1954-01-26

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: A number of hon. members have been making inquiries for information on natural gas development in Canada. Dr. Hume, director general of scientific services in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, has just completed a very comprehensive survey of the whole history of gas production and development in Canada, and copies are now available at the department for any hon. members interested.



STEEP ROCK IRON MINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? My question is supplementary to questions I have asked him earlier about reports that a line of railway might be built from Steep Rock across to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Has the minister seen the report in Saturday's issue of the Fort William Daily Times Journal to the effect that the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, of which Cyrus Eaton is the chairman of the board, has now applied for authority to build a railway in that area? Has the government any comment to make on this proposed line of railway?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I have seen the report, and I presumed that what they had in mind was a provincial line which would be operating exclusively in one province and for that reason the application was not directed to the federal government in any sense of the word. But that report is now altogether out of date because I am very pleased to be able to say, after communicating with the president of the Canadian National Railways this morning, that he has informed me that any talk of building that line is now out of the question, and that he and the officers of the Steep Rock
iron ore mines have reached a complete agreement as to the method of operation in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CANADA COUNCIL  INQUIRY AS TO PRESENT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it still the intention of the government to create a Canada council? If so, can the Prime Minister inform the house as to the current situation regarding such a council?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The current situation is no different from what it was when I answered a similar question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on April 23 and April 27 last. The hon. member will find the answer I made at that time at pages 4430 and 4431 of Hansard of April 27. With respect to the intentions of the government, until a decision has been made by the government there is no one who can say what are the intentions of the government. A question with the same implications was put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as a supplementary question, as follows:
I take it that as soon as it is possible to secure the personnel the Prime Minister feels would do a good job in fulfilment of this recommendation, the government would be favourable to setting up the council.
I answered:
If I continue to be responsible for public affairs I shall be only too happy to recommend to my colleagues the establishment of a council as soon as I can put before them a set-up that would appear to be the proper kind.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour a question based on recent press and radio reports that there are some 500,000 unemployed in Canada. Would the minister care to make a statement regarding this situation?

Labour Conditions
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour!:
I want to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of the question. I think I should say that a somewhat similar question was asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). She asked whether I could give percentages as well as figures. 1 hope my answer will be sufficient to answer both questions.
In the first place, operational figures are regularly compiled by the national employment service offices throughout the country on the number of applications for employment. There is also a second set of figures compiled each month by the dominion bureau of statistics on the numbers looking for work. This second figure is an estimate based on a sample survey of the labour force including persons both with and without jobs. The survey makes possible an estimate not only of the number of people who are reported as without jobs and seeking work, but also those who are away from work for a variety of reasons such as bad weather and temporary plant shutdowns.
I would like to say that because these two sets of statistics differ this does not mean that the two figures contradict one another or that they are not valuable for their own purposes. As I have indicated, they are produced in quite different ways. Because it is an administrative agency the national employment service figures will always include a number of people who, after registration, have found jobs on their own and have not notified the employment office.
On the other hand, not all unemployed persons register at an employment office. In addition, the national employment service figures of job applicants have some limitations for comparative purposes over a period of years because the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act has been extended a number of times in recent years. Also, the number of wage and salaried workers in the country have been steadily growing so that comparisons from one year to another need to be made with these facts in mind.
The labour force survey estimate of those "without jobs and seeking work" does not include, as I have said, a number of people away from work because of bad weather, those temporarily laid off with instructions to return to work within 30 days, or those who have worked at all, even for a few hours, during the survey week. Many of these people will, of course, be eligible for and be claiming unemployment insurance and so will be included in the employment service figures. A further reason for the difference in the two figures is that some persons, when enumerated by the labour force survey, will not be reported as seeking work even

though they are registered with the employment service. This can happen either because such persons do not have a very strong current attachment to the labour force, or because of difficulties in the precise classification of some individuals, such as elderly people, married women and persons with employment handicaps.
In an effort to remove as much confusion as possible between these two sets of figures, it was decided a year ago, after this whole question was considered carefully by an interdepartmental committee, to issue both of these figures at the same time with appropriate explanations of each. This release has been issued each month, jointly, by the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics, since December, 1952. Hon. members will understand that to get out these combined figures involves a great deal of work and the official figures can be released only once a month.
Now, to answer specifically the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) more specifically, I shall give the latest figures available in the case of both the labour force survey and the national employment service applications for work together with similar figures for earlier years.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics Labour Force Survey
Without Jobs and Seeking Work
December	1952 ____ 132,000
December	1953 ....	190,000
National Employment Service
Applications for Work
December	1945 ____ 187,000
December	1949 ____ 249,000
December	1952 ____ 237,000
December	1953 ____ 338,000
In case any hon. members
Percentage of Labour Force
2-	5
3-	6
4-8
6-4
are not now
receiving the monthly employment press release I shall be pleased to see that they get it promptly.
I hope that answers the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay East regarding figures that have been quoted outside of this house. I have had prepared in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Commerce a more complete survey of the employment picture. I place myself in your hands, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I should present it to the house in answer to these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the minister should give a more complete statement on the matter?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed.


Mr. Gregg:: As I stated, this has been prepared in close collaboration with the Department of Trade and Commerce. In considering the current employment situation I would like to point out that 1953 as a whole will stand out as one of the most prosperous years on record. The high level of economic activity during 1952 continued throughout the spring and well into the summer months of 1953.
During the last few months some industries have experienced a decline in output but there is little evidence of any basic weakness in the economy. Over-all levels of income, consumer expenditures and private and public investment have continued at very high levels. In the summer and autumn of 1952 total employment expanded significantly and remained at a relatively high level during the following winter. In the fall of 1953, on the other hand, total employment declined somewhat more than seasonally, although at the beginning of November it still remained close to the high level of the previous year.
With continued growth in the labour force, unemployment has reached a level which is higher than that which prevailed in the fall of 1952. By the 10th of December 1953 applications on file at national employment service offices totalled 338,100, an increase of about
72.000	from the previous month and about
100.000	above that of a year earlier.
There has been a tendency in some quarters to use these statistics as a basis for comparing the current employment situation with that of the winter of 1949-1950. Apart from the fact that the causal factors behind the present situation are quite different from those that prevailed at that time, such as currency devaluation and import restrictions, I would like to make clear that the national employment service statistics in themselves are not a valid means of comparison. The coverage of unemployment insurance has, for instance, been extended since 1949 to cover forestry operations, and some other adjustments in coverage have been made in the intervening years. Secondly, the paid worker group has expanded during this period by about 11 per cent. These adjustments should be made before making comparisons between the two periods.
It should also be remembered that the level of economic activity in Canada at any particular time is conditioned to a marked degree by the wide variations in climate through the year. Winter weather always
Labour Conditions
results in the release of large numbers of workers from certain industries. Seasonal unemployment begins to appear with the completion of the grain harvest in the fall, it rises sharply in December and January, levels off in February and March, and then drops sharply in the spring when outdoor activity begins.
The size of this problem is not always appreciated. In the period 1947-1951 for example, construction employment declined, on the average, by over 80,000 persons between September and January. More than
60,000	persons were released from agriculture while about 45,000 workers were separated by the food and beverage industries.
Employment in sawmilling declined by about 16,000 while the cessation of inland shipping was in large part responsible for a drop of nearly 12,000 persons in water transportation. In the eight industries most susceptible to seasonable declines of this sort, the decline in employment amounted to close to 300,000 persons. The total number released because of climate and seasonal demand is probably much higher than this. However, many of these workers either retire from the labour force during the winter or find alternative employment in other activities, for varying periods, such as pulp-wood logging and other winter activities. This seasonal shift in employment patterns does not, therefore, result in an equal increase in unemployment. Nevertheless, it is clear that much of the increase in winter unemployment can be traced to seasonal declines in activity of the type mentioned. Seasonal unemployment is accentuated when offsetting winter activities such as logging fail to expand and when expansion in the manufacturing sector is easing off.
The current unemployment situation is not entirely due to the seasonal factors which I have mentioned although there are indications that the amount of purely seasonal unemployment is greater than in recent years. Other kinds of employment problems do exist in some industries in the economy and these are receiving close and continuing attention. These industries are not operating at capacity employment levels for various reasons. For some, import competition has become keener. This has been particularly true in the case of the clothing, textiles and electrical appliances industries. Others, such as sawmilling, farm implements and certain base metal producers have found world markets becoming increasingly competitive. Forestry operations in eastern Canada are currently proceeding at the low levels of last

Labour Conditions
winter, partly because of improved technology in forestry operations and partly because of the lumber and pulp markets. In most of these industries, there has been some accumulation of inventories at various levels of production and distribution, and employment in several industries is reflecting the consequent adjustments. The government is not ignoring the problems of these industries which are encountering difficulties in adjusting to a more competitive situation in both the domestic and foreign markets.
Nevertheless, I feel that it would be a mistake to draw a gloomy picture for the economy as a whole solely on the basis of the situation in which certain industries find themselves at the present time.
As my right hon. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), pointed out to you a few weeks ago, 1953 was a remarkably prosperous year by any standard. Consumer expenditures were and are continuing at high levels while the level of overall investment in 1954 is expected to be at 1953 levels, a year in which the volume of construction activity surpassed all expectations. At the same time, while some inventory liquidation is taking place, the level of inventories in general is not so high as to cause undue alarm.
Aside from the difficulties experienced by some industries, there has been a tightening up in many sections of the economy and, as has been the experience of other trading nations, we have gradually moved from a seller's to a buyer's market. Such a change is bound to bring with it both increased emphasis on seasonality in operations and more concern on the part of employers with increasing efficiency. It is reassuring to note, however, that the basic economic strength of the economy continues to be unimpaired.
I would also like to point out that the extended coverage of unemployment insurance during the past few years has made it possible to treat intermittent increases in unemployment more effectively than could be done heretofore. The greater effectiveness of unemployment insurance has been particularly evident during the winter months when supplementary benefit provisions are in force. In February, 1951, for example, active claims were 83 per cent of job applications; by 1953 this proportion had risen to 92 per cent.
At the first sign of unemployment, one usually hears the suggestion that the government should begin a large scale public works program. Public works, in some circumstances, can be a useful way of alleviating unemployment, but they are by no means a

cure-all. There are other, and often more effective, ways of maintaining high employment levels, by various fiscal and monetary measures. At present, it seems to me that it would be unwise to embark upon a greatly expanded public works program. The construction industry is one of the most active parts of our economy and with the rate of investment expected to continue high, construction work in 1954 will probably again be at record volume. Also, employment in our seasonal industries will be expanding again sharply in the spring so that by the time any sizeable public works program was under way, it would be competing with private construction of all kinds for skilled labour and materials.
This leaves the problem of what is being done to assist those out of work, whether seasonally unemployed or otherwise. Actually, a great deal is already being done. The extended coverage of unemployment insurance during the last few years, plus the provision of supplementary unemployment insurance benefits during the first 3J months 'of each year, has done much to help ease the burden of unemployment. In the first three months of 1953 for example, a total of $63 million was paid out to workers in the form of unemployment insurance benefits. This year benefit payments will be even larger. This sum would not be offsetting income losses due to unemployment were it not for unemployment insurance. Many unemployed workers are also being assisted by family allowance payments and by old age pensions. In addition, the provincial and municipal governments are making social welfare payments which benefit those in need.
As I have said on many occasions in the past, unemployment is a problem which is the concern of all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. The unemployment insurance program of the federal government is carrying the major share of the burden at the moment. There is, however, ia residual problem and the most effective way of solving it is through the joint efforts of the provincial and municipal governments and of the federal government.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question? Does he have any figures which would show the present situation with regard to those on temporary lay-off, and does he have any information with regard to those who are on short time?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, we have very good estimates. As my hon. friend will realize, we cannot guarantee the figures, but I would be glad to provide the figures whether in terms

of the over-all figure or in regard to any special industry if my hon. friend would specify the industry.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to give the over-all picture if he has it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question arising in part out of the statement he has just made, and partly out of an item which appeared recently in Arthur Blakely's column in the Montreal Gazette and in the Winnipeg Tribune. Will the next meeting of the national council on manpower have before it a report recommending ways and means of alleviating seasonal unemployment? If so, how soon will that next meeting be held?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. friend's question is yes. The manpower advisory committee has a subcommittee which is giving that problem very careful study. I am not able to say when they will be able to make their report to the main committee but I hope it will be before too many months. They are working on it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask another supplementary question. If there are worth while recommendations in that report, would the minister not agree it would be a good idea to have these recommendations brought before that council soon?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour and if he so wishes he can take note of it and answer the question at some future date. Can he give us any estimate of the number of people who are on short time in the textile industry?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will take note of that question, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Has the government as yet made a decision on the request of Madame Pandit on behalf of India for the reconvening of the United Nations general assembly on February 9? If so, has that decision been transmitted as yet?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; the matter is still under consideration by the Department of External Affairs who are conferring with
Senate and House of Commons other governments about the advisability of having a date fixed for the reconvening of the assembly.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce measures to amend
(a)	the Senate and House of Commons Act to increase the salaries of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker, the sessional allowances of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons and the annual allowances of the members occupying the recognized positions of leader of the government in the Senate, leader of the opposition in the Senate and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons:
(b)	the Salaries Act to increase the salaries of ministers mentioned in sections 4 and 5 thereof, substituting for the Minister of Resources and Development, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and adding thereto the Associate Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon this resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That this item be not now considered but that its consideration be postponed so that the subject matter thereof may be referred, for inquiry and report, to a royal commission to be appointed by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that I cannot receive the motion because it is not in order at this stage.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Speaker, before you make a ruling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion which is now before the house is merely a procedural motion to submit to the house the subject matter of the resolution so that the committee of the whole will consider the advisability of making the expenditure contemplated by the resolution. We are not acting on a mere fancy. We are acting on an order of the house which was made a few days ago.
A notice of resolution appeared in the Votes and Proceedings that the house would at its next sitting go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering the
1450	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons advisability of making the expenditure contemplated here. The day has arrived. The government has announced that the motion will be called today, and therefore there is no other course for the house to follow than to study this matter in committee of the whole. Later, after the bill is introduced and second reading has taken place, if a committal is to take place, I would imagine that at that time it might be in order to commit the bill to a commission or to a committee. But as the matter stands now, as I look at it, I do not think that this motion is acceptable.
If the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) wishes to speak on the point of order that I have raised, I am quite prepared to hear him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For my authority I refer to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 512. I base my argument-did somebody make some comment?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I base my argument on the point that you have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that what is now before us is merely a previous decision of this house that this resolution will be considered in committee of the whole at a later stage. As I understood it, Your Honour has said that that position having been taken by the house on a previous date, the matter is not now open for further consideration.
May I say at once that I recognize that, under a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Macdonald in, I think, the last session before the election, these resolutions are not debatable with Your Honour in the chair.
I am not for a moment going to suggest that the resolution is debatable. However, I am suggesting and arguing that the motion now made is susceptible of amendment and that an amendment can be put forward without debate.
I base my argument on the authority of Bourinot at the page to which I have already referred and on the similarity of this proceeding to the proceedings in connection with consideration of the bill. When a bill has been read a second time, the order then is that it be considered in committee of the whole. Your Honour then puts the motion: Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon the said bill? What is happening here is that Your Honour is putting the motion that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the 

whole on the said resolution. I therefore submit that the procedures in both cases are exactly similar. If you refer to page 512 of Bourinot, Your Honour will see the following passage:
When the order of the day for committee has been reached and called in due form

That is exactly what we have here. The order of the day for committee has been reached and called in due form.
-the Speaker will put the question,
"That I do now leave the chair".
The citation continues:
Now is the time to move any amendment to this question. Members opposed to the bill may move that the house resolve itself into committee on the bill that day three or six months: or may propose motions adverse to the principle or policy of the measure.
I submit that Your Honour has put the question, " 'That I do now leave the chair' for the house to go into committee on the resolution." It is agreed that the motion is not debatable. On the authority which I now cite, however, I submit that the motion is susceptible of amendment exactly as stated in Bourinot. Members opposed may move that the house resolve itself into committee at a later date or may propose motions adverse to the principle or policy of the measure.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has proposed a motion that, instead of the house going into committee at this time, consideration of the resolution be postponed until the matter has been referred to a royal commission for its consideration and report back to the house. While neither this motion nor the amendment is debatable, I submit that it is clearly in order to submit such an amendment, to put it without debate, and that then Your Honour must call the question upon the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before you make your decision may I point out that only a few days ago, when the item was called dealing with the introduction of legislation affecting the Post Office Department, a vote was asked for immediately, Your Honour permitted that vote, and a recorded vote was taken. If nothing is before the house except that we go into committee to consider what is before us, I submit that there could have been no occasion for a recorded vote at that time to decide whether we should or should not go into committee. The procedure of this house is an ever-changing form that is moulded by the decisions here from day to day. By permitting the recorded vote only a few days ago, on the motion to introduce legislation affecting the Post Office Department, Your Honour at that time accepted the

proposition that something can and does happen between the calling of the item and the consideration of the resolution by the committee. On that basis I submit that it is quite proper that a motion now be presented to defer consideration of the item until a royal commission can be appointed and can make its appropriate report.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that at a certain period in the past these money resolutions, which had not been debatable, became debatable. That was the difficulty that confronted Mr. Speaker Macdonald when he decided that these money resolutions should not be debatable. I have here his ruling which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of March 26, 1953, and in Hansard of March 26, 1953, at pages 3293 and 3294. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the concluding paragraph of Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling, in which he said:
Accordingly in future once the house has decided that the Speaker will leave the chair at the next sitting of the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a resolution I will put the motion when the order is called, but the motion will not be debatable-
Here I would submit to hon. members that it is a good principle of procedure that whatever is not debatable is not amendable. How can you introduce an amendment if you are not allowed to debate the question? I continue:
-although members will have the right to vote thereon.
This is where I join with the view of the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the other day I allowed a vote. That is quite normal and exactly in accordance with the ruling I have just quoted. Whenever the order is called I put the motion: Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon this resolution? If an hon. member says "No" then I do exactly as I did at the request of of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the other day. I say: "Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea; those who are opposed will please say nay." If five members rise I then say: "Call in the members."
I am quite prepared to do so today just as I did in response to the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am not acting today in any different manner from that which I adopted the last time. If the hon. member does not want the motion to be considered now he will probably reach the same objective by asking for a vote and voting against the motion. If the vote were
Senate and House of Commons carried in the negative the motion would not disappear from the order paper but would have to be called on some other day.
I hope I have made myself clear. The procedure relating to public bills is one that is provided for by standing orders. But when the hon. member for Kamloops contends that the procedure as to resolutions is the same as that which is to be adopted with respect to public bills I beg to disagree with him, and I should like to refer him to standing order 75 which reads as follows:
Every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal or amendment.
That is the rule as far as public bills are concerned, but there is no such rule with respect to resolutions. This resolution, as I say, is one that appeared in Votes and Proceedings. It was called on the orders of the day and the order of the house was that at the next sitting the house should go into committee of the whole to consider it. As hon. members know, the government may call its business as it sees fit. Standing order 17, subparagraph 2, reads as follows:
Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
The acting leader of the house announced that this matter would be proceeded with this afternoon. The orders of the day were being called and the deputy clerk read the order. At this stage, after I put the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole, the only proceeding which can take place is for hon. members to ask for a vote. Then I will ask for the yeas and nays and give my opinion as to whether the nays or the yeas have it. Therefore hon. members will realize that I cannot accept the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, this resolution proposes that the Senate and the House of Commons Act be amended to increase the indemnities paid to members of parliament, the salaries of the Speakers of the two houses of parliament, of the Deputy Speaker, of the leaders in the Senate and of the Leader of the Opposition, and that the Salaries Act also be amended to increase the salaries of ministers of the crown. It is intended, if the resolution is approved by the house, to introduce separate bills to amend each of the statutes concerned.
Before giving the reasons why the government decided to recommend these increases, I should like to say a word about what I think
1452	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons is the purpose of the parliamentary indemnity. It was never intended, and it is not now intended, that members of parliament should be salaried servants of the state. Members of parliament are representatives-that is true of members of both houses of parliament -and, to be truly representative, it is desirable that they should be drawn from a wide variety of occupations and walks of life and that they should be able to retain, while they are members of parliament, their connection with the occupation or walk of life and the area from which they were chosen to be representatives in parliament.
It is obvious, however, that if members must regularly expect to be absent from their homes or their ordinary place of residence for about six months in each year, and in some years even longer, few members can expect to derive from their normal occupations at home the income they would otherwise have.
Moreover, attendance at parliament makes it necessary for most members of parliament, those who do not habitually live in Ottawa, to provide themselves with a place to live in at Ottawa for a substantial part of each year in addition to their ordinary home residence, and with anything approaching the length of the sessions in recent years many members want to have their families with them in Ottawa and must have them with them if they are to have any family life at all. This, I happen to know, is of especial concern to members with young families and to members whose ordinary place of residence is at a long distance from Ottawa.
Then, too, it has always been considered important that members should have sufficient income to enable them and their families to live decently without having to worry about going into debt or being otherwise subject to embarrassments which might affect their objective approach to matters with which parliament has to deal in the interests of the nation. The purpose of the indemnity, therefore, seems to be to compensate members to a certain extent for the loss of ordinary income, to meet the additional and necessary expense of maintaining two places to live in and to help them to preserve their complete independence and objectivity in dealing with public affairs.
While membership in parliament should not be, and should not be regarded as being, a full-time occupation, it is essential that members should be able, without a too embarrassing loss of income, to attend the sessions of parliament for as long as sessions are necessary to meet the public needs, and at any time of the year that sessions may be really required in the public interest.


However much we may be able to improve the rules, I am sure we are all agreed that the normal annual session of parliament will in future continue to be much longer than the session extending over sixty-five days with fifty sitting days which the statute apparently contemplated and which it now provides for. It was my experience, and I am sure it was the experience of the opposition and the leaders of other groups opposite, that there are an increasing number of persons apt to make suitable and even distinguished members of this house who just cannot accept being candidates, because they feel that the present indemnities are not sufficient to enable them to support their families as they feel they can or as they feel they should support them. I know as a fact that in the last parliament, and I am sure it is also true in this one, a good many members found that even after reducing their previous standards of living quite substantially they could no longer make ends meet and they had to incur debts in spite of their modest scale of living.
Now, I cannot believe that the people of a country as great and as rich as Canada has now become really want that condition to continue, which makes it difficult for any but the fairly well to do to serve in the national parliament without having to make substantial financial sacrifices. These sacrifices sometimes amount to real hardship. Certainly such a condition would not make for truly democratic representation in parliament which the people of this country want.
My colleagues and I came to the conclusion that this problem should be tackled from two angles, and that was the reason why I stated in the national broadcast I made from Vancouver on July 9 of last year that it was our policy "to seek appropriate amendments to the rules of parliament with a view to ensuring speedier and more orderly conduct of the nation's business without any abridgement of the rights of the opposition or of any minority to give expression to its views. We believe that if men and women of ability are to continue to be attracted to public life some way must be found to reduce the length of some of the debates in parliament, and to make the conditions of membership less burdensome than they have become in recent years."
There is no question that if we can shorten the sessions, without neglecting in any way the interests of those we are sent here to represent, the burden and expense in parliament will be somewhat reduced. But I do not believe anyone seriously believes that the sessions can be sufficiently reduced in length

to make the present rate of indemnity adequate to cover the purposes to which I have referred.
It is true that in 1945 provision was made by parliament for an expense allowance of $2,000 which, in the case of the members of this house except ministers and the leader of the opposition, is not subject to income tax. That allowance was, however, intended to enable members to defray the multiplicity of out of pocket costs of visiting and representing their constituencies which no member can escape if he is to perform the proper functions expected of a parliamentary representative. It is not proposed at this time to make any change in the rate of that expense allowance.
The basic indemnity for attending the sessions has not been changed for over 30 years. It was fixed at $4,000 in 1920. In that long period the indemnity of members of parliament has lost its proper relationship with almost all other forms of compensation and with prices and costs and, we must admit it, has been considerably diminished by the high levels of direct taxation which are necessary under present-day conditions. Indemnities of members of most provincial legislatures, and of the national parliaments or legislatures of most countries comparable with Canada, have been increased to a point where ours suffer very much by comparison with the ratio that existed a generation ago.
The increase now proposed will certainly not do more than restore the relative proportions that existed 30 years ago. We are recommending that the indemnity be increased from $4,000 to $8,000 and at the same time it is proposed to change the basis of payment so as to end the situation which now exists whereby it is possible for members to receive two indemnities in a single year if it happens to be necessary to have two sessions of parliament.
It is the view of the government that the new indemnity should be high enough to compensate members for attending parliament on as many occasions and for as long a time as may be necessary to look after the interests of the public. We think it is bad for the prestige of parliament to leave any room for the suggestion that additional sessions, which are sometimes necessary in the best interests of the public, are, in fact, being held to increase the remuneration of members. We know, of course, that such is not the case but it is undesirable to leave any occasion for that kind of suggestion.
After careful consideration of all the alternatives, it seemed to us that the simplest method of making this change was to provide that the indemnity should be paid in 12
Senate and House of Commons monthly instalments in each year. It was represented to us that such an arrangement would meet the personal convenience of members in arranging their own budgets. For this parliament the 12-month period will start from the first day of this session, and the monthly payments will be practically the same as they are under the present law up to the end of the session. Then, instead of the unpaid balance being paid out immediately, it will be spread over the remaining months of the 12-month period. No further indemnity will start to accrue until November 12, 1954.
I want to emphasize, however, that the change in the basis of payment is not meant to change the character of the indemnity. It is still intended to be compensation to members for attending the sittings of parliament, and not a salary for being members of parliament. The provisions for the appropriate deductions for absences for other than accepted reasons will remain in effect.
I turn now to the second proposal in the resolution which is that the salaries of ministers of the crown and of the Speakers and leaders in the houses of parliament should be increased. These salaries have not been altered since 1920. This fact, in itself, is perhaps all the argument needed to explain why an increase in salaries might be justified at this time. I do not think anyone would question the statement that ministers of the crown have full-time jobs of an exacting character, with heavy responsibilities. Under our constitutional system, the same is true of the position of the leader of the official opposition.
I doubt if anyone who occupies one of these positions expects the remuneration to be comparable with the rewards open to persons of equal ability in private life, either in business or in the professions. I am sure no one expects, either, that the contrast will be too great. The increase proposed for ministers of the crown and the Leader of the Opposition is $5,000 a year. This would be provided under the bill to amend the Salaries Act, which would contain a provision that it would not come into force until the end of the present fiscal year, April 1, 1954. Since ministers will also receive sessional indemnities and the annual expense allowance for members of parliament, this will mean that their total annual remuneration will be $25,000, all of which will be subject to income tax. They will continue also to have to provide their own cars to get about and to receive $2,000 instead of having the use of car service provided by the government before 1931. This seems to be still a most modest amount compared with the salaries and earnings of most

Senate and House of Commons Canadians with senior executive positions in business or in the higher reaches of the professions.
There is another reason, perhaps not an important one, but still one that is worthy of some consideration, for increasing the remuneration of ministers. In the nature of things a reasonable relationship must be maintained between the remuneration of ministers and the salaries of the senior public servants. For several years past the government has been finding it increasingly difficult to provide salaries for senior public servants which will enable them to resist the inducements which are offered to many of them in other fields, and which they have been under great pressure to accept.
The recommendation also proposes that the salary of the Prime Minister shall be increased by $10,000. I must admit that I was reluctant to have that included in the suggestion that I was going to have to bring to parliament. I was reluctant to have it suggested that the differential between the remuneration of the Prime Minister and that of the other ministers should be widened, should be increased; but my colleagues were insistent that any smaller increase would not preserve a proper relationship. I am not so sure about that, because I know what my colleagues have to do, and I know what I have to do, too. Of course, these matters are not apt to be dealt with again for some time. It is 33 years or more since they were dealt with last.
It was pointed out that it would be less than fair to future holders of that office to have to make for them a change which was not felt to be the right thing to do at this time. Well, I felt I had reached an age where it was my duty to look on this matter as I would look at it if I were not the Prime Minister at the present time, and to take my share of responsibility in recommending an increase that was felt to be justified.
As I said before, these increases would not become effective until the beginning of the next fiscal year, April 1, 1954. We felt it was very desirable to have no possible suggestion that there was going to be anything retroactive in this. The starting of the new system from the first day of the session will mean that the monthly payments will be just about the same as they would be under the existing law, and that the only real difference will be postponing the paying out of the balance during any monthly instalment for the rest of the twelve-month period.
Of course, under our constitutional practice it is the exclusive responsibility of ministers of the crown to recommend expenditures,


and my colleagues and I are not seeking to escape that responsibility in making these recommendations. Hon. members will appreciate, however, that these recommendations, which affect all of us in parliament personally and directly, present an unusual situation. All of us feel reluctance to do for ourselves what we would not hesitate to do for others. However, all of us have a duty to consider first what is advisable in the interest of upholding and strengthening our democratic parliamentary institutions, and I ask every hon. member on both sides of the house to put aside all personal or partisan considerations and to approach the consideration of this resolution and the consequent legislation in an objective spirit, and deal with it not because of the way in which it may affect him personally, but in the way in which he honestly believes will be in the best interests of our Canadian parliamentary institutions.
I would say to hon. members on this side of the house that if they honestly believe these increases are not in the long run to be in the best interests of our democratic institutions, they should not feel that because I am the one recommending them at this time they should submit their judgment to mine. These matters should be dealt with exclusively on the ground that the opinion expressed by each individual member will be his opinion as to what will really in the long run serve the interests of the Canadian people whom members of parliament are here to represent.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, with most of the observations that the Prime Minister has made there will be general agreement in this house. Without in any way reviewing what already has taken place, we indicated a desire to follow another course. Might I say to those who indicated some hilarity about the fact that the committee procedure was not opposed that the ruling of the Speaker was that the only question before the house then was whether the Speaker should leave the chair. The Speaker has left the chair, and in committee we are discussing a resolution which says it is expedient to introduce measures to do certain things.
The Prime Minister has reviewed these things which it is intended to deal with. He has devoted some considerable time to an analysis of the position in which members of parliament now find themselves because of the greatly increased cost of living and the greatly lengthened sessions of parliament. He has indicated his belief that it is unlikely there will be a substantial reduction in the length of the session, I am sure there is general agreement that the efficiency and the dignity of parliament, and the respect of the

people of Canada for the parliament which passes the laws that affect their daily lives, do call for a recognition of the fact that it will not be possible to obtain the service of members of parliament unless the indemnity or allowance-call it what you will-has some relationship to the sacrifice that is made by their separating themselves from their ordinary place of residence, and in many instances from their families.
The Prime Minister has said that whatever indemnity or allowance is approved should not be regarded as a full-time salary. He has expressed his belief-and I think there will be agreement with the belief-that it is important that members retain their contacts with their own constituents, and that the value of their service was constantly increased and refreshed by contacts they were able to maintain with their own constituents and the people whom they serve in their own constituencies.
On the definition he has given regarding the attitude we should take toward indemnities and allowances of this kind there will not be debate. I think there will probably be agreement on the part of every member that it is most desirable that members be drawn from the widest possible variety of skills and occupations. May I say also drawn not just from a variety of those who make up the population of this country but also from the two sexes. We are doing our best on this side and we hope that the number of lady members of parliament will be increased. Possibly the recognition of the expenses to which lady members are put in the establishment of living quarters here will have some bearing on the number that may be able to offer themselves as candidates in coming elections.
There certainly will be no disagreement about the fact that members should be able to have their families with them when they are here. There certainly will be no disagreement about the fact that every hon. member of this house should be able to maintain those amenities that may be open to any hon. member. Undoubtedly the quality of service and the approach to the problems that confront us will be moulded and shaped in some substantial measure by the extent to which hon. members are able to retain their constant association with those family contacts that mean so much to every one of us. I am sure that all that is agreed upon.
Then the point is raised as to what the compensation should be. It is not a salary in the sense of a full-time salary and it is not intended to be income in the ordinary
Senate and House of Commons sense. There is a point that arises and a question that cannot be easily dismissed. It is a question which has engaged the attention of those who have been called upon to consider this subject on earlier occasions. Agreeing upon the definition of the payment and agreeing upon the general approach to this problem, we are all confronted with the question: What is the appropriate amount?
At that point we are compelled to ask ourselves: How are these figures arrived at? There may be perhaps a greater tendency on the other side to agree in the omniscience of the government without any supporting evidence than there would be on this side. The conviction that an indemnity or allowance should be added, the conviction that the kind of parliament that the people of Canada want may be helped greatly by payments that will attract all who would be willing to offer themselves, does not in itself answer that question.
On other occasions it was regarded as advisable that some steps be taken to find out what would be appropriate. I notice the Prime Minister referred to the words which he used in Vancouver in July of last year in regard to the intention of the government to take steps which would facilitate the procedure in this house and in that way make it possible for members of parliament to give more effective service. I did not notice any word in the quotation he mentioned which suggested that it was the intention of the government to make this increase in the indemnities or allowances. I do not think it would be desirable that anybody be under a misapprehension that the quotation which has been placed on the record was intended to place before the people that this subject was embraced by those words.
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we have been told that it is not intended to change the $2,000 payment which was provided in 1945. May I read the words of the then prime minister, Mr. King, when he presented for second reading the bill which dealt with this subject:
The principle of this bill is to provide an allowance of $2,000 a year to members of parliament to enable them to defray expenses incidental to their calling as members. It provides that deductions shall be made from this amount on the basis of non-attendance of members. It also provides in the case of ministers of the crown, senators, and the hon. the leader of the opposition, that the allowance shall be regarded as taxable income. That is the extent of the measure.
It will be seen that while this was not subject to income tax in the case of hon. members of the house, it was subject to taxation in the case of ministers of the crown,

Senate and House of Commons leaders of the opposition in the House of Commons and the Senate and of members of the Senate. That very fact indicated that this was not some reserved amount and that that decision that it should not be taxable was related to the way in which it was paid and the total amount being received. Therefore the question arises in the mind of every hon. member: If there is to be an increase in the indemnity such as is proposed, should this part be exempt from taxation in any case? There are a great many Canadians who do believe that the indemnities should be increased, who want to make sure that those who serve the public in parliament are not called upon to make too great a sacrifice, but who nevertheless would be inclined to think that it would be a very healthy thing if every cent we received were subject to taxation.
Whether that contention is right or not there are a great many people who have already indicated their opinion to the effect that those who are assuming responsibility for the taxation of the people should themselves be fully conscious of the impact of that taxation on whatever they are paid. That may or may not be sound argument, but at least it should be possible to explore this in the way any matters of that kind can be explored, and the reasons for and against fully examined and consideration given as to whether a larger payment, if it is to be provided, should not be fully taxable so that there is before every hon. member of this house and of parliament a full consciousness of the impact of taxation upon the money that is received.
At least we can say this, that it is quite certain the voters of Canada would not approve a complete exemption. If they do approve of some exemption, then at what point do they think that exemption should begin? These are things that certainly call for some consideration.
The Prime Minister has said that the basic allowance of $4,000 has not been changed for thirty years. On the one hand that would seem to be a very cogent argument in support of the contention that something be done in view of the greatly changed value of the dollar in that length of time, and the greatly increased length of the sessions of this parliament. It also suggests that, if this figure has stood for thirty years, a few weeks or a few months more will not be unreasonable in arriving at a correct and sound decision as to what should be done in this particular case.
The Prime Minister has said that the government thinks it would be bad for the


prestige of parliament if there were any possibility of the suggestion that two sessions be held for the purpose of giving a higher indemnity. I am sure the Prime Minister will be the first to recall that I used this argument on an earlier occasion to express objection to the calling of special sessions which produced that result. Most certainly I agree with that statement. Most certainly I agree that whatever indemnity is paid, it should be an indemnity that is paid for a continuous session that will permit the conduct of all the public business of Canada without the possibility of some additional amount being paid under any circumstances that could bring parliament under possible suspicion of seeking to improve its own position. I was going to use another expression but I will satisfy myself with "improve its own position".
It can be said, and said very properly, that no one is taken by surprise by the introduction of this measure. Steps to increase the indemnity or allowances to members have been under consideration for some time and have been openly discussed and, shall I say, somewhat vigorously promoted. This has found its way into the press and may I say that the reports I have read have correctly interpreted the discussion that I believe has taken place. There is no surprise in regard to that. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not recall the discussion of some of these other subjects that are brought forward at this time. The discussion has related to the increase in the indemnity or allowances to members and there has been a great deal of interest shown in that subject, as members on the opposite side are well aware. I have not attempted in any way to leave the impression that there is not a general belief that indemnity and allowances should be adequate, when we decide what adequate is. That is something we should determine.
Let us remember that no hon. member can satisfy himself he is dealing with this by the same standards we would apply to ordinary legislation if he is prepared to deal with the whole subject matter of this resolution simply because he believes that the indemnity to hon. members is proper or otherwise. This resolution is a rolled-up package. This is not just a single question of indemnity to members. This rolled-up package is an interesting grab-bag and there are a number of interesting features to it. When we open the package we find that it deals with the indemnity of hon. members which has been discussed so frequently and, may I say, with a very high degree of understanding between members on both sides of the house. When I say understanding I mean understanding of the

problems, because there is one point I wish to make quite clear, Mr. Chairman. There has been no consultation in regard to this measure.
The Prime Minister very properly and very frankly has stated that the government has accepted responsibility for making this decision. But there was no prior discussion as to the wisdom of this course or the procedure to be followed. Therefore, we must examine this on the basis that the government, having accepted the responsibility of presenting this resolution and proposing legislation of this kind, is placing the duty upon hon. members of considering at this time, first, whether it is expedient that the legislation be introduced, and, second, of considering at a later date how to deal with the legislation itself if this resolution is passed. The first thing that we find-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wonder if the Leader
of the Opposition would just permit me to say this. I would not like him to leave any impression from his remarks that I have been discourteous either to him or to the leaders of the other parties.


George Alexander Drew: No, no.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I informed them of what responsibility we were taking and in doing so I did not ask them to make any kind of commitment because I realized that we had to take full responsibility for bringing the matter for decision before parliament. I did wish to do them the courtesy of telling them what responsibility we had decided to take.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there was no
suggestion on my part of any discourtesy.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know, but I would not
wish anyone to think that there might be some kind of a suggestion to that effect. I know the Leader of the Opposition did not wish to make that suggestion.


George Alexander Drew: There was no suggestion on
my part of any discourtesy on the part of the Prime Minister, but since the point has been raised I wish to keep the record quite clear. The first I knew of this, and this is no suggestion of discourtesy, was when the Prime Minister said the government took full responsibility. The first I heard of it was the day after the government had made its decision and the Prime Minister asked me to meet him in his office just before this motion was to be presented to the house and he informed me what the government intended to do. There was no consultation either as to the method or content of this resolution, and I mention that so there will be no misunderstanding on the other side or
Senate and House of Commons any suggestion that we at any time, by implication or otherwise, either approved or had an opportunity to approve of the procedure that is being followed or the details that have been given to us. In fact, I again emphasize the fact that the Prime Minister did take the position he has explained. He said to me that he would not expect me to express my opinion but that he was simply informing me of the decision for which the government took full responsibility.
The second subject that we find in this rolled-up package is indemnities for members of the Senate. Are the members of the committee fully informed as to the expenses of the members of the Senate and as to the difficulty of obtaining candidates for appointment to the Senate? I confess that I have heard no suggestion of great difficulty in obtaining members of the other house, even at the figure now being paid. I only mention this point because these, after all, are things that have to be borne in mind in deciding what is appropriate.
The next subject we find in this rolled-up package is the increase to the members of the government. We have been informed that this is to be an increase of $5,000. No matter what views may be held in any other part of the house, the Prime Minister has indicated his belief in our constitutional system and has continued a long recognition of the position of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and to whoever may occupy those positions from time to time has applied whatever proposal is made.
This resolution still further deals with the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker and it also provides for retroactive payments. This is quite a collection of things that we find in this rolled-up package. No; we are not just dealing with this single question of the indemnity to members. Surely no hon. member of this committee is going to go blindly ahead and make a grab for the whole thing just because he believes that part of it is right. After all in dealing with a resolution which says that it is expedient that certain things be done, as members of the House of Commons we have a responsibility to know that it is expedient. We also shall have a responsibility, when the bill is before us, to know that the contents of that bill contain figures and results which are in keeping with the situation fully examined by the measures that are provided under our parliamentary system. Therefore the modest conviction of any hon. member that he is fully entitled to the compensation provided for a member of parliament is not in itself sufficient argument to carry with it all the rest of these things


Mr. Sinclair:: We did.


George Alexander Drew: I hear somebody across the way saying "we did". They reformed it in the way they go about reforming anything. They made it completely subservient to their own party. But there are some people who do not think that is the way to make the Senate efficient within our constitution. In fact, I do not think the Prime Minister does or, speaking seriously, that any hon. member on the other side really does. Nevertheless these interjections sometimes do carry even beyond this house. We have urged that there be that long-delayed reform of the Senate that would make it possible for the members of the Senate to give the kind of service that I believe they want to give. I am satisfied that they, as Canadians, want to do the best they can for Canada, whether or not it was difficult to get them there. I do believe that this is long overdue, and that increased allowances to members of the Senate and the executive associated with the Senate also
1460	HOUSE OF
Senate and House oj Commons should be related to some of these reforms that would increase the opportunity to give effective service.
There is another point, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to make. I ask hon. members to bear this point in mind. We have taken the position over and over again, or shall I say that the government has taken the position over and over again, that it is not right for this parliament to make decisions that will increase expenditures from public funds without careful, extended and adequate consideration of all the facts. I do not need to review the number of occasions, even recently, when approval in principle was accompanied by the statement that it was essential that great responsibility be shown towards the public revenue, and that before we could justify substantial expenditure of public funds all the facts should be fully available and should be examined.
If we could justify to ourselves that explanation for delay in dealing with any other problem, then we must take sufficient time to obtain that kind of information in regard to a measure of this nature when we are going to be the beneficiaries if this bill becomes law. I repeat what was implied in the amendment I proposed earlier, but which was ruled out of order. I state my request that the government defer consideration of this measure, that it should not proceed any further at this stage or any subsequent stage without assurance that before we discuss the bill we will have an inquiry by a royal commission to go into the whole subject matter of this problem. May I add that we should have an assurance by the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government, that Senate reform will be tackled and that steps will be taken to carry out a re-organization of government along lines that have been suggested in this house from time to time. I believe this is sound business practice. When we talk about sound business practice and the recognition that you must pay the executive to do an executive job and that the return must be adequate for everyone to get the right kind of people, let us make sure we have taken the steps necessary to provide a framework within which the kind of people we want can do the kind of job the people of Canada want.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I can only make this as a proposal. I do say I believe this is a time when great caution should be shown in doing anything that might suggest we were any less cautious in dealing with our own affairs than we were in dealing with the affairs of other people who depend upon this parliament for action of one kind or


another in relation to their daily affairs. We have people hoping for action from this government along many lines. I need not discuss them now. Every hon. member knows many subjects in regard to which the people of this country are calling for action from this government. Let us be sure that no suggestion goes out from this parliament that, while we are reluctant to act in regard to the things that affect the daily lives of our people, we will act with such speed, or with little information, when our own advantage may be concerned.
There is one way that the debate can be terminated at this point for the time being, and that would be an assurance by the Prime Minister that a royal commission will be appointed to conduct the kind of inquiry that will give us the detached and objective findings on which we could subsequently act with confidence, so that the people of Canada would believe no personal interest dictated the decisions we make here.


Mr. Coldwell:: The Prime Minister, in his
remarks this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, suggested that members in all quarters of the house, and belonging to the various parties in the house, should decide what should be done on the basis of what is best for this institution and for this country. I believe that is the basis upon which we have to make a decision. I believe that we cannot shift the responsibility of a decision onto the shoulders of anyone else; that is, in effect, what we would be doing if we turned the matter over to any outside body. I say that immediately after the Leader of the Opposition has spoken.
This is a matter upon which I am certain there will be differences of approach and differences of opinion, not only amongst the members of the house but in the various parts, and amongst the people, of our country. What we have to consider is this: whether or not some increase in the indemnities paid members of parliament is warranted. Personally, I have long held, and 1 have not refrained from saying so, that some increase in the indemnities of members of parliament has been warranted for some time. I have stated that in the House of Commons on previous occasions, and I have stated it in my own constituency. In speaking to some members of this house before the general election, and one or two members of the government, concerning the possibility of an increase in the indemnities, I said I thought it would be much wiser to have the increase laid before the parliament which was dissolved last June so that they would take effect when this parliament assembled. I believe the country would have understood.

I believe candidates who were seeking election or members who were seeking reelection would have known what to expect when they got here, and would have been able to make their arrangements. However, that was not done.
The Prime Minister was good enough, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, in a courteous and proper manner, to ask the leaders of the opposition groups to meet him-I believe separately, for I met him separately-so that he could tell us what the government was going to propose. In doing so, he made it abundantly clear he was not asking any one of the opposition leaders to make any commitments, but he was giving us that information in order that we might think over what was to be proposed in this house. Consequently, I was able to go to my colleagues in the C.C.F. party in this house and convey to them in confidence what the Prime Minister had told me. We were, therefore, able to discuss the situation.
I want to say very clearly that most of my colleagues-and I use the word "most"-consider that some increase in the indemnity to hon. members of this house is warranted. I want to make that abundantly clear. Most of us, however, think, in discussing this, that the government's proposals this afternoon are higher than are necessary. I remember that in the parliament which was dissolved in June of last year we had six sessions. During those six sessions, which occurred in four years, those of us who were re-elected in 1949 received on an average $6,000 for the four years; that is, the total indemnities that were paid to us in the four years amounted to $24,000, which gave us $6,000 a year. In addition, of course, we got the expense money which, if added to the total, would mean that on the average hon. members received in the last parliament almost $8,000 for each of the four years we were here.
I want to say to the Prime Minister and to the government that we believe that was ample; we believe that is about what should have been proposed now. There may be differences of opinion regarding that, differences of opinion among my own friends, but most of us believe that. I say that, probably because of the experience we had over the last four years, we feel that that would have been the right amount, in other words that the total indemnity proposed should have been $6,000.
The government has decided-and I understand the reason-to maintain the $2,000 expense allowance. The reason is that we passed an amendment to the Income Tax Act, and I believe all the legislatures followed suit, making one-third of the indemnity
Senate and House of Commons exempt from income tax, and many of the municipal bodies in the country have followed the examples of this parliament and the legislatures. I can quite understand why the government say if this has been the generally accepted practice in public bodies in this country, then it would be difficult for this parliament to upset that practice at the present time.
I may say that I think we would have been wiser in 1945-looking back now to those days-to have increased the indemnity somewhat then and made the whole amount taxable. But we did not do that. We set a precedent; we changed the Income Tax Act, and the result is that all the legislatures and many of the municipal bodies followed suit and made part of their emoluments tax-free.
When the bill is in committee, at the proper stage, I shall try to put our ideas in this particular on the record, that the indemnity should be $6,000 plus the $2,000 expense allowance. That is what most of my colleagues think should be the solution.
I turn now to the other factors and other proposals in the resolution. I shall say this. I said it in the house once before when the residence of the prime minister was under discussion some few years ago. Regardless of the personality of the prime minister- that is not the point; the point is the position of the prime minister in this country-I think most of us feel that the emoluments of the prime minister of this country certainly should not be very much less than the emoluments of the governor of the Bank of Canada or of the president of the Canadian National Railways. If the Prime Minister's emoluments are increased now they will still be considerably less than the emoluments of the two gentlemen whom I have just named.
Of course the same considerations may apply-we have some reservations regarding this-to the ministers of the crown who surround the Prime Minister; but there is one thing we cannot approve because of the position we take regarding it. We cannot approve the proposal to increase the indemnities of the hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in the other place. We believe that today this branch of the parliamentary institution-and I will not quote the words of Shelley regarding an unreformed senate; I suppose it would not be parliamentary if I did-is archaic and unrepresentative of the country. I say we cannot support that part of the Prime Minister's proposals because we view the other place in the manner in which I have just indicated. As long as the Senate is there I am not going to say anything against the senators, because I think many of them are very fine people.

Senate and House of Commons But it is an institution, unrepresentative, archaic, out-of-date, beyond the House of Lords in the powers that it now has.
A word with regard to the payment of the indemnities. All of us approve the method suggested by the Prime Minister of paying this on a 12-month basis. As to the dating of it, there may be some differences of opinion; but certainly it puts us on the basis of having no additional indemnities if parliament is called twice or indeed three times a year, and I think that is a very good thing. I never liked the two sessions. The Prime Minister may recall that on one occasion I objected to the possibility of it privately to him, but this obviates any misunderstanding that could occur across the country regarding the payment for two sessions, and that is an excellent feature of the proposals now before us.
Since the annual basis is desirable, it is desirable that the amount shall be paid in equal instalments, month by month, and paid from one election to the other. On the basis of the indemnity payable for 12 months no additional payment is possible by this house other than on a 12-month basis.
These are the principal points that I wanted to lay before the committee as the point of view of most of my colleagues of this party. Like the Prime Minister, we have considered this and we have come to conclusions in our own minds. I have placed before the committee what is the consensus of the largest group in our party regarding this very important matter.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to the previous speakers with a good deal of interest. Before going into a general discussion of the subject may I deal with one or two things the Leader of the Opposition has said, and also one or two things the leader of the C.C.P. party has said.
In the first place, may I say that I agree with the Prime Minister and others that this is not a party matter; it is a matter that parliament as a whole must decide, and upon which each individual member must express himself. The Leader of the Opposition has recommended a royal commission, which does not strike my fancy at all; in the first place, because it does seem to me that when anything of this or of almost any similar nature arises our Conservative friends always suggest a royal commission. If I have heard that royal commission argument once over the past number of years I must have heard it a dozen times. My colleague the hon. member for Wetaskiwin whispers in my ear that perhaps this is the way the Conservative party has of


solving the unemployment problem. If we went forward with all the commissions they recommend everybody would be on one.
After all, does this involve such tremendous investigation that it requires a royal commission? There are perhaps a couple of dozen salaries involved. What is involved with respect to the increase in indemnities will vary, I suppose, from about $7,000 to $12,000, but surely it would not need a royal commission to decide that. I do not think the point is well taken.
I have not consulted with all my colleagues, but I think we are in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in respect to the Senate. I am one who believes in the Senate. I think the Senate can be made to perform exceptionally useful functions, but there is one thing to be considered in respect to allowances for those in the other place. After all, they do not sit quite as long as we do. They do have periods of time when they can go back home and look after their businesses. On the other hand, when a session is not being held they do not have constituencies to look after. We do, and in recent years we have found that our job has become a fulltime job.
Then with respect to the resolution itself, I believe the country has been given some considerable notice that this resolution was expected. I am not familiar with the words of the Prime Minister in Vancouver referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, but the press have carried various dispatches referring to this particular measure. During that time the public and the press have had considerable time to comment on the matter. Except in a few cases the editorial comments I have read have pretty well been in favour of something of this kind. I have read some criticism in respect to increases for the Senate, and in respect to tax-free expense allowances, but generally speaking the press have favoured some such move as this.
As far as actual protests from the people are concerned, I can go only by the number of protests I have received. I will tell the house how many I have received-three letters. One of them was really bad. It called me everything under the sun. I turned to my secretary and said, "That fellow is a stinker." She said, "You had better be careful. It may not be a fellow; it may be a woman." The letter was not signed. However, it was not from anybody in my constituency so I did not worry very much about it.
The other letter contained a modified protest, and the writer was quite gentlemanly in his manner of writing his letter. I was

somewhat disturbed about the third letter, which came from a war veteran who was on the old age pension and receiving $20 per month by way of war veterans allowance. He wrote and said, "I am glad you are getting an increase, as I think you members of parliament are doing a pretty good job, but I do wish they would increase the war veterans allowance."
I should like to comment on that, because I fancy that the general belief among a lot of people whose incomes are very small would be something like this. Here are these members who have authority to increase their indemnities, yet we have to live on a shoestring. The psychology is bad. I do feel for them, but even though this measure were not introduced I am sure it would not mean an increase in such social services as old age pensions, war veterans allowances and the like. Of course it would not mean that.
Social services in this country run into a tremendously high figure, millions upon millions of dollars. I am sure if members of parliament were given a choice of having their allowances increased or of having an increase in social services such as old age pensions, war veterans allowances and the like, every hon. member would say, "By all means increase the old age pensions and war veterans allowances." Every one of us would do that. However, there is little relationship between the amount of money involved in this, even though it may sound like a lot, and the amount involved in increasing old age pensions, allowances and so forth by $10 or $15 a month.
There is another point which has been covered already. For the most part incomes have been practically doubled all along the line during the past number of years while our indemnities have remained the same. However, there is a feeling abroad which has been indicated in some of the editorials I have read, that while it is true others have received increases in salaries, wages and so forth, members of parliament have the power to increase their indemnities and as a result get it out of the taxpayer.
There is a misconception there. Those people do not realize when they say that, even editorially, that we are all taxpayers in one form or another. When the levels of salaries and wages are raised throughout the country it is written into the cost of production. A higher cost of living must come out of the taxpayers. The only difference is that it is not obtained through the income tax channel. It comes out of the baby's milk bottle, or out of the shoes and clothes we buy for our children. We are all taxpayers and it comes out of the taxpayer
Senate and House of Commons just as much as these other things do, though through a slightly different channel. I wish those who comment on these things would first make certain they have the proper picture.
There is another point that has not been considered, and that is that after all the government, which means the Canadian people or the national treasury of the country, is going to get back a pretty good slice of this in income tax. When people look at the Prime Minister's salary of, for instance, $25,000 they whistle and say, "My goodness, that is quite a chunk". Well, it is quite a chunk. I do not know how much it costs the Prime Minister to live, but even supposing it cost him $10,000-I happen to have some tax tables here-on that extra $15,000 he will pay over $5,000 in income tax. Therefore he does not get that $25,000. The same comparison can be applied relatively to the other cabinet ministers, and it applies relatively to us too.
I figured out my own income tax, and on the proposed increase I am going to pay a couple of thousand dollars. That is never considered when editorial comment is written. People see only the bold figures, forgetting that the government is going to get something back.
There is another point I would like to bring to the attention of the house, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. A great deal of editorial comment-I know I keep using that particular phrase, but after all if we want to get the opinion of the country we usually read the papers-stresses the fact that we get a $2,000 expense allowance tax free, and it is claimed we are the only ones in the country who get a tax-free allowance. But that is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not the only ones who get expense allowances free of tax. Every commercial traveller, anyone who goes out as an employee of a company, has an expense account on which he lives when he is away from home. He hands in that expense account, and he does not have to pay any tax on it. The expenses are written into the cost of the operations of the company and into the cost of production, and the taxpayer pays them. That is something that is not generally realized.
While we are in committee I would like the Minister of National Revenue to offset that opinion by telling us what categories of

Senate and House of Commons expense allowances are similar to ours and therefore tax free. I think the information would surprise the country. In fact I think it would be advisable if he did give the house that information.


An hon. Member:: How many are there?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know, but there must be many. It is about time for me to resume my seat, but let me conclude with this. I spoke at a public meeting during the Christmas recess, and at that meeting there were gathered some farmers and labour men. During the question period 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 knew 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 when you people refuse to take an increase in the price of your products, then I will refuse to take an increase in mine."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: That is just the way I felt
about it. I will say this, to a large proportion of the people in my constituency, my income will sound big to them. As a matter of fact it sounds big to me 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. All I can say is, you must be a sort of two-by-four lawyer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: If I could not go out and
practise law and make more than $6,000 a year I would eat my hat. The same applies to doctors, or any man in a profession, or any man with his own business. We had a man here at the last session of parliament. He did not run this time because his seat was cut out. We could have found him a seat but he said to me, "You don't need to find me a seat. My practice was worth $15,000 a year before I came here and now it is all shot to pieces. I am not coming back again." That was his comment.
All these things have to be recognized. We must also remember that some of our members have passed on and some members

were defeated before the retirement allowance came into being. They were poor men-


The Deputy Chairman:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I have to advise him that it is five o'clock and the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


Ernest George Hansell: I am through anyway, Mr. Chairman.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 169, respecting Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 170, respecting the Associated Canadian Travellers.-Mr. Hanna.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 81, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of moving the adjournment of the debate the other day, and presumably I am not in a position to do that now. However, in view of the arrangement made with the hon. member, if someone else would do so I think it would meet the convenience of all hon. members.
On motion of Mr. Mcllraith the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The business which was to be considered during this hour devoted to private and public bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to the business which was under consideration prior to five o'clock.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce measures to amend
(a) the Senate and House of Commons Act to increase the salaries of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker, the sessional allowances of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons and the annual allowances of the members occupying the recognized positions of leader of the government

in the Senate, leader of the opposition in the Senate and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons;
(b) the Salaries Act to increase the salaries of ministers mentioned in sections 4 and 5 thereof, substituting for the Minister of Resources and Development, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and adding thereto the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say a great deal, but there is one thing we can say and that is that the Prime Minister is not a coward. He does not want to pass responsibility even to a royal commission, to the Leader of the Opposition or to any other leader. He is taking full responsibility. I think we have a right to be proud that we have a Prime Minister who will face the music in this respect.
As to the increase in salary, I do not care a bit about it.


Mr. Fleming:: Do not call it salary.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not think I will need it any longer than 20 years, anyway, and I can get along on the little bit extra that I can earn. However, I have known members of parliament who were broke when they got through, and who lost their businesses. We must consider these people. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think he is opposed to this increase. I do not think the opposition group is opposed to this increase. But they say we are doing it in the wrong way. That is all I have to say.


John George Diefenbaker: This is one of these matters which come before parliament which impose a tremendous responsibility on each and every member of the House of Commons. That was stated by the Prime Minister in his opening remarks. It is in that spirit that I rise to support the suggestion made by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, that parliament and the country have not sufficient information upon which to act, as parliament is arbitrarily asked to act under the terms of this resolution.
Only the other day I was reading the works of the French philosopher Diderot. That philosopher said that when the artist thinks of money, he loses his sense of beauty. I think those words apply with particular force when we debate a question such as this affecting, as it does, the democratic rights in our country and the need for maintaining parliament in its amplitude so that it may truly represent and lead the Canadian people.
Someone said that a royal commission would shift responsibility. It would do nothing of the sort. Is the government shifting responsibility when it asks for the setting up of a royal commission in connection with 83276-93
Senate and House o} Commons the criminal law, in order to deal with certain amendments to be made to the Criminal Code? Nothing of the kind. I hope that is not shifting responsibility. The other day the Minister of Justice announced that a royal commission would be set up in order to secure the opinions of people generally qualified to speak with regard to certain changes to be made in the law.
Above everything else, as we discuss this matter, we dare not allow the Canadian people to come to the conclusion that parliament, because we have the power here, can become a grab-bag at the option of any of us or all of us. I believe that a royal commission would go far to enable the people of Canada and parliament to learn the facts. Certainly the Prime Minister has placed before parliament no reason why some of the increases to which reference has been made should, in fact, be made or why the figure fixed in this resolution as the increase for members of both houses of parliament should indeed be the proper figure.
The Prime Minister endeavoured to answer the possible charge that this matter was left until after the election before action was taken by parliament. On July 9 he made a radio speech which, as I heard it, gave no indication to the Canadian people that, in the first session after the election, there was to be an increase in the indemnities. We who were elected-we were not conscripted to be candidates-were elected on the basis that the indemnities we were to receive were, in fact, the ones we had been receiving. I find it difficult to understand why this measure, if it is so necessary, should have been introduced now, immediately after an election. I find it difficult to understand why it should not have been introduced last session, to be implemented after the election. In 1920, when an increase took place, it was within a few months of the expected date of the election.
One thing further I should like the Prime Minister to explain is this. If this increase is necessary, or if it is required to be made, why should it be made retroactive to November 12, the beginning of the present session? What is the reason for that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because the amount is practically the same. Under the present law the payment for each day that parliament is in session, whether it be a sitting day or not, is $20. Under the new schedule it would be $21 and a few cents, so that it is practically the same. For purposes of accounting it will be more convenient just to have the payments go along as they are made under the present law and to have whatever remains
1466	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons unpaid then extended over the remaining months of the 12-month period rather than paid in a lump sum at the end of the session.


Mr.   Diefenba@: The Prime Minister's
explanation answers the question in part, if not in full.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We felt that it would be undesirable to have it retroactive in any way.


John George Diefenbaker: On the face of it, it had the appearance of being retroactive; but the explanation given now, coupled with what the Prime Minister said a while ago, namely that we would receive the same rate of instalments until the end of this session and then continue the instalments thereafter, in effect meets the criticism that I make. Nonetheless, the impression formed at first glance would be that it was retroactive.
I see no reason for haste in connection with this matter. A royal commission would enable a full and frank discussion to take place and evidence to be placed before the commission by those who are not interested in the results. I believe the people of Canada are not in favour of this measure as now constituted. At a time like this I think the people of Canada are asking the members of this chamber to practise a degree of selfcontrol that is not apparent when a measure such as this is brought forward with such haste for the purpose of putting it through in the same manner.
If a royal commission should agree as to the necessity of an increase in indemnities in order to keep good men in parliament it could have no other result than to place before us information that we do not have now, and would provide a cooling-off period for the people as a whole as they became educated day by day with respect to the need for this measure. I implore the government not to push through this measure by the force of their majority.


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member will of course remember that the question of a royal commission was negatived.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear Your Honour's remark.


William Alfred Robinson: The question of a royal commission was negatived before we went into committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with profound respect, an opportunity was not afforded to negative it. It was a ruling of the Speaker that the amendment was not in order, and not having been in order he ruled it out of order. But I trust Your Honour is not making a ruling to the effect that once the Speaker


rules out a matter on technical grounds, the House of Commons is not permitted thereafter to discuss that which at the moment could not technically form part of an amendment.
Not contravening Your Honour's ruling, I say that a royal commission would throw light upon many parts of this measure that are now difficult to understand. We are asked to raise the standard of parliament by an increase in indemnities. If a cure will indeed be effected by an increase in indemnities, why should parliament, in going to the medicine chest in order to improve the health of parliament, be placed in the position of having to accept, in addition to the medicine that will be good for it, additional pills that I do not believe the Canadian people want parliament to take?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I am only going to say a very few words at this stage of the debate, largely to indicate where I stand with regard to this question. As the Prime Minister was explaining the purpose of the resolution to the committee I was struck by the thought that he must have been a very effective lawyer in court. As a matter of fact, as he explained the difficulties and hardships of members of parliament I began to feel that I had suffered quite considerably in the public interest during the last 24 years. I was afraid there was something hypnotic about his words, and I closed my eyes and began to make a rough calculation of the years of my life.
I was brought up on a farm, and on a farm you go to work pretty early in life. I have put down ten years of age as the time when I really began to work, but I am quite sure I was doing my share of the work long before that. But after that time I really worked. There was no time for school, no time for university, no time for anything except work and bearing the responsibility for running the family farm after the head of the family had passed away. From the time I was ten until I entered the House of Commons I found that there was a period of about 35 years, and I thought of the various kinds of work I did during that space of time.
I must say that I have never had it so easy as since I became a member of parliament. I do not think I have neglected my work as a member of parliament. When your home is in Vancouver you cannot go home very often on these Thursday to Tuesday week ends, and whether or not I wanted to I had to stay here. As I had to stay here I of course was working. I was on the job-seven days a week. Between sessions I was helping to build a new party, and there is

no part of the country with the exception of the province of Newfoundland, where I have not spoken and spent considerable time.
When I am at home people are continually coming to me about little matters. Nevertheless I must state, as I siaid before, that I have never had it as soft as since I came here. I believe that is true of members of parliament in general. I noted what the Leader of the Opposition said about the difficulty in finding members to serve in the other place, but even as far as the House of Commons is concerned there is no great difficulty in getting candidates.
I look across the floor and I see people who have stood for office election after election. They feel they are lucky if they are elected. New members come here, and there is a general scramble to get a seat in this house. We come here not because of the indemnity, salary, or whatever you want to call it. I must say it is go:ng to come pretty close to a salary if the indemnity is to be put on a monthly basis. We come here because we like the work and associations, and feel that this is where we wiant to be.
The hon. member for Macleod said that a lawyer who would come here for $6,000 a year must be somewhat of a two-by-four lawyer in his own community. I can look around the chamber and see members who are not two-by-four lawyers either in their own or any other community. If we are going to make the size of the indemnity the reason members come here, we are not going to raise the standards of this house; we are going to lower them. The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to reasonable or satisfactory-I do not know exactly the words he used-compensation for the sacrifices made. Surely the hon. member knows that you cannot be paid for sacrifices. A sacrifice is something you make because you want to do it. If you are to be paid for it, it is not a sacrifice.
My main objection to this increase-I am not going into the figures now-is that it increases the spread between members of parliament and members of the government and the people we govern. If there is anything that history shows us has caused trouble down through the ages, it has been the economic separation of the people from the government. This has caused a great deal of the world's troubles. Every time we raise the salaries of cabinet ministers or the indemnities of members of parliament, without at the same time raising the incomes of the people in our community who need to have their incomes raised, we are separating our 83276-931
Senate and House of Commons government from the people. That is a bad thing for any country.
I said when I began that I was not going to say much. If I do not stop soon I shall not be holding to that statement. I am opposed to this measure, first of all because of the amount of increase. I believe it is fantastic. I did not hear anyone say, throughout the whole of the election campaign, that he or she was going to Ottawa for the purpose of raising his or her indemnity at the first opportunity. From no party, Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. or Social Credit, have I heard any suggestion that this was the first thing they were going to do. Every member I heard speak from the public platform, every member I saw reported in the newspapers, every member I heard over the radio, said he was coming here for the purpose of improving the conditions of those amongst us whose conditions need to be improved. Reference was made to old age pensioners, persons on war veterans allowance, and many on low incomes who, as one newspaper stated editorially not so long ago, never have enough to eat. This situation exists in this rich country to which the Prime Minister referred.
I, amongst others, said I was coming down here, and asked my people to send me down here, to do something for those who were unable to do something for themselves, and for those who could not come here and raise their own incomes. I am not going to support any increase in income for any member of parliament until we have made some attempt at raising the incomes of the poor in this rich country.
(Translation):


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, I would feel remiss in my duty if I did not rise to express the opinion of the people who have sent me here.
In my opinion, the resolution moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is very untimely because we should realize that everywhere in Canada, and more particularly in the city of Quebec, represented in the house by the right hon. the Prime Minister, as well as by myself, there are thousands and thousands of unemployed workers who have to beg their daily bread. Yet at that very moment, we in the House of Commons would take advantage of their misery and vote ourselves an increase of more than 100 per cent in our indemnity! I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how logical such a gesture would be.


Mr. Dupuis:: It would be logical!
1468	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: II that is logical in the constituency of my hon. friend from St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis), it would not be in my constituency, where there are working people who know the difference between what is logical and what is not.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of meeting a large number of my electors in the past few weeks during which newspapers have been mentioning the proposed increase in our parliamentary indemnity. I can say that not one worker and most of our workers earn less than $50 per week would agree that we should not look after them at this time when there is so much misery in Canadian homes but that we should think of increasing our indemnity by 100 per cent.
Everywhere in Canada, there are old people who are getting $40 per month and who evidently cannot live decently on such a small sum, but they have to be satisfied to eke out a miserable existence.


Hector Dupuis: When the Conservatives were in power, they did not get anything.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I was not born 50 years ago.


Hector Dupuis: I am not speaking of 50 years ago, but say 25 years ago.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I was not there. I was only a youth then. I hope that the hon. member, whom I am not even addressing, will be from now on kind enough to let me continue my remarks.


Mr. Gingras:: He was saying sensible things.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that there are everywhere in Canada old people who cannot, on $40 a month, live and meet their obligations, pay their rent, eat properly and dress decently. A great number of these old people, all across the country, are asking the government to increase their pension. We turn down their legitimate request, and yet at the same time, we members of parliament are going to vote ourselves a 100 per cent increase!
I have before me the correspondence I received today; these 151 letters have come to me from people of the working class, men with large families, who have been asking for a long time, on account of the steady increase of the cost of living and the overburden of taxation, an increase in family allowances in order to be able to meet their obligations and give a little more happiness to their families. Do you think that in the face of such a legitimate request I would feel happy to meet these


people and tell them that while their request has been turned down, we have been pleased to support the Prime Minister's motion to double our indemnity.
There are at present all across Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, young people, single or married, who during the last world war gave their best for the defence of Canada, their motherland.
A large number of them-and the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) could surely corroborate this-write in every day to ask whether it would not be possible to increase the pittance which they receive since it is not sufficient to enable them to meet their obligations. And yet, while these people who have risked their life for Canada are refused the pension which they are asking for we are expected to be so inconsistent as to support this motion now before us and to increase our indemnities 100 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, in the past year, every important public body in this country has been urging a reduction in income tax. There is nothing to indicate though that in his next budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will bring this about. All important public bodies in this country are therefore being refused a fair request. No small increase in pensions or family allowances is being granted those who are really in need of it and yet, at the very same time, the right hon. the Prime Minister, who himself represents a district almost wholly made up of working people, is asking us to support this resolution and, as servants of the people, to vote ourselves this 100 per cent increase.
I believe this measure to be highly unpopular at the present time. The government will be the one to answer for it to the taxpayers of this country.
In spite of the statements made in and out of this house by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) and other cabinet members, there is at this time an economic recession in the offing. Thousands of workers are out of work. They are asking for employment, they are urging the government to proceed with public works so as to be in a position at least to earn a living for themselves, their wives and children. The government have done nothing to alleviate their plight.
Where can you find logic in this resolution moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister? I would have liked him to have had the opportunity, before introducing this resolution in the house, to visit his constituency, to make a tour of all the little streets in St. Roch and

St. Jean Baptiste districts. He would have seen that all these workers are sitting at home, waiting for some help to provide for their families. Had he done so, I wonder if he would have come before us today with this same resolution which he has just introduced to the members of the house.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me absolutely contrary to the principles of sound democracy to adopt this resolution as worded. I rather think it should have been submitted to the people, even before the election of August last. If only the hon. members opposite had adopted in front of the people, in front of their electors, the arrogant attitude which they are now displaying in the house toward those who do not share their opinions, I bet there would not be 50 per cent of them who would now be sitting on that side of the house this year.
We must, of course, think of the people before looking after those who claim to be their servants. When one wants to serve, one is called upon to make sacrifices; if one is not ready to make the sacrifices required of us as representatives of the people, there is only one thing to do: it is to refuse to stand for election when we are requested to do so. I shall perhaps be reminded that respect is due to the properly constituted authority. I agree with that, but if this authority which is constituted by the people for the people fails to look after the real and urgent needs of the people, here is what is going to happen. We shall have to go through the same deplorable situation now prevalent in various iron curtain countries; and we shall have to fight, even more firmly, against communism at home. If we do not want communism in this country, let us not pass resolutions which would only embitter certain people.
I believe that the motion is untimely and I very simply wish to dissociate myself from the responsibility which the government would like us to assume. Moreover, I want the country to know and especially the electors of my riding that I am against this resolution because instead of thinking of myself I want to think of those who elected me, their wives and children, who are at present in need.
I think that those few words will reflect the feelings of all my constituents and I hope that the Prime Minister will study carefully those few remarks and reconsider
Senate and House of Commons his decision and examine at greater length this resolution in order to determine if it should be passed or not.
(Text):


Mr. Thatcher:: I should like to comment,
also very briefly, on this resolution. I am pleased that the Prime Minister, the leader of this group, and others, have said that each member should express his personal views on the matter before us. Personally I must agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I regret that I cannot support the resolution.
I do not deny that a very strong case can be made for increasing hon. members' indemnities, and the Prime Minister this afternoon introduced some strong arguments. Certainly it is true that federal members of parliament are not paid an income which compares favourably with the salaries paid to many people in private industry. It is also true that a good many hon. members have had trouble in making ends meet on their present indemnity. Notwithstanding that fact, it seems to me there are a number of reasons which make it inadvisable for members of parliament to raise their own indemnities.
I feel I should vote against this resolution in the first place, because I am sure an overwhelming number of people at home in my constituency, the people whom I represent, would wish me to vote against it. If we raise our pay from $4,000 to $8,000-or give ourselves a 100 per cent increase-there will be keen resentment throughout the country. As has been mentioned, the unemployed, some of our old age pensioners, and about 98 per cent of the taxpayers who are earning less than $10,000 a year, are going to look upon this resolution as being a selfish one. This will be particularly true when they remember that less than two years ago this parliament adopted a very generous pension scheme for members of parliament. That pension scheme was a desirable one; it was a contributory scheme, and it alleviates the financial worry of ex-members of parliament with long years of service. But as we discuss this resolution now before us, it seems to me that we should also keep in mind the fact that the greatest part of the money to pay that pension is coming from the taxpayers. To ask the taxpayer for such a substantial salary increase on top of the pension I think is expecting too much.
1470	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons
1 believe the Prime Minister should make clear to parliament as we discuss this resolution what effect it will have on the pension. It has been rumoured, I do not know whether correctly, that if the indemnity is doubled, so also will be the pension. I hope this is not correct, because surely to increase the pension at this time simply could not be justified on any grounds. I hope the Prime Minister will clear up this point at the first opportunity.


An hon. Member:: Do you have any other income?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes, I have. In the second place I oppose this legislation because it contemplates the same kind of raise for the Senate. Surely there are very few people in the country who will support this feature of the legislation. I am certain that if a Gallup poll were held not -001 per cent of Canadians could be found who would go along with such a substantial increase for hon. members of the other house. Personally I should like to see the Senate abolished, but if we are going to continue it, it seems to me we should keep the salaries on a realistic basis.
In the third place, I oppose this legislation because I think it might tend to make more and more members become what has been described as "full-time" members or, by some, "professional" members. Some hon. members may feel that such a trend is desirable, but I cannot believe that the good of the country will be served if all members become full-time members. The Prime Minister said that one of the strengths of this house is the fact that when issues arise they are discussed by a cross-section of citizens. We have farmers, professional men, businessmen, lawyers, doctors and so on, to express their views on each issue as it comes up. I think this fact makes for a strong parliament. However, I do not believe we will continue to have such a wide cross-section of members if we pass this legislation, which in my opinion will mean that members will become, more and more, full-time representatives.
It is quite true, as some hon. members have pointed out, that being a federal representative has been taking more and more time. But I contend that the answer to this problem is not an increase in the indemnity; it seems to me the real answer was indicated by the Prime Minister, although he did not say it. I believe the real answer is to streamline our rules of procedure. If the committee now considering our rules would see that concrete recommendations are brought in and acted upon, I am sure it would be possible for members of parliament to get their work done more efficiently and expeditiously.


I see no reason why parliament should have to sit for seven or eight months in the year. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if our rules were streamlined, we could get through the work of the house in four or five months. Then if hon. members wanted to supplement their incomes they could go home and do so but not at the expense of the taxpayer.
Finally, and I am now going to sit down, I must oppose this resolution because during the years I have been here I have contended that the government should practise more and more economy in its expenditures. During the last election I promised to press for reduced expenditures and lower taxes. In my opinion voting for this resolution which will cost the taxpayers $1-5 million would not be consistent with that attitude. Therefore it is with reluctance that I repeat I am opposed to the resolution and shall vote against it.
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I have not heard for quite a while in this house so demagogic a speech as that just made by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). I knew the meaning of the word demagogue, but to make sure I looked up its meaning in the harousse dictionary. You will see that the word applies very well to the member for Quebec West. According to the dictionary, a demagogue is;
One who pretends to defend the people's interests to gain their favour.
Mr. Chairman, if I believed that the resolution now before the house was of such a nature as to be detrimental to the small wage earners, the low-income class, I would be the first to protest and to fight its enactment with all my energy.
Like the hon. member for Quebec West, I represent people whose income is very low. In fact, the people I represent are made up in the proportion of 80 per cent of labourers. However, I do not fear to support the resolution now before the house and I do so for the following reasons; A while ago, the member for Quebec West stated that it was scandalous, under the circumstances, to double our parliamentary indemnity when old people were only drawing $40 per month, a mere pittance as an old age pension. In that connection, I took the liberty of interrupting the hon. member to say that it was still better than under the Conservative administration, when there was no social legislation of any kind to enable the government to give assistance to those who could have expected some help in their old age.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: 20 cents per day.


Hector Dupuis: We have enacted all sorts of
social legislation; however, I do not believe that any legislator ever thought for one moment that a person could live on a monthly income of $40. No legislator ever thought that an allowance of $5 to $8 per month would be sufficient to take care of children. No member of this parliament ever thought that the pension now paid to veterans would be sufficient to render them financially independent.
We have not only filled a gap but we have also helped these people to make both ends meet. Nevertheless, the duty for the children to take care of their aged parents still remains. Because we pay family allowances, it does not mean that a man must rely on the state to support his family. No, we only alleviated their burden by helping them to support their parents and their children.
Mr. Chairman, I say for the third time that I represent a labour riding. I am quite aware of the workingman's sense of justice. One does not need a lot of money to have judgment and a sense of justice. I went all through my constituency, I saw my constituents, the workers in my own riding. Most, if not all, understood that their federal member could not represent them any longer if he were to get only the parliamentary indemnity to which he is entitled at present. They understood that if they wished to be well represented, their member had to receive adequate compensation.
You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that when the matter of increasing the salaries of judges came up for consideration, I was among the first to rise in support 'of that measure, even though I represent a working-class district. I said then that a judge is entitled to a salary high enough to enable him to accept this position of eminence and to live in a style befitting it.
Senators may possibly be different from members of parliament. It will be generally recognized that they do not have to meet the considerable expenses which the elected representatives of the people have to put up with. The latter must contribute to all the parochial or social organizations of their constituencies, and also preserve a certain standing in their various communities. They have to meet certain expenses which most of their constituents can dispense with. We have discussed this matter. I spoke to my people and on the evidence offered, circumstances being what they are, they were quite willing to admit that their representative should be adequately paid.
Senate and House of Commons
There may be a difference between the one who is now speaking to you-who is not a professional man, not even a professional politician-and a lawyer who could put away a good part of the income derived from his office, and the man who might own a business and yet have to be here continually.
I know that eminent lawyers on the other side of this house, as well as on the government side, have had to absent themselves quite often in order to plead in court. I do not refer only to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has absented himself in the past in order to plead cases in court, for I have seen other hon. members sitting on the government side absenting themselves for the same reason, thus earning quite legitimate income. The situation as regards insurance brokers and tradesmen is different from that of professional men. I have every respect for lawyers and I want them to be numerous enough in this bouse, because we must of course rely on their knowledge of the law. I do not say that the house should be peopled only by members of that profession.
We welcome them because we need their advice in certain circumstances but, on the other hand, I want to differentiate between the insurance agent, the tradesman and the professional.
So I have no qualms about supporting this measure. I am in favour of it because my mentality is that of our people. My father was a worker and there were fourteen children at home. The environment in which I grew up was that of the labouring class and of family life, and I know the mentality of our people. And to think that certain demagogues tell us that these poor workers would be the first to accuse us! As for me, I know the feelings of our people, and if they were opposed to this measure I would be the first to protest against its being carried out, but they are not opposed to it. Therefore, I will not hesitate to tell my electors that in voting for this measure I was not thinking only of the increased income I would get, but that I accepted it in order to serve them well. It stands to reason that I cannot do that unless I get adequate pay. I am saying nothing new when I state that financial worries are liable to undermine the efficiency of any individual.
I repeat that I speak for the people of my own class, and I am sure that I have not misinterpreted their opinion.
Now, let us consider the question from a different angle. The right hon. the Prime Minister said-and how right he was-
1472	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons that the indemnity granted to the members of the house had not been increased for a very long time. He was absolutely right. I know well that members of the working class are not paid the wages they are entitled to and I shall always be the first to ask justice for them at every opportunity, whenever I have a chance to do so. However, let us compare the income which professional people and skilled workers were getting in 1925, 1928, or 1930 with what they are getting now. Expenses have been increasing for us too as well as for others and the cost of living is as high in our case as it is for others. I am therefore convinced that the rest of the population will want us to be treated with fairness.
Those are the reasons why I shall vote in favour of this measure and I shall thank the government for the manner in which it takes care of the people's representatives, who, like everybody else, are entitled to fair treatment.
(Text):
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is inevitable that in the discussion of any proposal which involves consideration of the indemnities to be paid to members of parliament it should be a little bit embarrassing for any one of us who is actually a member to take part, because however much we may try to put it upon the plane that we are setting a level of indemnities which will preserve the dignity of and respect for parliament as an institution, the fact remains that we are nevertheless discussing what will be the level of remuneration for our own services.
Furthermore, in dealing with this matter we are in a position enjoyed by no other people in the country; we are in a position, whatever may be our decision, to vote upon it and increase the level of our remuneration at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, a body of which, it must be admitted-and I am frank to admit it-we ourselves are also all members. But there is no one else in the country in that position; therefore it is a subject which is always a little difficult to discuss.


I do not think there is any need for any of us to hesitate to agree that there is certainly a case for some increase in the indemnities, and for the argument that the level now paid requires revision. But I for one am certainly not prepared to swallow, without discussion, the figure which is put forward by the government and which will be introduced in legislation if this resolution carries.
In discussion of matters of this sort, both here and at home with my friends, when sometimes it has been suggested that we must be foolish to be members at the present level of indemnity and so on and that we should vote ourselves increases, it has always seemed to me that we should not lose sight of the fact that we are all free, white and 21, and that no one held a pistol to the head of any one of us and said, "You have to run for parliament; you have to accept nomination and run for election". In fact in my constituency in 1949 there were three others who contested the seat and in 1953 there were also three others, all of them estimable gentlemen, any one of whom would have been delighted to come down here instead of me. We all ran on the basis of the present indemnity.
I therefore do not think one can take as a sufficient argument to support this resolution to give us this increase in indemnity that you cannot get candidates unless you accept the present proposal. I always remind myself of those other two occasions when three other gentlemen would have been extremely glad to come down here for the present indemnity if I myself had not run and been successful.
In laying the basis for a discussion of a proposal which involves an increase in indemnities, it seems to me that one should perhaps try to sort out one's thinking on why we become members of parliament, and one's thinking on the motives and on the standards for membership. It seems to me, as it has always seemed, that there are three chief considerations in the mind of anyone who offers himself for public service as a member of the House of Commons of Canada. The one which I would put first and most important is the desire to give public service. That consideration, it seems to me, is and must always be the paramount motive. I would put second the very proper desire for power; that is to say, the desire to have a say in the conduct of the affairs of the nation. I do not suppose any one of us would have offered himself for election and been anxious to come down here unless he felt that he had

a contribution to make. That is what I call- and it may not be an apt phrase-the proper desire tor power, or the desire to place yourself in a position where you can influence the conduct of national affairs. I would put third -and only third, after those other two motives-the financial considerations which may enter into the picture.
That being my view of the matter, I say for myself, at any rate, that I think we must be careful not to approach the subject from the point of view that the financial remuneration to a member must be such that there shall never be any element of sacrifice, because I do not think that is a sound starting point for such a discussion.
Having made those general observations, I should like to turn to a particular consideration of the resolution before us and of the discussion which has taken place so far today. As will be recalled, it has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, that this matter should not now be put forward for the decision of the house but rather that a royal commission should be appointed to study and report upon it so that, with the benefit of their investigation, we might be in a position to make a decision which would perhaps be a more impartial one than we are in a position to make at the present time. I am fully in accord with that suggestion.
We have already heard from other hon. members on all sides that use is being made of the same old tactics-as they say-of saying that we are doing the right thing but that we are doing it by the wrong method. Mr. Chairman, I think this matter goes a great deal further than that. I do not think it is doing the right thing to try to put this proposal through in its present form without the benefit of such a previous study. I think it is doing the wrong thing, not doing the right thing in the wrong way. I think it is the wrong thing to do in this way., for a number of reasons.
The first reason is this. There was no announcement to the people, prior to the election, that an increase in indemnities to members and senators, in the salaries of ministers and of leaders of the opposition, would be put through, when the opportunity was available to the Prime Minister and the government party to make the statement prior to the election.
I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that prior to the increase put through in 1945 it was, in effect, stated by the then prime minister-indeed, I think it was stated in so many words-that, if returned, he would 83276-94
Senate and House of Commons regard it as a mandate to provide an increase in the remuneration of members of parliament. That issue was clearly before the people. I therefore think there could have been no objection to the method followed in 1945, in view of the statement made by the then prime minister during the course of the election campaign. No such statement was made on this occasion. No hint was given to the people of Canada that, if returned, this government would put through, at the first session, such a substantial increase in indemnities to members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, as well as the other increases which are now before us.
In the second place, there has been no study by the membership generally-and there is to be no opportunity for study-of all the factors on which a decision might be based as to what would be the proper level of increase and whether indeed, if we are going to have the increase now proposed, the whole of the indemnity should be made subject to taxation. I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that on the last occasion when we had before us a proposal affecting the remuneration of members of parliament, that proposal was referred to a committee of the house for special study. The proposal that there should be a retirement allowance to members of parliament was referred to the banking and commerce committee before legislation was ever introduced into the house. We were not even asked to pass upon the principle of it, to give it second reading, or to approve the resolution in 1952 until the subject matter of a scheme of pensions for members of parliament had been referred to the banking and commerce committee; and it was only after that committee had reported that a resolution was placed upon the order paper to introduce legislation based on their report.
Then another reason I think it would be wrong to accept this proposal at the present time is that we have had absolutely no assurance that that pension legislation will be amended if this resolution carries and these proposals become law. In his introductory statement this afternoon the Prime Minister did not utter one word with respect to the pension legislation. But this resolution and the legislation to be based upon it will have a very definite and immediate effect upon the question of pensions for members, inasmuch as at the present time pensions are not limited to the payment of so many dollars a year, $3,000 a year as would be the case under the present level of indemnities, but are paid on the basis of 75 per cent of the total amount of the contributions a member

Senate and House of Commons has made under the act. Therefore if our contributions are doubled, as they will be if the proposed legislation goes through and no change is made in the legislation providing pensions for members, the amount of our pension is automatically doubled.


Mr. Croll:: In 35 years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am quite certain it was not the intention of any member of parliament when approving of the pension legislation in 1952, and I am also quite certain it would not be the intention of any member of parliament in approving this resolution or the legislation to be based upon it, that he should at the same time be doubling the amount of pension which he will qualify himself to receive.


Mr. Arsenault:: On a point of order, the hon. member should not give the impression that these allowances for members will be doubled. It will take-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that the hon. member is not raising a point of order.


Bona Arsenault: That is my point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit that if the hon. member disagrees-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Bona Arsenault: The hon. member is giving a wrong impression.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order and I must hear what he has to say.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, let him state the point of order.


David Arnold Croll: He is. Give him a chance.


Bona Arsenault: It will take 17 years for any member now sitting in the House of Commons to reach the maximum pension. It does not follow that the pensions will automatically be doubled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member has probably said enough now for you to agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that he was not raising a point of order. The hon. member has stated the obvious. If, as I would gather from the fact that he has made this statement, he has studied the legislation providing retiring allowances for members of parliament I hope he will go on from there to take the next logical step and say that it would not be his intention that the passing of this resolution and the legislation to be based upon it should increase pensions to $6,000 a year.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I should like to agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that the point of order was not well taken, but at the same time I do not think we should allow a discussion of pensions on a resolution dealing entirely with increases in certain remuneration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit of your remarks and I shall endeavour to observe them, but I do not think you would suggest that to point out what would be one of the effects of this proposal is out of order in a discussion of this resolution. I agree with you, and I assure you that I do not intend to get into a discussion of the details of the pension legislation, but I am stating what will be the effect on other matters affecting the position of members of parliament if this proposal should carry and no change is made in the act providing pensions for members.
Therefore I would conclude this part of my remarks by stating that for myself at any rate, if there were no other grounds of objection to proceeding with the proposal in this manner-and in my mind there are-I would not be able to support the resolution unless the Prime Minister gives us a definite assurance that after this matter is disposed of the government will introduce legislation to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act so this proposal will not have the effect of doubling pensions which would be paid to members of parliament after they had made their full contribution under the pension act. Without such an assurance I certainly would not be able to support this proposal.


An hon. Member:: You would not support it anyhow.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hon. members of all the other parties, certainly of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties, have objected to the suggestion made by my leader that the proper way to deal with this matter is to refer it first for study by a royal commission. I suggest to you, sir, that that would be the proper course to follow in dealing with any proposal to increase indemnities and salaries of ministers and of the Leader of the Opposition, and indemnities in the other place. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the arguments which have already been made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, in which he pointed out that it is not a surrender of our responsibility as members to ask that a royal commission should first consider the matter and give us the benefit of their consideration and advice.
Various matters arise out of the proposal now before us concerning which I think the

only way to arrive at a sensible and impartial decision is first to have the benefit of the impartial consideration which another body such as a royal commission could give them. What it is proposed to do here, amongst other things, is to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to double the indemnities paid to members and to senators. I think there are a number of other considerations which arise in connection with the position of members of this house and senators under the Senate and House of Commons Act. Indeed, I believe it is time we took a good look at the whole of the Senate and House of Commons Act and at the position of members and senators under that act. I think such a study should be made; and it is time, particularly if we are now to be in receipt of an indemnity plus expense allowance amounting to $10,000, that consideration was given to certain features such as whether it is desirable in fact that members of the house or members of the Senate should be directors of companies which have substantial dealings with the government. One has only to look through


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Surely the hon. member will agree with me that this is out of order on a resolution of this kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, sir, but it does seem to me that on a resolution of this kind, which advocates an amendment of the Senate and House of Commons Act for the purpose of increasing our indemnities very substantially, it is quite in order to draw attention to other features of the Senate and House of Commons Act which it might be desirable to amend. I think that is particularly so if members of the house and of the other place are to be placed in the position of receiving substantial indemnities or allowances for the efforts they put forth and the sacrifices they make. The position with respect to what is proper in the way of the relationship of members and senators with the government or with companies having contracts with the government is then very much in order in a discussion of that type.
I certainly think the whole matter of the relationship between members and companies having contracts or dealings with the government, and distressing incidents such as we saw here toward the close of the last session, coupled with the fact that our indemnities are now to be very substantially increased, demand that we should review the whole situation and decide whether we think the Senate and House of Commons Act should be tightened up in that respect, or whether in fact the present situation should 83276-94J
Senate and House of Commons be permitted to continue, under which members and senators hold directorships in companies having substantial dealings with the government.
After all, the Prime Minister has said that one of the objects of the indemnity is to help members to preserve their complete independence and objectivity in dealing with public business. I quite agree with him. This applies with equal force to both members and senators. But particularly when you look through the list of senators, both in the Parliamentary Guide and the directory of directors, and you see the number who have directorships in banks and life insurance companies, as well as other companies which have direct financial dealings with the government, then I -think I am quite in order and very much to the point when I say that the position in that regard should be reviewed. I believe the Senate and House of Commons Act should be tightened up with respect to that relationship.
I ask you to bear in mind that under other legislation which is proposed the banks will be making loans guaranteed by a government corporation. There are large numbers of senators who hold directorships in banks, and in life insurance companies which also make guaranteed loans. I am not at all sure that situation should be allowed to continue. I believe that at a time when we are discussing our own indemnities we should take a good look at these related matters.
Then, too, I think it is appropriate to consider whether members of the cabinet should be allowed to hold directorships in corporations which have direct dealings with government departments. We should consider whether or not there should be some amendment to our legislation in that respect.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Once more I must draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we are discussing a resolution, which I hope he has read, which has no bearing on the remarks the hon. member is now making.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to engage in a controversy with the chair, because I do not like to do that. But I must say, although I have practically finished my remarks on that aspect of the subject, with respect, sir, I do not think your ruling is correct. This resolution starts out by saying:
That it is expedient to introduce measures to amend
(a) the Senate and House of Commons Act to increase the salaries of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker, the sessional allowances of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons . . .
What we have under consideration is a proposal to amend the Senate and House of

Senate and House of Commons Commons Act. While it is true the resolution goes on to suggest specific ways in which that act should be amended, I have already advanced reasons why I think the considerations I was putting forward are pertinent to the subject being discussed. I rest my case also on the larger ground that when we consider the advisability of amending the act it is quite in order to suggest that there are other respects in which it requires amendment. Speaking for myself, I say without any hesitation that I believe the act should be amended to make it impossible for ministers to hold directorships in corporations having dealings with government departments.
These are all matters, you see, on which it is difficult for private members or members of the government to hold impartial views. In that respect, I believe a study of the matter by a royal commission would be beneficial because such a commission could say whether the moral principles, if I may call them that, which gave rise to the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act are applicable today, or whether they should be relaxed or tightened. I just do not think it is good enough for us to take the high moral position that the reason for increasing the indemnity is to enable us to preserve complete independence and objectivity in dealing with public business, if we are not prepared to consider also that act which lays down the code of conduct of members of the parliament.
Then I believe, too, that the question of whether or not the Senate and House of Commons Act should be tightened up with respect to the arrangements made for members receiving these indemnities should be studied by a royal commission. If this bill becomes law, we are going to be placed in the position of receiving a substantial sum of money. In anyone's language $10,000 is a lot of money. In so far as we can, I think we should place ourselves in a position above reproach in respect of the receipt of that money, and indeed with respect to the receipt of our indemnity whatever it may be.
In view of some of the remarks which have appeared from time to time in the press, and having in mind, as we all have, what we know about the way in which the permissible absences from the house can sometimes be exceeded without any corresponding reduction in indemnity, I feel that while we have the Senate and House of Commons Act under consideration, while we have the matter of increasing our indemnities under consideration, we should consider also whether we should not introduce some method which would ensure that for

a person to receive the indemnity, whatever it may be, he must in fact devote that attention to the business of the nation which the rules and regulations set out. It is my own view that the act itself, and the regulations in that regard, are in need of substantial overhauling.
For these reasons, amongst others, I think it desirable that we should have the benefit of the study and advice of a royal commission before the house proceeds to deal with a subject which so intimately affects every one of us. The very intimacy of the relationship makes it extremely difficult to preserve an attitude of impartiality in dealing with it.
Hon. members to my left, both in the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties, scoff at the idea of having a royal commission. They say we would be surrendering our responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. Well, for years and years now there has been talk about reforming the Senate. I am one of those who agree thoroughly with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that rather than say the senators should not get an increased indemnity, we should so reform that body as to ensure that it can discharge the functions it was originally intended to discharge. Then there would be no question but that senators would merit it.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Surely the hon.
member will agree that reform of the Senate cannot be discussed under this resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been referred to on a
number of occasions this afternoon, and it does seem to me in order when this resolution refers to the Senate. If this resolution carries, senators are going to be in receipt of an increased indemnity. The Senate is a part of the governmental structure of Canada, which is very much before us at the present time. All I am saying is I do not think there is a single member here who would fail to agree that it would be desirable if we found some method of reform which would avoid, in the future, those criticisms which have been levelled at that body in the past. The criticism that has been made in the past is not desirable or happy from the point of view of preserving the dignity of parliament, but I am convinced it will continue-and should continue-if the present situation continues without reform.
If, as appears to be the case, it has been beyond the powers of the Liberal party, with all the ability and brains of the cabinet and all the ability and brains of the national Liberal advisory council or whatever they call it, having been in power for the last 18 years, to find some method of reforming the Senate, notwithstanding that this plank has been in their platform since time when

"the memory of man runneth not back to the contrary", then I believe if it is that difficult for the government to find some method to reform the Senate this subject might well be referred to a royal commission. That being the case-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be better just to abolish it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not agree with my hon. friend's point of view there. That being the case, there are, it seems to me, unanswerable arguments in favour of that method of dealing with the subject, arguments which show not only that you are not just doing the right thing the wrong way, but that you are doing the wrong thing in insisting on this resolution being carried in the house at the present time.
I might ask my hon. friends-and I am not making the suggestion for the opposition, because I am not authorized to do so- whether, if they and the government object to a royal commission, they would agree that the subject should be referred first to a special committee of the house in the same way as the pension legislation was referred to a committee of the house before it was ever introduced either officially by resolution or in any other way in this chamber?
I think I have said sufficient, Mr. Chairman, to indicate why I do not feel, in the absence of any indication from the Prime Minister that these suggestions will be accepted, that I can support the resolution.
By way of summary I would suggest that the following are matters which should and must be dealt with before this matter can come properly before the house and before the house can properly be asked to pass upon the subject. First, there is the question whether or not it is intended to introduce an amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; second, whether or not we shall get a prior assurance and commitment that there will be any measure of reform of the Senate which will ensure that the increase in indemnity there will be justified; and third, whether or not the Prime Minister will assure us that this matter will be referred for study by a royal commission or committee of this house.


Mr. Poulioi:: Mr. Chairman, you know very well that Winston Churchill hated to talk about his money troubles. Of course it is a delicate matter, but it is a matter which should be considered in order to decide whether or not the indemnity should be increased. Without expressing a definite opinion against the increase, hon. gentlemen of the Progressive Conservative party have
Senate and House of Commons suggested that the matter should be dealt with by a royal commission, without mentioning what people they would like to have on the royal commission.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We would be ruled out of order if we did.


Jean-François Pouliot: As a rule, royal commissioners are judges. Sometimes it is one judge, sometimes several judges. In other cases the royal commissioners are men of importance who do not belong to the bench. With regard to the bench, the judges should be disqualified for two reasons.


Donald MacInnis: I know one of them already.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the first place because, according to the elections act, they do not have the right to vote in federal elections. They are disqualified from voting and therefore they are by themselves a class-


Donald MacInnis: No, they are not by themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: -which is apart and completely outside politics in order to maintain their perfect impartiality. This is the first ground for impeaching judges as royal commissioners to decide whether or not the parliamentary indemnity should be increased.
In the second place, since the judges are very busy and since they do not know anything about our problems, because those who were in politics previously are supposed to have given up their former links with political parties, they would not be in a position to decide whether members of parliament are entitled to an increase in the indemnity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They would probably recommend that their own salaries be raised.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then there would be no objection from the opposition.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What would the government do with that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute; I did not interrupt the hon. member, although I was eager to do so.
What astounds me is that any time there is an increase suggested in the salary of a judge or a high official, anybody who is not a member of either house of parliament, it is swallowed like a gulp of water by hon. gentlemen of the opposition. I remember perfectly well that in the railways and shipping committee two years ago the Minister of Transport asked the question whether he should tell the salary paid to Mr. Donald Gordon as president of the Canadian

Senate and House of Commons National Railways. Without a voice of dissent it was decided by the committee, on which were some Conservative members, especially the hon. member for Kamloops, that we should not be told the amount of salary received by Donald Gordon, which is more than that received by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How do you know; have you been told?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, this question was put by the Minister of Transport: "Should I tell the committee the amount of the salary paid to Mr. Gordon"? It was decided unanimously that the answer should not go on the record. The hon. member for Kamloops is a member of the railways and shipping committee. Whether he was there I do not know, but other members of his party were sitting there and there was no objection from anyone with respect to a salary which is known to be higher than that of the first citizen of Canada, the Prime Minister. That is one point.
I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition did not ask me for a suggestion for a text-


George Alexander Drew: I did not find it necessary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute-for a text for the oration which he delivered this afternoon. It would have been a Latin text from the Bible: "Piger vult et non vult." The idle -this does not apply to the hon. gentleman, who is a hard worker-is willing and he is not willing. He was willy-nilly, willing and not willing. Imagine one of his constituents from Carleton being in the gallery and listening to him speak. Afterward he would be met by someone else who would ask him, "Was the Leader of the Opposition, your member of parliament, for or against an increase in the indemnities?" The constituent would have to reply, "I have the highest consideration for my member of parliament and he was clever enough not to compromise himself on that issue. Was he for or was he against? I don't know."


An hon. Member:: Barkis was willing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then what about the other legal luminaries of the opposition? I enjoy the smile of the hon. member for Prince Albert much better than his frown. Let him smile; let him beam. He will say, "royal commission". The hon. member for Kamloops was non-committal. He was for a royal commission. Was he for or against the increase? No one knows. I listened to him with joy, as I always do, to try to find out how his mind was working about it. I am sorry that his


skull is not made of clear glass; I am sorry that his skull is not crystal clear to permit me to see.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is nice to have your admission that you are not a mind reader.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not a mind reader, but I would like to be. If the object I mentioned was crystal clear I would be in position and anyone would be in position to be a mind reader. But let us forget all that.
Imagine a royal commission composed of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Kamloops sitting together. How embarrassed they would be. They would have to decide something, and it takes them a long time to reach a decision. They have not reached it yet. Imagine the tremendous amount of work they would have to do. They take things seriously. Suppose all the members of parliament were in some great building such as the Supreme Court of Canada. We would be in those spacious halls and we would see them on the bench, but before being sworn in they would hesitate to accept.


William Alfred Robinson: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member in view of the close attention being paid to his speech, but I would ask him to co-operate with the Chair in discussing more particularly the resolution before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell you that I do not want to be interrupted when I am in order. 1 hope this is the last time I am interrupted like that, because otherwise I will have something to tell the Chair.


William Alfred Robinson: I think the hon. member-


Jean-François Pouliot: I withdraw. Now to continue my argument.
We are there and the royal commission is to sit. When I mention the royal commission I am mentioning a body which has been advocated by some hon. gentlemen to act in lieu of themselves to make a decision they were afraid to make themselves. We know that the Progressive Conservative party has a tradition. The Progressive Conservative party is a continuation of the Meighen and Bennett and Bracken parties which I have known. They will remember that in 1930-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -there was an understanding-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: It hurts.


Jean-François Pouliot: -between members of parliament to increase the indemnity from $4,000

to $6,000. The reason it was not voted upon when the members o f parliament were entitled to that increase was that at the last minute Mr. Bennett forbade the representative of his party, one of three who were to report to the Liberal prime minister, Mr. King, to attend the meetings with regard to the increase in the indemnity. I know very well-


An hon. Member:: He was a millionaire.


Jean-François Pouliot: -that if the indemnity had been increased we would have been told that the Liberal party had been defeated because of that increase in the indemnity. It is an argument that was to be used by Mr. Bennett and his followers just the same as it was, something like the speech made this afternoon by a new member who has had very little experience in politics.
There was something else. It was that same Mr. Bennett who imposed a tax of 10 per cent on all salaries, including salaries of members of parliament whose indemnity at the time was $4,000. They had to pay $400. Then Mr. Bennett and his colleagues, many of whom were millionaires, had the smart idea, the clever idea of increasing the salaries of the members of the cabinet by a $2,000 allowance in lieu of automobiles. While poor devils like myself and others had to pay $400 to the public exchequer as taxation, the millionaires who were sitting on the treasury benches were getting more than before. That was the Tory policy.
I wonder if my hon. friends would like to use that argument in an electoral campaign. What about that? Would it not be shameful? My hon. friend who has just spoken said that members of parliament should establish their case. Each member of parliament knows that his life is a life of sacrifice as well as of duty, and often it is very hard to get out of political life except when one is defeated and then sometimes it is a relief.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this a prophecy?


An hon. Member:: For you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Louder, please.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was asking the hon. gentleman if he was indulging in prophecy in addition to clairvoyance.


Jean-François Pouliot: Louder, please, and more distinctly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have never found the hon. gentleman hard of hearing except when he prefers not to hear, so I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what I said.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very sorry. The hon. gentleman should take his medicine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am.
Senate and House of Commons


Jean-François Pouliot: My medicine, as well as I took his. Besides that, I do not want to teach anything to my hon. colleagues. They know their own difficulties and their own troubles. They know how painstaking political life sometimes is and how our efforts are sometimes received with or without gratitude. On the other hand, we do these things as good sports. I know members of parliament today have many more problems than they had 30 years ago. All that social legislation means a great deal of work and members of parliament, even the three gentlemen of the opposition whom I mentioned not long ago, have much more work today than we had a number of years ago. Everyone goes to his member of parliament for information, and sometimes it is difficult to get sufficient information to satisfy their requirements.
My hon. friend from Macleod mentioned some press clippings with regard to the general feeling of the press about this matter. I will not mention any names, but everyone surely recollects the articles which were published in all the periodicals and dailies concerning the dependents of a colleague of ours who possessed one of the most brilliant minds in Canada. He died relatively young and left his family in dire circumstances. It was on that occasion that the press were unanimous in declaring that something should be done for the dependents of members of parliament. There was not one word of criticism; it was unanimous. Newspapers of all political parties expressed the same view.
If I were thinking of political considerations in speaking tonight I would make a demagogic appeal against the members of the opposition who have spoken. But it is beneath me to do that. I want to consider this question on its merits. Each member of parliament knows the services he renders to his constituents. It is not for him to enumerate them, but he must know what he has done for his constituents and for his country. On the other hand, his constituents know the service he renders to them, and they are grateful to their member and they know he is doing his very best to serve them.
My hon. friend spoke of a desire to serve. There is more than a desire to serve. There is the service, and service should be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the people. How many times do I regret that I have no independent means; that I cannot afford to give scholarships to bright young boys. I try to help them as best I can. I would like to have money, heaps of money, to distribute among my people. Unfortunately I have not-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it is fortunate. Maybe that is why you are a member of parliament.
1480	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend that we feel the same about it. There is nothing more pleasurable than to give when asked, and there is nothing sadder than to be unable to make a gift, a grant or give some kind of help. We do what we can, but we have very limited means.
Time does not permit me to speak much longer, but I have one example to give and it does not come from the United States where congressmen receive in indemnities, salaries, etc., more than $40,000 a year. This example comes from my native province of Quebec where the sessional indemnity has been increased from $4,000 to $6,000, as much as we receive now, and the only difference is that the Quebec sessions last two and one-half months while ours last six months.


An hon. Member:: Seven months.


Jean-François Pouliot: The correspondence we have to deal with today is as voluminous as that of our provincial colleagues. Therefore, sir, in concluding I say there is no reason to oppose the increase in the indemnity except for political motives, if there is one, and I think highly enough of my hon. friends opposite to presume they have no such motive in their minds. If members of parliament believe in all sincerity, in all earnestness, and in all honesty that with the present indemnity they cannot make both ends meet and they have to borrow money to live-then, sir, the only thing for them to do is to vote for the proposed indemnity or resign. There is no choice about it. If members of parliament who favour the increase decided to resign and submit the issue to their constituents, they would be re-elected by a tremendous majority; and if those who have been non-committal did likewise, they would be told by the electorate, "You, tepid; we have had enough of you".


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I always listen with great interest, and usually with great pleasure, to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I listen to him always with great pleasure when he is being witty, as he so often is. I observed that one flash of his wit tonight greatly impressed hon. members opposite particularly, when he asked what the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition was, was he for or against. It was very funny, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I want to suggest is that, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, it had nothing to do with the case.
As I understood the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, he made it clear that he was not questioning an increase in the indemnity; and so far as I remember he made no criticism of the figure suggested by


the Prime Minister for the indemnity. What the Leader of the Opposition did say was that we on this side of the chamber should not be asked to vote, without any inquiry, automatically, mechanically, and unquestioningly for this proposal just as if we were all members of the government party. He asked that there should be some inquiry whereby, in dealing with this matter, we might be furnished with information which would, I take it, have two purposes. First, it would make clearer in our own minds what we are doing. In the second place, I would hope it would make clear to the public of Canada what we are doing, so that if and when this is done, it will have been done in the best possible way. To me that seemed to be a reasonable request, and I iam not without hope that it may have seemed reasonable to the Prime Minister also.


Mr. Mang:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a word here. I find myself in a rather peculiar position with regard to this resolution. Some years ago I was elected as a kid member in Saskatchewan. That was in 1934, when we were led to victory by the present Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Melville. At that time I well remember that we had a discussion on the question of indemnities, only at that time the position was reversed. That is why I am in a rather peculiar position when it comes to making a decision on this resolution. At that time, we as members decided to reduce our indemnities; that is, we were going the other way. We reduced our indemnities. I would point out that that was in 1934, when the reduction meant a considerable amount of money to us. Tonight I am confronted with having to make a decision on whether or not to help raise the indemnity. Of course if we want to raise it, and some of us do not want to retain it, I suppose we are at liberty to turn it back in.
I just wish to make one more remark in order to show my additional confusion, and it is this. Ten years afterwards, in 1944, when the C.C.F. party took over in our province, they took over just as strongly as we did in 1934. We were 50 to 5; that is, we were 50 Liberals to 5 C.C.F. In 1944 it was just the other way around. Among the first thing this group did was to raise the indemnities; they increased the number of their ministers and raised the salaries.
Out of this discussion tonight I hope that in some way I shall be able to make up my mind just what to do, but I find myself in an interesting position, and I just wanted to state it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps
unfortunate that I did not take more time to prepare an address for the purpose of this particular debate. It would, of course, only be necessary for me to jot down a few notes. Since I have been here-and I came in 1949-I think there has been before this house no legislation with whose aspects I am more familiar. This is one piece of legislation as to which I do not need guidance by a royal commission. I do not need a royal commission to tell me whether or not I feel that I should, in conscience, vote for an increase in the indemnity of members of parliament.
It has been said that, in taking cognizance of this legislation, a member should not be swayed by his own personal views. However, I fail to see how it would be possible for any member to vote intelligently on this question unless he gave some consideration to how it affects him-because, after all, he is the member of parliament-and the public in general. Anyone we might appoint to a royal commission would not be familiar with the various expenses of a member, the various things to which a member of parliament is expected to contribute, or just how his affairs need to be handled.
I wonder how a royal commission would proceed. Would a royal commission inquire as to the standard of living of the various members of parliament, as to what they live in when they come to Ottawa, what their occupations are at home, what they live in before coming here and so on? Just how would they determine whether a member needs additional income?
The strange thing about this matter is this. The first time I heard the matter broached in the House of Commons was by a Conservative member who, I am led to believe, is not exactly a poor man. I refer to the hon. member for Simcoe North. That was some two years ago. That is only a remark by the way, but it is an indication. For my part, I know that for the last several years the matter has been discussed amongst members and parties, in the hope that there was a general intention of making life here as a member of parliament more amicable. It is for that reason I am quite confident that it did not come as a surprise to any member of the opposition that this question would be raised following the general election of last year.
If we were to get down to cases-and I do not think it should be necessary-and if we were to consider the hours of work, for instance, as I have done as a union officer when we were making representations before management, I might point out that most
Senate and House of Commons members of parliament arrive at their offices here between nine and ten o'clock in the morning. It is seldom that they leave before the hour of ten; and until the last parliament, I believe it was, they remained in the building until eleven o'clock at night. That means a 14-hour day with, of course, time off for lunch and so forth; but they are more or less on duty that full time. Apart from the hours, I do not want to go into the matter of actual pay for work done, because that was not my intention when I came to this house. On that basis alone I believe there is some justification for doing something about increasing the indemnity.
I have travelled considerably with union officers who represent the people in another sphere than as members of the House of Commons. Very few of these people, and rightly so, are paid less than $6,000 a year. As happened in my own case when I was a union representative, from the time a union officer steps into a taxi at the door of his house when proceeding on any type of union work until the time he gets home he is paid his expenses. That amounts to quite a large sum of money. When a member of parliament reaches his home after leaving the house at the end of a session it is necessary for him to travel much more than a union officer, but he does so at his own expense.
In saying this, I do not want my constituents to feel that they are taking advantage of me when they ask me to go here and there throughout my riding, but I simply wish to point out that every time you step into an automobile these days and drive a few hundred miles it runs into quite a large amount of money. Those are some of the reasons I think the work we do and the amount of time we spend on it justify more than $6,000 a year.
I might mention in passing that quite a number of miners in Canada made around $6,000 last year. It is true that their work is much more arduous, but they are living at home and their expenses are certainly not commensurate with those of a member of parliament. I do not think they want their members of parliament to live in any poorer circumstances than those in which they are able to live.
Certainly when one is discussing these things one has his own personal situation to consider. So far as a young man with a family is concerned, a semi-monkish existence is no existence for him at all. It is not a good thing for him to have his family in the far west, to live here and have to maintain two homes, and it certainly is an expensive arrangement. If such a member moves his
1482	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons family here he runs into much more expense than is involved in living at home. No matter how you look at it there is considerable sacrifice, and unless a man is willing to live in a garret and put up with much poorer conditions than in his own home he cannot expect to carry on.
A number of hon. members on the opposition side have made reference to the fact that considerable time is spent by some members away from the house, that there is some absenteeism and so on. I think it would be unfair to point to any one member or group of members, but it may be that those with professional practices in their ridings are in a much better position financially than those of us who have to work in mines or factories, and they might be inclined to be absent from the house more than those who do not have these businesses.
I thought the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre repudiated his own people this afternoon in a manner which I would not think would be acceptable to them. My contention has always been that a member should maintain connections with his own riding and that he should not become a professional politician. I am quite confident that any young married man attempting to raise and educate a family and having to move them back and forth across this continent will not become a professional politician for the sum of $10,000. The amount will have to be considerably more before such a man will be induced to become what the hon. member has called a professional politician.
But I do believe there are some in the C.C.F. ranks who make a calling of being a member of parliament, and I am sure that if they do they should not be called professional politicians. They are making a very great sacrifice, and I certainly think they deserve all the credit we can give them. But I cannot see how they can maintain and educate a family, and look forward to further education of their families, on $6,000 a year as members of parliament.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to talk out this measure, but I have a few words to say on it. As will be indicated when the vote is taken, and as has been suggested so far by the speeches made by members of this group, we are completely democratic. We are split three ways, which indicates that members of our group are completely free. As far as I am concerned, I want to say that the Prime Minister in introducing this measure is making an honest attempt to solve a problem that has existed for some considerable time. I do not think anyone can accuse


him of having any personal motives. This will probably be his last term, and to my mind he fits pretty well a definition I have seen, namely that a politician thinks in terms of elections and a statesman thinks in terms of the future generation. He is laying the groundwork for his successor.
I think it is incorrect to say that this measure requires more study, that it has not been thought of, and that it comes as a surprise. I have heard it talked about in the corridors for the past four years. I have heard it debated in the cafeteria and I have heard it psychoanalysed in the parliamentary restaurant. Therefore I do not think anyone is fooled when someone tries to kid us that we do not know one another's opinions about this matter, because we do.
With respect to the idea of a royal commission, I think the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar was absolutely correct when he said that it was an attempt to shift responsibility. Royal commissions are not new things. The people in the part of the country from which I come look upon royal commissions with a great deal of suspicion, because they recall that in the past we have attempted to solve all the problems of this country by means of royal commissions. These commission reports never accomplished anything except to gather dust in the archives. The hon. member for Temiscouata is quite right when he says the commission would likely be composed of members of the judiciary. They would be barred from membership in the commission on a ground which the hon. member did not mention. They would be dealing with a matter in which they were personally concerned, because we establish their salaries and if they did not pass substantial increases for us they might not get their own salaries increased. We would have to go to some other profession to get a commission to handle this problem.
A commission was established in the United States, and hon. members are familiar with what happened there. No doubt that commission was composed of jurists, but despite the salaries which congressmen are getting the commission recommended a 100 per cent increase. You see, the members of the judiciary have rather lucrative salaries, and live rather well. They may set standards for us which are too high. There is no solution there.
Someone suggested a poll of public opinion across this country. A poll of public opinion was taken in the United States. People with good salaries and with poor salaries were canvassed. I have seen the results of that poll; as a matter of fact I have them here.

The housewife and the chap with a small millinery shop, the people with poor salaries and substantial salaries, all were canvassed, and there was not one person in that group who said the net income of a member of congress, after taxes, should be less than $20,000 per year. Many of them said it should be .$25,000.
The two suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition are not workable here. They were tried in the United States, and the opinion was that the top executives of the country, the people who pass the laws and who have the power to declare wars, to requisition your boy or girl for service, and who have to take that responsibility, were entitled to a great deal more remuneration than they are receiving now.
I am a strong believer in equal pay for equal work. If you are going to measure from that standard-and I firmly believe that is the standard that should be used-our opposite number, the congressman in the United States, receives a higher indemnity than we do. It is the philosophy of the union movement across this country to try to raise our standards to those of the United States worker for comparable work. I think we are in good company when we take that position in this house. I feel that I am worth as much, I feel every member in this house is worth as much, as the congressmen in the United States. We shall not reach their position in one jump, but it is a goal for which we should strive. I do not believe in pulling down the standards.
There has been a reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I know all about that act because I had the privilege of helping to write the first draft of it some time ago. I have followed its course ever since, trying to shove the allowance up as high as I could. Hon. members who use the recipients of old age pensions and war veterans allowances as an argument here are using an argument which does not belong here. I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said that the amount involved in this proposal might be $1-5 million. If you take that money and apply it to the old age pension or the war veterans allowance and other social legislation in this country, it will not mean anything by way of increase. It certainly is not an argument that can be used here.
The people in the part of the country from which I come will not need explanations about this measure. A good many times in the past they have asked me what was the matter with members of parliament. We went through a war with a $4,000 indemnity
Senate and House of Commons which was taxed to the hilt. We had no expense allowance, and were the only people in Canada who had to spend about half of our income in earning our income, and who did not have a tax offset for that expense. Some of my people used to ask me what was the matter with the fellows up here. They said, "How can we expect you to do something for us when you will not do something for yourselves?" They thought we were carrying a load which we should not be carrying, and that we should go after some exemptions.
I have no hesitation in saying that I see this measure as introduced by the Prime Minister as a start on something I have been thinking about for many years. Before I came to the House of Commons I viewed it as a rich man's club; but unless you had sufficient income to look after your family for 12 months you just could not afford to take a vacation for two and a half months and live on the indemnity that was paid at that time.
In my opinion the indemnity was designed at that time to be used for the purpose of keeping people out of this forum who were not in a financial position to support themselves and take a vacation until the next election came along. The main criticism in my part of the country has been that you see a member when he is seeking election, but for the remainder of the four years you never see him. When I accepted the nomination, I want to say that I did not seek it. I did not want it, and I nominated someone else at the convention and made a speech for him. The convention said that I could not decline. We ballot and if you are the nominee, you are it.


Mr. Knight:: The speech did it.


Clarence Gillis: No, I spoke for the other fellow. I accepted on the ground that it was a fulltime responsibility, and I did not come back into office to make money for myself and forget the people who sent me here. I have not done that. I have gone back among the people and worked for them. When this house is in session I come here and do the best I can for them. You try to carry on in that way, and ultimately it will have to be done that way; because a member of this house who strives to carry out his responsibility in the general affairs of the country, who tries to understand international problems and so on, has to do a lot of reading and thinking, and he has to spend all the money he gets in meeting the demands that are made upon him.
I know that has been my experience. I want to say this. I am not an extravagant

Senate and House of Commons person, and my own standards are not high. Upon each and every occasion I have come back to this house since I was first elected, I have been in debt and I am still in debt. I believe the people of this country do not want to place their member in the position he is in now. He is not able to get around and do his work. They do not want him to live in cheap rooming houses. They want him to be on a par with other executives in other organizations across the country. The average member who is trying to make this as nearly as possible a full-time job has not been in a financial position to do so for the last 12 or 14 years.
You can take the argument of cheapening things and discuss other emoluments that are lower. The school of thought I was brought up in does not think in that way. Take, for example, the position of the wage earner in this country today. Our wages are pretty high in comparison with India, Africa, Japan and other countries that we are going to have trouble with in the future in matters of trade. But the trade union movement of this country are not taking the position that they are going to lower their standards in order to compete with the low wages of those countries I have mentioned. They are organizing themselves, and they are sending men out to India, Africa, China and Japan to organize the workers, to lift the standards in those countries so they will not pull us down because of underselling us in world markets or even coming into our own country in the future.
That is the principle that is involved here. As far as I am concerned, all the money I get here enables me to do more work in this field in which I am engaged. I consider it is missionary work; I consider it is educational work; I believe that we have to get out and around, to keep in touch with our people. We are living in an uncertain world. We have to keep informed in order to do our work, and you must have ways and means of getting around.
I do not want to talk this matter out tonight. I just wanted to say what I have said. I am backing this matter from the resolution stage to third reading, and I am complimenting the Prime Minister on having the courage at this time to bring the measure into the house.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to
oppose the resolution I want to say at the outset that I have only the highest possible respect for views which may be opposed to those I express, and which may be held by other hon. members. I believe that both the Prime Minister and the leader of our group were quite right when they said that
[Mr. Gillis.l

on a matter such as this each individual member should use his own best judgment rather than take it as a partisan matter. I am speaking, therefore, for myself, expressing my own personal views.
I have no hesitation in saying that I oppose this measure on the ground first of all that, in spite of what has been said here that there had been some hints or indications that something of this nature might be brought down after the election, I was neither informed, consulted, nor even heard the hint anywhere before August 10 that it wgs the intention of this government to bring a measure such as this before the house at this session.
I believe it is our duty to keep good faith with our electors. Had this matter been submitted to the electors of Canada previous to the election, and had the Prime Minister, when he made his radio broadcast to which he referred, in which he announced that he would press for or recommend certain changes in the rules of the house which might bring about greater efficiency, at the same time announced that the government intended to bring forth a measure to increase indemnities and salaries as contained in this resolution, then the people across Canada would have been informed and would have known of the intentions of the government. They could have discussed the matter in an open, democratic manner, as they have the habit of doing, with all the candidates in each of the ridings. I do not say they would have taken this stand or the other stand, because I do not think we know at the present time what the opinion of the people of Canada is on this issue which was not submitted to them for their consideration.
On that ground I would have to oppose the resolution, but there are other reasons. One of the reasons is that in the Prime Minister's address he made reference to the fact that the cost of living had risen rather substantially in recent years. I can remember so vividly how many times in this very house my colleagues warned the government in 1945, 1946 and years following, as did many other hon. members, that the actions they were taking or contemplating in abolishing the controls that we had-price controls-would result in a situation where there would have to be increases in salaries, wages and so forth, right across the board. The government did not heed those warnings. They brought on the situation themselves and, as a matter of fact, took a rather stubborn attitude on many occasions, as much as to say, "We do not need your advice; we know what we are doing." Now we are faced with this situation, and it is

still not clear-it may be made clear before this debate is finished-as to whose request is being carried out.
Upon whose request is this measure being introduced? The Prime Minister of course said quite properly that he and the government are prepared to take full responsibility. It is a government measure. But that is not the whole story. Certainly it was not the prime minister in council who simply got the bright idea and said, "Let us suggest to the house that we raise the indemnities by $4,000 and see how the boys take it".
It must have gone further than that. The request must have come from some responsible group of persons in this country. Was it the rank and file members of the Liberal party? If that were so I believe this house should be so informed. Then we would at least know where this thing originated. As it is now, it is something put before the house and the only justification given, that I can see, with any substance behind it is the fact that the cost of living has risen and we therefore must make some provision to see that the average member of parliament may continue to do his work.
If that argument holds good for the members of this house, and the members of the Senate, members of the government, the Leader of the Opposition and all others concerned, surely the cost of living has not fallen for the rank and file wage earners, farmers, and other people across this country. They have suffered just as much at the hands of the government's decontrol policy as have the individual members of this house. Then because we happen to be in the position- I speak collectively as a whole parliament now-where we are temporarily the custodians of the people's tax money, that does not excuse us nor does it excuse the government for neglecting all those other groups and not providing something for those who are not so close to the source of supply, unless you are willing to accept the old legal proverb that possession is nine-tenths of the law.
It has been suggested that this matter be submitted to a royal commission. Obviously I would not support that suggestion, though if I were on the other side of this question, if I were in favour of an increase, I would think there might be something to that proposal because there would be something to investigate. But since I am not supporting the measure I obviously see no reasons for submitting anything to a royal commission. Our experience with royal commissions has been such that it appears to me the end result if we submitted this question to a royal commission
Senate and House of Commons would be that instead of adding a burden of $1,500,000 to the taxpayers we would be adding an extra $500,000 and making it $2 million, because royal commissions have to be paid also. Let us not forget that. They do not do their work for nothing. I see no reason why we should add cost upon cost.
I am speaking for myself when I say I am opposing this resolution. I repeat that I respect the views of all others who have spoken. It is quite clear that this is not a question as to whether we need an increase. It is not a question which can be decided by speaking of all the members of the house as a unit. We are not all in the same position. It is an academic question which could be debated for years. Sooner or later this parliament will decide, and naturally the majority view will have to be accepted and respected. But I shall make my stand perfectly clear, on the ground that this was not submitted to the electorate, nor was any opportunity given to us who participated in the election to submit it to our electors, or even consult with them or discuss it with them in any way. On that ground alone I find it impossible to give my support to this measure.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I want simply to clear up one or two points which have been raised, in view of the fact that there has been an obvious attempt to obscure the issue that was presented. The question was not that there was any objection to rewarding or reimbursing members in keeping with their responsibilities. It was stated clearly several times and quite emphatically that in our belief the people of this country were quite prepared to provide from public funds an adequate return to members of parliament. But that does not deal with the other problems that are raised.
The resolution before us does not deal alone with members' allowances or indemnities. As I said before, it is a rolled-up package. Members are to vote on an increase for the members of the Senate, about whom not one word has been said by way of support, by way of argument or by way of evidence. They are increasing cabinet ministers' salaries and the salaries of the leaders of the opposition in this house and the Senate by $9,000, but not one word has been said as to why that should be done. When I say "by $9,000" I mean by the $4,000 they will receive as members and the $5,000 which will also be granted to members of the government. Not one word has been put forward to explain how that figure was arrived at. Where did it come from?

Senate and House of Commons
I repeat what I said this afternoon. This house has been told over and over again that we must be cautious about handling public funds. There are a number of matters about which the people of this country are pressing for action, and we are told that there must be a great deal of consideration before any commitments are made. It was my hope that by suggesting a royal commission we would provide a method of inquiry into this and the other matters raised by this motion which would not leave the suggestion that while we were insistent upon the last bit of evidence to support the needs of others who depend upon parliament, we were in great haste to pass legislation-and without evidence-that would bring benefits to members of parliament themselves. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said about the suggestion of a royal commission. If the Prime Minister would say that he would agree to a select committee and throw it wide open, I would say that while I favour a royal commission I would not object to that method, which was the method employed at Westminster on the last occasion a change was made there and which has been employed on similar occasions here. I say that by one method or the other, by a royal commission or a select committee, we should be in position to obtain more evidence that we have now.
We have no information as to how these figures were arrived at that are now before us. What happens in regard to the pension? Unless there is legislation that is not disclosed, the pension will be increased by this procedure. Should there be no examination of that subject? Should there be no evidence as to the actuarial problems involved and what it will cost the public treasury if that is done? We are not accepting our responsibilities as members if we agree to support a resolution which says it is expedient that this legislation be introduced unless we have evidence before us to support that contention. That is our position.
When I suggested a royal commission it was not that I was wedded to that proposal. It was simply that I was asking that we have information which we should have. It is very interesting to hear hon. members on the opposite side speak in such contemptuous terms of royal commissions. One statement that was made was that all any royal commission has done is make a report which goes to the archives to gather dust.
Was that the purpose of the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences? Was that simply a cynical waste of public money? Was that simply an attempt to send


something to the archives without any consideration? The royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences was set up under a distinguished Canadian to report on subjects of concern to Canadians. I have not heard previously the cynical suggestion that this was simply a device to avoid responsibility.
When it is suggested by the hon. member for Temiscouata that the appointment of a commission is only to avoid making a decision-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member says "hear, hear." Then I ask was that the reason the government appointed the commission on the Saskatchewan dam? Some have suggested that it was.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; no doubt about that.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask him if that was the reason they appointed a royal commission in regard to certain problems in the maritime provinces? Was that the reason they appointed a royal commission on freight rates? At least there are some of us who think those commissions did provide interesting and useful information, whether or not members of the house agreed with everything that was put forward. No matter whether we agree with all this government does or with the reports of commissions, we have not gone so far as to suggest that on every occasion they have appointed a royal commission it has been with the entirely cynical purpose of simply avoiding responsibility.
It was said tonight that it was uncertain where we stand. There is no uncertainty. We have stated that we believe there should be an increase in the indemnities and allowances paid to members, based upon inquiry which will give us some information as to how the figure is arrived at. But that is no reason why we should give a blank cheque for everything else contained in this proposal. Certainly it is no reason why we should agree in this motion that it is expedient that this legislation be introduced. We have heard nothing to support any of the measures contained therein, outside of the proposal to increase the indemnity of the members.
We have not heard any convincing argument as to the need for an increased indemnity to encourage men to come forward to become members of the other house. That is the reason we are told this should be done in this case. As far as this is concerned, we cannot call for a recorded vote. However, I certainly shall oppose this motion in committee in the absence of any assurance that there

is going to be an opportunity to obtain the information we should have. Certainly at the time this bill comes before us, if this resolution is passed, there will be an opportunity to deal with it in the ordinary way and register our objection in a more formal manner.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, after all we are here for the purpose of getting evidence and hearing facts. What about the question of the pension? Is that legislation going to be amended so that a double pension as compared to what we are receiving today will not be paid? Surely the Prime Minister is going to give some information.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister is not going to make any commitments on this resolution. If it is not good enough on its merits, it should not carry.
With respect to pensions, if the hon. gentleman wishes to have the committee that considered the matter before consider what the actuarial implications will be, there can be no objection to having that matter go to the committee to have it report back to this house what information it can get in that regard.
With respect to these other matters, I am not going to make any commitment. The resolution itself merely refers to the expediency of introducing bills to increase these indemnities. The figures are not set out in the resolution. The figures will be set out in the bills. I told the house what was going to be recommended in the bills, but in debating this resolution the house is not debating the bill. The bills have to be considered and have three readings, and there will be ample opportunity then to discuss the details of the bills and obtain all the information that can be made available on the figures that will be contained in the bills. The resolution merely states:
That it is expedient to introduce measures to amend (a) the Senate and House of Commons Act to increase the salaries of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker, the sessional allowances of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons ...
And:
(b) the Salaries Act to increase the salaries of ministers mentioned . . .
And so on. There are no details in the resolution, which merely refers to the advisability of introducing amending legislation to deal with these matters. The position then is that if the resolution is adopted the bills will be introduced, they will be distributed, and they can be fully discussed in all their particulars.
Senate and House of Commons


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the Prime Minister is in a position to say whether the cabinet, having envisaged this legislation which it is now introducing, intends as well to allow the pension act to remain as it is. Or is it the intention of the cabinet-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the intention of the governor in council to amend the pension act so as not to permit the grants to be made, unless that act is amended?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: "Governor in council" is of course a slip of the tongue on the part of my hon. friend. The governor in council does not amend any legislation. Parliament amends legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman
knows that that pension act was put before the house, and that it is subject to re-examination at each and every session. The government will have no objection to having it reconsidered by the banking and commerce committee and to an actuarial investigation to determine what the effect will be. When the act was introduced it was not intended that it should be any more onerous on the treasury than the obligation of equalizing the contributions made to the fund by the members of parliament themselves. It was expected, on the information we got from the actuary, that the fund would be ample to provide the pensions that are called for by the terms of the act, and the government would wish at all times to have that carefully checked because it is not intended to make that a greater charge upon the treasury than was intended at the time, namely to equalize the contributions made by the members themselves.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise for one purpose, namely to say that I asked whether the governor in council would make such a recommendation to the house. When the Prime Minister says the governor in council does not amend-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -does not amend statutes, then I say the government has done it on several occasions by order in council.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Senate and House of Commons


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to speak?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I want to ask the Prime Minister a question, because I have not been able to understand whether he is giving a firm commitment that the legislation will be amended.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He is not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is all very well to say the government would have no objection to the matter being referred to the banking and commerce committee. The Prime Minister knows; you, sir, know; every member of this committee and every member of the house knows that if the government does not introduce legislation to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act then it will not be amended. The act indeed says, and I am quoting from section 4:
The Minister of Finance shall, in accordance with the regulations, credit to the account, in each fiscal year,
(a) an amount equal to the contributions paid in that fiscal year . . .
If a member's contributions are automatically doubled then automatically, under the terms of the statute, treasury contributions are doubled. The only body that can ensure that the act will be amended is the government, and I do not yet understand that we have a commitment from the government that this legislation will be amended so the burden will not be automatically doubled as a result of this measure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall clear the matter up for my hon. friend. I have given no commitment that the statute will be amended.


George Alexander Drew: Then just before we vote may we take it, as it stands, that the result of this, without any other evidence before us, will be to double the fund?


An hon. Member:: No.
Resolution reported: Yeas, 130; nays, 37; read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 172, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Alexander Drew: May I ask what the order of business will be tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: The business tomorrow is whatever hon. members themselves choose to do by way of private members' motions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And for Thursday what will it be? Can the minister tell us that now?


Walter Edward Harris: On Thursday, Mr. Speaker, we shall take up first the housing bill and second, the bill standing in the name of the Postmaster General with respect to postal rates.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 27, 1954