1971-04-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the practice adopted last year and in response to the wish that you expressed in 1968 that the publication of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics entitled Canada be made available as quickly as possible, I have the pleasure of tabling today copies of that publication in both official languages pursuant to Standing Order 41(2).
The Canada Yearbook is not yet available, but it probably will be towards the end of the summer.



CANADA CANCER FOUNDATION


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-245, respecting cancer research.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, today being the last day of April, designated as cancer month, I have the privilege to move the introduction of a private bill which I hope will commend itself not only to hon. members but to all Canadians, and particularly to the government.
The purpose of this bill is to focus the attention of all people on the necessity of research to arrest the dreadful disease of cancer. This bill establishes the Canada Cancer Foundation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the
intention of the government to make a statement setting forth its strategy for developing the economy of the country and providing adequate employment opportunities, particularly in view of the grave concern expressed by one of its own ministers in the most dramatic way available to him, by resigning, and the consequent creation of deep disquiet in the country on this whole subject.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we shall make a statement at the time of the budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister also disclose to the House whether the government has any timetable with regard to the achieving of full employment, whether it be defined for convenience as 3, 3j or 4 per cent unemployment? I ask this question in view of the concern expressed by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada and the length of time the chairman has indicated the achievement of full employment will take under the government's present policies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now that the New Democratic Party and the Conservative party have defined full employment as 4 per cent unemployment, we will consider the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I made no such definition. I was simply giving the Prime Minister a little latitude. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, finally, whether there is as much disagreement within his government on the subject of economic policies as there has obviously been with regard to the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition's supplementary question has argumentative overtones.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Would the Prime Minister define for the House and the country what he considers to be full employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member's question is not in order. He invites the Prime Minister to express an opinion as to a definition. He asks what the Prime Minister considers to be full employment. It seems to me that is the kind of question which might be asked as part of a debate but not one which can be accepted at this time. The hon. member might attempt to rephrase the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the government has a policy aimed at full employment, would the Prime Minister indicate what the government considers to be an acceptable level of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said in answer to the first question, in the budget speech our views on this will be made known as they have in the past.
5384

April 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: The Prime Minister knows very well that we have not suggested 4 per cent unemployment as representing full employment and he ought not to say so. In view of the resignation of two ministers in protest against the government's economic policies, is the government reassessing those policies, or does the resignation of the hon. member for Duvernay mean that the government is sticking by the policies it has pursued up to now?


An hon. Member:: He is reassessing the cabinet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member wants to help us reconcile the remedies which the two members suggest for economic policy, perhaps I will accept his advice and help. But the hon. member knows that the resignations by the two ministers did not involve agreement on their part on economic policy.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY STATEMENT

David Lewis: In view of some of the statements in the letter of resignation from the hon. member for Duvernay, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet has yet decided on its policies with regard to foreign ownership and with regard to the way in which the resource industries of Canada may be protected for the benefit of Canada, and when may we expect the statement which has been promised for so long on the issue of foreign ownership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we hoped that we would get some enlightenment on this matter as a result of the New Democratic Party congress, but I can say with certainty that we are more advanced in our policy on foreign ownership than is the hon. member's party.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to say once before that I am very much touched by the Prime Minister's humour, which at times is much more relevant than his statements of fact. May I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question when we may expect a statement on foreign ownership either from him or a member of the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Sooner than we are going to get it from the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has had three years on the job training, is he not now capable of making a few decisions on his own?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

This week, the minister has announced the resumption of the assistance program to mining exploration and he has stated that an amount of $2,000,000 would be allotted to it. Can the minister say whether a portion of this amount may be applied to mining exploration in New Quebec?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker. My announcement dealt with mining exploration in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister say whether the government considers the possibility of granting asistance to mining exploration in that vast area which is also a part of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that, because natural resources within the provincial boundaries of Quebec come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-MEETING WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS-COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY-CANADIAN POSITION

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the meeting on May 3 between United States and Canadian officials. Noting particularly the statement by the United States Secretary of the Interior that he believes that a final environmental study can be completed by mid-September, 1971, is it the opinion of the Canadian government and its officials that this very important environmental study can in fact be completed by that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer. The Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with this matter yesterday and I do not have the details of it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the Prime Minister, since this meeting is just a few days away, whether the Canadian government now has a point of view to present to the United States officials regarding the trans-Alaskan pipeline system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Sharp has made-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made his position known in the House and elsewhere, as have other members of our caucus. But beyond that I am sure they will have serious talks in Washington and that the policy will be further elaborated.
April 30, 1971


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was speaking for the government at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he was speaking for the government.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE INQUIRY BE PROCEEDED WITH

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the revelations at the United States Senate hearing yesterday, where it was obvious to Secretary of the Interior Morton and others that further studies would have to be made, may I ask the Prime Minister once more whether or not at this stage he is willing to instruct the government House leader to withdraw his untimely support for the Conservative motion which prevented this House from carrying out such a study on the effects in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have raised the matter with the House leader and we did indeed discuss it. We feel that the matter should indeed be seized by parliamentarians, but there is a committee on national resources, I believe, that is also enabled to study such matters. Consideration will be given to the form in which discussions can take place.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the House has no knowledge whatsoever of the committee on national resources seizing itself of this problem, and as we have no advice or information that the House will instruct that committee to take up this problem, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will ask one of his ministers responsible to give instructions through the House to that committee to carry out such a study?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position is that there are other members of other committees who can do this job equally as well, and it is a matter of deciding which committee should be doing this job.


An hon. Member:: Hard luck!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING GOVERNMENT POLICY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestion by the right hon. Prime Minister, as I understood him, that the policy of his government will be further elaborated in the course of the meeting next week in Washington, is the policy of the government with regard to the trans-Alaska pipeline system being elaborated and worked out by officials rather than by ministers of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just like the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker. While I am on
my feet-
24081-60i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: What happened? Did you have a bad night?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there are one or two supplementary questions to be asked on the subject.


An hon. Member:: It's time for another holiday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister a serious question. Is government policy going to be worked out by the government officials who will visit Washington next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the policy of the government is the policy of the elected representatives of the people, but surely the Leader of the Opposition knows that officials can also contribute toward this type of policy formation. It is not extraordinary that meetings at the international level be held between officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You said they would elaborate the policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot quite understand what the difficulty of the Leader of the Opposition is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the right hon. Prime Minister is anxious to refer to another question, but before we go on to the matter the right hon. gentleman has in mind I will allow a last supplementary by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, following which the Prime Minister will be allowed to refer to the other matter. Then, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has been struggling to maintain the floor in order to impart some knowledge to the House, I was about to ask him to give the House that information.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Cape-Bre-ton-East Richmond for his assistance to the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's continuing assistance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has responded to the spirit of co-operation I wanted to have prevail.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like the floor to table the correspondence the hon. member for Saint John-Laneaster asked me about

April 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
yesterday between the premier of Quebec and myself in relation to the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the premier of Quebec has accused the Minister of Justice of a lack of logic, since the Minister of Justice said yesterday he was going to set up a joint committee of members of the House of Commons and the Senate to look into the kind of legislation which might be produced, and as the Prime Minister has now filed some material, is he prepared to file all the correspondence between himself and the premier, including telegrams, in order that when the terms of reference of this committee come before the House we will be in a position to study them and determine if they are wide enough in scope to ascertain the true situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to be helpful, but out of memory I think I have indeed tabled all the correspondence on this matter between the premier of Quebec and myself beginning with the letter he sent me early in October requesting that the federal government realize that there was an apprehended insurrection and concluding with the letters I have his permission to table today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and, believe me, I do not ask it in an argumentative way.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the Prime Minister assuring the House that all letters and all telegrams between himself and the premier and between the premier and himself have been tabled for our information? If he is not capable-I do not mean capable-if he is not able to answer at the moment because of lack of information, will he check into the matter and assure the House that he will table all correspondence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said, according to my memory I have tabled the relevant correspondence. There may be other pieces of correspondence. I will ask my office to check into it. If there are such other pieces, I will see if the premier of Quebec has any objection to tabling them. If he does, I shall not table them, but if he has no objection I shall table them.



EXPIRY OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT- CORRESPONDENCE FROM PROVINCES OTHER THAN QUEBEC RESPECTING NEW LEGISLATION

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Have there been requests from any other provinces for legislation of this kind or letters and telegrams of this kind from other provinces and if so, will the Prime Minister table them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no other correspondence with my office on this matter, but I know that the subject matter has been discussed verbally between the premiers and ministers of other provinces and federal ministers.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of information revealed in the 1970 annual report of Alberta Gas Trunk to the effect that Canadian National Railways has now become involved with the consortium known as Gas Arctic which is planning a pipeline to move natural gas from Prudhoe Bay through Canada to the United States. Can the minister tell us the nature and extent of this involvement by the Canadian National Railways in Gas Arctic?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite impossible to give the nature and extent of the involvement in order to explain it thoroughly in answer to a question of this sort. I can say, however, that at the present time it is merely, if I can use this expression, a holding action on the part of Canadian National. They are exploring new avenues for activity, investment and development, and they have participated in this group on that basis. But there are no, in a sense, deep or ongoing commitments as of the present time. If it will be of any benefit to the hon. member I can perhaps write him a letter indicating the full terms, but I think that is all I can say in answer to an oral question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if there is any commitment with reference to Canadian National Railways acquiring an equity position in this consortium, and what is the amount of that commitment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can only reply that in so far as I am aware it is exploratory at the moment. Conceivably it could lead to the involvement of Canadian National because, of course, pipelines are in a sense a form of transportation and they are merely maintaining the normal position of transportation companies in this regard. My memory is there is no commitment to an equity position at the moment, but I will be glad to look into the matter and reply as fully as possible later.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the increasingly acute problem between the governments of Quebec and Ontario concerning the marketing of broilers and eggs, does the government intend to request its legal advisers, if it has not already done so, to carry out a study on Ontario and Quebec marketing legislation in order to ascertain whether it is in keeping with the constitution and whether it does not paralyze free movement of products within Canada?
IMr. Trudeau.]
April 30, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has had occasion to explain to the House that we do not consider that as the best way to solve the problem mentioned by the hon. member. We are convinced that through the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, i.e. Bill C-176, the problem can be dealt with firmly. We hope this will soon be done.


Léonel Beaudoin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to request such legal advice?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: I should like to direct one or two more brief questions to the Minister of Transport with respect to air safety. Has the minister or his department now taken the necessary appropriate steps to ensure that any changes, either by the FAA or by the Department of Transport, with respect to identification codes used in the transponders in aircraft will be effectively transmitted prior to their coming into effect in equipment in operation in North America?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The officials have advised me that in their judgment the existing arrangement is satisfactory. However, in the event that there may be some problem or some gap in the arrangement I have asked the top officials of the department, including those who have major responsibilities for flight safety, to consult with the air traffic controllers themselves. This, I hope, will take place immediately, and as far as I know it will within the next day or two.


J. Michael Forrestall: In view of the fact that some international confusion continues to exist and we have had difficulty in resolving the problem, I wonder whether or not Canada could take some lead in bringing about a system of international identification through transponders that would preclude any further confusion and the possibility of a serious accident? Could we not take the lead?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is generally known that on many safety issues we have taken the lead in the international field of aviation. I am happy to advise the House that the new representative of the Canadian government at ICAO, who will be appointed within the next few days, is in fact a man who has had wide experience in the air controller field. In other words, we have chosen a man who has maximum competence in this area, and he will be working on it.



SUGGESTED AUTHORIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS TO GROUND PILOTS DISOBEYING INSTRUCTIONS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the fact that air traffic controllers do not have the authority to ground pilots who disobey their instructions, has any thought been given to strengthening the hand of air traffic controllers with a view to providing still further safety for those who travel by commercial or private air lines?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House would agree that the ability to ground a pilot should not rest with the controllers but that the controllers should have full freedom to notify those who do have authority to ground pilots. It is this kind of technique, this kind of communications network, that we are trying to improve at present; hence the ongoing talks with the controllers. In other words, if they have ideas for improving the system we will be very glad to consider them and, if they are logical, to implement them.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the resignation from the cabinet of the hon. member for Duvernay and of the fact that his stated reasons have some economic implications, can the minister tell us when he anticipates completing the study on the degree of foreign ownership, foreign takeovers, etc. and presenting the report to the cabinet? Will it be the intention then to table that document well ahead of the presentation of income tax changes so that we can consider the package as one?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I advised the House previously that the work I had been carrying on was work within the government for the use of the cabinet. I do not think it is appropriate to comment in the way I am invited to do by the hon. member on what is essentially a matter of cabinet business. As the Prime Minister pointed out, it is the government's intention to inform the House once the cabinet reaches a decision on this very important matter.



TIME OF INTRODUCTION OF TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

['Not so far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire.']
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasfer):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the implications that this resignation may have with regard to the tax reform proposals, will the Prime Minister confirm that the government is going ahead with its regular timetable on tax reform and will he tell the House just what it is so that we can be reminded again of the date when the tax proposals will be brought before the House this summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be going ahead with our regular schedule. I do not think the resignation to which the hon. member referred will affect the schedule adversely-perhaps the contrary. As to the timetable, I hope that by

April 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
next week we will be in a position to inform Members of Parliament definitely as to the schedule so that they will be able to make whatever plans appear to them to be necessary for the summer months.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the House yesterday the government's general intention to assist in the relief of the people of East Pakistan, can the Prime Minister tell us specifically whether the question of such relief has been discussed with the International Red Cross?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do know that the Canadian High Commissioner is in East Pakistan rather than in Islamabad and that he has been asked to report to the government on the possibility of moving large supplies of foodstuffs and other supplies to East Pakistan if and when they are requested by the government of that country. I should also say that I have been in communication with the president of Pakistan. However, so far as the Red Cross is concerned, I am not aware of any exchanges having yet taken place.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister, perhaps on Monday, make a statement on motions to the House informing us to what extent his aspect of the summer employment program for students is working? Are all the spaces taken up or is there room for more applications? I ask this question in view of the fact that the minister's share of the program is probably the most practical one, and we would like to know how it is progressing.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I will consider the suggestion about making a statement. I can say in a general way that the program, as it was last year, has been oversubscribed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that the minister's share of this program has been oversubscribed, would he take up the matter with his cabinet colleagues and try to obtain more money to enlarge the program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to draw to the attention of hon. members that we are falling behind our schedule this morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question with regard to the suggested large-scale power development by the province of Quebec. Have there been any discussions between his government and the province of Quebec with regard to the diversion of waters, in association with any such project, under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada and any discussions with regard to the export of power as a result of such diversion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice and ask the appropriate minister to reply. There have been none with me personally.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Earlier in the week I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether any officials in his department had made surveys on the ecological problems involved in the diversion of five major rivers for this project. He said at that time that he would check to see what he could find out and then would inform the House. Is he in a position now to tell us what, if any, activity or involvement there has been by his department with officials of Quebec in this problem?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: know of no such inquiry. However, I am still checking to make absolutely certain that there have been no investigations of this kind relating to diversions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the questions that have been asked with reference to this development, was there any discussion between the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec with regard to the selling of Quebec-Hydro for $2 billion to United States interests inasmuch as the government seemed to be very interested in what might happen in regard to a company in Calgary, namely, Home Oil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that it is the sale of electricity, not of any company, that is involved. Of course the House knows that the government is favourably disposed to the sale of Canadian oil, and it is normal that it should also be favourably disposed to the sale of electricity in appropriate circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, could I supplement the answer of the Prime Minister.
IMr. Trudeau.]
April 30, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I brought to the attention of hon. members a moment ago, the fact that we were running short of time. I think it should be time to give an opportunity to other hon. members to participate in this particular operation. These remarks include ministers, who might supplement their replies on Monday.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Have Japanese importers made any representations to his department or any other department, so far as he is aware, regarding the placing of the marketing of rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not so far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire.



HOUSING


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for housing.
Considering the economic situation and the uncontrollable unemployment rate, are the officials of his department examining the possibility of abolishing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?



POST OFFICE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. Since new mail routings introduced by the Post Office have in many cases resulted in much slower mail service and reduced standards, is the minister planning a further overhaul to correct the mess that exists in many places?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the first part of the question.


John Stratford Burton: Is the minister not aware that there are many cases in Canada, such as some in Saskatchewan which have come to my attention, where mail that formerly travelled 109 miles in two days to reach its destination from a major centre now has to travel almost 350 miles and takes six days?
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: That is a mess.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I have heard that there may have been some recent developments in connection with contract negotiations between the union and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. I wonder whether the minister would like to make a statement or indicate to the House if any developments have taken place that should be mentioned at this time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will realize that this takes me completely by surprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am happy to advise the hon. member and the House that a settlement of the seaway negotiations was completed this morning, thus keeping the Minister of Labour's batting average pretty close to 1,000.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Inasmuch as there is an appropriation in this year's estimates for the construction of a link between the Lennox Island Indian Reserve and Prince Edward Island, can the minister indicate when construction will commence this year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the answer today but I shall inquire and inform the hon. member by mail.



HOUSING


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs. It deals with the overdue mortgage held by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on Rochdale College, Toronto. Would the minister say

April 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether or not he is ready to make a statement concerning the government's plans to recover the money advanced to this institution?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to make a statement on this occasion but I hope it will be soon.



REPORT ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER POLLUTION

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. Can the minister tell the House why his department has held up for more than six months the publication of a report on water pollution? Can he tell us when we may expect the 14 recommendations contained in the report on water pollution and sewage disposal to be made public?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the report to which the hon. member refers. We have at any given time a series of staff papers on a broad range of subjects. These are internal papers, generally speaking. Some proposals we accept and some we reject. I cannot identify precisely the particular report about which the hon. member is talking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we might save time if the hon. member would communicate directly with the minister to identify the report in question.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Since $1.8 million was paid to one consultant firm for federal contracts in the last two years without competitive tendering, can the minister indicate what guarantees there may be against abuses in awarding contracts on the basis of non-competitive tendering?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is putting a question which in my view is very wide in scope. I would think that kind of question should be placed on the order paper.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of some urgency because non-competitive tenders are being sought. May I ask whether consideration is being given to abolishing non-competitive tendering which seems to be increasing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the additional information the hon. member is seeking might be included in a statement to the House on motions or in a written reply to the hon. member's written question.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say if he had discussions yesterday in Ottawa with the premier of Newfoundland and is he able to say what matters were discussed at the meeting?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that I had discussions with the premier of Newfoundland yesterday. A wide range of matters was discussed, including how well the hon. member for St. John's West is doing in the House.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for urban affairs. As the three levels of government yesterday at the Winnipeg tripartite conference committed themselves to national consultation on problems created by mushrooming urban growth may I ask, first, whether regular meetings are planned and, if so, how often and, second, whether special powers are to be given to municipalities with populations of over one million?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the commitment to the principle of trilevel consultation was, I think, a very encouraging action yesterday. It came after two days of what I would describe as difficult and intense negotiations. It was a commitment subject to ratification by the governments represented by each of the provincial ministers attending the Winnipeg meeting. The details the hon. member is seeking I regret that I cannot give him now because the intergovernmental committees to deal with those kinds of details have just now been found. I would emphasize that we will have to move stage by stage into this area, holding to the commitment that national trilevel consultations will take place, I hope, on a full and continuing basis starting late this fall or, at the latest, early next year.


BRIDGES
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of interest to several departments of government, but I have taken the liberty of giving notice of my question to the Minister of Public Works. Since a very comprehensive study initiated and completed mainly by the state of Ohio indicates that an international bridge linking that state with the province of Ontario is not only

April 30, 1971

possible but practical, can the minister advise it a similar study is under way in Canada, or are we co-operating in any manner with regard to this bridge which has tremendous potential economic possibilities for the entire area?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this giant idea seems to be more of a conception than a proposal. It surfaced first in 1965 and has been discussed, I think, with Ontario. No approach has been made to my department. I am advised by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that no approach has been made to his department. If it comes to reality then, of course, it will be very important to Canada. An approach will have to be made through the Department of External Affairs because of the fact of traversing Canadian inland waters.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT OVERSEAS OFFICES TO PROMOTE GRAIN SALES
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the expression of views by the Canada Grains Council concerning the maintenance of permanent overseas offices to develop market information and grain sales, have there been in the past or are there now officials of his department permanently stationed in overseas offices who have a responsibility in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question well might be placed on the order paper, or he may prefer to have it considered at the time of adjournment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In light of the views expressed yesterday by the Grains Council, can the minister advise if the government is giving any consideration to maintaining either governmental or non-governmental, non-profit offices overseas to develop additional grain sales?


Jean-Luc Pepin: To make it short, Mr. Speaker, I will only say that all my trade commissioners are working parttime for the Canadian Wheat Board. If more is suggested, we'll look into it.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the present problems which interfere with the construction of the airport in Ste. Scholastique, could the minister tell us today or shortly whether these prob-
Senate and House of Commons Act
lems come under joint jurisdiction or under provincial jurisdiction only?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not give a legal opinion, but I wish to be as helpful as possible to the House by explaining that we have funds available, that we have made plans for the new airport and that we have also entered into contracts to ensure the implementation of some of these projects. We want to find the workers needed by those contractors to do their work and if I am well informed such is the federal government's position.
As far as the position of the others involved is concerned, the hon. member should inquire elsewhere. I believe this issue is twofold: there is the conflict between unions and there is the conflict relating to the actual problem of the construction workers which has come up within the Quebec legislation itself.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I wish to ask the Prime Minister.
Considering that the interest of Canada is still involved, does the Prime Minister intend to meet with the provincial authorities in an effort to find a solution to this problem as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been several meetings between the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Quebec ministers as well as at the official level. I repeat that the federal position is quite clear. We want to proceed with the construction of this airport and I believe that it is in the best interests not only of workers but also of the population of Quebec as a whole that we should do so, for if the construction of the Toronto airport is more expeditious than that of the Montreal airport, it is only normal that major airlines will seek to change their landing rights and I feel that trade unions especially should consider this problem as urgent.
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-242, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and the act to make provisions for the retirement of members of the Senate, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all request that an error which appeared in

If the government really carried out its duties in a responsible way, it would call on the Bank of Canada to issue the credits required to finance the public sector. Canadians would pay less taxes, now used to pay unnecessary interest charges and they would more readily accept their representatives granting themselves a more substantial increase.
Considering the number of hours I give to my work as a member of the House every day of the week, I do not have to be ashamed of the salary I receive, because I really earn it. I am also convinced that my constituents are aware of this. As far as I am concerned, I believe I am working for the establishment of a just society.
Yesterday a Liberal member told me it lies with each member of Parliament to "evaluate himself" and if a member votes against Bill C-242, it means he does not think he is worth more.
Is it on that basis that the Liberal government has always refused to increase family allowances, because it did not think the dedication of mothers was worth more? Is it on that basis that the government did not see fit to increase by more than 42 cents a month the regular old-age pension?
If the people who serve the community must be paid according to the services rendered, then in view of the bad economic situation prevailing in the country, the bad financial policy followed by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the salary of that public servant should be reduced immediately.
Mr. Speaker, those were the comments I had to make on second reading of Bill C-242, but I may have more to say in due time when the bill is referred to the *committee.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this legislation before it is passed. What I am going to say will perhaps be very unpopular in this chamber. I realize that. However, we are not here to win popularity contests among fellow members, but to do what we believe is right for our constituents and the country.
A Member of Parliament often serves his constituents and this country at a financial loss. My brother is a medical doctor. He had a fairly good practice. He came to Parliament for nine years. Every year that he was here he suffered a financial loss. He did not regret any of those years because he felt that the psychic reward of serving others was worth any financial loss he may have had during his period here.
Members of Parliament should receive a high enough salary to enable them to have a good standard of living. They must receive enough so that they will be above any temptation which may come their way to put their hand in the pot, take money illegally or accept bribes from those people who might want a Member of Parliament to do something for them.
The salary of a Member of Parliament should be high *enough to attract men of proven ability, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he announced this
Senate and House of Commons Act bill. I agree with the Prime Minister that it should attract the best people possible to our Parliamentary system. However, there was no difficulty in attracting people in the 1968 election. There were plenty of candidates running in nearly every riding in Canada. There were huge nominating conventions held in many ridings for persons seeking the opportunity to serve their constituency and Canada.
If the majority of the people in Canada were of low intelligence, there would perhaps be the danger of people with low intelligence being elected to Parliament. Actually, the reverse is true. Our standards of education in Canada have risen markedly, particularly in the past 20 years. Canadian have a high level of intelligence compared with the people of some other countries. The chance of attracting Parliamentarians of proven ability and high calibre is certainly very good.
We must consider the other possibility. We are now being asked to grant ourselves a huge pay increase. Those who ran in the last election entered into a contract with their voters that they would serve them under the present conditions until the next election. It would be far more appropriate if this legislation became effective following the next election. In other words, the pay raise and other conditions for Members of Parliament should take effect after the next election. Improvements in the position, staff and facilities of Members of Parliament, as well as their financial reward, should not go into effect before the next election. I believe it would be morally correct to adopt this attitude.
We must consider the economic climate in Canada today, of which we are not proud. I think that the cabinet minister who recently resigned did so because of the economic conditions in Canada. We have a very high level of unemployment. Many people are quite depressed about the available opportunities in this country. Many young people are not able to find employment suitable to their taste and ability. This is leading to a great deal of unrest. We have hired Mr. Young to preside over a Prices and Incomes Commission to examine the economy and attempt to stem the tide of huge wage demands and price increases. After hiring Mr. Young, if we really believed he could do something, in all conscience we cannot grant ourselves retroactive pay increases back to October at this time. We could, I think, increase the pay of members but only to take effect after the next election.
A Member of Parliament going through a number of elections soon realizes that tenure of office is very insecure. A Member of Parliament does give up a lot of the opportunities which would come his way if he were not a Member of Parliament, particularly a young man in his most progressive period. When he is through he has to go back to where he started, and there is no question in my mind that many Members of Parliament find that when they are defeated or when they leave this place they have very little to go back to.
There is no question in my mind that in the 13 years I have served as a member, the workload has increased

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
tremendously. Nowadays a member gets more work and has more issues to deal with in his office than ever before, partly because of the economic situation and partly because Canadians across Canada are far more aware of their Member of Parliament and are in touch with him far more often than in the past. When I was first elected, parliament sat for about seven months of the year. Now, it is sitting nearly full time; it was suggested today we would be here all the summer and this may be the case. So, there is no question in my mind that the workload has increased, the length of sittings has increased and, surprising as it may seem, the insecurity of tenure of office has really increased because people are changing their minds to a far greater degree today as to which candidate they will vote for or which political party they will vote for than ever before.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated, to run for office takes considerable moral courage. There is no question in my mind that this statement was very correct. But I still go back to the fact that it is a matter of timing. I think it is regrettable that the government should have decided to propose such a large pay raise at a time when the economic situation in Canada is not good, when many people are unemployed. Certainly many people are working and enjoying a fair standard of living in a high-cost economy, the same economy as that in which Members of Parliament must live. I expect, though, that Members of Parliament meet many expenses which would be hard to justify for tax purposes, but all the same there has been money allowed tax-free to cover those expenses.
Many changes could be made with regard to the working conditions of Members of Parliament which would not create a great deal of expense. To my mind, the telephone arrangements for Members of Parliament are very poor. When one is at home in the riding, a member cannot telephone Ottawa without going about it in what always has appeared to me to be an underhanded manner. He phones his office with some kind of signal, the secretary calls him back and he then talks at government expense rather than his own. This, to me, is wrong. If a member has free service from Ottawa he should have free telephone service throughout his riding. This would be particularly advantageous in creating the same operating expenses for rural members as for city members. A city member can operate on the basis of a monthly charge for his telephone; it costs him very little more because he can speak to every one of his constituents in the city without incurring long distance charges. A member representing a rural riding finds that most of his constituents can only be reached by long-distance telephone calls; he does not enjoy the same conditions as his counterpart in the city does. He has to pay for them. Some changes along these lines would have been better brought in at this time, rather than the method the government has chosen to assist Members of Parliament in serving their constituents. I will follow the discussion in committee on this piece of legislation with continuing interest.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: It took quite a bit of political courage to bring in this legislation, but it does
not take a great deal of political courage to speak against it because it is always all too easy to be on the side of the angels. I hope what I am going to say today I can say briefly and quickly. I shall not cast any reflection on other members of the House for the way they, personally, grappled with this problem, as I am presently grappling with it and have been for a considerable time.
I am afraid that this Parliament and Parliaments before it have failed abysmally in dealing with this question of how members' salaries, allowances and services should be adjusted. It is a degrading process for us that we must be placed in a position of deciding our own levels of salaries and our own levels of services.
I think we have also failed badly in explaining to the Canadian people that the Parliament of today is no longer a comfortable club to which the country squires used to retire for conversation in the season between the fall harvest and the spring planting. Parliament now sits 10 or 11 months very frequently and has precious little holiday in the remainder. There may be some legislatures where the old view of the country squires' parliament persists. Without calling them country squires, I should point out that in my own Province of British Columbia the legislature convenes for only 9 or 10 weeks in the winter months. But our time is long. We are engaged in a fulltime occupation here and I think we have failed individually and collectively to get that message across to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: The press has failed.


Paul St. Pierre: My hon. friend says the press has failed and I would agree with him.
In my observation, conscientious parliamentarians here work atrocious hours under considerable stress much of the time and with shockingly bad facilities. In my own rather short career I have not encountered anywhere else an aggregation of men who, by and large, had any higher ideals or ideas or personal dedication to their work. As for some of the prosperous publicists of the radio and some other communications media who are now delighting themselves by blackguarding this institution and the people who serve in it, I have nothing for them but contempt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: They can take their money and sleep with it in their beds at night. I do not know whether I have accomplished much here. Sometimes I think I have accomplished a little, at other times I do not. But I do know the effort that I put out and my conscience will let me sleep. I look around this House and everywhere I see members who I know put out great effort and great dedication.
To the extent that this bill improves our facilities and relieves us of some of our expenses, I strongly support it. I think the increase in the tax free allowance is justified; I shall take it and use it gladly. Like other hon. members of the House I have learned that to be in Parliament can be a costly business. Like many others, I have had to dip

April 30, 1971

into my savings in order to operate here. I am not a member of any establishment and I am not a country squire. I look upon this place as a place to work.
If I consider expense allowances justified, what do I think about our salary? I do not believe that a salary increase is proper at this time. It may be justified but it is not proper. When this Parliament accepts a salary increase of 50 per cent, or 6 per cent a year since 1963, whichever way you want to put it, we set an example to the country, whether we like it or not. I say that under the present circumstances of high unemployment we are setting a bad example at this time.
I suppose I am square enough to believe that Parliament should set an example. In my own case-and I shall refer only to my own position-I was elected in 1968. Although I may not have known what my expenses would be, I did know what my salary would be. In my opinion the 29th Parliament should be the occasion when a salary increase becomes effective.
I want to reflect very briefly on members who have served in this House for a long time. Those of us who are in the chamber now know of many cases of members who have lost contact with the work they did before they came to Parliament. They have put in their time here and have watched their bank overdraft grow. Eventually they will be defeated because the rate of turnover here is very high, and I am just wondering what they will go back to. They have, sir, both my sympathy and my high respect.
I do not like to see men such as these coming under attack from university professors and other self-appointed guardians of public morals, many of whom have themselves taken far greater salary increases than this one during the past eight years and have a security of tenure which is utterly unknown to anyone who serves in this chamber.
As I said earlier, it is easy in a sense to speak against the salary increase at this time. But there is a feature of this debate that none of us can overlook. I suppose it is best summed up in the story about the old drunk who had been on quite a bender and who finally decided he would have to return to his wife, who did not approve of his drinking. He had a friend who was a doctor, and he went first to the doctor and made some private arrangements with him. Then, he went home and went to bed.
A few minutes later his wife came in and said to him: "The doctor has called and you have to take some medicine". He asked what the medicine was, and his wife replied: "I have to give you half a tumbler of whisky". So he said: "No, the filthy stuff; I will have nothing to do with it". "John, you must". "No", he said, "take it away". Eventually, he agreed and took the whisky. Then, he said: "My dear, I think I will try and compose myself for a little sleep, but by the way did the doctor say anything about further treatment?". His wife replied: "Yes, John; I am to give you every two hours two ounces of whisky until the bottle is empty". So he said: "Well, my dear, when you come in I may be sleeping. If I am sleeping, wake me, and if I won't take it, make me"!
I am not opposed to the principle of this bill, but as I have said I consider it wrong for Canada that it should
Senate and House of Commons Act
come at this time of severe unemployment. Like other members, I have had to face the question of how I shall vote on this measure. It has not been a very pleasant decision, and although this debate has been conducted without rancour, it has not been a pleasant debate for us.
There are many actions that could be taken, Mr. Speaker. One is to conveniently absent oneself from the House at this time on other business. Another is to abstain from voting. But I am quite sure that the people in my constituency of Coast Chilcotin did not send me here to have me sit in my seat when votes are being taken. I have notified my colleagues in the Liberal party of my intention to vote against this measure. In recent days, however, there has been much honest criticism in the press. But as I have watched some of the forms of attack made on this House by publicists, I have found myself in the position where, if I were to vote against this measure, I would appear to be agreeing with the stronger and harsher criticisms of the members of this House. I am, therefore, very regretfully going to have to vote for the bill.
In closing, Sir, I must return to the position that we all know, namely that it is easy to vote against a bill knowing that it is going to pass. Am I in any different situation in that, even though I am voting for the bill, I have taken the time of the House to say that I think it is improper to bring in the bill at this time, knowing that it is going to pass? The answer, I feel, is no.
I do not think that when I tell the House that, in my opinion, this salary increase should not have been effective until the 29th Parliament, I have the right to take it in the 28th Parliament. Therefore I shall make arrangements, which will be a matter of record, whereby this salary increase does not flow to me during the life of this Parliament. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like others who have spoken, I wish to pay my respects to the sincerity and earnestness of all members of this House as they participate in this important debate. In particular, I wish to pay my respects to those who will differ with me and may vote in a direction opposite to the stand that I shall take when the vote on second reading is called. I trust it is clear and no surprise that when that vote is called I shall vote against the bill, because I do not think that this piece of legislation should be before us, and I feel very strongly that it should not be passed at this time.
In the first speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in this House after he had become the Prime Minister and had won the 1968 election he had quite bit to say about poverty. I am referring to his speech during the debate on the address on reply to the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 1968. The right hon. Prime Minister spoke in that debate on September 16, of that year. Having told us that the most intractable problem facing us was the continuing poverty of far too many of our citizens, and having told us that poverty could not wait, he also said something in one paragraph at page

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act 68 of Hansard for the date I have indicated which was very true. These were his words:
I have often mentioned the responsibility of the more affluent segments of our society toward the less privileged ones. The majority of us have already satisfied our right to a minimum standard of satisfactory living. It is those who have not who need government help.
On another occasion, on February 14, 1969, as recorded in Hansard at page 5524, he said it is useless to solve certain other problems unless we are prepared to do something about, and I quote his exact words: " the intolerable conditions of poverty in which too many Canadians now live".
I confess that when I heard those words from the Prime Minister in the first session after he became the Prime Minister of this country, I dared to believe, in spite of things I had said about him in the election campaign, that maybe he was interested in the problem of poverty in Canada and maybe he was prepared to do something about it. I liked in particular his assertion that the majority of us have already satisfied our right to a minimum standard of satisfactory living and it is those who have not who need government help. It has not worked out that way, and it is in light of that position, and any one of us can spell it out with examples, that I object very strongly to the government asking us to improve our own position when we have done so little to combat poverty or the trials of the poor in this country.
I know one of the answers to that argument is that if we did not get this pay raise, and if the full amount of money it will cost to provide it were divided among the poor it would be only a few cents per person or per family, therefore it is argued that there is no point in doing it. I know the contention that if we are free from want and worry we can do a better job for those who are in need. Things are not working that way and I want to say, speaking for myself as all of us are doing in this debate, that I think the thing which is most wrong in our society and in our world is the ever-widening gap between the poor and the affluent. This is the thing that is wrong in our world, even with all we have done by way of assistance to developing countries. The gap in the standard of living between two-thirds of the world's population and the other one-third is wider than it ever was. If this sort of thing goes on, our world could fall apart.
I say the same thing about Canadian society. We are not going to have a bright and hopeful future if we continue to increase the amount of money the poor have by only a little and increase the amount that those in the upper bracket have by ever so much more. In my view this concept of doing things on a percentage basis is basically wrong. What we have to do if we are going to solve the problem of poverty is to challenge the power structure in this country and challenge the government and society as a whole on the idea that it is proper to have an economic hierarchy in which every time there is any little improvement at the bottom there will be a large improvement at the top.
I assert that the time has come-and maybe that time has been coming over and over again in the past, but it is

the present we have to concern ourselves about-for some of those who enjoy a higher standard of living than is the average in this country to say this has gone far enough. It is time to cut down this practice of the percentage principle and do something to level things up by raising those who are at the bottom of the economic scale rather than doing things that keep widening the gap.
That is what is wrong with this bill to increase our total take-home pay but which pays no attention to the basic problem facing this country, namely that of solving the problem of poverty. The Prime Minister talked in his first session in that capacity as though he was concerned about this. For a while there was even talk about a war on poverty but that soon got lost. We have seen an interesting development in another place that we are not supposed to talk about around here where a committee got into trouble because some of the people working for that committee wanted to attack the power structure and attack poverty itself. The fact is that is what we have to do.
I submit that by going along with the idea that those at the top should continue to get increases of as high a percentage as those at the bottom get, or even higher, we-are widening the gap. This means that we are doing a disservice not only to the poor but a disservice to society as a whole. At some point we have to begin to show that our main objective and purpose is in the direction of equity; that our main purpose and objective must be a levelling upwards for those who are at the bottom and, for that reason, we who are at or near the top must hold the line where we are. That is what we ought to do. This is my basic philosophical approach to this whole problem and that is why I think we should let our position stay as it is. We should give a lead and some sense of direction to the country as a whole by doing just this, and that means saying no to this bill.
The last speaker pointed out that if we do not hold the line but rather vote for a 50 per cent increase in our salaries or a 44 per cent in our total take-home pay that certainly will be taken by all sorts of elements in our society as a lead. I suggest that in a year or two inflation will be out of hand again, and that the gap which concerns me will get wider. We have to start narrowing that gap. It is not up to someone else. It is up to us.
It is easy to say the other fellow should make the first move, but we are the leaders of the country. We are the people who represent the 20-odd million Canadians in Canada and we are here to give direction to the kind of society we should have. I think we can give that lead by saying no for ourselves to any further improvement in our take-home pay until something really substantial has been done to improve the position of all those who are at the lower end of the scale.
I could, of course, cite examples which have been cited a number of times. There has been that very slight increase in the basic old age pension bringing it up to $86 a month and increases in veterans pensions and allowances which were far less than should have been made. In addition, there is the heavy pressure that is being put
April 30, 1971

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question, not being facetious. Was it not $4,000 a session. You may have had only one session. Was it not $4,000 a session?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was $4,000 a session.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ah!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a
minute-


An hon. Member:: Try to be honest, Stanley!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I know all hon. members want to hear the hon. member's speech, and I suggest that if there are questions they should be directed to the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, remarks like the last one may not be on the record since the hon. member did not make it from his own seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to dissociate myself from that remark. I was asking the hon. member for information, I was not trying to be facetious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asked whether that was not the rate per session, and it was; but it was not until 1949 and 1951 that there were a couple of occasions of two sessions per year. That did not happen in the early 1940s. At that time our total take home pay was $4,000 per year, there is no question about that. That is an actual fact, and it is stated in answer to the word "honest" that was thrown at me a moment ago.
Now, Sir, 29 years later, or 31 years later for the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith), our total take home pay is $18,000 a year, and that is an increase of 350 per cent. If we are going to throw these percentages around, let us really be honest and let us tell the whole story. It is an increase of 350 per cent over a period of 29 years, which is about 12 per cent a year. If the present bill goes through and the total take home pay becomes $26,000 a year, for those of us who were here in the early 1940s it wjll be a total increase of 550 per cent or between 19 and 20 per cent per year. You can shoot that down in various ways; you can do all kinds of things with figures, but I submit that to try to tone down this present increase as thought it were only 2| per cent a year is not really treating the matter in a factual way. It is in fact a 50 per cent increase in salary and an over-all increase of 44.4 per cent.
I would also point out that in those early years not only was $4,000 the total take home pay but there were no free airline flights. We had our railway passes and we could go back and forth as we wished to, but we got our berth and meals on the train for a trip from Ottawa to the constituency only three times a year, not 52 round trip air flights.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Surely, we need that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course we do, I am not arguing against that, but I am saying to my hon. friend that the improvement in the position of Members of Parliament over the last three decades has been tremendous, so let us not try to say that we are poor, that we do not have the facilities, that we are severely handicapped. The facilities that are made available to us today are much greater than they were, and these facilities actually add to our standard of living.
The argument is being made that we are not getting very much of an increase and that we are still hard-pressed. I have gone back and read some of the debates in the years when the pay increases were introduced. This is the fourth one that I have been through, and the same argument was always made. Members were having a tough time, and we have to pay higher salaries to attract better men. Yet, back in those early days when we were so poor that we had to raise the pay to attract better men, we did have people like C. D. Howe, James Ilsley, Mackenzie King, Gordon Graydon, R. B. Hanson, John Diefenbaker, Howard Green, M. J. Coldwell, and so on. Good and able people somehow seem to come to this place no matter what the rate of pay is.
Now, Sir, I am not arguing that we should go back to the days when there was no pay for Members of Parliament. I agree with the proposition that the salary of Members of Parliament should be such that they can do their job with at least a restricted amount of worry, but I would not restrict that worry to the point where they do not know what the life of the ordinary Canadian is. I agree that there has to be a reasonable level of pay, but I suggest that in today's circumstances, with pensions as low as they are, with wages being held down, and with the high level of unemployment facing this country, the present total of $18,000 is a reasonable level. I certainly agree with the last two speakers that if any change is to be proposed it should not apply until the next Parliament, the one that meets after the next general election.
I see it is almost one o'clock and I am just about through. One of the arguments that is frequently used for increased pay for Members of Parliament is to compare the job we do with that of civil or public servants. Let us agree that there are deputy ministers and people much lower in the public service who now get more pay than we do, and of course comparisons are also made with persons in private business, and so on. Perhaps I am alone in this, perhaps it is a queer notion I have about it, but we are not people who have been hired to do a technical job for which certain training and certain qualifications are required.
We have asked to come here as representatives of the people, and I do not think that our salary level should be decided on the basis of people who dress as we do and occupy offices and work as we do. It should be decided on the basis of what we need to do a job to represent the Canadian people. It is my judgment, whether or not hon. members accept it, that something in the order of what we are now getting is a reasonable amount. I say quite candidly that I would not have objected and would not object if there were a modest increase, but it seems to me that an increase of 50 per cent in the salary and 33J
April 30, 1971

per cent in the expense allowance does not fit the word "modest".
One of the main reasons for my opposing this bill is that I think that the increase in it is too great. I am hurrying on so that I can conclude at one o'clock rather than carry on after the lunch hour. It is almost a case of putting the rest of my remarks in terms of headings. May I say that another aspect of this legislation which I think is totally wrong is the continuation of a portion of our pay on a tax free basis. It is a special privilege and it should end. Beaupre was very much against this. It is what is criticized perhaps most by the Canadian people, and they have the right to do so.
I think that if the government was not prepared to recommend that the tax free $6,000 be incorporated into the total pay, at least it should not have made it worse by raising the $6,000 to $8,000. I think it would have been proper, straightforward and honest if the government had said that the present $12,000 salary and the $6,000 expense allowance is the equivalent of about $21,000 or $22,000 if it were all taxable, and should have said, this is where we will start, we will give members $21,000 or $22,000 as a base and perhaps add $1,000 or $2,000 to that as an increase, but I insist that all of it should be taxable.
I was here when Mr. King brought in his provision in 1945. We knew then why he did it. He felt that members should have an increase, but he wanted to do it in a way that would give them as much as possible without sounding that way. It was his concoction to have $2,000 tax free in our hands but taxable in the hands of Senators. However, I think that was wrong and it should be changed. Some day it will have to be changed, but the longer we put it over the larger the increase will have to be to achieve this, so the time to end this tax free special privilege is now.
I see it is one o'clock. May I say in a sentence that the other point about this legislation that I think is wrong and that is offensive to the Canadian people is to make it retroactive to last October, with the result that we will get half a year's increase in one cheque. Let us think of how working people have to struggle and wait to get increases and how little retroactivity they get, how much they wish they could have a decent amount of retroactivity, while all we have to do is to vote for a measure like this and we get it. It falls into our lap.
Perhaps I have strayed a little from my desire to speak in a low key. If that is the case I have done so because I feel very strongly about this issue, and I shall govern myself accordingly if this bill passes. I repeat my respect for those who disagree with me but I plead that this measure is wrong because the increase is far too much, because of the tax free element, and because of the retroactive provision. I plead also that what we are doing is wrong because we are giving society the wrong lead. Instead of those of us who are at or near the top in improving our own position, some of us, and I include myself, should be saying it is time for us to hold the line until those further down catch up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being after one o'clock, I do leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
Senate and House of Commons Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak in this debate on a bill affecting very directly the individual members of the House, and particularly where it affects them the most, that is, the pocketbook, a member has to proceed with care in what he says so that by misconstruction or misinterpretation he does not reflect in any way on the views seriously and frankly held by other members.
Before lunch I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). He started his remarks by saying it was so easy to oppose this measure because then you were on the side of the angels. Mr. Speaker, without in any way questioning his divine guidance or relationship with spiritual bodies, I find it most difficult to speak, because closer than the angels are fellow colleagues in the House who feel very seriously about this matter. I hope therefore my brief remarks will not in any way be misinterpreted by them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Besides the angels don't forget those in the other place.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) refers to the other place. Well, I have something to say about the other place and it is not angelic. I intent to be brief, Mr. Speaker, because members have long awaited a salary review and any prolonged effort by any member could by inadvertence cut sharply against a fellow colleague. But while I intend to be brief, and I hope I am frank, I intent to be relevant and realistic.
Very simply put, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the principle of Bill C-242 which amends various acts and gives an increase in salaries, and provides an adjustment in expense allowances. But I am against the size of the increase. To my way of thinking, a 50 per cent salary increase at this time is indefensible. Because of the dire need of so many members, I give full credit to the government for having the courage to face this problem. I am afraid, however, that in trying to resolve the problem with this measure it merely postpones tackling the perennial problem that we have had from time immemorial of trying to find a device whereby we can regularly review both our salaries and expenses.
I am against the salary increase because it is 50 per cent of what I am earning now even though, as with all Canadians, any salary increase is immediately bitten into by taxes. I am against the salary increase because the same increase is provided for members of the other place. I do not have any angelical feelings about the other place. I do not believe that being a member of the other place is a full-time occupation, and I very definitely believe that being a member of the House of Commons is a full-time occupation. Because I believe this, I can see no justification whatsoever for providing an increase in salary for members of the other place.
In a general way, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the very credibility and relevance of this institution are involved in this measure. I do not intend to prolong the agony of

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
those who are listening to my words, because I think there is a general disposition to have the measure move on to committee where there can be a more detailed study made of all the points that have been raised by various members. I do not intend to wallow in any swamp of double talk or preach any platitudes from the plateau of purity. I think that this forum is the mirror of Canada's mosaic. I think this forum personifies the Canadian personality. It is the closest thing we have to a vehicle which represents all shapes and sizes of opinion in this country.
That being so, hon. members are duty bound-no matter how painful it may be to any who are in debt, and there are not many members here who do not have overdrafts in the bank, myself included-to be realistic. They ought to know that although the public is never well disposed to salary increases, salary increases of this substantial size will be looked on with disfavour and will bring on a delayed action, regardless of what editorials say. An increase of this size will bring about an alienation and lack of respect for this institution which I do not think this institution can afford. In this day of dissent where our youth are quizzical, to say the least, and perhaps even critical, we must remember that if we pass this measure we will not enhance the stature of this institution.
I do not think any hon. member pretends to have a monopoly on conscience. Certainly, no one member and no one party has a monopoly on conscience here. I believe that this institution represents the collective conscience of Canadians and that is why we must consider carefully how we move in adjusting salaries and expense allowances. In my opinion by trying to move the way we are, we are ignoring the realities of life. I am sure that if the doctors, lawyers, dentists, unions, teachers, secretaries or any other group tried in one fell swoop to increase their salary position by 50 per cent, this chamber would order an investigation. The Prices and Incomes Commission would undoubtedly move, too, even if the salary scale of the particular group in question were lower than that of other groups. The fact this matter falls too close to home is no reason for us to ignore reaction in the country. I believe that the relevance and credibility of this institution is at stake.
The question of the credibility of this institution has probably bothered me more than any other single thing. It almost seems that the more controversial the issue or the more sensitive the subject, the more mute and mild does the chamber become. It seems that the old mores and taboos do not apply anymore. I think that the public, which is more in tune with what we are doing than ever before through the medium of television, is in a better position to assess the performances of members than ever before. Paradoxically, while the public is more in tune, I believe it is "turned off" when we play the charades of yesterday. I, personally, believe that hon. members individually and parties collectively must start taking stands on these matters, sometimes for the wrong reason, rather than adopting the sterility of no stand at
all. When we pass a bill such as this we shall compromise ourselves on any future stand we may take respecting economic conditions in this country, and for that reason I believe the credibility of this institution is at stake. How, after passing a bill like this, can hon. members talk about discipline, controls if necessary, and the necessity of battling the fires of inflation in future? If I were to talk that way, I am afraid I might be laughed off the platform.
I feel that a salary adjustment is necessary. I feel that an increase in the expense allowance is necessary. Nevertheless, when I came here in 1968 I knew what my salary was to be. I cannot accept the reasoning to the effect that if we get this increase it will represent an annual increment of 6 per cent from 1963. Let me remind hon. members that there have been two elections since 1963. The problem with the expense allowance and the salary is this: we are not looking at any regular procedure. The sums involved are not tied to any cost of living allowance or to ministerial salaries, nor are they determined by any tribunal which might review this matter. Personally, I do not know that I want members' salaries tied to the salaries of deputy ministers, important though they are, or to a level very much below theirs. The bill seeks to increase salaries by 50 per cent merely because we have postponed, time after time, the perennial problem of members' salary increases. That problem has been in a sensitive area. When I was elected here I knew full well what my salary was to be, so I do not think it is honest to increase it by 50 per cent in mid-term. I do not think I can defend that. Hon. members may say that it is easy for me to say these things and that I am on the side of the angels. I have felt it my duty to make perfectly clear what I feel.
Some members have suggested that we ought to remedy poverty before we increase our salaries. If we are first to rid this land of poverty, then I suggest that every member in this institution will be part of the dust of the land before there is any adjustment. I am glad that this is a matter for individuals to decide. It should not be, and I hope will not become, a party matter. Because this is a matter for individuals, I have debated with myself whether I ought to move an amendment to the bill. My position, briefly, is this: I have no objection to the expense allowance being increased. My personal expenses in my constituency are far greater than $8,000. Yet I question the substantial size of the increase at this time. In principle, I agree that an adjustment is necessary and for that reason will vote for the measure on second reading. The motion before us is to refer this bill to committee. However, unless there is an amendment in the committee which will postpone the implementation of the salary increase until after the next election-and 1 may try to move such an amendment in committee-I will be prepared to vote against the measure on third reading.
Any member who dares to involve himself in this debate can be accused of many things. My position is perfectly clear. To me, the only thing more odious than preaching a double standard is accepting a double standard. I do not believe that this substantial salary increase is justified at this time. Some say that if the bill is passed

April 30, 1971

without the sort of amendment I have suggested it will become an election issue in the next election. I do not see it that way, because everyone will know what is involved and the law can be amended. In any event, I suggest that the increase should be postponed until after the next election. If the increase does not become effective until after the next election, I do not see how it will become an issue during the campaign. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) quite properly pointed out when he opened the subject that this might become a danger if we delay the debate. If this measure is passed it will become the law of the land, and then all the candidates will know just what they are going to receive by way of salary.
I take exception to the substantial increase for the reasons I have stated. Many more could be stated. In order to make my position clear, if this substantial increase is granted, I will take steps to have no pecuniary interest in the salary part of this bill. 1 will return it to the Treasury, if that is mechanically possible, donate it to charity or make a gift to the Crown. I feel that any member who has the temerity to speak against this measure must make that absolutely clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Members are only fooling themselves if they protest, argue and take exception without following that caveat. As I said earlier, the only thing more odious than preaching the double standard is to accept it. I hope that all members will govern themselves accordingly, and that this matter will be referred to a committee after others have had a chance to express their opinions.
If I decide to run again, I hope the election will be very soon so that I will not divest myself of any interest in this increase for too long. I will stand on any platform anywhere and defend the principle of this bill. There has to be an adjustment. However, because of the rate of unemployment at this time, as well as all the reasons that have been mentioned, we cannot jump our salary by 50 per cent, regardless of the need.
I think that more should be done with regard to expenses. I will not go into details. I would love to have an expense allowance and be able to account to somebody, but that is getting into the details. Whether tax free or taxable, $8,000 is not enough. As far as the salary is concerned, I cannot see any member speaking and voting against the bill, then accepting the fruits of it.


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Della):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) on the point he made with regard to the double standard. I am pleased to see that the front benches of the New Democratic Party are not empty because I wish to direct a statement to them later in my speech.
Many months ago when the matter of increases in members' salaries was first raised, I made a commitment that I would not vote in favour of any salary increase that would come into effect during the life of this Parliament. I intend to honour that commitment. It was made
Senate and House of Commons Act because, in all conscience, I feel 1 cannot vote to raise my salary without first seeking a renewed mandate.
This decision was obviously not an easy one to make inasmuch as I agree with the argument put yesterday that the raise is deserved. In fact, I believe it is not overly generous at all, especially in view of the higher recommendation made by the Beaupre commission. However, I feel that some alternate means, clearly free of Parliamentary control, must be found to adjust the rates of remuneration.
I have the greatest respect for those hon. members on both sides of the House who intend to vote for this measure. They are doing what they believe to be right and I know that they will respect my position as one that has been arrived at only after a lengthy period of soulsearching. I emphasize again that it is a personal decision and in no way reflects on any other member of this House.
I now come to the question of the increased expense allowance. There can be no doubt that Members of Parliament have a great range of expenses that are unknown to persons in other walks of life. It is also true that the rising expectations of our constituents for various services to be performed has meant a rapidly escalating cost factor which we must meet. If this bill passes, I will feel compelled, on behalf of my people, to put the larger expense allowance to use for their benefit. However, Mr. Speaker, I repeat my decision that I cannot accept a personal salary increase and I am happy to join the hon. members for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) and Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) in announcing that I intend to either turn back the net increase or donate it to some worthy cause.
I now issue a challenge to the front benches of the New Democratic Party. They have opposed this bill most eloquently. They have condemned this increase as being too great. They have stated that there are others with greater needs. On the other hand, the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has declared to the press that he plans to accept the raise if the bill passes. Mr. Speaker, I know, this Parliament knows, the people of Canada and the leader of the New Democratic Party know that the bill will pass this House of Commons. I, personally, cannot be hypocritical. In my opinion, if we oppose the increase then we cannot, indeed we must not, use the funds for personal gain. I demand that the member for York South prove to this House, and to the people of this country, that his opposition was not a sham but indeed that he was serious in his declarations to the House; that his protests were founded in something deeper than an attempt to secure television coverage and a pat on the back from the editorial writers of this country. I ask him to prove that he is sincere. I challenge him to join with the members for Surrey-White Rock and Coast Chilcotin and myself in dedicating this raise to the less fortunate in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member who just spoke made a general reference to the front benches of this party. I am pretty sure that what he said was in

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
the plural. The leader of this party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), can and will speak for himself. I trust the hon. member heard me make a declaration this morning similar to that made by others, namely that I will see to it that so far as I am concerned there will be no personal gain from this increase.


Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is speaking to the question of privilege-


Thomas Henry Goode: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest there is no question of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has clarified the point. I do not think it constitutes a question of privilege. Perhaps at this point I should recognize the next speaker.


Thomas Henry Goode: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I must apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I listened to his speech today, but I did not get that impression from it. Perhaps the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) would like to make a similar declaration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I ' want to make a declaration, I will make it in the course of the debate, not in answer to a half-baked question.


Thomas Henry Goode: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Broadview.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Thus, I have no difficulty in answering the question posed earlier by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). I was impressed by the tone which was set for the debate by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) yesterday when he attempted to deal with a very difficult subject in an objective way. I certainly agree with his assessment of the problem and the solution which is proposed. I also admire the courage of others who have spoken in the debate, either in favour of the proposed increases or against them. I think it is fair to say that the high tone set forth by the President of the Privy Council has been carried on throughout the discussion.
This question of an increase in salary and expense allowance has been a gnawing one for hon. members, more especially for me since I entered the House in 1965. I guess this is because of the increase in the cost of living, the heavy responsibilities of a Member of Parliament and the tremendous amount of time a member has to spend in the performance of his duties. Let me say at once that I respect the views of my hon. friends in this party, even though I do not agree with some of them. I am sure they also respect my views on this matter. There
is a diversity of thinking within our party, probably due to differences in age, professional skills, philosophical approaches and so on. There is one thing I can say-and I think this is in line with the attitude taken by some of my hon. friends who have already spoken: we are all in agreement with the principle that some increase is justifiable. It may be that the main criticism is related to the size of the increase proposed.
I ask myself, and I ask members generally: Just what is a fair salary for the performance of our duties? I am sure we do not wish to make this into a political matter. When I look at the salaries of some of the public officials, I see that deputy ministers receive between $40,000 and $42,000. I notice that judges of the Supreme Court make $35,000 and that judges of County Courts will be making $25,000 shortly. Salaries of high school principals range from $16,000 to $20,000. Administrative and staff positions command a salary range, certainly in the City of Toronto, upwards of $30,000, and I ask myself: why are we not criticizing the size of the salaries received by these public officials? If I turn to private industry and private life, I notice that lawyers, doctors, dentists and business executives, with experience of ten years or more, are in a salary range upwards of $30,000.
There has been much criticism with regard to the self-imposed nature of the increase which Members of Parliament are contemplating at this time. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that doctors, lawyers and many business executives use the same technique with regard to increases. They're not accountable to any price review board. When they want an increase they impose it, and we have seen this happen in the medical profession, in the legal profession and in the business area.
Since the salary ranges of officials in public and private life are of the order I have mentioned, I would ask: is not the responsibility of a Member of Parliament as great as, if not greater than, some of those in the categories to which I have referred? Is not the time we spend in performing our duties as long as the time spent by them in the performance of theirs, if not longer? Why is it considered morally acceptable for those in private industry to obtain increases but almost morally reprehensible for parliamentarians to do so? Members of Parliament come from all walks of life and perform services for all members of the community. The only reason we feel so hesitant to increase our salaries, as far as I can see, is that in the past there was a history of parsons, social workers and teachers performing services to the community in circumstances in which it was thought somewhat improper that the question of salary should be considered in respect of them. I think the same is true with regard to Parliaments in the past. If we were to make a list of the men who have come to Parliament in the last hundred years, we would find that most of them belonged to upper income groups and did not encounter the problems many of us face today. I might add that the parsons, the social workers and the schoolteachers have long upgraded their salaries and I, for one, am delighted to see this. I do not believe a person should suffer financially because he is making a contribution to the community.

April 30, 1971

It has been said that the increase should be thought of within the total framework of the social and economic life of the country. I myself, along with many others, feel very uneasy with regard to the poverty and unemployment which prevails. I am most uneasy about the housing shortage. If I were to receive an undertaking that most of the professional people in Canada would roll back their salary increases to bring salaries into line with the present salary of a Member of Parliament, I would be the first to agree we should tackle the situation in that way. If our incomes are not sufficient to maintain a family in decency and respectability, are we not closing the door to men of modest means? Surely Parliament should not be the preserve of the rich. We should be able to exercise independence an not be worried about fear or favour. I am particularly concerned about younger people. I think it is necessary to attract younger people to this institution where they may reflect the views of youth today. I do not want to set up any barriers for younger married men with children, many of whom will be attending university.
Having spent seven years as a Member of Parliament representing a working man's constituency, and being on call every weekend I go home, I ask myself: how much am I charging people in my constituency? Someone better versed in arithmetic than myself has worked out that I have 75,000 constituents, and if I divide that number into $18,000 it comes to less than 25 cents per person for the services I perform to the constituents in my riding. I am proud I am available to people in my riding. I cannot go home on weekends without being faced with constituents varying in number from six to 12 come to seek advice on problems concerning unemployment insurance, pensions, immigration and so on. I am sure that the constituents of my riding would think that at a mere cost of less than 25 cents this is good service for good representation.
I would be the first to recommend that our salary increases be referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission, but I have been told today that the chairman of that commission has approved of them. Had the salary increases been referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission, I think it may well have helped us from the standpoint of public acceptance. But they were not. Therefore, I would be prepared to accept any recommendation regarding a referral of the proposed increases to the commission for study.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Beaupre recommended a $23,000 salary for the balance of this session and $25,000 for next session, with accountable expenses. I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with Mr. Beaupre and that I do not feel uneasy about accepting $18,000 when he recommended $23,000.
The second area of criticism relates to the increase of non-taxable allowances from $6,000 to $8,000. I agree with the President of the Privy Council that this affords a discretion to hon. members regarding how that money should be spent. May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin)
Senate and House of Commons Act operates a constituency clinic within his riding and performs a service for his constituents at great expense to himself.
Because I am a married man with a young family, one of whom is attending university, it is impossible for me out of my present salary to maintain a constituency clinic. Therefore, when I go home at weekends my home is my constituency clinic. I should like to think that I had sufficient money to operate the same type of constituency clinic as does the hon. member for Greenwood. He performs a service that is not within his own home and that certainly assists the people that he represents. I agree that there should be a discretion. I have heard it said by many members that they do not want a constituency clinic within their riding. I think it should depend on a member's own judgment whether such a clinic is operated or not.
With regard to retroactivity, which is the third criticism, as far as I am concerned this problem started in 1965. I saw my own income depreciating every year as the result of the rise in the cost of living, and so I have been directly affected, having suffered a decreasing income each year since 1965 to the present day. Probably I should say that I want retroactivity back to 1965, and I certainly see nothing wrong in making the increases retroactive to October of last year. I think this question was studied by Mr. Beaupre and others prior to October, and I think the increase should be backdated to the commencement of the session.
The fourth area relates to adjustment of increases, and at the present time there is no method of adjusting our indemnities. Probably this is one question with which we are having greatest difficulty. So many people present the problem: What should we do with regard to increasing members' salaries? What mechanism should we use? When you ask a person who raises that problem what we should do about it, he fails to come forth with the answer. Should we tie our indemnity to some category in the public service, or should we use an average of a series of categories? The whole problem is very difficult.
By the time we commence our next session, whether I am here or not, I hope that the government will recommend some specific category to which we should attach our salaries so that we can avoid a repetition every few years or so of introducing legislation to catch up on salary increases. I hope that the figure decided on will be a reasonable one, one that takes into account an evaluation of our backgrounds, our responsibilities, our performance and the amount of time spent.
At one time I thought it was possible to hold down two positions, my professional position as a lawyer and also that of an M.P. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that since 1965 when I came to this House I have not practised law to any extent. My partner does 99.5 per cent of our law work. Being a Member of Parliament is a full time job, which I think is the way it should be. This must be taken into account in determining what our salary should be. To place a member in the position where his salary is insufficient and he has to look to other areas to supplement it diverts his time and his energy from his duties in the House to the making of money to meet his ongoing expenses.

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
When I rose I said I supported the bill. On sitting down, I also say I support the bill.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, it is with much apprehension that I rise today to take a stand on Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and an Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate.
It is always very embarrassing for a member to say whether he will vote for or against an increase in his own salary. The matter requires of course a serious self-examination, but I would nevertheless like to express my views frankly on the question.
I respect the opinions expressed by my hon. colleagues, and I will not hold their vote against them, even though I do not always share their viewpoints.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members have listened with a great deal of interest to the plea made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 26, during which he announced governmental proposals to increase members' salaries and allowances. One must not right away that the right hon. Prime Minister took shelter behind the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary salaries and Expenses, under the chairmanship of Mr. T. N. Beaupre, president of Domtar Limited. The Prime Minister summarized them as follows:
-the future of Canada depends largely upon the ability of the public to secure the services of the best possible people as parliamentarians.
-salaries should be high enough to attract persons of proven ability at a time when their earning potential may be at its highest.
-the position of the parliamentarian is essentially a fulltime occupation: his working day in the House of Commons is usually much longer than the industrial average.
-the tenure of office of a member of the House of Commons is uncertain: 292 members have been defeated in the past 12 years with probably more to come.
-the nature of the position is becoming increasingly more time-consuming, more complicated, more sensitive and requiring considerable moral courage.
-a member of Parliament must meet many expenses that are not common to other salary earners and that are not deductible for income tax purposes, as is the practice in many other countries.
And the right hon. Prime Minister added:
It is the view of the government, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of Canada will not be served if Parliament fixes the levels of compensation of the elected representatives of the people at a level which is either so high as to attract candidates for reasons of financial gain, or so low as to deny effectively the opportunity of parliamentary service to all but those possessing private incomes. In the judgment of the government the second hazard is of more immediate cause for concern than is the first.
Those are the words of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, from a personal standpoint I think there is some good in the arguments advanced by the right hon. Prime Minister and, in another occasion, in another time and in a better economic context, I would certainly adhere to government's proposals for I really need this
increase since I represent a rural riding which is about 100 miles long with some 50 municipalities and nearly
80,000	people. Moreover, I have to provide for the livelihood of ten children. But, in the present circumstances and particularly in the present economic situation, at a time when thousands of workers are unemployed, when the rise in the cost of living has not been curbed, when economists tell us the greatest danger we are exposed to is inflation, I cannot accept these proposals. Indeed, Mr. John Young, chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission stated yesterday in Vancouver that inflation had not yet been licked and that employers and workers shouid show some moderation in their claims for higher salaries and profits.
Mr. Speaker, I am thus under obligation to object to the raise in indemnities and allowances which has been proposed by the government. First the government pretend that such a measure will attract to Parliament men with higher qualifications and in a better position to solve the economic problems of Canada.
In the first place, let me question this assumption. Let us suppose for a moment that Parliament were "full up" with economists and lawyers. Would that solve the problem of the unemployed? If business is bad, if the economy is upside down, should it be blamed on members or on the leaders of the government who accept an archaic and obsolete financial system which deprives the consuming public of its necessary spending power. The government is advised by economists, lawyers and civil servants. These are all educated and qualifed people, as the Prime Minister said. However, they have led the Canadian economy to the brink of bankruptcy, mainly on account of their evident inability to equitably administer all the classes of our society.
p.ra.)
Meanwhile, the government refuses to increase old age security pensions and family allowances, and to establish a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians.
In support of my statement I shall quote figures on votes taken in the House of Commons since the opening of This Parliament in 1968. Four times the Progressive Conservative members united with the Liberal members to defeat motions from the Ralliement creditiste or the New Democratic party concerning the guaranteed minimum income, increased family allowances and increased purchasing power for those whose needs are greater. On the occasion of very important votes on other proposals aimed at improving the condition of the poor, the Progressive Conservative members supported the members of the Ralliement creditiste or of the New Democratic party, but the Liberal majority always opposed such proposals. Let me make a few remarks on some previous votes.
On October 28, 1969 and on October 13, 1970, the motion on the guaranteed minimum income was defeated by the government.
On November 5, 1968, June 10, 1969 and October 28,
1969, motions to reduce taxes were defeated by the government.

April 30, 1971

On October 25, 1970, the motion to increase family allowances was defeated by the government.
On May 4, 1970, an amendment concerning the increase of old age security pensions was also defeated by the government. Legislation on young people unemployment had the same fate on December 15, 1970.
Mr. Speaker, if the government members were asked why they voted against all these social measures, they would reply that we have to fight inflation, therefore not give too much buying power to the taxpayer. To make purchasing power available to the most disadvantaged consumers, to those who need it most for food, shelter and clothing is, in the eyes of this government, bad and dangerous.
But to increase the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament and of the senators from $18,000 to $26,000 a year is not dangerous, there is nothing wrong with that. Mr. Speaker, history repeats itself: the rich administrator is getting fat on the national income but denies a minimum income to those most in need of it and mainly to those it is his duty to protect.
For all those reasons I will have to vote against increasing parliamentary salaries and expenses until such time as the government sees fit to propose some social measures to improve the plight of the poor and the plight of the families unable to live on their budget.
Let the government move to increase family allowances and old age security pensions, and I will immediately vote in favour of an increase in our salaries and allowances. But if nothing is done for our citizens, if no legislation is introduced to increase family allowances and mainly to increase the buying power of those who need it most, I will object to increasing our salaries and allowances.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members in this part of the House, including our leader, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and, more recently, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), have thoroughly gone over the provisions of this legislation. I must say I will join with the majority of the members of this party and oppose this bill.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: I hope the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) is not too far away. I wish to repeat for his benefit what I have already told members of the press. Whatever I net as a result of this increase I intend to give to suitable causes and charities in my constituency. My constituents will be taxed as a result of this increase, and I want to be sure they get at least some benefit from it. I feel I will be in a better position to do this than perhaps even the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I intend to look after the disbursement of this increase myself, but I shall not keep it. Without being too presumptuous, I think it would be better if those hon. members on the other side of the
Senate and House of Commons Act
House who are so anxious to divest themselves of any advantage they might gain as a result of a salary increase would use their weight to prevail on the government even at this time to withdraw this legislation.
When this legislation is fully understood, I am sure it will have a boomerang effect upon not only their own fortunes but the feelings generally of the people of this country. Let me quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail of yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Donald MacInnis: It is not a bad paper compared to some that are read by members on the other side of the House. The editorial states in part:
It will interest Canadians, however, to discover with what speed the government is prepared to move in a matter involving its own personal pockets, when it has been so slow to move- claiming as excuse always that it was being obstructed by the opposition-in a multitude of great matters that involve the country.
This I think is the point that has most shocked the public. I refer to the fact that for so long we have been trying to get a better deal for the veterans, the aged, the young people, the handicapped, the crippled and the people on social assistance, and always the same cry has been heard-that the matter is being carefully considered, it is being studied and that it will take some time before the cabinet makes up its mind.
People have been patient; they have waited in vain for the reports to come forward. Then suddenly this measure comes forward involving a great increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament, and the government practically falls over itself in its attempt to get the measure through with all possible speed.
As I said a moment ago, members of my party have canvassed all the major arguments against this bill from our point of view. They have emphasized the fact that the amount is unconscionably large at a time when inflation and unemployment are raging across the country, the Prime Minister's opinion to the contrary; that it is very wrong for the leaders of the country, the people who are supposed to be giving the lead in Parliament, to choose this time to add to the flames of inflation and the misery of unemployment by making their own position more secure and insulated. This is rather like the situation in the old days when there was a shipwreck at sea. What if the captain and the officers had rushed for the lifeboats first, to make sure that they would get aboard, leaving the women and children to take their chances with the sea? It is a little bit that way with this legislation.
I am speaking this afternoon because I shall be away from the House when the vote is taken, if one is taken, on the first or second day of next week. I feel very strongly on this matter. Furthermore, I do not want there to be any ambiguity about where I stand when it is essential that my constituents and people in other parts of the country who write to me about this matter-I receive a great deal of mail on the question-should

ard for these people we should not be cushioning ourselves, great as the need may be.
I think an attempt should be made to assess the needs of individual Members of Parliament and to meet the needs of those who need an increase more than others. This across-the-board increase does not sit well with me. I warn members of the House that when the gap between the rich and the poor in this country becomes too great, we will hear more of the type of criticism that we are hearing now, namely, that Parliament is becoming irrelevant.
Believe me, the criticism about Parliament becoming irrelevant is not made because members are not in their seats all day, as they should be according to the public; and it is not made because we do not have enough committees or because we do not have a system similar to the U.S. presidential system. That is not the basic reason for the criticism, and no amount of tinkering with the committee system, with trips here, there and yonder, or trying to make different rules in the House will do away with the criticism. The criticism stems from the fact that the poor people, the veterans, the old age pensioners, the cripples, people with big families and small incomes, feel that Parliament is completely irrelevant and cannot meet their problems or find solutions for them.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Do you think it is irrelevant?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, it is becoming irrelevant. The National Advisory Committee on Welfare agreed with me when they said that one of the things we should be doing now is to stop the business of patchwork welfare programs and come out with a national program for a guaranteed income, a level beneath which people will not be allowed to fall. They said that even if we had a guaranteed income of $2,000 a year for a single person, $3,400 for a family of adults, $3,980 for a family of three and $4,560 a year for a family of four, such an expenditure would be below Canada's annual expenditure on roads. It would be substantially less than the annual increase in tax revenues of $3.1 billion between 1968 and 1969.
That is the kind of raise I want to see and the kind of raise I have been trying to get ever since I came here-a raise for the people who need it most. My goodness, neglecting the roads for a while might cause potholes in them, but if we neglect the people of this country much longer we will have something much worse than potholes in people. I am deadly serious about this. What is the sense of providing $14.7 million for a do-it-yourself program for youth and then finding that you get applications involving a total expenditure of $150 million? My own province and that of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) has sent in applications for $17 million, and programs to match, which is nearly $3 million more than the total amount provided for all of Canada.
I think we are making the raises in the wrong places and we are beginning the spending in the wrong places, if this Parliament is to be relevant. I want Parliament to be relevant. What is the sense of our being here if it is
Senate and House of Commons Act
not relevant? I do not think we should be any longer in the position of having to raise our own salaries. Why can we not set up the next time around, which I hope will be some time in the distant future, some kind of an independent body-and I mean independent-which would go into this matter and would fix a scale and a standard in accordance with the cost of living? Even so I will quarrel with it unless at the same time we provide cost of living raises for people with less than we have.
One of the most shameful things we did in the past year was to fix old age pensions at $80 a month, with no escalation whatsoever no matter what happens to the cost of living. Yet here we are escalating our salaries and pensions without anybody being able to say "No" to us. There is the story of the little boy who came home after being punished at school for telling a lie. His father said, "You knew it was wrong to tell a lie, didn't you?" "Yes," the boy said "and, worse than that, it didn't work". This legislation is all wrong and, worse than that, it will not work because people will not put up with this sort of thing when they know what it is. In other words, if Parliament wants the confidence and trust of the people of this country, it has to deserve their trust and confidence. Has it been doing that?
Let me go back to the National Advisory Committee on Welfare. They said that welfare payments under the current legislation and regulations were modest compared with payments to the real beneficiaries of government welfare programs, the corporate rich-only these are not called welfare programs; they are called economic growth incentives. Ours is not called a welfare program either, it is called salaries for Members of Parliament; but it comes out of the same place and it is for the same purpose.
I want to be able to live with myself. I do not want to tell people that I am in favour of democracy and in favour of a fair deal for people and then tamely submit to this sort of thing and go along with it when I know it is wrong. Furthermore, I would not even be prepared to submit this question to the Prices and Incomes Commission. On a number of occasions I have seen what the commission can do with a large bucket of whitewash and I am not in favour of giving them a chance to do the same with this matter.
The House should face up to this situation and realize that the bill is intensely unpopular with the people we were sent here to represent. Even at this late date we should say "No" to this bill and cold-storage its consideration and its implementation until we have had a chance to find out how people feel when the next election rolls around.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, a bill to increase the indemnities and allowances of members of Parliament and senators is now before us.
First of all, I should like to say that I echo the suggestions and remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Consequently, I do not intend
5408

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
to bring up again the arguments for or against the bill brought forward since the beginning of the debate. But I would like to expose my own points of view on some specific clauses.
To my mind, this is not time to suggest increased allowances and expenditures when the economy of the country is stagnating, when a large number of Canadians are up against problems of unemployment and spiralling prices. Underemployment and increased prices are the direct or indirect result of lack of action and the maladministration of the government.
In private industry, when bad management or economic conditions do not allow for dividends, they are simply forgotten. And I think that that is the position which we should take under the circumstances.
I do not mean to say that parliamentarians are the only ones responsible for the present situation. Certain officials should also take the blame for a good part of the disappointments of this administration. They would benefit from soul-searching, if they can do it.
Certain information media should also examine themselves on the nature of the information which they convey to the public whom it is their mission to inform.
The Beaupre committee report mentions the working facilities which should be available to members of Parliament so that they can adequately discharge their responsibilities. Here is an excerpt from this report:
The Committee is satisfied that important improvements must be made in the facilities provided to Members and in the methods of financing them. The need to make these improvements is urgent and it will become more urgent and more serious as the importance of the role of the individual Member in the parliamentary system continues to expand.
The Parliament member should at least have the same facilities as those available to civil servants. How many civil servants would accept to share an office with two or three people? Very few, I think.
I also feel that the member should have secretarial services available to him in his constituency so that he can meet his constituents and provide the population which he represents the services expected of him. I believe that such facilities should be substituted for increases.
Another matter which we cannot discuss in this House and which is the target of bitter criticism on the part of the population concerns the Senate.
I have a lot of respect for the members of this institution. I am aware of the services which they have rendered to this country, over the past century.
The remarks that I have to make about the Senate are specifically directed to the institution itself. Since it is a century old, it needs rejuvenating. I would go further: a great many Canadians are even questioning the need for it. I believe I am reflecting the opinion of a majority of Canadians when I say that the role of the Senate must be reevaluated and that we should, if required, do away with it.
Without being in complete agreement with the figures proposed in the Beaupre Committee report, I should like to state clearly that I agree with the basic principles
stated in the report, concerning the methods to be used for the payment of salaries and allowances to members of Parliament and senators.
In my opinion, the salaries of members of Parliament should be taxable on the same basis as those of all other Canadian taxpayers. Let me be more precise. Presently, a member receives a taxable salary of $12,000 and a tax-free allowance of $6,000 for his expenses.
The tax-free allowance should be abolished. Expenses inherent in the functions of member of Parliament and senator should be reimbursed on the same basis as those of public service employees, and according to practices prevailing in private industry.
On the matter of expenses, the Beaupre Committee simply recommends the reimbursement of expenses related to the function of member of the House of Commons or senator. This can be implemented in two different ways: either by providing directly to members of Parliament services for which they now pay out of their salaries and allowances, or by reimbursing expenses on the production of vouchers.
The fixed allowance now in existence and which the government intends to maintain in effect is not in line with recognized taxation principles in Canada. Furthermore, the fixed amount of the tax-free allowance is not logical because of the disparities due to the various distances to be covered in the different constituencies.
The expenses of a member residing in the national capital area or in any other easily accessible centre are certainly not comparable to those of a member residing hundreds of miles from the country's capital. In addition, distances within certain constituencies are another factor to be taken into consideration.
This bill in my opinion, is tantamount to extraordinary legislation which is no longer justifiable. During the last general election campaign, was it not the Liberal party, now in power, that had among other items of its platform the establishment of a just society, the suppression of privileges and the adoption of legislation fair to everyone?
We all deplore the fact that the public tends to consider as salary the fixed allowance for expenditures really incurred by the Member of Parliament in the discharge of his duties. In this respect the position of the Member of Parliament does not differ from that of any other taxpayer. The system proposed by the Beaupre Committee is more equitable than the present one and would also be more easily understood by Canadians.
We have the opportunity to correct this extraordinary situation which is not justified.
We intend to modernize Parliament and the administration. The opportunity is there to correct this situation by rejecting this extraordinary legislation.
If we continue to follow this practice, we let the people suppose that the tax-free allowance is only a disguised way to round off the indemnity paid to parliamentarians, while this is not the case.
There should also be provided a term for the periodical adjustment of parliamentary allowances as is customary in the public service. In this way, it would not be neces-

April 30, 1971

sary to introduce, every five or ten years, an increase which never fails to draw heavy criticism. Its percentage might be determined in advance, or established according to the increase in the cost of living. Criticism would thus be avoided and everybody, those who govern and those who are governed, would know in advance what they may expect.
For these reasons, my intention is to vote against this legislation. To conclude my remarks, I will add that I am struck by the difference be;ween standards governing those who enjoy a privileged position and the rest of the people.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think that the indecent haste with which this legislation is being proceeded with in the House of Commons will be noted by people in all parts of Canada. In the last couple of days the House has tried to proceed with this measure in an a mosphere of indecent haste. I have not seen the government move as fast this session on any piece of legislation as it is moving on this bill.
Let us see what took place this week. First, on Monday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in the House that this measure was the government's proposal. Also, no ice of intention to introduce the bill was placed on the order paper. At the earliest opportunity provided in the rules, on Wednesday the bill was given first reading. Then the bill had to stay on the order paper for one day until second reading could be proceeded with on Thursday. On Thursday the bill was called for second reading. I only received a copy of the bill on my desk on Thursday morning. Since then all sorts of attempts have been made to wind up this debate in one day or in two days in an effort to get the bill out of the way as rapidly as possible. There is much evidence to suggest that this has been attempted in the House during the last couple of days.
I suggest that the Canadian people will wonder, rightly so, why it has taken us so long to deal with the many problems involving unemployment, the people on fixed incomes, the farmers of this country, and so on, whereas the House has shown such an amazing burst of speed in dealing with this legislation which is in the interests of Members of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: We have been discussing this question for two years.


John Stratford Burton: This is the first occasion on which it has been discussed on the floor of the House. If the hon. member wishes to make comments, I suggest that he do so from his own seat and not from the front bench seat in which he is now sitting. He does not have a position on the treasury benches yet, even though he may imagine himself in such a role in the future.
Debating this issue is, of course, difficult. Intemperate remarks are bound to be made by hon. members; some have been made already. I think all hon. members of the House have made remarks which they have later regret-
Senate and House of Commons Act
ted in dealing with this issue. They made them in the heat of the moment when feelings were running high. On the other hand, it is fair to say-I think this needs to be said-that many intemperate remarks are made by the public with respect to the remuneration of Members of Parliament. There is a lack of awareness of the needs of members and their situation and hon. members often become the whipping-post or scapegoat when the public feels unhappy about a certain matter. Of course, this is easy to understand. It is to be regretted that the government did not proceed to deal with this matter in another way.
I think the general public ought to be aware of the special situation that faces Members of Parliament. We live different sorts of lives. Part of this is by choice and part is through necessity. When I say that people lack an adequate awareness of the situation of Members of Parliament I should qualify those words by pointing out that many people in my constituency and elsewhere have acknowledged in a courteous and friendly way the very difficult sort of life which a Member of Parliament of ten has to live. When I say that there is a lack of awareness and adequate understanding of the situation of a member I must be very careful to qualify that statement by making it clear that many people do recognize the special needs and situation of Members of Parliament.
We work very long hours. This can be said of members of all political parties. Most members of the House work long and often unusual hours, although members of the public sometimes gain the impression when they visit the galleries that because members are absent from the chamber they are not working very hard. Also, I think there is a lack of awareness of some of the things a Member of Parliament must do if he is adequately to perform his job. It is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that many Members of Parliament work exceedingly hard. Many work much harder than the average person who lives a normal, ordinary life. Of course, there are some exceptions but this applies to any group of people.
It must also be noted that the family life of a Member of Pari, ament is affected by the life he is called upon to live. Members of Parliament must of necessity be absent from their homes for more time than they like. This applies to most hon. members and certainly applies to me. Very real conflicts develop for a member such as myself who has small children and is trying to fulfil his family responsibilities at the same time as he is attempting to carry out his responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.
It must be noted that being a Member of Parliament is a full-time occupation today. Certainly that is the case for the member who wants to do an adequate job. The day when a member could carry on another line of work while performing his duties as a Member of Parliament is past in almost all cases.
Also, a Member of Parliament is called on to do considerable travelling in his constituency and in other parts of Canada to meet a wide variety of obligations and commitments. Members of the public look with envy on these opportunities for travel, but it is safe to say_and I

April 30, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
am sure that most members of the House will agree with me-that after one has travelled a certain amount one does not look upon travelling in the same way as others. A saturation point is reached with respect to travelling and thereafter it is not the same enjoyable, thrilling experience that some may believe it to be. To be constantly on the go and constantly travelling away from home and one's place of regular work is not good.
It must be pointed out, as others in this debate have pointed out, that of necessity a Member of Parliament incurs many unusual expenses, some of which are difficult adequately to define if one attempts to relate them to any ordinary expense account structure. As some hon. members have said, the Member of Parliament occurs expenses which he would not incur if he were not a member, and some of them certainly do not fit the standard format of accountable expenses. This still leaves the point that there are certain accountable expenses which should be taken into account and given further consideration if we are to develop an adequate structure for the remuneration of Members of Parliament.
In looking at the entire picture of the peculiar circumstances of Members of Parliament, and considering at the same time just what sort of job they are doing, whom they are representing and whose money they are spending, we must give consideration to maintaining a balance between the very real financial needs of the member on the one hand and the member's relationships with the people of his constituency and the people of Canada on the other. This is a matter that must be kept in mind at all times.
I have a particular point of view on this matter. Some members will undoubtedly disagree with my approach. That is their right and privilege and I respect them for their differences of opinion. I ask them to respect me for my views and to acknowledge that we have a very difficult task to perform. In fact, we need to do more work before we arrive at a satisfactory solution to this problem. This is a degrading process which Parliament has to go through at intervals. I suggest that the process we are now going through, and have gone through on a number of occasions in the past 25 years, hurts and degrades Parliament and its members. Members of this chamber are placed in the very awkward position of attempting to deal with this matter in an objective and sensible fashion.
Members of Parliament should be completely dispassionate in dealing with this matter, no matter whether at some point they must assume responsibility for whatever decision is taken. It is clear that we need a different procedure than we have had up to now. This is one of the matters that the Beaupre committee was asked to study

and it struck out completely! The biggest single failing in the report of the Beaupre committee is that it does not make any suggestions or proposals for dealing with this matter in the future. In fact, the committee passed the buck on this issue and declined to make a concrete proposal. As such, they failed in part to accept
the responsibility that was given to them when the committee was established.
I have reservations with regard to some of the suggestions that the salary or indemnity of members of Parliament should be related to a particular level of salary in the public service. It is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately relate the role and job of a Member of Parliament to any particular position in the public service. They are entirely different types of jobs.
I take some objection to the procedure followed by the Prime Minister when he made his announcement in the House of Commons at the beginning of the week. He said this is what the government is proposing to Members of Parliament. He then went on to outline government proposals with respect to a number of categories in the executive level of the public service. He did not attempt to establish any relationship between these two groups, but he made the announcement at the same time as though he were lumping together civil servants and Members of Parliament. This carries implications which should be questioned by Members of Parliament and examined very carefully before we go too far down the road of linking the indemnity of a Member of Parliament with a position in the public service.
As I have already noted, there is a very real need to take further account of some of the expenses, particularly those of an accountable nature, which are or may be incurred by a member in carrying out his duties, and also to ensure that more adequate services are available to Members of Parliament. What is the present situation? We have the report of the Beaupre committee which made a number of recommendations. In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister thanked the Beaupre committee very profusely for the work it carried out in preparing its recommendations, the government essentially rejected the recommendations and approach of that committee. It was a mistake to take that sort of approach.
Some aspects of the Beaupre committee recommendations merit consideration and should be further considered. Reference was made in the Beaupre committee report to the necessity or desirability of improvements in travel arrangements for members and their spouses. Generally, I find these proposals acceptable. I think they would be helpful. They do not involve a direct payment to members and their spouses; they would make more facilities and services available to them.
It should be noted on the record, for the benefit of those who look with envy on the travel-free arrangement for members, that under this arrangement not one cent passes through the hands of a member unless it involves reimbursement for car travel, for which an expense claim is submitted. For the most part, especially with respect to economy air travel which is available to us, travelling is done entirely by voucher. It does not involve funds passing through our hands directly, although these funds are legitimately charged against the name of each member of the House. It should also be noted that although such travel arrangements are available to members, members must of necessity incur more expense than they would otherwise incur. When I go to Regina
IMr. Burton.]
April 30, 1971

for a weekend I spend more money out of my own pocket than I do if I stay in Ottawa. I am sure that many members are faced with the same situation.
The Beaupre committee proposed improvements in the telephone service available to members. It also proposed an allowance for telegrams. I agreed with the proposals for improvements in the telephone service. We already have a pretty good service, but it is just a matter of mechanics to improve it further in terms of the member's needs. I question the allowance for telegrams. I note that reference to it has crept into the legislation now before us. I think it is a very questionable type of extension of services to members.
It is also proposed that mail addressed to or from Members of Parliament anywhere in Canada be sent postage free rather than only mail to or from the House of Commons. I also have reservations with regard to this proposal. As it stands, I cannot concur with it. From reading the legislation I gather it is to pave the way to implementing this proposal. I submit the proposal will be subject to much abuse. It is not the type of service which is most essential for a Member of Parliament. This type of service is very much needed in respect of correspondence mailed to and from the House of Commons, but I question whether it should be made available to members anywhere in Canada.
The Beaupre committee proposed that improvements should be made in office space available to members in Ottawa and in secretarial and other assistance for members. I find these proposals useful and satisfactory. It was also proposed that provision be made to assist with office facilities for members in their constituencies. This proposal should have been given more consideration by the government before making its decision. It should have been a top priority matter in terms of any changes which the government proposed. At the present time I have an office in Regina which I operate jointly with my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), together with our constituency organizations and some of the interested organizations in that city.
My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre and myself contribute to the upkeep of this office out of our own pockets, out of our indemnity and expense allowance. We felt this would enable us to provide the useful and necessary service which members should provide to their constituents. Assistance in this respect would be warranted and acceptable. The Beaupre committee also recommended that improvements be made in office space available to members in Ottawa and that other assistance should be provided. This we certainly agree with.
A number of other proposals were put forward with respect to giving a housing allowance to members while they were in Ottawa, to do away with the $6,000 tax-free allowance, to raise the indemnity to $23,000 and, later, to $25,000. Then a range of increases was proposed for the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and certain other members in addition to their usual indemnities. It is obvious that this set of proposals has been rejected by the government.
Senate and House of Commons Act
1 agreed with the proposal to do away with the present tax-free allowance. It is one of the things to which people really object with respect to the remuneration of Members of Parliament. The proposal now put forward will be subject to just as much criticism as was the old allowance. An increase in the indemnity to $23,000 a year without any tax-free portion would have resulted in very little by way of a real increase in indemnity for members since the entire sum would be subject to income tax. Of course, this has now gone by the board. A case could have been made for a reasonable increase in indemnity but I do not think the proposal now before us is at all acceptable. I do not think it is the type of proposal the people of Canada will find acceptable no matter the merits it may have with respect to the particular situation in which some members find themselves.
I am bound to look at this question as the member for Regina East, as the member who was elected to represent some 90,000 people in the Regina East constituency and make decisions in this chamber on their behalf to the best of my ability. I am bound to keep in mind who these people are and the manner in which I relate to them. Many of my constituents are farmers. They have experienced very difficult economic circumstances over the past several years. They have also felt the brunt of government policies which have restricted their income and their income potential.
In the city of Regina many workers are earning only a very modest wage. Others are unemployed, unable to find work though they have been looking for it for months without success. Part of their difficulty in finding employment arises from decisions taken by the government. Some of these decisions came to the floor of the House of Commons. People will resent the fact that Members of Parliament suddenly find it possible to take speedy action to deal with their own particular needs.
In Regina East there are many who live on comparatively low wages. For a variety of reasons they were unable to gain anything by way of an improved education; for one reason or another they were unable to learn skills which would place them in a high-income category. They, too, have gone through a difficult time over the past few years. Along with others in Canada they have been asked to hold the fine with respect to wage increases, in order to help fight inflation. Some of them who were least able to afford it were asked to bear more than their share of the burden of fighting the battle against inflation.
As in other constituencies throughout Canada, there are many old age pensioners in Regina East. Most of them live on fixed incomes. They went through the First World War and the Second World War with a depression sandwiched in between. The majority retired before the introduction of widespread pension plans and income security plans for the aged. At the present time their standard of living is minimal. There are also people in my constituency who are earning a comparatively high income. Some of them are in receipt of incomes far in excess of my salary as a Member of Parliament. They have been doing very well in many respects. Of course, they are part of the total population of the constituency. I

April 30, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
believe it is necessary to review government policies over the past three years as they have been brought before Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member because it is four o'clock. It being four o'clock, the House is required to consider private members' business.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-41, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have spent the day dealing with a matter that relates to the well-being of a group of workers known as Members of Parliament. I am happy now to present a bill that is concerned with the wellbeing of all workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. I think it is appropriate to discuss this kind of bill at the conclusion of this kind of day. I suggest it is also appropriate for this bill to be before us this week in view of the fact that a few days ago we gave second reading to another bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, a bill which we have already sent to committee. However, that bill does not include any reference to the aspect of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code covered in this bill of mine, so perhaps the House will want to be logical and consistent and send this bill to that committee as well so that the whole job can be done at once.
The purpose of this bill is to amend that part of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code that provides for annual vacations with pay. As I said the other day when we were debating the other bill, we have had for a number of years legislation providing for annual vacations with pay for all workers who are in industries which come under federal labour jurisdiction.
For many years I have initiated bills on the Order Paper asking that this be done. Finally it was made law by the government under the direction of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when his Minister of Labour, Hon. Michael Starr, brought in a bill providing for annual vacations with pay. That first bill provided for a vacation of one week after one year of service with the same employer, and then two weeks after two years' of service with the same employer.
As hon. members will recall, some of us thought that it was unfair to make workers wait for two years before getting two weeks' vacation with pay, so in due course under a Liberal government the Michael Starr bill was amended and we now have the provision that there are
to be two weeks' vacation with pay for workers under federal labour jurisdiction after one year of service.
I pause to put in the word of explanation that seems to have to be made very time we debate legislation respecting workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. Almost every time, somewhere in the press a story appears that implies that we are talking only about public servants, those who work for the federal government. This is not the case at all. We are talking about employees in industries such as railroading and other forms of transportation, broadcasting, banking, and so on, those industries of the country which by the terms of the British North America Act come under federal labour jurisdiction. Actually, the groups of employees so covered comprise only about one-tenth of the working force, the other nine-tenths coming under the various provincial labour laws. However, it is important that a lead be given in this area, and that is what has been done by the federal government a number of times.
The purpose of this bill is to make one more little improvement. It is so little that it ought not to take any time at all. One might ask me why I did not put more into this bill. If you put two, three or four subjects into a bill, Mr. Speaker, there are members who get up and say that they agree with some parts of the bill but not all. Therefore, I have limited it-


Mr. Cullen:: Sounds familiar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend who has not been here very long is already able to say that that sounds familiar. Since he is out of his place, I gather that when it comes to his turn to talk-out the bill he will have to go to his seat at the other end of the chamber. I was saying that the purpose of this bill is to provide that after three years' service with the same employer, an employee ought to have three weeks' vacation with pay. How can anyone say "No" to that? How can anyone, even my genial friend from Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), talk-out such a proposal? I am sure he agrees with it.
There is one amendment that might be made to this motion for second reading which would not be offensive, and that is that instead of reading the bill for the second time the subject matter might be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so it can be dealt with at the same time as we are dealing with the other amendments being made to the labour code.
Each time this bill has come up for debate it has been "loved to death" by those who say it is a good idea. I hope today that the love for it will not be quite so fatal but, rather, that the House will agree to refer either the bill itself or its subject matter to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the mover of this bill is an expert manipulator of the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. Realizing that a private member cannot introduce a bill which would impose upon the treasury an expenditure, he has moved that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Canada Labour

April 30, 1971

(Standards) Code to provide for three weeks' annual vacation after three years of service for all workers, in addition to the statutory holidays to which everyone in the federal goverment's employ is entitled, be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration which would study the bill and decide on whatever recommendation the committee would wish to make to Parliament.
I cannot help but commend the hon. member for his persistence in introducing measures year after year to give workers additional time for leisure and recreation. I am sure all hon. members are genuinely sympathetic to the objective that Bill C-41 seeks to achieve. A similar bill to this has been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on several occasions, as he intimated in his remarks, and in each case Parliament did not see the immediate need for such a measure when more pressing needs were awaiting government legislation.
While the principle of the bill may draw some sympathy, the proposed standard in Bill C-41 is three weeks' holiday with pay after only three years' service. It is, to a great extent, unusually ahead of current practice in government and industry generally. A recent survey of conditions indicates that in industries in the federal jurisdiction only 12 per cent of the non-office employees surveyed worked in establishments where three weeks' vacation with pay was granted after less than ten years' service. The proportion working in establishments where three weeks' vacation was granted after less than ten years was about 15 per cent.
In the booklet "Labour Standards in Canada" issued by the Department of Labour, and dated December, 1965, there is listed at page 50 vacation periods and the vacation pay requirements in the various provinces. I should like to quote from that page. In the federal service the length of annual vacation is two weeks or vacation pay amounting to 4 per cent of annual earnings. In Nova Scotia it is one week or 2 per cent of annual earnings; New Brunswick, one week or 2 per cent of annual earnings; Quebec, one week's regular pay if paid by the week or longer period, otherwise 2 per cent of annual earnings; in Ontario, one week or 2 per cent of annual earnings or 4 per cent, as the case may be, in the event of there being more than three or four years' service; Manitoba, two weeks' regular pay; Saskatchewan, two weeks or three weeks after five years' service. In Alberta it is two weeks' regular pay, and in British Columbia it is two weeks or 4 per cent of annual earnings. On page 50 we also find this passage:
In Quebec, if a worker has worked less than a year, he is entitled to a half-day of vacation for each calendar month of employment; in Saskatchewan, a worker with less than a year's service with his employer may be given one day of vacation for each month.
These changes were effective July 1, 1966. Saskatchewan is the only province with legislation to provide three weeks' vacation with pay, but after five years of service. Having regard to all the circumstances surrounding the
Canada Labour (Standards) Code numerous difficulties arising in applying this bill, if passed, to the small businesses employing only a few persons, I wonder whether it would not be better to leave the question of three weeks' vacation with pay to the bargaining table and the collective agreement rather than imposing a law which would in some cases work hardship.
Annual vacations with pay have been provided for by law in industries subject to federal labour jurisdiction since 1958. The first federal law, the Annual Vacations Act, required employers within its scope to grant their employees one week's paid vacation after one year of employment, and two weeks after two years' service. This act was replaced by part III of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The code provides for vacation with pay of at least two weeks after every completed year of employment. Vacation pay is 4 per cent of wages for the year in which employees establish their claim to a vacation. A year of employment, under the federal law, must be continuous with one employer and may be a 12-month period commencing with the day the employee began to work for the employer or any subsequent anniversary of that date; or it may be a calendar year or another year approved by the Minister of Labour.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code applies to industries within federal jurisdiction, and the only employees excluded are those who are managers, superintendents or persons who exercise management functions, members of the medical, dental, architectural, engineering and legal professions. The provincial laws govern employees in employment within the jurisdiction of the province, with the exception of the classes of the following employees. Farm workers are excluded in all provinces. Also excluded are persons employed in horticulture in British Columbia, in growing flowers, fruits or vegetables in Ontario, and in ranching and market gardening in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Domestic servants are exempted in all provinces but Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Professional workers are excluded in British Columbia and Ontario, employees of municipal and school corporations in Quebec, and members of family undertakings in Saskatchewan. Salesmen are excluded in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, but in Quebec the exclusion is limited to those with less than three months' service and those who work for two or more employers at the same time.
Part-time workers employed four hours or less a day, or 24 hours or less a week, are not covered in New Brunswick. Those working three hours or less a day are excluded in Quebec, and those employed for eight hours or less a week are exempted from the Alberta legislation. In addition to the groups already mentioned, excepted are workers employed in lumbering and commercial fishing in Nova Scotia, persons engaged in funeral directing and embalming in Ontario, and apartment house janitors, caretakers provided with free lodgings and home-workers in Quebec. The large group of workers governed by decrees under the Collective Agreement Act are also outside the scope of the Quebec vacation legislation. Workers governed by a collective agreement in British Columbia are exempted from the act if the Minister of

April 30, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
Labour approves the vacation provisions of the agreement.
Under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code an employee is entitled to two weeks' vacation with pay after a year's service. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec the vacation with pay to which a worker is entitled under the law is one week after a year of employment. In Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba it is two weeks after a year of employment. The Saskatchewan act provides for an annual paid vacation of two weeks after each of the first four years of service and for three weeks after the fifth year and each year thereafter.
The period of five years of employment with the same employer necessary for an employee to qualify for three weeks' vacation may be continuous or may be made up of accumulated years provided that no break in employment exceeds six months, 182 days. The Saskatchewan act also provides that a system of cumulative vacation may be established by regulation, under which an employee may by agreement with his employer and with the approval of the minister postpone one week of his vacation each year for a period not exceeding four years.
Our Canada Labour (Standards) Code seems to be working very well, and though there have been some deferments, particularly with reference to hours of work, these deferments have been relatively few and I have every reason to believe that these problems will be equitably solved within a reasonable period of time.
In this bill the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has seen fit to reduce the length of service from five years to three. If he had been consistent he would have left it at five years, in which case I believe it would draw greater sympathy. We of course agree that there are minimum standards and that the federal government has a responsibility to introduce legislation to see that labour receives fair treatment at all levels, and even though the standards may not affect all the people in the country the government's responsibility is to set standards that should be followed. Provincial governments, as I have indicated, have the power to set their own standards and nearly all provinces have done so with respect to vacations with pay.
Labour naturally feels that in periods of prosperity it is the time to seek gains, to catch up with what it regards as its legitimate objectives. Being human, we should not be surprised at this. We should, rather, be grateful to the hon. member if in some cases he did not persist in unrealistic demands at times when the Canadian economy cannot afford it. The Canadian working force-that is, the average Canadian worker-is well aware of the state of the economy and workers are encouraged to seek their share of the general prosperity. I do not blame them for this.
I do not deny that it is within the authority of the federal government to legislate on labour matters, which includes regulations with respect to vacations with pay. And I am all for it, especially since we live at a time
when technological advances in all fields of human endeavour leave our people with more time for leisure and recreation; at a time when we stand at the very threshold of even greater potential that will produce more with less work and, consequently, more time to spare.
I do not deny that a prolonged vacation is desirable and useful. In fact, I admit that it is increasingly useful in view of the technological advances in industry, in manufacturing and in the offices of the nation; and the time may be near when we will be able to implement measures envisaged in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is a bit early.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a bit loud; I can hear him away down here at the end of the House without benefit of a microphone. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been here for a considerable time and has fantastic experience. He seems to have the happy knack of taking the attitude that if you agree with him you are on the side of the angels; if you "love something to death" that is not good, and if you are opposed to him you are not singing with the angels but are probably in a different choir. I have watched the hon. member work through the question period, notices of motions and private members' bills. Much of what he does is good because it prods what he may think is the sleeping giant, namely, the government. But sometimes he holds out what I feel might be false hopes to the general public. It is at times like these when we feel we should participate or perhaps draw rein.
Mr. Speaker, during World War I there was a group known affectionately as the Old Contemptibles. I am not suggesting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre fits that particular phraseology but I suggest it might be more appropriate, when I hear him talk from time to time, to refer to him as the "old predictable." I might even be kind enough to remove the adjective "old". I say "predictable" because the hon. member, in respect of bills, motions, questions or suggestions, invariably takes a piece of legislation that is already on the books and suggests changes such as more money being spent, longer or shorter qualifying periods depending on which happens to suit the mood, longer and larger benefits, higher standards, and so on.
In so far as the hon. member is concerned, he is on pretty safe ground by taking this approach because he and his party, at least until this time, have no financial accountability to this House. His party does not have to raise the revenue to pay for the kind of things that he would like to see. Quite frankly, many of the things he would like to see I would like to see also.
Another somewhat unhappy response to some of the hon. member's suggestions-I am not suggesting it is true of this one-is that they fit a particular mould and hold out a kind of false hope to individuals who, when they

April 30, 1971

get a certain figure or grant, a certain raise or receive a certain pension may, through hearing the hon. member and because of the respect and esteem with which he is held in this House, feel that in effect that is what they should have received in the first place. This holds out the kind of false hope which may make them feel a little unhappy about their present circumstances.
Whether it be this particular piece of legislation or others, all of us have hobby-horses which we like to ride around. Sometimes we like to try them out on a political platform, when speaking on radio or television, at committee meetings or during what are referred to colloquially as "bull sessions." I doubt if there is anyone in this House who would not like to see the basic income tax exemption go up to $2,500 for single persons and $5,000 for married couples. But when you look at what this would cost in terms of revenue and, more importantly not so much what it would cost the taxpayers of Canada but what it would cost someone in the $6,000 tax bracket, you realize you have to separate the wheat from the chaff and that you have to make difficult decisions which, unhappily, do not appeal to the single man making $2,500 or the married man making $5,000. Sooner or later a responsible decision must be made.
There are other suggestions which are analogous to the bill before us. There are suggestions that old age pensions should be increased to $125 per month and that the guaranteed income supplement should be over and above that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One hundred and fifty dollars.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, I think the hon. member just spent about $3 billion in that little phrase. I do not think he or anyone else is irresponsible in suggesting that this is a target at which we should be shooting. But I think we must remind the average citizen of the other side of the coin, that is, that there are 800,000 or 900,000 people over the age of 65 who are probably drawing the guaranteed income supplement now, and if my statistics are correct I would say there are in the neighbourhood of 1,800,000 or
1,900,000	over age 65. So in recognizing our responsibility not only to the older generation but to the taxpayer who is footing a large portion of the bill, we must be realistic.
Mr. Speaker, we have a suggestion which I believe is a good one. It is the kind of representation or presentation for which the hon. member is well known because it is the kind of move that prods the government. It is not the sort of thing that would cost the taxpayer any great amount of money, and it would not be prohibitive in so far as the employer and people operating under these standards are concerned. This is the kind of legislation I am happy to see our Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) looking at. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already said that the legislation in respect of which he has moved an amendment has been given second reading and has been referred to the committee. So taking the subject matter of this bill, or the bill itself, and referring it to the committee is in my submission somewhat redundant because, in effect, if amendments
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
are to be made, worked out and suggested by the hon. member, I suppose they could be made without the necessity of placing more paperwork before the committee but simply by his being there and making the suggestions or recommendations.
When the federal government moves in this area it is, after all, making moves regarding minimum standards. I emphasize the word "minimum" because, surely, we are setting up a framework for employers who, unhappily, in the past have not seen their way clear to do the kind of things suggested under the minimum standards legislation because had they done so there would not be any necessity to move this kind of legislation. I am not so young that I cannot think back to the 1930s when my father worked for a mining concern. He worked seven days a week during the winter. He never saw the light of day, because he went underground at a particular hour in the morning and came up at a particular hour in the evening. At no time did he see daylight. It was not portal to portal; it was from the time you reach your working place until the moment you leave it. Holidays were based on the Scrooge-like idea that you might get Christmas, but very seldom Boxing Day unless it fell on a Sunday.
So by dint of good legislation we have set down that no employees in Canada, particularly those under federal jurisdiction, have to worry about the Scrooge-like approach of the employer to the employee. Through the kind of legislation that we have before us-I am not referring specifically to the hon. member's bill but to the bill he chooses to amend-we are in effect setting minimum standards. These standards have to be set in conjunction with those set by the provinces. It is not our wish to unduly embarrass a province. In effect, we could move that certain action be taken which might prod a provincial government into moving in the right direction. If we do that in appropriate fashion, I think it is more beneficial to the worker: we will not have antagonism between the provinces and the federal government but the kind of co-operation that I would like to see when we deal with something as basic as minimum labour standards for the work force.
When I refer to minimum standards, although in effect we are only dealing with those who come under federal jurisdiction, the provincial legislation of course covers the other 90 per cent. It may be that through taking the lead with that 10 per cent our action can have a profound effect on the benefits which will eventually accrue to those in the provincial field.
I expect that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, after this legislation or something akin to it is passed, will be looking at ILO reports, as 1 have looked at them, and endeavouring to find other areas where our legislation might be a little weak and where we might try something new, not necessarily new to other countries but something that is new to Canada. When I was doing my research I was interested to find that one of the new developments in some countries is the practice of granting longer holidays based on age rather than length of service. This is the kind of innovative approach that I
5416

April 30, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
would like to see governments take. I would like to see them study it, as ILO and other organizations do and as our Department of Labour does.
My information is that when the Minister of Labour took over this portfolio he called in most, if not all, people from the department who then tried to figure out how we could grant the maximum possible benefits to the workers for whom we are responsible. All kinds of ideas were produced and splendid legislation came before the House and, I am happy to say reached the committee stage. They came before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, where there seemed to be little controversy: the principle was accepted.
The Minister of Labour, through such legislation as the bill on unemployment insurance which is before us now, has taken an innovative approach. I was particularly impressed with the most recent legislation where he made provision for areas involving massive lay-offs and severance pay in a minimum standards bill, which would have been unheard of not too long ago.
I understand that in the Federal Republic of Germany-I assume it is the western section-the holiday legislation entitles workers over 35 to three extra days, and many collective agreements provide for further increases on the basis of age. In Luxembourg, workers over the age of 30 receive three extra days, and those over 38 six extra days.
So although the kind of legislation that I would like to see is not new, it could be new for Canada. As I said, I would not be the least bit surprised to see on the order paper very soon this kind of innovative legislation which is geared to helping the working man and to which I would lend my support. However, after the Department of Labour has made its study and brought in its recommendations for the length of annual vacation that is to be given and the qualifying period required-this must have taken a fair amount of study and probably much more research than I could have carried out-I would be interested to hear the recommendations made by departmental officials.
We must bear in mind that it is minimum standards at which we are looking, a guideline for employers, and anything we can do to prod the employer to help the working man would be to the good. No one would be opposed to that kind of approach.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has demonstrated a rare perseverance in once more advancing this proposal to provide workers under federal jurisdiction with three weeks' annual vacation after three years. I know that there would be a great deal of support in Canada for this concept. In some parts of our country such a proposal may be economically viable. It is certainly in line with our concept of social justice.
As other speakers in the debate have pointed out, consideration is being given at present to further amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in so far as it calls for holidays with pay. I thought the hon. member made a very useful speech the other day when he spoke to us of his concern for and, happily, of his
general support for the amendments before Parliament now to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. He made one observation which is to be found on page 5241 of Hansard, referring to the amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which reads as follows:
We must also remember that once this legislation is on the books, it will not apply to all the workers of Canada. It will only apply to those who are in industries that come under federal labour jurisdiction. This represents about 10 per cent of the work force. Perhaps it is a little higher if the public servants who are brought in by regulation are included, but it is still a very small section of the labour force of this country.
I think he made a useful comment when he said:
For this to be universal, it would require constant agitation in all the provincial legislatures in order to get those bodies to bring in comparable legislation. It is quite true that it is in this place that a lead can be given. I hope the improvements that are before us tonight in this legislation will be noted by the legislatures of all the provinces and that they will make similar improvements.
Here is recognition by the hon. member that what we do here can give a lead to the country, particularly in the establishment of labour standards. We have seen this happen time and time again. A number of hon. members pointed out in an earlier debate the very beneficial effect that the establishment of a federal minimum wage in 1965 had on minimum wage standards from coast to coast in Canada. But the very fact that we create legislation here whose ultimate effect ranges totally beyond the workers under our federal jurisdiction means that we must bring to our development of such legislation an attitude of responsibility.
The other day we had a debate about the federal minimum wage which came under rather violent criticism from members of the socialist party. One hon. member said that $1.75 an hour was a totally inadequate minimum wage and that we had not even attempted to bring the Canadian worker up to the poverty line, or words to that effect. Hon. members are fully aware that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) would like to see a minimum wage very much higher than that, as would most members of the House, but we also know that in Canada as it exists today there is a diversity of economic problems. An unrealistically high minimum wage in one part of Canada might, if applied to another part of Canada, represent a realistic level. We know that if we peg the minimum wage at the level that most of us would support, this would create very great economic difficulties in some provinces. Apart from our own political difference here, we know this to be a fact.
The hon. member who is a former Premier of Saskatchewan knows that the Prairie provinces generally do not have as high wage levels as those which exist on the Pacific coast or in the province of Ontario. This is a fact that he had to live with as Premier of that great province. The other day, one of the Winnipeg hon. members became very self-righteous and alleged that $1.75 an hour is totally insufficient as a federal minimum standard; yet the province of Manitoba, I note, has a minimum wage of only $1.50. The same hon. member is critical of proposed

April 30, 1971

increases in indemnities for Members of Parliament, yet a committee of the Manitoba legislature has just come out in support of a 100 per cent increase for members of that legislature.
We have to be logical; we have to be realistic; we have to be candid in some of our attitudes, and so it is with the standard that we have under discussion now. In some parts of Canada it is no doubt true that three years' service with the same employer could well support three weeks' annual holidays with pay each year, and most of us appreciate that fact. Certainly it is one of the hopes of the government, in respect of the amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which were given support in principle the other day, that the present standard will be improved. This is a matter which should come under discussion at the committee stage when we are considering those amendments to the code.
With only about one-tenth of the labour force in Canada coming under federal jurisdiction, we know that what we do in this place can have an influence with respect to the 90 per cent of employees who come under provincial jurisdiction, and we know that what we do here with respect to guaranteed holidays will be influential. While we want to be in the vanguard of social and labour reform, we must not set unrealistically high standards which cannot for the foreseeable time be emulated by many of the provinces.
I am rather bewildered by an apparent contradiction in some of the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in this debate and in the contribution that he made to the debate the other day in this House on second reading of the bill amending the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I believe that at page 5245 of Hansard the hon. member is recorded as saying that his bill, C-41, was asking for 3 weeks' holidays after five years' service. Actually, his bill refers to three weeks' holidays after three years' service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the fact that the error was mine? I got up the next day-and it can be seen under the item "Contents" of Hansard for April 27-and said that while I said five years, it should have been three years, and I had pleasure in pointing out it was not Hansard's error and was not a printer's error. It was actually mine, believe it or not.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that the hon. member is fallible, as all of us are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stick around and you will learn quite a bit.


Raymond J. Perrault: In Bill C-228 amending the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, while it is true that the number of weeks of vacation is not modified-that is, two weeks after one year of service-in future employees who are terminated before 30 days of attachment to the employer would be entitled to 4 per cent of their earnings, while under the present wording of the code an employee receives nothing if he leaves his employer before the completion of the 30-day period.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
While that improvement in the status of the worker is not of the type advanced in the bill that we have before us now, it does mark progress, and this is the essence of Bill C-228. It represents a number of important steps forward and it is encouraging to see how it has received the general support of the members of the House.
A review has been made on some of the standards that exist in the provinces. To indicate the great diversity of standards as they exist now perhaps it would be useful to review them briefly once again. Annual vacations with pay have been provided for by law in the industries subject to federal labour jurisdiction since 1958. The first federal law, the Annual Vacations Act, required employers within its scope to grant their employees paid vacations of one week after one year of employment and two weeks after two years of service. This act was replaced by part III of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which provides for a vacation with pay of at least two weeks after every completed year of employment. Vacation pay is 4 per cent of wages for the year in which employees establish their claim to a vacation. We are moving now, through the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, to improve many of these code provisions.
A year of employment under the federal law must be continuous with one employer and may be a 12-month period commencing with the day the employee began to work for the employer, any subsequent anniversary of that date, or it may be a calendar year or another year approved by the Minister of Labour. All provinces have annual vacations' legislation although, as we know historically, we have not had recognition of the social desirability and need for vacations for all that long a period of time.
The Newfoundland act, as I understand it, has not yet been proclaimed in effect. The provisions regarding annual vacations with pay are contained in the Alberta Labour Act and in two orders under it, a general order and a special order for the construction industry; in the Ontario Employment Standards Act and regulations, in Quebec minimum wage orders and in the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act, part I, and regulations.
British Columbia now provides for annual vacations with pay and public holidays in one statute, the Annual and General Holidays Act. The other five provinces have separate annual vacations laws. Vacation with pay provisions are also contained in most decrees under the Quebec Collective Agreement Decrees Act and the Construction Industry Labour Relations Act. Some industrial standards schedules make provision for pay in lieu of annual vacations.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code applies to industries within federal jurisdiction and the only employees excluded are those who are managers or superintendents or who exercise management functions, and members of the medical, dental, architectural, engineering, legal and scientific professions.
The provincial laws govern employees in employment within the jurisdiction of the provinces, with the exception of the following classes of employees. The Newfoundland act provides for the exemption of employees

April 30, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
or classes of employees by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. No regulations have yet been made. Farm workers are excluded in all provinces. Perhaps that is an area in which we will have to move in the future, just as we have moved in the matter of unemployment insurance. In addition, British Columbia excludes persons employed in horticulture; Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in ranching and market gardening. In Ontario, workers in certain occupations related to farming are covered-for example, raising of fur-bearing animals, egg-grading, greenhouse and nursery operations, the growing of flowers for the retail and wholesale trade, silviculture, tree trimming and surgery.
Similarly, in Saskatchewan the act applies to egg hatcheries, greenhouses and nurseries, and bush clearing operations.
We have reviewed the situation all across the country. We can see the great diversity of economic pursuits in this country and the difficulty which often exists for a federal government to establish norms which can be emulated at some time within the foreseeable future, and just as in the matter of federal minimum wages we have to establish realistic standards relating to holidays with pay. We are making a good deal of progress in this field, despite the feeling we all have at times that we are not going quickly enough and despite the frustration of those impatient for change.
The movement in favour of the granting of annual holidays with pay is characterized by a very slow, initial period starting some 60 or 70 years ago, followed by a period of rapidly spreading recognition of the right of workers to paid holidays. The practice of granting vacations to state officials and public employees, which was current in a number of countries in the nineteenth century, began to be followed at the turn of the century by certain private employers on an extremely limited scale.
These early measures were soon reflected by the adoption of holiday legislation applying to some categories of workers such as apprentices, women workers, salaried employees or persons employed in shops. Following the First World War came the first legislation entitling workers in general to an annual holiday with pay. Yet by 1934, really a short time ago relatively speaking, there were only 12 countries with holiday legislation applying to wage and salary earners in general, and in countries where these matters were regulated by collective agreements it was not by any means the general practice to grant holidays by such voluntary action.
However, from 1936 on-the date of the adoption of the first, trail-blazing convention on the subject-there was a pronounced impetus in the movement favouring entitlement to holidays. Since then the right to annual vacations has come to be recognized by law or has become part of the normal practice in practically all countries, except in some small territories or countries where there are few wage earners. This progress in regard to annual holidays has not been limited to the geographical extension of the principle. Considerable
advance has also taken place during the past 30 years in the minimum duration of annual leave. Increases from one to three weeks or even more are not unusual, and there has been considerable advance in the conditions subject to which holidays are granted.
I know that it may not be possible at this time to implement the meritorious proposal which has been advanced by the hon. member. Surely in the future we will need to evolve a method to distribute the undoubted benefits of the new technology and of cybernation so that the workers of Canada and elsewhere will benefit from these great advances. We may find, 20 years from now, that three weeks' holiday for three years of service with one employer will be regarded as conservative in the extreme. I spell "conservative" there with a small "c".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear! It is not even "liberal" with a small "1".


Raymond J. Perrault: One writer said the other day that in the future we face oceans of leisure time. But we must distribute that time. Inevitably that will mean shorter working hours and more holidays for the worker. Nevertheless, I am not standing here as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and attempting to advance the proposal that Canada, now, should unilaterally provide for infinitely longer holidays and a massive redistribution of "leisure time" for workers. Unilateral action is clearly impossible because of the competitive economic situation and because of the competitive aspects of world trade. Nevertheless, we must come to grips with the fact that more and more people are going to be on the planet and that more and more technology will be applied to the productive process. We must come to grips ultimately with these economic facts of life, and we must be able to equate technological progress with better living conditions for the people and with more opportunities for people to enjoy the world into which they have been born. Unless we can do all that, we shall face a very real crisis indeed. Those facts must be recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been made this afternoon about the idea that although only about one-tenth of the labour force in Canada is under federal jurisdiction and the remaining 90 per cent under provincial jurisdiction, labour legislation passed here in Ottawa nevertheless has far greater mathematical importance in the country than those figures would indicate, because not only does it affect the one-tenth of the labour force that it governs but it shows the way to the provinces and generally establishes the lead for the provinces to follow in a fairly short time.
I was interested in the opening remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who spoke of the appropriateness of dealing with a bill like this immediately after the government business which the House has been considering during the last two days. I was quite struck by the appropriateness of the circum-

April 30, 1971

stance that federal legislation in this field may give a lead, and I hope that the government of Manitoba- which is not considering an independent report dealing with the indemnities of members of the provincial legislature-an independent report that recommends an increase of 100 per cent-will consider that lead. That government is led by that great Social Democrat Ed Schreyer.


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I hope that that government will follow the moderation that the federal government has taken in its approach to the problem of salaries of members of this place. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we will observe with interest the way in which the Manitoba government deals with the report that it has in its hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The report recommends salaries of $14,400 a year for people who, generally speaking, sit for about ten weeks, although last year, admittedly, they had a five-month session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only a report.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes. The Beaupre report was only a report, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That report was thrown out.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: As I say, I hope that the government of Manitoba in dealing with that report will exercise the discretion and moderation that the federal government has shown in dealing with the report that it considered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. Since we are coming to the weekend I wish to make a few remarks, if hon. members will bear with me. First, may I remind hon. members of the grim reality that April is ending and that the deadline for filing income tax is approaching. May I urge hon. members, in view of what will take place tomorrow, to have a restful evening, to go to sleep early and to sleep long and then to join the thousands of citizens of Ottawa and the district who will march from Parliament Hill tomorrow morning at nine o'clock in the March for Millions. Finally, I express the innocent wish that the coming days of May will prove that spring is not far away.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 3, 1971