ever pay a compliment- and I hesitate to do it now unless it is wrapped up in a brick or something-has evidenced a certain sincerity. He is a man who started from the grass roots of endeavour in this country, and anyone who listened to his speech-and I have listened to him on
Senate and House of Commons other occasions-must admit that he has shown integrity of purpose and sincerity in his expression of opinion no matter whether you agree with him or not. I must say that he spoke most sincerely, and he needs the money as badly as any of us.
The hon. member for Macleod, one of those great social reformers down to the far left, suggests tonight that we should have two social classes in this parliament. He would go further than my friends to my immediate left would venture. I do not think they will ever go that far. He would go so far as the whole communist doctrine which would say that we shall serve according to our ability and accept according to our needs. Of all the ridiculous doctrines I have ever heard this is the most ridiculous.
I do not mind telling you that I have heard people on the sideroads say that in some respects the Social Crediters have some of the sound virtues of the Conservative party. When I listened to them tonight I could realize why the Speaker sat them so far to the left. They are even farther to the left than the C.C.F. when they would suggest two social classes in this parliament. Why, these same gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, have pleaded almost with crocodile tears in this house that we must not have a means test for the old age pensions. They said, "Oh, don't make these old age pensioners ever have to take a means test." I am not so sure, speaking personally and independently of my party, that that was too sound. I am not quite that old yet. On numerous occasions I had to pass a means test, when I went to my banker in order to keep my children in university while I was serving in this house. That means test embarrassed me, as between my banker and myself. I always looked over my shoulder to see that some Grit financier was not laughing at me. My hon. friends to my left and the hon. member for Macleod would suggest that we have a means test for members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Earl Rowe: He would establish a principle by which some of the rich grain growers of western Canada could say, "I will go to Ottawa and I will not charge the public taxpayer anything. I will go there for nothing because I will meet a lot of friends, and I might get my own out of it some way or another". That is no reflection on any hon. member here from the Prime Minister down, and including his predecessors in this parliament; for during the many years I have been here I have sat in clubs, I have sat in Conservative circles and in other gatherings and

Senate and House of Commons have told people that those who believe that men come to this parliament to make money are wrong.
The Liberals have been in power during the greatest time of my regime here, and that is a compliment to them. But it is only human nature. I would not need the fingers of one hand nor even two fingers of one hand, to count the number of men who have come to the Canadian parliament in the last quarter of a century that I personally know have benefited by crooked misrepresentation or taking advantage of contracts. I say that advisedly. I know something of the regime, though I do not know it all; and I know something of how campaign funds come along. They seem to have flowed in a little more rapidly lately. I cannot keep track of them, especially when I think of my younger and more tolerant years. The present government benefited or were able to get campaign funds such as I never dreamed of, maybe because they are able to do it better than I could.
But I do want to say that I believe in the integrity of hon. members. I believe we have as fine a membership as any similar group. To my mind this House of Commons is the highest type of club we have in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Pouliot:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Temis-couata has been here for a long time and he says, "Hear, hear". I know he agrees with me.


Mr. Brooks:: He is a charter member.


William Earl Rowe: He is an hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree sometimes with
Dufferin-Simcoe but never with Royal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You are never right.


William Earl Rowe: I am not going to enlarge upon this; I simply say, do not let us for one moment make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the Canadian taxpayers. Do not let us make ourselves ridiculous. I want to compliment the Prime Minister. He and I have something in common because we are both in the twilight of our political careers. The only difference is that his is much more distinguished than mine.


James Sinclair: Speak for yourself.


William Earl Rowe: You are young and probably in time you may assume the role you have in view in your own ambitions. The Prime Minister has contributed a great deal to the public service of Canada.


James Sinclair: Another 20 years.


William Earl Rowe: Some of your friends think it may take you 30 years.


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder if the hon.
member for Dufferin-Simcoe would cooperate with the Chair by addressing himself more particularly to the amendment before the committee.


An hon. Member:: It is a good show.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I have keen respect for your judgment, but I thought that was what I was talking about. However, perhaps with your responsibilities you have not been listening as closely as the Prime Minister.
Mr. Chairman, I am not fooling on this issue. This is an important matter. This is an issue that involves the integrity and purpose of every hon. member in this house. Keep in mind that it is all very well to laugh and to propose some foolish amendment such as has been proposed, but there are those who would venture to oppose a hundred per cent increase in their salaries. Perhaps that may be needed; I know more is needed than is now being received-and I am not so sure that there are not hon. members of the other house who do not run elections.
However, as the hon. member for Dauphin has so well said, I am not so sure that those hon. gentlemen need an increased indemnity. I certainly would hesitate to be a party to paying them an increased indemnity if they did not need it, for the sake of making sure that I got an increased indemnity.


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: That has just been disposed of.


William Earl Rowe: The right hon. Prime Minister says that has just been disposed of, but it is not disposed of in my mind. Perhaps they would support it just the same if you gave them what they earned. The taxpayers of this country have a right to be considered. This matter should be considered by a more or less independent tribunal, by a royal commission or by a committee of this house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. That matter has been disposed of. As I said, we have before us an amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod, and I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair by addressing his remarks to the amendment.


William Earl Rowe: The amendment proposes that we establish two social classes in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, yes. I am satisfied that the people of Dufferin-Simcoe whom I represent would be disappointed, embarrassed

and insulted if they thought I was not worth as much as the hon. member for Macleod. I am not going to go any further. I will say that if it becomes the law of this country that hon. members of this house are to receive 100 per cent more for their services, despite the fact that I and several others have sat for weeks and weeks and weeks with representatives of labour in this country telling them that they could not have more than a 3J per cent increase in their wages-


An hon. Member:: In one year.


William Earl Rowe: In one year. If this is not in one year, why did you not do it the year before the election? This is an increase for one year. You went into the election and told everybody that everything was O.K. You told the country that you were satisfied. Yet you have raised your indemnities 100 per cent.


James Joseph McCann: That was to save you getting trimmed.


William Earl Rowe: I never thought the minister was so much concerned about me any more than I was concerned about him. I am not going to enlarge upon it, except to say that as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition we have tried to show that this matter should have been given more study. We have not opposed the principle of increased indemnities as such in order to encourage better men than you or I to enter politics and come to this house. We have not opposed that. We have not opposed the general principle; we believe there should have been an increase.
Some of those who heckle the most should understand that as far as the taxpayers of Canada are concerned they do not measure their ability by their anxiety to have a larger indemnity. Some of those who have seldom risen in the house are the most vociferous about getting a larger indemnity. They are probably the members who never made as much money at anything else in their life.
I shall conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our motive should not be ill-considered. Our motives have been sound. We have pressed for a study of this problem. I will say in all fairness that this has been a difficult problem for the Prime Minister. It has been equally difficult for the Leader of the Opposition, and a difficult problem for every member of the house because it involves ourselves. We are now working on our own salaries. In doing so we give the lead to every civil servant in Canada; we give the lead to every employee in Canada; and we are giving the lead to every labour union in Canada. Even though we say that we
Senate and House of Commons should have lower costs of production we are increasing our indemnities 100 per cent.
If the majority overrules our efforts to have a more thorough study of this proposal, will the people agree and will the taxpayer agree that we are entitled to at least as much salary as those of you who have been civil servants? Some of you might be overpaid, and probably if the $10,000 indemnity is instituted you may see a great change and a group of better men in this parliament.
I will say in conclusion that I think it is a bold step on the part of the government, but I think it is ill-conceived, hastily planned and unwisely presented to this country. I believe the repercussions to this attempt on our part to increase our indemnities will make a sad story. I might also say to the hon. member for Macleod that with this increase in indemnity we do not wish to start a form of social distinction in this house, and I would say to him again that the people of my riding believe I am worth as much as he is.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, may I first thank the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe for his very kind words in regard to myself. I never thought I would see the day when the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe would express his opinion of me in that way, but he has done so and I thank him most sincerely.
This is a new and strange principle in law, but if the government wishes to accept it then it is all right with me. It is not going to hurt me one little bit. But it is strange that an amendment of this kind should be put forward by the hon. member for Macleod, who made a speech the other day pointing out that members of this house were worthy of this increase. He did not differentiate between one hon. member and another, and he included me in his list. If I were worthy of the increase the day before yesterday I am worthy of the increase today. Let me quote the words of the hon. member from Macleod as to his own attitude with regard to this matter. Speaking on January 26 he said, as reported at page 1464 of Hansard:
During the question period

This was at one of his meetings.
-someone came up with this question: "Do you expect increases to come forward this session?" I knew what was in that gentleman's mind because I know him and he was no supporter of mine. So I said to him; "I do not know. All I can say is that the newspapers indicate that something of this sort will be brought forward." But I said: "I will tell you what I will do if you want me to comment on whether or not I will accept. I will comment in this fashion. When you people refuse to take an increase in your salaries and wages or
1716	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons when you people refuse to take an Increase in the price of your products, then I will refuse to take an increase in mine."
When the hon. member for Macleod refuses to take an increase in his indemnity then I will refuse to take an increase in mine. He should be satisfied with that. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to cast reflection or ascribe ulterior motives to those who have opposed it.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: But the hon. member said so. Let me quote another example of the view of the hon. member for Macleod, and then perhaps we can see whose motives are subject to question. Further down the same page he is reported as follows:
As a matter of fact it sounds big to me-
That is the amount of the increase.
-because I do know that if I were not in public life, if I were following my profession all the year round, I know I would not get anything near what I am getting now, and my expenses would be less. I am one of the fortunate ones in being here, but I have not been able to figure out how a lawyer- and I do not want to be hard on lawyers-can come down here for $6,000 a year.
Which means, in other words, that if the hon. member for Macleod could make more money than he is making here by preaching and attempting to save souls, he would not be here. That is his view on the matter, and the words are from his own mouth.
If I were not a member of this house I believe I could make a better living somewhere else. As a matter of fact I sometimes feel, like Cardinal Wolsey, that if I had served other interests as well as I have served parliament and the people of Canada it would be better for myself. But I am satisfied. I have not a complaint or worry in the world. As a matter of fact I even like the members of parliament.
I am now in my 31st year representing the people of Vancouver. For the first two years of that period I did the job without any pay at all attached to it. I was a member of the school board and I was also earning my living by working as a conductor on the street cars in Vancouver at a wage of something like 32 cents an hour. After school board meetings, which we sometimes carried on until one o'clock in the morning, I had to be up again to take my car out at five. I felt that the work I was doing was worth while. I liked the people I was working with and the cause I was working for.
But I want to tell the hon. member for Macleod that if he or anyone else thinks he is going to scare me with a piffling amendment of this kind, which only a mind such as his could adopt, or attempt to adopt, or the


theories of social credit could concoct, then he is wrong. The amendment is just silly. The amendment is in your laps. Do whatever you like with it. It does not scare me one little bit.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe suggested that this whole matter was embarrassing for me and for the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to assert that I feel no embarrassment whatsoever. I shall endeavour not to cause any embarrassment by saying nothing at this time with regard to the amendment now before the committee. I will say, however, that I do not think this amendment should be accepted.
We are all here trying to enact the kind of legislation we believe will be wholesome for the parliamentary institutions of this country. I do not think the amendment would ornament the kind of legislation we want to have for the health of the parliamentary institutions of this country. It is not a matter of what I want or of what any other member of parliament wants. As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of what we think is the right thing for this chamber of elected representatives of the people of Canada. If the measure that we are recommending is unsatisfactory, it should not be passed. If it is passed, it should be passed because we consider it to be satisfactory treatment to accord to anyone who is a member of parliament.
Amendment (Mr. Hansell) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 148.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Repeal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you proceed with
clause 3, or perhaps it might be regarded as on clause 3, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. You will see in a moment, Mr. Chairman, why I raise the point at this juncture. Clause 3 of the bill provides for the repeal of sections 39 and 40 of the act. The desirability of repealing those sections is obvious in view of the change to an annual basis.
My question at this point is this. In between section 35 of the Senate and House of Commons Act which we have amended by a previous clause of this bill, and section 39 of the Senate and House of Commons Act which it is now proposed should be repealed, there is section 36 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. I made a few remarks on this question last night and I do not intend to develop them at any length at this point. However, I should like to add just one or two facts to what I stated last night. The other

Senate and House of Commons
day the Prime Minister pointed out that the question of the total payment made to members has been before parliament on a number of occasions. There was the statute in 1867 which set the first figure. It has been changed five times since then. This will be the sixth occasion on which the total amount paid to members of parliament has been changed since it was first established in 1867.
My point is this, Mr. Chairman. On every one of those previous occasions when a change has been made in the total amount of money paid to members of parliament, a corresponding change has been made in the amount that a member might lose per day for absence in excess of whatever period of time was considered to be permissible. For a long time now that allowable period of absence has been 15 days per session, but it has been the law of the land right back to 1867 that absence in excess of what is permitted should result in the loss of some portion of the member's total pay. Originally the deduction was only $5 per day. Since then it has been raised to $8, then to $10, $15, $25 and in 1945 to $37.50.
The question I now put to the Prime Minister is, I think, an obvious one. Why is it that on this occasion, when another change is being made in the amount of the indemnity, that corresponding change which has been made every other time seems to have been omitted?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter was considered, and we did not come to a conclusion to make any recommendation of an amendment. However, if an amendment is suggested I do not think it should go so far as was suggested by the hon. member when he spoke on a previous occasion. Any change made in the $25 brings about an automatic change in the other deduction that is made from the expense allowance. That is why it is now $37.50 instead of being $25 as expressed in section 36.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other deduction is 50 per cent of whatever is provided in this section of the act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is 50 per cent of whatever is deducted under section 36. Serious consideration was given to whether we should recommend that there be any stricter measures in order to ensure perhaps closer attendance in the house. There were many who were of the opinion that this was something that was the concern of the electors of each individual member; that when the member was away attending some function in his constituency while parliament was sitting, his electors knew that he was not present in parliament; and that there were many
occasions when they felt that he was performing, as they wished him to perform them, his duties as their representative by attending functions in his constituency. Nevertheless, the principle is that there is a deduction to be made; and in fact over the years there have been many occasions-I think almost every year since I have been here-when in the supplementary estimates there was a special vote to enable payment to be made to members who, for one reason or another, had exceeded the number of absences provided for in the statute.
The conclusion we came to was that we would have to be much more careful now in recommending supplementary estimates to make up for the deductions that would be made for absences from the house. I have no personal views as to whether the figure should remain at $25. If we want to have it just about in the same proportion as it was before, I think something like $40 instead of $25 in section 36 would make it $60 over-all, and that figure would be just about in the same proportion as that in existence since confederation.
I am not going to suggest an amendment. As a matter of fact I may not do so as it is my own bill. It would not be in order for me to submit an amendment to my own bill, even if I felt so inclined. But if any hon. member feels that section 36 should be amended to provide some increase in the penalty by way of deduction for being out of the house more than 15 days during the session, I think this is the time and place when it would be appropriate to submit that kind of amendment.
I shall add also that there is in section 41 of the Senate and House of Commons Act a provision whereby the Senate or the House of Commons may respectively make regulations from time to time, by rule or by order, rendering more stringent upon its own members the provisions of this act that relate to the attendance of members or to deductions to be made from the sessional allowance. The question was raised as to whether or not there should be some daily record of the attendance of members. We felt that was not something that should be dealt with by statute. In the other place, I presume it must be by some rule made under section 41, a record is kept in Votes and Proceedings of the daily attendance of members.
There is a committee of members sitting with His Honour the Speaker at the present time dealing with the rules of the house. It is rather difficult to say that one should determine for the electors of a constituency how they want their representative to represent them. The matter could be dealt with by a
1718	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons rule of the house providing some method whereby a record of attendance would be kept; that is something the house itself should consider. However, if the rate of deduction is to be more than $37.50, there will have to be an amendment to section 36. I believe the figure that would bring the deduction into proportion with the increase in the indemnity might be $40 instead of $25, because that would in reality amount to a deduction of $60.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for the manner in which he has discussed this matter, Mr. Chairman, and to say at once that I agree with him that making a final decision about what to do in this matter in committee of the whole does present some difficulties. May I say at this time, too, that our thinking is perhaps closer together than he realized. When I was suggesting a certain figure last night, namely $60 or $62.50, I was suggesting that in relation to the present $37.50. In other words I was proposing an over-all figure. I indicated that in my view perhaps the amount might be higher, but I put that forward as being proportionate to the deduction now made.
What the Prime Minister now suggests, namely that the present figure of $25 as a deduction from the indemnity might be raised to $40, has the actual effect of making the loss per day $60 because the other section increases that deduction by 50 per cent with respect to the expense allowance. I did not draft an amendment with respect to this matter. One of my friends in the party to the right tells me he attempted to draft one, but certain difficulties presented themselves to his mind as well. It does seem to me that this bill should not be rushed through, certainly not through its final stage, without some further thought being given to this matter. Since the subject has been raised, it may be that some comments will be made which might give a lead to the government, on the basis of which a section might be put into the bill before it is given third reading.
I agree with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister that the committee on rules might well take certain steps under the provisions of section 41 of the Senate and House of Commons Act to recommend more stringent regulations respecting attendance, and also with respect to keeping a record of attendance. But as the Prime Minister has just said, and I think I am quoting him correctly, if anything were to be done concerning the deductions from our pay in terms of dollars, that would have to be by way of amendment to section 36 of the Senate and


House of Commons Act. It has been suggested to me that an amendment of that kind could come later, but our experience around here generally is that once a bill, particularly a bill that is such a problem as this one, has been disposed of, the government does not like to reopen it to make other amendments.
I am sure the Prime Minister will not be asking for third reading of this bill tonight, even if we get through the committee stage. After all, it received second reading today and it cannot have third reading today without unanimous consent. I would hope that he and his colleagues would consider the desirability of proposing another clause for Bill No. 171 which would go in between clause 2 and clause 3, and would have the effect of amending section 36 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. I want to say quite frankly that I believe the figure should be a lot higher than the one I suggested last night. I think it should be higher than the figure proposed by the Prime Minister, but at least I would go as far as he is going and support that figure as better than the one that now exists.
The reason I would suggest the figure being higher is that even if the total loss to a member for days absent in excess 'of 15 is put at $60, it is still possible for a member to be absent from the house-let us take the extreme case which I trust does not happen-a full session and receive a pretty fair remuneration. The average length of a session is around 115 sitting days. A member could be absent the whole of the 115 days, and since 15 of them are allowable he would suffer a deduction for only 100 days. Assuming he reports all those days as being absent, if the loss is $60 a day, 100 times $60 is $6,000, which would mean he could still draw $4,000 for not having attended a session at all during that year. Now, my case is hypothetical, and it is based on that number of sitting days per year. If the number of sitting days is more or less the result will vary, but I do not think the hypothesis is too far from reality.
I suggest that example merely to point out that we are not being unreasonable in suggesting a loss of $60 per day. This would be the result if the Prime Minister introduced an amendment to section 36 so that the $25 would read $40, for an additional $20 would be deducted under the later section. I am one of those who feel that other changes should be made in respect to attendance, but I am inclined to think the Prime Minister's suggestion is a good one. I believe that sort of thing can be best dealt

with in the committee on procedure. Since I am a member of that committee, I shall have the opportunity to state my views there. I do urge the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of introducing a clause amending section 36, along the lines we have discussed just now, before this bill receives third reading.


Mr. Fulton:: I should like to say a word
or two on this subject. I agree in general with the approach indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The amount of the increase in indemnity is now a fact, so there is no point in discussing that further. It is a substantial sum that members are now to receive, and I urge upon the Prime Minister and the members of the house generally that in so far as we can do it we should ensure that the opportunities for the receipt of that amount of money by a member are made above reproach. In so far as we can do it, and only in so far as we can do it, we should eliminate the possibility that unpleasant incidents will arise where the attention of the public is drawn to the fact that so-and-so has received his remuneration as a member when, in fact, he did not attend in the House of Commons for the length of time for which, in accordance with the spirit of the act, he should have attended if he were to receive that amount of money.
I think there are ways in which that result can be accomplished. I do think we should give consideration to the question of how we can better ensure attendance in Ottawa and at the sittings of the house, in order to qualify members so they may receive indemnities. I do not mean that they have to be sitting in the chamber all day; but they would have to be here in Ottawa, where they are attending their parliamentary duties.
At the same time, while I agree that the matter can be taken care of in section 41, to which the Prime Minister referred, through having that section reviewed by the committee on procedure, I do not think it is inconsistent with what I have said with respect to tightening up the regulations when I make the suggestion that if we are going to tighten them we will have to make sure that they are reasonable, and that they conform to the obligations of a member to go back to his constituency occasionally.
I would suggest that the present allowable absence of 15 days, which is statutory, and therefore cannot be reviewed by the rules committee, should therefore be reviewed here. I believe it should be reviewed because it is a provision which has been in existence for a long time. I do not know how long, but certainly since 1927. I would assume that it was there for some considerable number of years before that.
Senate and House of Commons
I think I am correct when I say that the length of sessions has very considerably increased since the 15 days was stipulated. So my approach to the subject is to suggest that possibly the allowable number of days of absence should be increased to perhaps three weeks or 21 days, or whatever length of time might be felt reasonable, and that the requirements for the attendance of members on other days should be tightened up by the rules committee. But inasmuch as the allowable days of absence is statutory I would like the Prime Minister to consult with his colleagues to see whether it is reasonable to suggest that under the circumstances that length of time might be increased, particularly if we are going to take the other step-as I hope we will-of tightening up the regulation regarding attendance in Ottawa.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I had heard the suggestion that it would be desirable perhaps to have this period of 15 days extended to 21 days, as the hon. member has suggested, in view of the fact that sessions normally are now longer than was the case when this period of time was fixed.
I hesitate in this connection to bring something in as a recommendation of the government. We members of the government are concerned, as members of the House of Commons, with the attendance of members, so that the business of the house can be regularly, normally and properly conducted. I think we will see if perhaps even a little more flexibility could not be provided for under section 41, so that this would be a matter which would be dealt with in the standing orders of the house, and from time to time could be reviewed by the members of the house.
I do not think it will be possible to have final disposition of the bill tonight, and when passing clause 3 perhaps it might be understood that this will not prevent us coming in with something that would come before clause 3, and we might renumber the sections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then the Prime Minister and his colleagues will consider it in the meantime?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister and his colleagues, as colleagues in the House of Commons, would consider it, taking into account the views of all members of the House of Commons as such.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Allowance to Leader of Opposition.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-

Senate and House of Commons


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may meet part way the wishes of hon. members, who are honouring me by shouting my first name, I would say that I do not propose moving any amendment to clause 4, but I do urge the House of Commons to vote against it.
My main reason for urging opposition to clause 4 has to do with what is provided in that part of it that amends section 43 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. I had thought of confining my opposition to this clause to that part that amends section 43 of the Senate and House of Commons Act; but in view of the remarks that have been made throughout the course of this debate by the Leader of the Opposition I am sure he will agree with me that one should not distinguish, but that one should oppose the whole clause.
After all, I am sure the present Leader of the Opposition does not want his annual allowance raised to $15,000 until the matter has been referred to a royal commission. However, it was not that part of the clause that bothered me most. I am concerned about the increases proposed for the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition in the Senate. Hon. members who have been here for a number of years will recall that back in 1947, when it was first proposed that there be any salaries at all for the two leaders in the other house-that is, salaries in addition to their indemnities as senators-we opposed that action.
I had occasion within the last day or so to look back over the debates of that occasion, debates which waxed rather warm. As a matter of fact the rules of the other house were broken a bit in that when the bill got over there they had something to say about some of the things that had been said in this house. Nevertheless we made it clear at that time, as I make it clear again now, that this is not a matter which relates to the particular persons who happen at any time to be occupying those positions. We in this group feel, however, that, our opposition to the move in 1947 having been overruled, the salaries provided for the two leaders in the other place, in addition to their indemnities, are quite adequate.
The section with regard to the indemnities for senators and members of the House of Commons has now been passed, and that amount will be $10,000 a year. The salary for the leader of the government in the other place, provided he is not in receipt of a salary under the Salaries Act-which happens to be the case at this time-is $7,000 a year at the present time. That is, if we defeat


this clause the total emolument for the leader of the government in the Senate, provided that is all he is, would be $10,000 indemnity as a senator, plus $7,000 salary. The leader of the opposition in the Senate at the present time would get $10,000 indemnity and $4,000 salary.
We do not think it is necessary to increase the salary of the leader of the government in the other place from $7,000 to $10,000, making his total emolument $20,000; neither do we think it is necessary to increase the salary of the leader of the opposition in the other place from $4,000 to $6,000, thus making his total emolument $16,000. I repeat that this has no relationship to the present or any future incumbents of those positions. It has no relation to their political connections. It has no relation to the number of followers they may have. It is just as a matter of principle; and in the light of the amount of work that has to be done, bearing in mind also that persons who occupy those positions receive something more than money-they have the dignity and the honour that goes with them- I think the emoluments they will receive under the $10,000 indemnity, plus the salaries they are now receiving, are adequate. A great many people in this country will feel that they are too much.
In any case, the holders of these positions are getting an increase of $4,000 a year by virtue of the increased indemnity. I feel, particularly because of what is involved in the change in section 43 of the Senate and House of Commons Act by virtue of clause 4 of this bill, that this house should now turn down clause 4.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, since the position of Leader of the Opposition in this house has been mentioned in connection with this, I wish to make it quite clear that the observations I have made in regard to every other section apply to this section. I do not believe there is anything before us to indicate how these figures are arrived at. We are not dealing with the particular amount payable to any individual. The amounts are payable to those who occupy positions in parliament and should be regarded in that light. I oppose this section as I have opposed the other sections of this bill.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 93; nays, 32.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the title carry?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be the wish of most hon. members, if not

all, to dispose of the committee stage, if possible, tonight. In view of the discussion that has just occurred between the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite who spoke of certain suggested amendments, I have at the request of the Prime Minister a suggestion to make. It is in the form of a suggestion, sir, and reads:
That clauses 3 and 4 of the bill be renumbered 4 and 5 respectively; that there be inserted then as clause 3 the following:
Section 36 is amended by substituting the word "forty" for the word "twenty-five" as it appears in the first line thereof and that the word "twenty-one" be substituted for the word "fifteen" as it appears in the other parts of the section.
-and that these amendments be properly drafted by the law clerk of the house. I should add and by way of explanation, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intention of the government to call the bill for third reading until hon. members have had an opportunity to see the printed bill in its new form.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members have heard the amendment suggested by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Salaries Act SALARIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 172, to amend the Salaries Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I move that the debate
be now adjourned.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we
shall continue this debate and then take up the amendments to the Post Office Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not tomorrow private members' day?


Walter Edward Harris: I must apologize. I have a notice of motion on the order paper, and what I said is subject to that motion being carried.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1723
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 3, 1954