1971-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (for the Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-246, respecting pilotage.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
April 30, 1971-The President of the Privy Council:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine, inquire into and report upon the nature and kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian Society and that endanger the existence of government or the maintenance of the peace and public order:
That twelve members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee:
And that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. Rowland: 1.	What was the total value of military spare parts shipments from Canada to South Africa in each year 1963 through 1969 inclusive?
2.	What is the projected total value of similar shipments for 1970?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. In accordance with its responsibility for administering the Export and Import Permits Act, the following are total values of the export permits issued, approving the export of material described under Group 7 of the Export Control List (Arms, Munitions, Military, Naval or Air Stores), during the years 1963-1969:
Year	Value (Thousand Dollars)
1963	$1,223.2
1964	124.4
1965	547.1
1966	1,813.5
1967	1,113.7
1968	3,735.0
1969	1,904.8
The Department does not maintain records of actual shipments made against these export permits.
2. The total value of military spare parts for 1970 for which export permits were issued amounted to $1,249.7 (thousand).


SUGAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Watson: 1.	Have two citizen's recourses been filed by Jacques Carridre et al under the Combines Investigation Act and, if so, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs expand the scope of such enquiry into the sugar industry to cover the competitive role in the Canadian sugar trade by Cartier Refined Sugars Limited prior to and after 1965?
2.	How is the amount of the Canadian supply of raw sugar determined and using the 1969 supply of raw sugar, what percentage was supplied by (a) Australia (b) Mauritius (c) the Republic of South Africa (d) Cuba?
3 Was the tonnage of raw sugar supplied by Cuba to Canada in 1969 close to the tonnage supplied in the year that legal action was taken against the Eastern Canadian Sugar Industry under the Combines Investigation Act?
4.	Will the Minister consider requesting the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to investigate this situation?
5.	Is the Minister considering changes in anti-combines legislation to deal more effectively with cartel and restrictive trade practices taking place outside Canadian boundaries and which affect Canadian pricing arrangements?

May 3, 1971
Questions


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. It is not the policy to disclose either the names of applicants or applications for inquiries under the Combines Investigation Act. However, in response to question No. 2039 (Hansard, April 30, 1969, at pages 8161-8162) it was stated that since it was a matter of public knowledge, an application by Roberta Gray et al relating to the sugar industry in Eastern Canada had been received. To the extent that coverage of the competitive role in the Canadian sugar trade by Cartier Refined Sugar Limited prior to and after 1965 is relevant to the subject of the application, it will be given consideration.
2.	The Canadian supply of raw sugar is determined by companies processing this product based on consumer demand in Canada. The percentage of raw sugar imported in 1969 was as follows: Australia, 23.2 per cent; Mauritius, 21.5 per cent; South Africa, 22.9 per cent; Cuba, 7.6 per cent.
3.	No. Quantity of raw sugar imported from Cuba in 1962 when proceedings were instituted and 1963 when convictions were registered was 15,904 and 69,726 short tons respectively. In 1969 the quantity was 79,379 short tons.
4.	See answer to 1.
5.	Such matters are receiving consideration in the revision of the anti-combines legislation which is presently under study.


RCMP FILES ON COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Are RCMP flies on communist activities in Canada kept permanently or are they destroyed after so many years and, if so, what is the time period?
2.	Were any of these flies destroyed in 1966-67-68 and, if so, on whose orders?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1 and 2.
It is not in the public interest to disclose this information.


SECONDING MEMBERS OF CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES AND INDUSTRY TO MISSIONS IN ASIA
Mr. Rowland: Is the government, in its intention to devote greater attention to nations on the Pacific Rim, considering any or all of the following programs (a) financial assistance to universities to enable them to establish Pacific Rim area study programs and courses of instruction in the languages of the Pacific Rim nations (b) incentive grants to students enrolled in intermediate and advanced study of Chinese, Hindi, Malay-Indonesian, Bengali, Japanese, Vietnamese and other languages of the area (c) seconding appropriately trained faculty members of Canadian universities to Canadian missions in Asia (d) seconding promising young executives from commercial, industrial and financal concerns to trade missions in Asia?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of the Secretary of State, External Affairs and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: (a) and (b) No. (c) Yes.
(d) As stated in the papers entitled "Foreign Policy for Canadians" tabled in Parliament on June 25, 1970, the Government is considering programs that would provide for secondments between the foreign service, government departments and the business sector.


PEI-GRANTS UNDER PEI DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Since March 7, 1969, what was the total amount paid by the Government of Canada to the Government of Prince Edward Island under the Prince Edward Island Development Plan?
2.	What amount was by way of (a) loan (b) grant?
3.	Were the payments made by the federal government earmarked for any particular purpose or for any particular department and, if so, what are the details?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to February 28, 1971, is: 1. $18,145,930.
2.	(a) $1,891,000; (b) $16,254,930.
3.	Yes.
Resource Adjustment and	Contributions	LoansDevelopment	$2,611,781	$ 891,000Social Development Resource Supporting and	435,318	Commercial Services	3,708,391	1,000,000Implementation	1,649,440	Development Grant	7,850,000


REBATE OF DUTY COLLECTED ON IMPORTED GOODS FROM CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES
Mr. Robinson: 1 Is there a program in operation whereby duty collected on imported goods from Caribbean countries is rebated to these countries and, if so (a) since what date (b) how much has been rebated during each year since the inception of the program?
2.	On what commodities is duty rebated and what is the amount rebated on each?
3.	What is the estimated rebate on each commodity for (a) 1971 (b) for the duration of the present system of rebate?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1, 2 and 3.
There is no program in operation whereby duty collected on imported goods from Caribbean countries is rebated to these countries. However, since 1967 Canada has made payments to Governments of those Commonwealth Caribbean countries that export sugar to Canada equal in value to the amount of customs duties collected on raw sugar imported therefrom to Canada. Payments have been made each year in the following amounts: 1967, $1,126,904.95; 1968, $1,148,259.63; 1969, $823,735.10; 1970, $262,496.04. The level of the annual payment is determined by the amount of duty paid by Canadian sugar importers on Caribbean sugar during a particular year. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the size of payments which may be made in 1971.

May 3, 1971


ADMINISTRATION OF CANADIAN SALTFISH CORPORATION
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What was the breakdown of the cost of administration of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation since its inception?
2.	Who are the employees of the Canadian SaltSsh Corporation; their positions; their salaries?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1 and 2. It has not been the practice, nor is it considered to be appropriate to require Crown Corporations to divulge information that is basically related to their internal management and administration. This is quite distinct from giving information with regard to general policy which the Corporation may follow in major matters. It is expected, however, that information on the cost of administration in its first year will be reflected in the first annual report of the Corporation. Publication at this time of that information would be premature in view of sales negotiations now in progress.


NUMBER OF RCMP INVOLVED IN ARREST UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	What is the number of Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel who participated in the arrests relevant to the War Measures Act and the Public Order Act in 1970 and 1971 to date?
2.	How many actual arrests were carried out by RCMP personnel under the War Measures Act and the Public Order Act?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1 and 2.
Up to 190 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in co-operation with the Montreal City and Quebec Provincial Police and under the authority of the Director, Quebec Provincial Police, assisted in the relevant arrests. Only two arrests were made directly by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


RCMP-OPERATIONS OF SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE DIVISION
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Is there a budget item or operational description of the operations of the Security and Intelligence Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the total cost of security and intelligence operations within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
3.	Are there other agencies of government which carry on similar activities or assist in this regard?
4.	What is the official and general description of the operations of Security and Intelligence?
5 What is the number of prison security officials who have been remanded or suspended for reasons of discipline or incompetence on their behalf during the 1969, 1970 and 1971 operating years?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1, 2, 3
and 4. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the main federal operational and investigative body in the field of security. Such authority-there is no explicit statutory authority-as does exist is derived from certain sections of the R.C.M. Police Act. It would not be in the public interest to divulge any further information in this connection.
Questions
5.	January 1 to December 31, 1969, 100; January 1 to December 31, 1970, 98; January 1 to March 15, 1971, 32. Total, 230.


DREE-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO QUEBEC
Mr. Rodrigue: Has a $37.5 million loan been granted to the Province of Quebec by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to finance new projects in special areas and, if so (a) at what rate of interest (b) what is the duration of such loan?


Abram Ernest Epp: Not one
loan, but the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will provide loans for individual projects totalling up to $37.5 millions, (a) The rate of interest on these loans will vary according to a formula specified in Section 9 of the Special Areas agreement with Quebec, (b) The duration of loans will vary for individual projects, ranging from 15 to 30 years.


PORTNEUF CONSTITUENCY-INVESTMENT IN HOUSING
Mr. Godin: For each of the past ten years, how much did (a) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (b) Industrial Development Bank invest in housing in the constituency of Portneuf?


James Alexander Jerome: (a) See table attached. Note: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation statistical data are not recorded on the basis of Federal Electoral Constituencies. The table, therefore, presents data for the Municipal County of Portneuf. (b) None.
Net loans for housing1 approved by CMHC under the NHA Municipal County of Portneuf 1961-1970
Year	Loans	Units	Hostel Beds	$0001961	14	14	-	1611962	6	6	-	631963	5	55	-	601964	11	9	1,447	6,8391965	17	16	424	4,4041966	21	21	-	1,3091967	17	39	117	1,1951968	5	8	45	3861969	4	3	110	8631970	5	34	-	400Total	105	155	2,143	15,680
1 Includes loans for new and existing housing.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Mather: 1.	How does Information Canada intend to carry out Its "Federal Presence Program"?
2.	What specific research projects, publications or other devices are being used to inform the public better on federalism and federal services?

May 3, 1971
Orders for Returns


Hon. Roberi Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.
The object ol the "Federal presence" or "federalism" program is to encourage Canadians to take a more active part both in informing themselves on the nature and operation of social ond political structures of the country and in participating in their development. To this end, Information Canada, will produce some information through exhibitions, films and the printed word to focus thought on Canada, its regions, its people and its national institutions. It will also give any encouragement within its power to the federal service, to business and industry, voluntary organizations or individuals concerned with achieving a greater public awareness of Canadian identity.
2. No research projects in this field are under way. In course of preparation are: (a) a publication on how parliament works being written in consultation with representatives of all federal political parties; (b) a series of pamphlets on services of the federal government; (c) an animated film being produced by the National Film Board which touches on themes of government in a pluralistic society; (d) a series of exhibitions touching upon pluralism, the federal constitution and federal services.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: For each government department, Crown corporation or agency, what was the salary range ol the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister or the equivalent position, as of January 1, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1970?
Return tabled.


WHITE PAPERS PRODUCED SINCE JULY, 1968
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What number of White Papers have been prepared by the government and made public since July 1, 1968 and what is the name of each such Paper, the number of copies printed or otherwise reproduced and the cost of (a) so printing or otherwise reproducing, and (b) distributing each such Paper?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL GRANTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the total amount provided by loans and/or grants toward senior citizens housing for each of the years 1960-70 inclusive?
2.	Where is each project located and what was the amount of each grant and/or loan?
3.	How many grants and/or loans wil be made in 1971 and 1972 and where is each project to be located?
Return tabled.
[Mr. Mather.l


GRAIN RECEIPT STABILIZATION PLAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What were the total receipts under the Grain Receipts Policy in each year since 1956, including the estimate for 1970?
2.	What was the average of the preceding 5 years in each case?
3.	What was the payment for storage in each year, including the estimate for 1970?
4.	On the basis of the proposal as set out on October 29, 1970 in the Grain Receipt Stabilization Plan, how much would the government treasury have contributed and in which years had the plan been in effect since 1956, including the estimate for 1970?
Return tabled.


PEI-TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many full-time employees of the Government of Canada have had their employment terminated before retirement age in Prince Edward Island in the past twelve months?
2.	What was the length of government service accumulated by each?
3.	What was the age of each?
4.	In how many cases was alternate employment offered (a) in what centres (b) at what rate?
5.	For what reason or reasons were the services of the above-mentioned public servants terminated?
Return tabled.


CIDA GRANTS TO FRANCOPHONE COUNTRIES
Mr. Mazankowski: Were any grants or loans made available by CIDA to francophone countries during the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 196970 and, if so, (a) to which countries (b) in what amounts (c) for which projects?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY INADEQUACY OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES IN PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT ALLEGED BY MEMBER FOR DUVERNAY

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. This matter arises out of the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), in further explanation of his resignation from the government, that the policies of the government are completely inadequate for the purpose of providing employment for the hundreds of thousands of people without jobs. The resignation of the hon. member and the reasons given by him for that resignation accentuate the urgency of an immediate debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has filed with the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. In the brief statement which the hon. member
May 3, 1971

has just made he proposes an emergency debate on the policies of the government in respect of unemployment, or employment, as the case may be.
As hon. members know, there have been many occasions during the current session when hon. members have debated the government's economic policies and in particular the employment situation. In the circumstances, I do not think that the matter proposed for discussion relates to a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration, as required by the Standing Order.
As the hon. member knows, the Standing Order also requires the Chair to take into account the opportunity of debate within a reasonable time by other means than an emergency debate. It seems to me that there will be many such opportunities and that there is a probability that the matter will be discussed within a reasonable time by other means.
The Chair must rule, therefore, that Standing Order 26 does not apply to the circumstances alluded to by the hon. member for Peace River.



WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC POLICIES EXPRESSED BY MEMBER FOR DUVERNAY

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little fearful about moving this motion in view of your ruling, but I will none the less. I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the want of confidence in the government's economic policies raised by the former Minister of Communications in statements following his resignation from the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has also given the Chair notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. With respect, I think I should suggest, as he has already gathered, that the comments just made by the Chair are in many ways applicable to the motion proposed by the hon. member.
The hon. member proposes a debate which is essentially a non-confidence motion. In this respect I would think his proposal is different from that of the hon. member for Peace River, but again I would not think that in itself makes it more justifiable under the terms of Standing Order 26.
As the hon. member knows, want of confidence motions are normally proposed for consideration by the House on the occasion of the Throne Speech debate, on budget debates, or in connection with supply motions. Since a budget debate can reasonably be anticipated within the very near future, and since there are still a considerable number of supply days available to hon. members between now and the end of the current supply period, I do not think the Chair would be justified in suggesting that an adjournment motion ought to be entertained for the purpose of a debate which would be essentially a non-confidence motion.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As hon. members know, I do not normally like referring to the fact that these supply motions are still available to hon. members, but it may be that we have just about reached that point in our proceedings where it becomes difficult for the Chair not to take into account the fact that between now and the end of the current supply period there are 13 supply motions available to hon. members.
I have also indicated the possibility of a budget debate. The Chair has no special knowledge that other hon. members who are not members of the government do not have, but I have to rely on some of the suggestions or statements which have been made in this respect by the Minister of Finance.
For these reasons I would not think it would be in order to accept this motion under Standing Order 26 for debate today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question relating to the level of the Canadian dollar as it is now almost a year since he announced the floating of the dollar. I do not think it is at all argumentative to suggest that this has had serious consequences for our exports, particularly of manufactured goods. Is it the minister's policy to let nature take its course with respect to the level of the dollar or does he intend to announce a policy regarding the level of the dollar in relation to other currencies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, any statement regarding the repegging of the Canadian dollar would, of course, be made in the normal manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that he has been saying this for nearly a year. While I understand his position, I should like to ask whether in the near future the House can expect a statement of government policy by the minister regarding the Canadian dollar in order that hon. members and the country, particularly people in business, will have some indication as to what the aim of the government is? Will he be making such a statement?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend can normally expect me to make comments on this when I make a budget speech in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When may we expect the minister's budget speech, and will the minister give the assurance that in the course of his speech he will make a statement as to the aim and policy of the government in respect of the level of the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think my hon. friend can expect a budget speech this month. When I do make the budget speech, presumably next month, I will be making comments on this very important matter.

May 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-QUEBEC BORROWINGS IN UNITED STATES-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIER

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the problems associated with the position of the Canadian dollar I should like to ask whether the Minister of Finance has had any direct communication with the province of Quebec, particularly in view of the program announced by the Prime Minister of that province over the weekend involving a potentially large inflow of United States dollars which might very well affect the status of the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any direct contact with the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec on this particular matter. However, I have urged all provinces to do as much borrowing as possible in Canada. With regard to the particular matter raised by my hon. friend, of course the influence on the Canadian dollar would depend on the period of time over which there was an inflow of capital in this regard.



LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-EFFECT OF TAX PROPOSALS-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS AT FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE

Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that a number of provincial premiers are very concerned about the value of the Canadian dollar and because so many of the tax proposals the minister may bring in will certainly affect the dollar, is it the intention of the minister or of the government to discuss any of these tax proposals and any questions concerning the dollar at the next conference with the provincial premiers or is the conference to be limited to constitutional matters?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, at this time I have not seen the agenda for the meeting of the prime ministers and premiers. However, this matter will be discussed with the provincial treasurers when I meet with them. With regard to the matter of tax proposals, it is our intention after the budget speech and the legislation are presented to have a meeting with the provincial treasurers and ministers of finance at that time in order to discuss the specific proposals included in the budget presentation of the government.



METHOD OF MAKING INCOME TAX CHANGES

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can now indicate when the amendments to the income tax legislation will be introduced in the House or will they be related to the budget presentation to which he has already made reference?


Edgar John Benson: I think they will probably be related to the budget presentation I have mentioned which would be some time after the end of this month.



LEVEL OF FOREIGN CURRENCY RESERVES-USE TO PURCHASE PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL SECURITIES HELD IN UNITED STATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. Since one of the reasons given for unpegging the Canadian dollar was the large amount of foreign currency reserves we were required to maintain and as those reserves are much larger now, is the government planning to make any use of these reserves? I understand we have already purchased some of the federal securities held in the United States. Is the minister planning to ask for any amendments to permit the government to obtain provincial and municipal securities held in the United States?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, although these reserves have risen somewhat beyond the level at the time the dollar was unpegged, they have not risen materially in this period. If one takes into account the forward commitments of the government at the time the dollar was unpegged, the government has not interfered materially in the valuation of the Canadian dollar as it would in the foreign exchange markets. With regard to the changes in the legislation for use of these reserves, I have no present intention to ask Parliament for this.



TIME REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE FULL EMPLOYMENT ON BASIS OF PRESENT POLICIES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance to tell the House whether the government has some estimates as to the time it will take to arrive at full employment, as defined by the Economic Council of Canada, on the basis of the policies the government has undertaken?


Edgar John Benson: I am not sure the Economic Council of Canada did define full employment, although I understand one of my hon. friend's colleagues did define it as 4 per cent. We will work toward this throughout this year and the following year.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I corrected the Prime Minister on that the other day and I would have thought the Minister of Finance would have heard it. He ought not to suggest that we suggest 4 per cent. On the basis of the Economic Council of Canada's suggestion of 3 per cent as the maximum unemployment we should have in Canada as a full employment policy, I think it is important for the House and the country to know whether the government has any estimates to indicate how long the Minister of Finance thinks it will take us to reach at least a 3 per cent unemployment rate?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when one is talking in this area one is forecasting into the future in a way the Minister of Finance does not normally do in the House of Commons except during his budget presentation. When I make my budget presentation I will indicate what the expected unemployment should be throughout the year, just as I did last year.
rMr. Benson.]
May 3, 1971________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________5427


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just as clearly?


David Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to produce amendments to the existing Income Tax Act or to produce a completely revised act, and whether that is the reason for the long delay in the presentation of the budget into the month of June, which is not usual?


Edgar John Benson: All I can say is that there will be substantial changes to the present income tax legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Huron on a supplementary question and then go to the hon. member for Bellechasse and next to the hon. member for St. John's East who wishes to ask a supplementary to a prior question.



ASSISTANCE TO EXPORT INDUSTRIES BECAUSE OF FLOATING DOLLAR

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Can the Minister of Finance advise the House whether or not the government has approved and provided any financial assistance to those export industries which have been severely hurt by the floating dollar, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said the government would?


Edgar John Benson: What I have indicated is that there are assistance programs in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to aid industry which is hurt by particular actions of the government in this regard.



SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF TAXES TO INCREASE PURCHASING POWER

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Following the statement made by Mr. Arthur Smith, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, that Canada should find new programs to increase the spending power of Canadians, will the minister recommend a reduction in taxes which affect chiefly the small taxpayers so as to improve their spending power?


Edgar John Benson: I think that the programs we announced last December, including the putting of $200 million this year into the hands of old age pensioners, will help the purchasing power of consumers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
While realizing that some progress has been made in this field, would the minister recommend another policy, in addition to the $200 million already announced, to give small taxpayers a better chance?


Edgar John Benson: In my proposals put forward in the white paper on tax reform there was a substantial shift in the
Inquiries of the Ministry
tax burden from the taxpayer in the lower bracket. We have not had very many useful suggestions beyond that from the opposition.



LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENTS OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES ON ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRIES

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In light of the evidence produced by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council to the effect that the appreciation of the Canadian dollar is a major deterrent to the economic recovery of the Atlantic provinces, does the government intend to consult with the governments of the Atlantic provinces with a view to assisting affected industries which are currently being inhibited in their growth plans as a consequence thereof? Perhaps the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion could assist the minister in this regard.


Edgar John Benson: The reason for the strength of the Canadian dollar is the extreme success that this government has had in its policy of encouraging exports, and for the first time in recent history we are running a current account surplus in Canada, so there is pressure on the Canadian dollar.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-WASHINGTON MEETING-SUGGESTED FORMAL PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs in either capacity, whether the government officials at today's talks in Washington are expressing the position that Canada must be a formal party to the discussions on the initiation of the TAPS route or any other route?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meetings that are being held in Washington is to discuss the concerns that we have about the ecological dangers that arise from the building of this pipeline, and we will be discussing with the United States how best the interests of the Pacific coast of Canada and the United States can be protected.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not quite get the import of my question. What I am asking is whether those officials are expressing the position that Canada must be a formal party-I mean formal party-to the discussions on the initiation of the TAPS route or any other route?


Mitchell William Sharp: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this is a decision that has to be made by the United States. We are making our representations on the dangers that arise out of the building of that pipeline, none of which will pass through Canada or through any part of Canadian waters. Therefore it is important that the United States should know

May 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
now what the views of the Canadian government are about the dangers involved in the pollution of the seas and probably the pollution of Canadian land.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the 210,000 gallon diesel oil spill on the west coast of the United States, with evidence of traces of the oil being found as far north as the Juan de Fuca area, I would like to ask the minister whether the government officials are expressing the position that the Canadian government cannot give its support to the TAPS route on the basis of any present research, particularly since the Acting Prime Minister's former colleague says it will take several years to come up with a decision in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I understand the purport of the question, but if the hon. member is saying he shares the views of the Canadian government about the dangers connected with building the TAPS line, then I am all with him.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-NEGOTIATIONS ON CONTINENTAL ENERGY POLICY   ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION DISCUSSION WITH CHAIRMAN OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EXPANDING TERMS OF REFERENCE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council, as government House leader, whether, following the intervention of the Prime Minister on Friday, he has had the usual frank and fruitful discussion with the chairman of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution with regard to expanding the terms of reference of that committee to include not only an examination of the situation on the Pacific coast along the TAPS route but the alternative route along the Mackenzie Valley and the problems affecting the aboriginal rights of the native people, and if not that committee has any other committee been selected?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister since he made his answer in the House on Friday. I will look forward to that discussion with anticipation.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the United States is very keen on a continental energy policy, and in view of the fact that on the other hand we are very much concerned about the effects that the TAPS line will have on the ecology of Canada, will he indicate to the United States authorities that if they proceed with this line this will jeopardize any negotiations we may have on energy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in a matter like this threats get one very far. I am quite sure that in the United States there is the same concern about the ecological dangers of building that line as there is in Canada. It is most important that all of us should make this concern known which, as I say, I think is shared by the people of the western United States as well.


Max Saltsman: Since wringing of hands has not done much good, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister might do well to try something more positive.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON WASHINGTON MEETING OF UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN OFFICIALS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since 1 am sure the Acting Prime Minister will agree that information is one of the things required with regard to the proposed TAPS route, will he assure the House that a report will be made to it this week as to the findings of the group of officials who are representing Canada in Washington at these discussions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I can undertake to make a report on their behalf.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to appoint a commission to inquire into the possible environmental damage as well as pollution resulting from the construction of the dam, a project which will probably affect more than one province in the Far North and which has been announced by the premier of Quebec?



STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether any progress has been made in the negotiations with the provinces on the question of offshore mineral rights and, if so, would he indicate whether we may expect legislation on this matter prior to the end of this session?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of his interest in

May 3, 1971

this matter and in view of the fact that he is responsible for the programming of government business, can he tell the House whether legislation will be introduced before June on the question of offshore mineral rights?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at present there is no plan to introduce legislation on offshore mineral rights before the end of June.


Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State a supplementary question.
Can he tell us whether it is really the policy of the Company of Young Canadians to occupy lots and buildings not belonging to them merely in order to express what they call social dissension?


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Speaker, the question does not seem very appropriate in view of the fact that out of several hundred people there was exactly one volunteer from the Company of Young Canadians and it seems to me that one person alone cannot occupy very much space.
INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT OF Le DAIN COMMISSION-



INVESTIGATION OF NEWS LEAK INVOLVING INTERIM REPORT

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he give the House any indication when we may expect the final report of the Le Dain commission to be made public?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, other than to indicate that I did have a conversation with Dean Le Dain and he indicated that his projection that it would be available some time during June has turned out to be premature. I am not expec.ing it until later.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary relates to a question I have had on the order paper since October 8, more than six months ago, relating to an investigation that I presume was conducted by the minister into a news leak of the interim report of the Le Dain Commission. I have raised this matter a number of times in the House, and on each occasion I have been promised that it would be looked into. Can the minister indicate when the report of that inquiry will be made public?


John Carr Munro: I will endeavour to have that question answered very shortly, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*
* *
*



FINANCING OF NURSING HOMES-INCLUSION ON AGENDA OF FEDEDAL-PROVINClAL CONFERENCE-AMENDMENT OF ACT

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence last Thursday his parliamentary secretary took it as notice. Will the financing of nursing home care be placed on the agenda of the upcoming federal-provincial conference, or is the government going to introduce an amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act so that there will be federal assistance for nursing homes across the country?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act provides for cost sharing for the chronically ill and the convalescent, so that can be taken care of now. So far as custodial care in terms of nursing homes is concerned, there are no plans for cost sharing in that regard, nor have I had any request that it be placed on the agenda.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the minister consider taking some initiative on the matter in the immediate future in view of the action taken by the province of Ontario?



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Has he received a telegram from Lafleche Mayor Gerard Philips protesting against the behaviour of an official of the Company of Young Canadians, on the South Shore of Montreal, and, if so, can the minister say what position he intends to take concerning this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Indeed I have received a message, Mr. Speaker, and I met with the Director General of the Company of Young Canadians at noon today.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that in terms of the discussions that are now going on between the federal government and the provinces on cost sharing across the whole health field, this matter is bound to arise.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister say whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to reform the family allowance system, and if so, when will this legislation be introduced and will it be introduced in time to be enacted by September?

May 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I have announced on many occasions we do plan to introduce legislation to revise the family allowance system, and no, I do not anticipate that it will be enacted soon enough to be operative by September.



FINANCE


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is supplementary to that asked by my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East of the Minister of Finance. Does the government share the conclusion drawn by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council that there will be a considerable time lag in the Atlantic area's participation in the over-all recovery of the Canadian economy in the next two years? If so, is the government considering selective fiscal and monetary measures to assist in stimulating the Atlantic region?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust the minister can reply to this question briefly. The question is rather wide in scope and normally it should be answered by way of a general statement. If the minister undertakes to reply briefly he will be given the floor.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that through the area development program we are materially helping the development of the Atlantic provinces vis-a-vis other areas of Canada, and that I am studying the report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.



SUGGESTED MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES ON SPECIAL BUDGET MEASURES TO IMPROVE ECONOMIES

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Lancasler):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very disheartening and pessimistic report of APEC on this matter, would the minister at this late date be prepared to have special meetings with representatives of the Atlantic provinces so they may suggest special measures in the budget that would deal with this problem that is so discouraging?


Edgar John Benson: If I have requests from various people in Canada to meet with them before the budget I usually try to accommodate them, especially if they come from provincial governments.



CO-ORDINATION OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES

James Aloysius McGrath: This is by way of a related question but it is also a supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the statement made on national television last night by the honourable, distinguished and learned member for Duvernay to the effect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: -that government economic policies were not properly co-ordinated within the government, and since this is especially so with respect to government regional development policies, can the minister assure the House that he will take steps to ensure that the policies of his department are properly co-ordinated with the monetary and fiscal policies of the government?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is passing the same judgment as he used to pass on the member for Duvernay when he was in the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jean Marchand: He is the same person. We can tell the House that our policies are co-ordinated.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN AMOUNT ALLOCATED-EXPLANATION OF REFUSALS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the large number of applications coming in for the Opportunities for Youth program, can the minister tell the House whether he has been successful in obtaining more funds for that program?


Gérard Pelletier: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister state whether refusal notices have gone out to unsuccessful applicants and, if so, are these people told which criteria they failed to meet?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, all that has been sent out to date is a small percentage of good news to promotors of projects which have already been accepted.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO MILITIA TRAINING COURSE

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the summer militia training programs have had to be cut in half because of lack of funds, and that this was a very successful program last year, would the minister consider transferring some of his departments funds in order that this course could be continued?

May 3, 1971



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-NUMBER OF PROJECTS TO BE TURNED DOWN BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUNDS

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary ques'ion for the Secretary of Slate, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate to the House how many projects he anticipates will be turned down if he does not receive the increased funds he is asking for and what number of potential jobs is represented by these projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member's question is highly detailed. He is asking for the type of information which I suggest to him should not be sought at this litre. In view of the importance of the mat'er the hon. member might ponder the advisability of having the matter debated at the time of adjournment.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the racial strife which has developed in the town of Bonnyville, Alber a, over the implementation of certain segments of the Official Languages Act, is the minister planning any action to help alleviate this unhealthy situation?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member should say the problem at Bonnyville resulted from application of the Official Languages Act. There is indeed some possibility that Bonnyville, like several other localities, might become a bilingual district, but it is not now part of a b lingual district since no bilingual district under the Official Languages Act has yet been established, and most probably none will be established until midsummer.


Paul Yewchuk: In spite of the minister's answer there still is great d.fficulty, and I wonder whether he would be in favour of asking the language commissioner to investigate and report on the problem?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I should need to check the act on that point. I believe that any citizen has the right to ask for the help of the Official Languages Commissioner. I wonder, however, if the Secretary of State would not be the only citizen without the privilege of invoking this right.


Paul Yewchuk: I would like clarification of the first part of the minister's answer. Can he indicate when he expects this will officially become a bilingual district?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED UNDER WHEAT BOARD-MEANING OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I address a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in view of his statement in a release dated April 21, 1971 referring to the decision to bring rye, flax and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board. He said:
This is a wrong interpretation and I can only say at this point that the government has taken no decisions to change the present marketing system for rapeseed or any other grain.
Does this mean that the minister is not going to proceed with the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act or that he is going to withdraw it? Do we put this interpretation on the statement he made?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be wrong to put that interpretation on the statement instead of the plain interpretation which is that the clause in the legislation is simply enabling legislation and that no decision has been made to make use of that power.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I then ask the minister, since he has stated he does not intend to put any teeth in this section, whether he is satisfied with the manner in which the rapeseed market has been operating?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member has asked whether the minister is satisfied with a situation and in this respect the question is not acceptable.



POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED UNDER WHEAT BOARD-HOLDING OF PLEBISCITE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether, before he puts any teeth in the legislation, he proposes taking a plebiscite to give him the necessary teeth?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear that no move would be taken in regard to the marketing system unless it were with the fullest support of the producers who are most directly involved. I have said nothing about the form of ascertaining that approval or support although I am conscious of the fact that the oilseeds marketing committee, in making its recommendations to me some months ago, did indicate that a plebiscite was an appropriate route.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: My question is directed to the Minister of

May 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Regional Economic Expansion. Will the minister consult with the premier of Newfoundland and try to get the various DREE projects moving in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and try to prevail upon the premier to stop hoarding up these projects in order to spring them at the propitious political moment in this provincial election year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was Mr. Gerin-Lajoie stating government policy when he announced last weekend that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking whether an official of the government is stating government policy when he makes a statement. I have to tell the hon. member that a question asked in those terms is not in order. It has long been a recognized rule of the House that it is possible for an hon. member to ask the Prime Minister whether a statement made by a minister represents government policy, but I would suggest that if hon. members ask questions on whether statements made by public servants represent government policy we may get ourselves into difficulty. From day to day the whole question period might be used for that purpose. Would the hon. member rephrase the question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize Your Honour is quite right but I thought a question about a statement by such a senior official might be accepted. Is it government policy to have a large shift in emphasis in our foreign aid programs and, in particular, is it government policy now to advance foreign aid to North Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any proposals to grant aid to North Viet Nam.


GUYANA-STONING OF CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER'S RESIDENCE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the minister have any information to impart to the House and the country on the stoning of the residence of our ambassador in Guyana over the weekend and, in particular, has any communication come from the Guyanese government? Also, are the property and lives of Canadians in danger?


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand that our High Commissioner has been in touch with us and has said that he was completely unharmed. He said he got a little less sleep than usual.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ATLANTIC PROVINCES' UNEMPLOYMENT-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ON BASIS OF NEED
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State regarding the Opportunities for Youth program. In view of the recent information that projects worth $150 million had been submitted up to that time and as only $14.7 million is available, will the extremely high unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces, the highest in the country, be taken into consideration when projects are approved?
fTranslation]


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was always understood that the funds available for this program would be distributed in such a way as to provide greater help to those areas of the country where unemployment among the young is greater. And that is what we are doing at the present time with regard to the distribution of available funds.




Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. It concerns the building of a series of dams on the Pembina River as a joint effort by the Canadian and American governments. Is any action being contemplated to reintroduce discussions on what has turned out to be a very important matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have an answer somewhere to this question. Perhaps I might be permitted to search for it.
*	* He


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My question is directed to either the government House leader or the Minister of Justice. It arises out of the conference of the news media, the press, over the past weekend and the controversy surrounding the question of the suppression of free expression of views in the province of Quebec put forward in a document entitled "Dossier F". Has the government considered having this general question studied by a parliamentary committee, perhaps the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, so that these charges can be examined in some depth?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.

May 3, 1971


Mark Willson Rose: In this same general area, has the government considered the establishment of a press council for Canada or assisting in the establishment of such a council?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice on the same subject. Because of the allegations of serious suppression of fundamental civil rights alleged by these journalists at their weekend meeting, is the minister or his department going to make an inquiry into these matters?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to study the question of whom these allegations were directed against. Having done that, I would perhaps be prepared to give an answer to the hon. member later.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to ask the government House leader, in whose name the motion for the establishment of the special joint committee appears, if he would discuss with the other party House leaders the matter of facilitating the appearance before that committee of the only true experts on apprehended insurrection

the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the premier of Quebec and the Secretary of State who has written about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


JUDGES ACT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a bill which has received first reading. Did the minister obtain or try to obtain the consent of all ten provincial Attorneys General or have any discussions with the Chief Justices of the various provinces with regard to setting up the judicial council and did the minister receive a recommendation from them that would make it possible for the minister or the cabinet to fire judges in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the declaration in that question. I want to assure the hon. member that they were consulted with regard to the bill in so far as it related to the Canadian judicial commission. It was discussed with all ten provincial Attorneys General at the meeting we held in Halifax last summer and with all 22 Chief Justices in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. In order to obtain information, I ask the minister whether it is a fact that if the council made a recommendation to him as Minister of Justice he could make a recommendation to the cabinet and a judge could be fired?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for debate when the bill comes before the House. I want to say to the hon. member that the purpose of the Canadian judicial commission is to ensure that the separation of powers as between the executive and the judiciary is properly maintained.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That destroys their independence.




Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the severe earthquake registered in the north Pacific over the weekend and also the scheduled large-scale United States nuclear tests in the same general quake prone area, will the government renew its representations to Washington in opposition to these scheduled underground nuclear blasts?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House is aware, Mr. Speaker, ever since the hon. member for Victoria raised this question we have been very concerned about it. We have made a number of representations, the last of which I tabled in the House. The President of the United States has promised to give very careful consideration to our representations. As long as this is the situation, I see very little point in renewing these representations. However, because this matter was raised in the House it will no doubt again be brought to the attention of the United States government.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Stanley James Korchinski: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister offer any real encouragement with regard to the possible settlement of the strike involving the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company and the union at Flin Flon?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that both parties will be resuming negotiations on Thursday in the presence of a federal mediator. This morning I met with officials of the Hudson Bay Mining Company. I feel their position is now flexible enough to at least give encouragement that a settlement may be available provided both parties approach the bargaining in the proper mood.


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister now have a man on the scene at Flin Flon?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When the negotiations resume on Thursday there will be a representative of the Department of Labour on hand.

May 3. 1971
Senate and Home of Commons Act SOCIAL SECURITY



SUPPLYING OF INSURANCE NUMBERS OR FILES BY HEALTH AND WELFARE TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES

['Orders of the day.']
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Keni):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Health and Welfare. Does the minister's department supply social insurance numbers or files on individuals to other departments of government or Crown agencies, particularly the Solicitor General's department or any agency responsible to the Solicitor General?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so. I will check on it, but I am sure we do not.



Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is for the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the delays with regard to interviews and appeals concerning immigrants, when will the minister be introducing the legislation to amend the Immigration Act and regulations thereto? Will it be before the end of June?


Otto Emil Lang: I expect so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 30, 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 Allowance 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.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment of this debate on Friday afternoon, I discussed a number of considerations involved in dealing with the question of remuneration for Members of Parliament. I related the considerations that I have to take into account as the member for Regina East in terms of the effect that this legislation will have on the people of Regina East, as well as the effect of other legislation which has been passed during the life of this Parliament.
I have in mind a letter I received from a farmer in my constituency enclosing a copy of a letter he had sent to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang)
who is in charge of the Wheat Board. The farmer who wrote this letter has a small farm; he has a half-section of land, but it is highly productive land. He was affected by Operation Lift in 1970 and because of the small acreage he was cultivating, his operation did not leave much room for flexibility. He put 50 or 60 acres to wheat and seeded some coarse grains as well. He was fortunate enough to harvest a good crop, wheat yields as high as 40 bushels an acre. When it came to delivering the grain he found himself boxed in by the regulations set out in the Lift program; he encountered great difficulty in moving even minimal amounts of the grain he had produced in 1970. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board was good enough to send me a copy of the reply he had sent to this farmer. In effect, it said: We shall be introducing all sorts of programs shortly, and the stabilization plan will not hurt small farmers. The minister also indicated he did not believe Operation Lift had done this particular farmer any harm at all.
I am speaking, now, from memory but I believe this man had to live on a cash income of some $3,400 during 1970, out of which he had to pay his operating expenses as well as buy food and clothing for his family. This is shameful. Government programs have adversely affected people like this man. For this and many other reasons I intend to oppose the bill. I would oppose it even if it were designed to take effect only after the next federal election. I say this because I believe a new approach is needed to this whole matter.
Some question has been raised whether or not members should accept this money. That is academic. I want to inform the House that I shall take steps to ensure that whatever extra amount may accrue to me will not result in personal financial gain for myself. This will apply, as far as I am concerned, for the balance of the life of this Parliament. I do not accept arguments that it is up to members to refuse to accept part of the funds available to them. Whatever decision is reached on this matter by the majority of the House of Commons, each member should be treated equally. I am certainly not willing to accept any proposition that my services are worth any less than those of other members; the people of Regina East will pass judgment on that in good time. My situation is not related to any contractual concept involving the life of this Parliament. I have said for some time that I do not think there should be any increase in the indemnity of members during the life of this Parliament. This statement was related to the present level of pay, the general situation of hon. members and the general nature of government policies as they have affected people in my constituency and throughout Canada.
I am unhappy about some of the references which have been made to the percentage increase involved in the changes proposed by the legislation before us. The effect is unfortunate because it tends to minimize the real significance of the changes. Thinking in terms of percentage increases has the effect of accentuating inequities in our society. For a man living on $2,000 a year, 6 per cent is far different from 6 per cent to a man with an income of $12,000 a year or more. A different approach is needed. Many companies and trade unions view such

May 3, 1971

changes in terms of percentage increase rather than on a more equitable basis. They are going to have to change their approach.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) ought to be unhappy about some of the changes proposed. I draw attention to the fact that members of the other place will receive the same increase in indemnity as is proposed for Members of the House of Commons. This is in direct conflict with the principle the minister put forward during the debate on the Labour (Standards) Code. He embodied in that legislation the concept of equal pay for equal work. By no stretch of the imagination could it be argued that the work involved in being a member of the other place compares with the work involved in being a member of this chamber.
This is poor legislation, and its introduction is untimely. It does not reflect the type of thinking needed to deal with the problems of society today or of tomorrow. Consequently, I intend to oppose the bill.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to make some painful speeches before, but they have always been far more painful to my audiences than to me. Today, I find the situation reversed. This speech hurts me more than anyone who may be listening.
I am sorry I was not in the House last week to speak during the early part of this debate since it might appear I was waiting to see which way the political wind was blowing. That is not so. I might be said to find myself in a position similar to that in which Jack Benny found himself when confronted with a burglar carrying a gun. The burglar said: Your money or your life. And then there were five minutes of dead air on the radio.
Without commenting on the position other members or the government have taken in connection with this matter, I would like to go on record as saying that I cannot accept any increase in my salary as a Member of Parliament during the course of the present Parliament. As far as I am concerned, having made a commitment to my constituents long before the government decided its policy in respect of this issue, I am not in a position to accept the increment. To my mind, the only way in which I can dispose of the increase, should it be granted, would be to make a gift back to the Crown and pray to God it is not used in another attempt to refit the Bona-venture. I cannot see that it would be possible to accept the money, and then make donations to charity without deriving some benefit politically or personally from such a course. My position is that the commitment I made to my constituents prevents me from voting in favour of this bill. Accordingly, I shall abstain throughout. In conclusion, I can only say: Thanks, but no, and-ouch!


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-242.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to suggest to this House that the bill is untimely, even though many hon.
Senate and House of Commons Act members certainly need a salary increase. In fact, the cost of living has increased for them as well as for others, and the expenses in their ridings are getting higher and higher. Consequently, the parliamentary allowance, decent as it is, is not sufficient to allow them to provide people with the services they need, and it is not very important if we take into account members' expenses, both in this House and in their ridings.
But, while I have a great deal of sympathy for those who need a salary increase-I do myself-I find it most unfortunate that 75 per cent of the citizens in rural and urban ridings have to tighten their belts so terribly, because they are far from receiving a suitable income.
Therefore, I must say I find it impossible to support this bill because there is still too much to do to balance the economy, and I believe that we have not taken the necessary steps to enable everyone to have a fair share of the goods and services available in our society. I blame hon. members for not having discharged their duties in order to reach that goal.
In such circumstances, where the economy is crumbling, where it has lost its way, I believe that we do not deserve a higher allowance.
A salary increase for us would be justified and the population would be only too happy to accept it had we given them a chance to live reasonably well.
Because of present conditions, we are only aware of inflation, poverty, indebtedness and tax increases. Some 45 per cent of our fellow citizens are living on social welfare; they are living at somebody else's expense. We are stealing from one class of people to provide for the needs of another. There is nothing there to justify whatever the members are now asking for.
If we had a prosperous economy, our population would also be prosperous and indeed we could be. We all can get along with the salary we are now being paid. We can spend less and do without a few luxuries, as other people do, if we have not enough money.
The people do not ask for promises, wishes, words, laws, heaps of white books, slogans or inquiries, but a just distribution of the magnificent annual production of Canada, according to the needs of all citizens. This is not what exists now.
Members of Parliament have not done their duty and their work, for 34 commissions have been created since 1957. One was set up to determine whether there exists any poverty in Canada. We know that poverty exists in Canada, but do we know what to do to eliminate it? Have we put an end to poverty? These inquiries were financed with the money that would have been used to increase parliamentary allowances. If we had done our work, we would not have given all these millions to investigators. The reports of all these commissions of inquiry gather dust on shelves and in the long run all this amounts to nothing since one cannot implement the good recommendations they contain. Some are good, others are bad. Several good ones should have been implemented. We knew beforehand what they were. We did

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act not need all these enquiries to know. This is why I say to my colleagues that we have not discharged our responsibilities. We are blaming other bodies for the shortcomings and the ill-effects of the system, to try and get off the hook and we say that it is not us but the commissions of enquiry which make the decisions.
For instance, there was the Glassco Commission on government organization which cost $2,791,000. The Carter Commission cost $3,350,000, the Commission on Pilotage, $1,500,000. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which cost $9 million. This was one of the most expensive commissions. Let us mention also the Royal Commission on farm equipment which cost $1,500,000 and the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada whose tag price read $1,900,000. We knew that women were not recognized according to their real value. We did not need all these commissions and that is one of the reasons why we do not deserve an increase in our allowance. In fact we gave to the members of those commissions the money which was earmarked for our increase. We took guys who already had fantastic salaries, who were very well paid and we gave them in addition a lot of money. Doing this we are not assuming our responsibilities. Members of Parliament are in the House to do their job.
It seems to me that we are quite as competent. Among hon. members there are economists and lawyers. There are quite a few lawyers here.
We have accountants among hon. members, but it is not enough. We have to establish other committees and appoint other allegedly more competent individuals. However, since we refused to assume our responsibilities, we do not deserve that rase, even if we need it. Let us do our job and we could then ask for a raise. The people would then be pleased to approve it.
We are asking for better salaries than those of the people, while they must tighten their belts. Poverty is spreading and the number of poor people is increasing at an alarming rate in spite of all kinds of inquiries and recommendations. Family allowances have been at the same level since 1945. Income taxes have increased dishearteningly. Canadians have lost confidence because of the record rise of the cost of living.
The bill also provides for an increase in the salary scale of a great many public servants, and it is unacceptable to increase our allowances in such an unbalanced economy.
If it were only a matter of increasing the allowance of members of Parliament, the proposal might be acceptable, but we take this opportunity to increase the salaries of public servants who should also tighten their belts because, considering the present situation, they are getting a decent income.
We should oppose this increase members of Parliament have been asking for a long time. True, many could use it, but as the economic situation is unhealthy, let us also tighten our belts and, in every possible way, remedy the economic situation in every sector of our society; then, we can be justified in asking for increased allowances.
With higher unemployment, accumulated deficits, 40 per cent of the people on welfare, the frightful increase in debts and taxes, the right to live is frustrated. The young cannot even find a roof. People cannot build a house without paying "a tribute to Ceasar" and they pay their house five or six times over before really owning it.
Mr. Speaker, the members of this House have accepted to remove the ceiling on interest rates and we are now feeling the consequences of this decision. Instead of taking concrete action in favour of the people, we are going against their interests, we exploit people and become accessories to their undeserved poverty. I stand guilty as all others here, but I should not accuse myself because I have always done everything I could in the past to have our cripple economy corrected.
In a civilized society, the first right of every citizen is the right to live. This is the first right which should be protected by law. It is a matter of elementary justice to all citizens but when they are no longer able to build their own home, can we say that they have access to justice and the safeguards of human dignity? These laws and regulations work instead against the individual's well-being and they can only be used to exploit the individual.
Production of goods and services is meant for adults, and should be divided into consumption and capitalization. Excessive capitalization has been made possible, but not so consumption. We produce a lot more than we consume; we capitalize 25 times more than we ought to. And all this is realized by members who have not done their job.
There is the reason for a well balanced economy, through simple means geared to economic facts and realities. We have not adjusted our economy to the physical realities and possibilities of this country. We have worked against that; we have completely unbalanced the economy. So, we have not done our duty. We should legislate so that goods and services satisfy the needs of the people, and if we achieved this, citizens would be glad to pay their servants adequately. Services are not appropriate to needs. Instead of helping people, of being of service to them, huge developments exploit them. This is where we have generally directed our efforts and we are getting the results that we deserve.
Nations must develop an awareness of national problems and of conditions necessary to their solution. Have we done it? Problems must be defined and localized. We have problems which were defined and localized by commissions of all kinds. All their wise recommendations which we should have proposed ourselves but had proposed by others, we have never put into practice.
We have not done our job. Agencies produced reports and carried out investigations of all kinds to pinpoint poverty and unemployment and we are still worse off than ever. Malaise and dissatisfaction prevail in every walk of life. Members of Parliament and ministers do not seem prepared to face their responsibilities.

May 3, 1971

We do not deserve an increase of our indemnity because we have not done our job, because we are paltry servants who take advantage of our employers, vilipend them, throw them into the arms of socialism, drive them to bankruptcy, anarchy, rebellion and destruction. Rebellion is rife, unions are demanding all kinds of impossible things because the government has not done its job. We are being penalized because civil servants and members of Parliament have been remiss, have not faced their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, there are extremely serious concerns for those whose responsibility it is to govern. Hon. members do not appear to be fulfilling their responsibilities. Several seem to find the matter amusing, and the responsibilities are not being assumed.
The policy for individual freedom and equal opportunities remains far behind the kind of social justice advocated under the slogan: "Let us establish a just society!" A large number of Canadians are living in slums. What about the taxes levied on building materials and the excessively high rates of interest which increase the cost of living?
Our just society, through its taxes and its housing policy, deprives the individual of his rights to be a property-owner. We ourselves have organized such a diabolical system, let us suffer the consequences! In the absence of any proof to the contrary, Canadians have the right to refuse to forgive us.
If we do not assume the very serious responsibilities that are ours, we suffer the direct consequences of our inaction in not providing the people with a guaranteed personal income and with sufficient and adequate purchasing power, having regard to our production. In 1970, the gross national product reached $90 billion and consumption $50 billion. Notwithstanding a capitalization of $36 billion, 50 per cent of Canadians could not participate in the national production.
Now, were we to capitalize $36 billion in 1971, we could easily distribute among the people $1 billion a month under the form of a compensated discount on prices or a national dividend in order to put in their hands the purchasing power which is necessary to boost the economy.
Instead, this government is content with creating further fiscal restraint, imposing taxes to those whose pockets are already empty, those people who are no longer able to pay taxes. Yet the government lets our major financial institutions accumulate reserves. Have government members done their job? I have done mine because I have been talking about this for a long time.
Nothing is balanced. Can some members suggest that the economy of Canada is balanced and that this justifies an increase in salary for public servants?
There would be many things to do and say. We have often said these things, but the Conservatives and the Liberals remain silent. They seem to think that everything is all right, that everything is going smoothly, while in effect nothing is working right. Our economy is falling off as it has never done before. It is "jammed"; every piece of its machinery is at a standstill. Industry is oper-
Senate and House of Commons Act ating at only a quarter of its capacity. Plants are all closing up; almost all industries, generally speaking, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Some 50 per cent of Canada's lesser industries have become bankrupt; the same could be said of half of our retail outlets. And we hear some people say that the economy is faring pretty well, that everything is getting along fine, that the Liberal party is the party of the future, and so is the Progressive Conservative Party. The economy is being gradually thrown out of balance.
In this respect, I would like to quote from an article published in La Presse on Thursday, April 29, 1971:



THE COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
The steadfast rise in the cost of living is providing economists with interesting topics for arguments and ought to give terrible headaches to any serious politician.
Are there still serious politicians? Where are they? Let them stand up and prove it once and for all to the population. I continue to quote:
Let us not take somebody else's place. Did the federal government contribute to the unemployment increase in seeking to fight inflation? Did the Prices and Incomes Commission really fail in its attempt to convince labour and management to curb wage demands and profits? Is the consumer price index a valid criterion of national economic health? All those are questions for experts-who, besides, are far from unanimity in their answers-but there is no evidence on which to base a reassuring opinion.
The commission chaired by Mr. John Young is still making commendable efforts to prevent the effects of inflation by a close control over increases in wages and prices of products offered to Canadian consumers.
In spite of all that, recent figures published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics make us think. Retail prices have increased by 1.2 per cent during the first quarter of 1971, the highest increase in the last ten years. Everything costs more: food, clothing, housing, travel, leisure. This means that the dollar is being devaluated and with the same income, a family can buy fewer products... or go further into debt. This statement, though rather short, gives a true picture of every day life, does it not'
The car owner who pays 3 cents more for a gallon of gas, the mother of a family who pays one cent more for a loaf of bread, the Montrealer who will pay $20 to $50 more a year for the same amount of water he normally consumes does not have the time any more to ask himself where the evil is coming from: he just pays. In addition to these increases must be added school taxes, banks' service charges, railway tariffs. Those who have to pay certainly look for solutions to their financial troubles elsewhere than in their bottom drawers. Their reaction is normal: as they are unwilling or unable to live on a lower scale, they are ready to demand salary increases which will allow them to take advantage of services or to buy products which are offered at higher prices. And who can blame them for wanting in their turn to enjoy the advantages of free enterprise?
Governments that increase taxes, companies that raise prices always put forward sound arguments: expenses cannot be reduced, services have to be improved, production costs are going up, salaries have become astronomical. Let us forget about governments, which are not long in giving explanations when votes are at stake. On the other hand, one may wonder whether some firms are not too prone to hold their employees responsible for increases in the price of their products, several of which are essential. Because those employees are also consumers who draw from their work their main if not their only means of subsistence. This increase in prices and wages is surely a vicious circle. Who will venture to call upon the small wage-earner to put an end to it?
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
It is enough to justify increased allowances? Far from it. I continue.
From that point of view, substantially increased salaries for federal members would have an appreciable psychological effect just before a round of negotiations. Considering their increasing responsibilities and the fact that many among them are not rich, this raise is understandable. It is out of the question to suggest to the representatives of the people to be hypocritical and to find in shady activities the money they need to maintain a proper standing.
And freed from the first concern of so many Canadians, could they not coolly find a solution to inflation and unemployment?
That is what we have to work out. Had we solved that problem, we would be justified in seeking what we are asking. But we are far from having solved it. We have aggravated it, and if we increase the allowances of certain officials and representatives of the government, we will again create new headaches for the population. We will have to increase the cost of living, and thus boost taxes. Such is the administration we have. If we are unable to do better, instead of asking for an increase in our allowances, let us resign and leave our job to others whose philosophy or techniques are more sophisticated, more consistent with the situation. Then, we will perhaps be able to correct our limping economy which is no longer operating, and which must absolutely be made to run smoothly.
Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the Beaupre committee which was set up to study members' pay, pointed out that there had been no adjustment in members' pay since 1963 and that an increase is overdue. It is not necessary for me to review all the well known arguments or to state the obvious. I simply say I strongly support the basic principles set out in the Beaupre report. It is for that very reason that I am concerned with one aspect of the bill now before us, the $8,000 expense allowance. Certainly, the amount is not excessive, particularly for members who must themselves bear the expense of maintaining and staffing a riding office to serve their constituents. But I think it is important that we accept the principle set out in the Beaupre report that any expense allowance be for the purpose of paying expenses actually incurred by members in connection with their duties as Members of Parliament rather than as a tax-free allowance in lieu of expenses.
I am fully aware that reimbursable and accountable expense accounts have some d sadvantages. Indeed, they are sometimes popularly referred to as swindle sheets. A reasonable allowance in lieu of expenses is free of that particular disadvantage. But I do not think that argument is conclusive or even very convincing. Surely, if we argue against the Beaupre recommendation of payment for actual expenses we face a dilemma; if we actually spend $8,000 in connection with our duties, the Beaupre formula would allow us to be reimbursed. But if we do not spend the $8,000 a year in expenses for carrying out our duties as Members of Parliament, then we are getting a tax free allowance not available to any other taxpayers. The dilemma is complete.
I understand the argument has been advanced that it would not be appropriate to force Members of Parliament to submit expense accounts for approval or for checking by public officials. This is somewhat similar to an argument which has been made with almost equal eloquence throughout the years by businessmen and professional men who often complain bitterly, to the accompaniment of appropriate profanities, that these so-and-so public servants have no knowledge of running a business or of carrying on a profession and that they have never had the experience of "meeting a payroll''. This argument has been made frequently but it has never prevailed, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) knows very well. In any event, if there is a problem here, I suggest that it could easily be met by having members submit their expense accounts to officials of the House, possibly acting under the supervision of Mr. Speaker or his deputy.
My point is simply that we are entitled to be rein-bursed for our actual expenses, reasonably incurred in carrying out our duties as Member of Parliament, but anything in the nature of a tax free allowance in lieu of expenses is undesirable in principle. This was the finding of the Beaupre committee, but it was also, according to my recollection, the finding of the Carter commission and of the Smith commission in Ontario. All these commissions which investigated the problem very carefully came to the same conclusion. Apparently they felt that a tax free allowance in lieu of expenses for Members of Parliament would be discriminatory as compared with other taxpayers who did not have the same privilege.
It is also discriminatory as between various Members of Parliament. It is much more advantageous to members who live in Ottawa than to members who live out of Ottawa. It is more advantageous to members who do not incur much expense in serving their constituencies than to members who have ridings which require the expenditure of a great deal of money in order that the consiitu-ents may be served. It is also much more advantageous to members who have other income and are subject to a high income tax rate as compared with members who have only their parliamentary pay on which to live.
As members of this House, we hold a position of trust, and under our existing law, unfortunately, we are required to fix our own pay. Every time an adjustment is made, we are in a position where our duty conflicts with our interest. In such circumstances we must lean over backward. Not only must we not take advantage of the position, but we must also make it quite apparent in the legislation that we are not taking advantage of the position. Although annual expenses of $8,000 may be quite reasonable for the job, it will appear that members are taking advantage of their position if they are given a tax free allowance rather than merely reimbursed for expenses actually incurred.
Under the existing arrangement, we have been often accused of having a salary of $18,000; in fact, we are almost invariably accused of having a salary of $18,000 and of giving ourselves $6,000 of that tax free. Already since this bill has been introduced, we are being accused

May 3, 1971

of proposing for ourselves a salary of $26,000, of which $8,000 is tax free. There is no reason at all why we should lay ourselves open to this type of misrepresentation. It is imperative, therefore, that the legislation should make it entirely clear that we are entitled to have our expenses actually incurred in the course of our duties reimbursed, but that we are not giving ourselves anything in the nature of a tax free allowance which is not available to other taxpayers who are just as heavily burdened as we are.
I realize that the point I have made is not new, that it must have been considered by the cabinet and must have been rejected by the cabinet before the present bill was introduced. This poses of course the difficult question as to how to vote on second reading. I understand that the bill is going to be referred to a parliamentary committee and that changes in detail such as I have mentioned can be made before that committee. This may be a vain hope, but there has been a refreshing degree of independence shown from time to time by some of our parliamentary committees. I hope that the parliamentary committee to which this bill is referred will show a degree of independence, particularly in view of the nature of the legislation. I hope the chairman and the vice chairman, and all the members will adopt an objective and independent point of view. There is little use referring a bill such as this to a committee if members, when they consider it, merely rubber stamp views laid down for them by their party.
So, I hope that this bill will be given careful and independent consideration by a parliamentary committee. I will vote to send it to that committee, while reserving my right to urge as strongly as I can before that committee that the provisions for the tax free allowance be changed to make it entirely clear that members are only entitled to be reimbursed for expenses actually incurred by them in connection with their duties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The debate on Bill C-242 to provide increased pay and allowances for parliamentarians has been conducted on a fairly high level, and I think this has been partly due to the very moderate and restrained manner in which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) introduced this piece of legislation. It would be very easy, in a debate like this, for hon. members to descend into mutual recriminations and an imputation of motives. It would be very easy for those who are supporting the bill to be accused of being greedy moneygrabbers and those who are opposed to the bill of being hypocrites because they know that if the bill passes they will get the money and, therefore, they are merely grandstanding. Fortunately, there has been very little of this, except in a few isolated instances.
I begin by conceding to those who are supporting this bill that they are sincere in believing this bill is in the best interests of Parliament. I hope they will concede to those of us who are opposing the bill the same degree of sincerity. Those on the government side who may question our sincerity can test it, either by allowing the bill to drop, or when the bill is before the Standing Commit-
Senate and House of Commons Act tee on Procedure and Organization bringing in some of the changes which I am going to suggest in the course of my remarks.
The first thing which is apparent from this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we very much need some better method of dealing with the periodic adjustment of members' salaries and allowances. Almost all members who have spoken have indicated that this is a very unpleasant task. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) himself said on April 29, as recorded at page 5355 of Hansard:
This is a difficult situation and makes the advocacy of this particular bill not the most pleasant task for a minister like myself, who usually has come into the House in support of measures affecting a broad class of people other than Members of Parliament.
I think that all of us feel the same way, that it is humiliating and embarrassing that periodically we should have to go through this soul-searching when determining what we should be paid out of the public purse. I had hoped that the government, which started out three years ago to break some new trails, would have brought some technique before the House by which it would be unnecessary to deal with parliamentary pay and allowances in the House of Commons itself. The government has not done so. It referred the matter to the Beauprd committee, but they have completely failed to deal with it. One page 43 of their report, paragraph 143, we find the following:
Our terms of reference invite us to suggest a procedure for the periodic review of financial arrangements for parliamentarians. In view of the great emphasis we have placed on the evolving role of the individual member, we do not see fit to recommend that salaries be tied to changes in certain economic indicators such as the Consumer Price Index, Gross National Expenditure or the Industrial Composite of Weekly Wages and salaries. Further, we do not accept the proposal that parliamentary salaries should be related to the salaries that the government establishes for the executive category in the Public Service.
The committee does not give its reasons for believing that salaries could not be tied to some category in the public service. I certainly would have been interested in knowing why it rejected that idea because it seems to me it has some merit, although there may be obstacles to it of which I am not aware.
Paragraph 145 of the Beaupre committee report reads:
Primarily for the reasons outlined in the previous two paragraphs, we recommend that another advisory committee, similar to the present one, be established within two years of the convening of the 29th Parliament. We also recommend that the government concurrently appoint an all-party committee from both Houses to act in an advisory role to the proposed review committee. We are of the opinion that it would be more appropriate for the next committee to consider a method for the future review of salaries, allowances, services and facilities for members of parliament.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not help us very much. I am hopeful that when this bill is before the Committee on Procedure and Organization some thought will be given to this matter. I think there are two or three
5440

May 3. 1971
Senate and Home of Commons Act
possibilities. One is, as I have already suggested, that the salaries and allowances of members could be tied to some category in the public service. Another is that some independent body outside of Parliament might periodically review parliamentary remuneration.
I know that in one province a committee was set up, headed by the Chief Justice of the province, and its recommendations were accepted without question, not only by the members of the legislature but by the public generally. It may be that the President of the Exchequer Court could head such a committee, or that the Chief Justice of Canada could head such a committee. I think we ought to apply ourselves at this time to the problem of how we can remove from the House of Commons this responsibility which all of us find most distasteful.
I am opposed to this legislation for two main reasons. The first is that the proposed pay hike comes at an inopportune time when the government is asking the people of Canada to tighten their belts. For three years, the government has been following a policy of austerity. The government has frozen old age security pensions at $80. Sometimes people say to us, with some scorn in their voices, that we raised the old age pension by 42 cents. We did worse than that, Mr. Speaker. We actually reduced the pension by $1.17, an amount by which it would have increased on January 1, 1971, if we had left the legislation alone. We did even worse than that. We removed the 2 per cent cost of living bonus which the old age security pensioners had been receiving. The result is that they are the only group of pensioners who do not have a cost of living bonus.
In spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said last December, to the effect that inflation no longer exists in Canada, unfortunately it still exists in this country. The increase in the cost of living for the first three months of this year was the greatest in the past decade. If the cost of living continues to rise the $80 a month old age security pension will steadily diminish in terms of what it will buy in the stores. The government and many of its officials are calling for restraint by wage and salary earners. Dr. John Young, the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, is asking that wage earners keep their demands for increases this year down to somewhere around 4 per cent or 5 per cent. Mr. Louis Rasminsky, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, has gone one better. He suggests that salaries and wages ought to be reduced in order to wage war against inflation. I ask the members of this House what sort of image will Parliament create if we are asking wage and salary earners to restrain their demands while at the same time we endorse an increase of around 44 per cent in the remuneration which parliamentarians receive?
How much credibility will the government have when it makes appeals, as it undoubtedly will in the next few months, to organized labour to be more moderate in their demands? And what about the unorganized workers? Two thirds of the workers of this country do not belong to trade unions, and they have no economic leverage to off-set inflation. These days many people are saying that parliamentarians are out of touch with reality, that Members of Parliament live in an ivory tower, that we are
untouched by the woes and tensions which beset the average citizen. I ask members of this House to what extent will the passage of this bill disabuse their minds of this unfortunate attitude?
I think we must also look at this measure in the light of that great section of the Canadian people who are poor and disadvantaged. About 100 years ago Benjamin Disraeli wrote a book about "The Other England" in which he referred to the two nations, the nation of the well-to-do and the nation of the poor. In the same way, Mr. Speaker, there are two Canadas. There is the Canada that we often tend to forget. The Economic Council of Canada, the National Council of Welfare and other bodies have pointed out that between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of the Canadian people live below the poverty line. In other words, there are between four and six million Canadians who do not enjoy even a decent standard of living. The National Council of Welfare has pointed out that of this number some one and a half million of the poor are members of families which have no employable member or which are fatherless because of death, desertion or divorce. There are another half million members of families of which the breadwinner has no job, and there are between two and four million people who are employed but earning less than is required to meet the needs of their families and themselves. When we add to this total the aged, the veteran pensioners-with whom we have been most niggardly in my opinion-and the primary producers, such as small farmers and fishermen, particularly from the east coast, it means that probably one-third of the population of this country lives either in a state of poverty or in a state of deprivation.
I am not suggesting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that MP's salaries can be set on the basis of the income of the poor, but I do suggest that until we take steps to remedy their condition we present a poor image in dealing with our own income. What has the government done? The government's so-called welfare program and the white paper on income security are predicated mainly on redistributing poverty, taking from the not-so-poor in order to give minimum aid to those who are very poor. The government has never recognized the need for a redistribution of income as a means if stimulating effective economic demand. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars in assisting large corporations instead of putting purchasing power into the pockets of potential buyers. It is noteworthy that the Canadian Labour Congress has been urging the government to set up a guaranteed annual income. The last report of the National Council of Welfare indicates that a guaranteed annual income is not only desirable but is economically possible and feasible. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that eventually in Canada we will be compelled to set up a guaranteed annual income, if not on humanitarian grounds at least on economic grounds, because automation is steadily eroding job opportunities.
The Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, Dr. Arthur Smith, has said that even if we can increase our rate of growth to 6.75 per cent in constant dollars, it will

May 3, 1971

take three years to reduce unemployment to 4 per cent. I do not believe anybody in this Hotise would accept 4 per cent as a reasonable level of unemployment. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that economic recovery may cure some of the cyclical unemployment but we will And that structural unemployment, because of cybernation and automation, will still be with us. Much of the money the government is granting to large corporations is going into equipment which will require fewer employees, and the problem of the future is how to provide income for the many individuals for whom there is no place in the work force.
If Parliament had dealt effectively with the problems I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, we as parliamentarians might, in good conscience, have turned our attention to our personal financial problems. Since we have failed to do so, I am afraid we present a poor image to the country when we do for ourselves what we have failed to do for the much more needy groups in our society.
My first reason for opposing this pay hike, therefore, is that I think this is the wrong time to pass such legislation. In view of the policy of austerity which the government has been pursuing this is not the time to substantially increase the remuneration for parliamentarians.
My second objection to this legislation arises out of the fact that I am completely opposed to the $8,000 tax free allowance. One of the things that pleased me about the report of the Beaupre committee was that it suggested doing away with the tax free allowance. I think much of the complaint by the general public is not so much against increasing the remuneration of Members of Parliament, providing it is a modest increase, but rather it is with the fact that Members of Parliament are being given a privilege not enjoyed by any other group in our society, namely a stated sum of money which is exempt from income tax. This is a special privilege not enjoyed by other professional groups such as doctors, lawyers, or dentists nor is it enjoyed by self-employed persons. It is a special privilege which parliamentarians have given to themselves. Governments have usually been chary of tax exemptions.
Under the Income Tax Act, the tax exemption is $2,000 for a married couple and $1,000 for a single person and, in my opinion, this is a ridiculous situation. Prior to World War II, when a dollar had two or three times the purchasing power of a dollar today, the exemption under the Income Tax Act was $3,000 for a married couple and $1,500 for a single person. We have kept these very low exemptions with the result that even old age pensioners who get the supplementary income find themselves paying taxes. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to abolish, as the Beaupre committee report recommended, the granting of any tax-exempt sum of money to Members of Parliament. If that were done, I think a small increase in the $12,000 indemnity which we now receive would be justified.
I think the figure recommended by Beaupre is too high. A modest increase would be justified, but I do not think
Senate and House of Commons Act we could justify continuing to have a tax free allowance of $8,000, $6,000 or any other figure, particularly in view of the fact that the Beaupre committee recommended its removal. The Beaupre committee's recommendation was much more sensible. They suggested that Members of Parliament be allowed certain expenses which would permit them to service their constituencies, but only that which they had spent and could prove by the submission of vouchers. This would have been fair for two reasons. It would have put us in the same position as other groups in society. Doctors, lawyers, dentists and others who hire a secretary and an office are allowed that expense. Firms are allowed to reimburse travelling salesmen, book agents and insurance agents for their travelling and out of pocket expenses provided they supply vouchers. We would be in the same category as other taxpayers. I think this procedure would commend itself to the people of Canada.
It would also be fair as between the various Members of Parliament. There are great differences in constituencies. There is a great deal of difference in the cost of looking after the interests of constituencies in the rural areas, such as those represented by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett), the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). These constituencies cover several thousand square miles. The communities are inaccessible and can only be reached by boat or chartered plane. There is a great difference in the cost of servicing that type of constituency and an urban constituency that may only be one or two miles square. There are expenses in urban constituencies, but they are of a different kind. The only way to make it fair to all concerned would be to pay for the actual expenses incurred.
The same is true with reference to the distance that a member's constituency is from Ottawa. There is a great deal of difference between looking after a constituency where you would have long distances to travel, two homes to maintain, two light bills, two telephone bills and two cars and a constituency that can be serviced from Ottawa with no great difficulty. In fact, members in Ottawa can service their constituency from their homes and the Parliament Buildings. I do not say that to criticize any member or any group of members. I simply ask, why should we treat the expenses alike when the costs of servicing the constituencies are not alike? Why not reimburse the members for what they actually spend in servicing their constituencies?
The Beaupre committee report recommended that the expense of travelling within the constituency, providing office accommodation and some staff in the constituency ought to be covered. Most of the cabinet ministers I know are able to maintain an office and staff in their constituencies. I do not complain about that. I think they need it. The members also need it. The constituents would be better served if there were an office to which they could send their complaints, where the member could meet them and where there would be staff to arrange for interviews with members when they are in the constituencies over a weekend or during a recess.
24081-63i

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
There should be provision, up to a maximum, for sending out reprints of Hansard so that constituents are aware of the position which their members take on various questions debated in the House. There ought to be greater facilities for research if members are to make a useful contribution to this House and, particularly, to the standing committees of the House. Members ought to have research facilities and assistance.
In saying these things, I am not unmindful of the fact that all these facilities have been tremendously improved since the time I first became a member of this House. However, instead of giving to the members a flat sum of $8,000 which will be tax free, we would be better advised to follow the recommendation of the Beaupre commission and say that there should be certain sums of money from which a member may draw in servicing his or her constituency and that he or she will be reimbursed for any such expenditures on a voucherable and accountable basis. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEa-chen) took the opposite view on this matter. He said, as recorded at page 5353 of Hansard:
In my judgment, in view of the other responsibilities we exercise daily, it is not too great a responsibility to give this opportunity to a member to decide how he will determine the allocation of the $8,000 and not oblige him to come back and have his accounts vetted by a member of the bureaucracy who normally is interrogated, questioned and brought to heel by elected Members of Parliament.
Most of us have just gone through the experience of filing our income tax returns. These, of course, are vetted and examined by the bureaucracy. Several million Canadians have their requests for tax exemptions vetted by the bureaucracy. I do not think there is any reason that Members of Parliament should be treated differently. Professional and self-employed persons who must spend money which is not income, but is used to enable them to perform their functions, must submit vouchers. They must give an account of any money which they spend. I see no reason why members of Parliament should not be required to do the same. The only way the public can be sure that the money which we receive for the purpose of servicing our constituencies is properly used is to have it accountable and voucherable. They will then know that the money which we receive, ostensibly for servicing our constituencies, is actually spent on servicing our constituencies.
Some controversy has arisen as to what members will do with the extra remuneration if this legislation passes. The other day the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) challenged me and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to make a statement as to what we propose to do. I can understand the hon. member feeling that perhaps he has to pay some conscience money to atone for the government's inconsistency in its treatment of parliamentarians as compared with other sections of the population. This is a matter which each hon. member has to decide for himself. I do not propose to criticize anyone else; each member will have to decide what he will do with the extra remuneration in the event that
this legislation is passed. As far as I am concerned, I do not propose to follow *he example of one hon. member who spoke earlier this afternoon and turn it back to the Crown; I am not anxious to help finance the refitting of another Bonaventure or the construction of a port which nobody is going to use. But I am determined in my mind to ensure that no additional income will accrue to me, personally. I propose to use this money, if it is made available, to do the things which the Beaupre committee recommended should be done, namely, to see to it that additional services are provided to my constituents so that I am able to serve them more effectively and more efficiently. I hope to be able to provide increased services in my constituency, to provide for an office and a staff and to do a greater amount of coverage by sending constituents reprints of Hansard and other information at my own expense. That is what will be done if this legislation passes.
However, I do not think we ought to take it for granted that this legislation will pass. I should like to make a plea to the government not to move with any indecent haste. The worst thing that could happen to the image of Parliament would be for this legislation to be hurried through the House and whipped through subsequent proceedings in the standing committee and in this chamber. After all, we take time in which to discuss many other questions which will have less impact on the public than the one before us. I should like to plead that when this bill goes to the standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, we should seriously consider two things. First, we should seriously consider removing the tax-free allowance, and draw up a list of constituency services in respect of which a member would be reimbursed, services which would be voucherable and accountable. Of course, limits would have to be placed on the amount which could be paid to any member, but money would be made available in order that members could be more effective, offer greater services to their constituents and be more available to them. Action along these lines would, I believe, receive general support from hon. member on all sides, besides removing much of the public opposition to this legislation.
Second, I urge that the standing committee studying this bill should give thought to recommending a method for dealing with changes in the salaries and allowances of Parliamentarians in the future. The Beaupre committee was silent on this aspect and the government has not made any recommendation. I believe a committee of the House, while studying Bill C-242, might give a good deal of thought to this question and make recommendations which the government would then have ample opportunity to study before it arose again. One of the difficulties which succeeding government have faced is that, since no one wants to tackle the problem of parliamentary increases, it is always left for a number of years. A substantial amount is then involved and there is always a reaction from the public. It would be much better if indemnities were tied to some objective criteria so that they could be dealt with on an annual or biennal basis. It would not then be necessary for us to conduct this agonizing and embarrassing appraisal of our own work. If

May 3, 1971

the committee would do this, and if the government were prepared to accept a recommendation in favour of some technique of dealing with parliamentary salaries and allowances in the future, Members of Parliament in years to come would not be required to go through the embarrassing and humiliating experience we are called upon to go through in this debate.
I would urge the government to consider this proposal very seriously. I honestly believe that if we were prepared to remove the tax free allowance and work out a technique by which parliamentary salaries were dealt with by some independent body, we would be helping to improve the image of parliament and make the government more credible when it deals with some of the economic issues facing the country.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have here the report of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary salaries and Expenses, report which preceded the bill before us, namely Bill C-242. That report is called the Beaupre Report in honour of the committee chairman, Mr. T. N. Beaupre. At the beginning there is a letter dated November 16, 1970, addressed to the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, President of the Privy Council, House of Commons, Ottawa, which reads thus:
Dear Sir:
We, the members of the Advisory Committee appointed pursuant to Order-in-Council P.C. 1970-230 of February 5th, 1970, have the honour to submit the following Report.
Yours sincerely,



T. N. BEAUPRE

[Stage Direction]
That report was presented on November 16, 1970, following a request made in February 1970.
The least I can say is that, contrary to the slow pace of other investigators hired by the government to work with many commissions, the members of the Beaupre commission did not waste much time and for this they deserve congratulations. But I do not quite understand some of the ensuing recommendations.
In fact, Mr. Beaupre, who is also president of Domtar, sees quite differently the needs of his own employees. Domtar is a company whose importance is recognized both in Canada and in the rest of the business world. In addition to owning several plants and controlling several others, this company is a fairly big stockholder in several areas of the Canadian economy. Among the Domtar plants, there is first the Quevillon plant which I heard about from the people of the Portneuf riding who were hired when this plant was built and who are still working at the production of paper.
In Donnacona, where I live, we are particularly aware of the Domtar plants. We have two of those plants; the first one manufactures newsprint and the other building materials which are well-advertised on television. These plants are rather important and yet, in the field of salaries, the same war between employer and employees is going on. Every second year, the employees must negotiate for two to five months to get what they want. In the case of one of those plants, the last salary increase was granted two years ago. At that time, the employees won a
Senate and House of Commons Act 240 an hour increase, to be granted progressively. The 240 an hour increase granted by Mr. Beaupre to his employees is to be put in effect in three stages for people whose income is only $6,000 per year.
Strangely enough, whereas hon. members already earn $18,000, Mr. Beaupre recommends for them a $7,000 increase at once.
Thereby Mr. Beaupre contradicts himself, I think. And one wonders where he is heading and what he wants, for he has advised the Donnacona employees in writing that though the time has come for negotiating better working conditions, the former agreement having just expired, it is no use seeking any increase this year.
While reading Mr. Beaupre's report, one wonders whether the $7,000 increase in parliamentary allowances which he deems appropriate for hon. members is not some form of acknowledgment of the grants he has already received from the federal government, or a manoeuvre to obtain favours in the years to come.
I find inconceivable a policy under which the government increases members' allowances without worrying at all about parliamentary services. I shall quote from the Beaupre committee report, since it contains parts quite favourable to the constituents. First, it recommends equitable financial provisions in respect to the members of Parliament. Moreover, the committee suggests to restructure the said provisions so that each member may provide the Canadian taxpayers with services as efficient as possible.
The minister's proposals disregard completely the second aim suggested by the Committee and deal with the first somewhat inadequately. Perhaps the parliamentarians need an increased allowance but I am not in full agreement with its timing. The government is requesting manufacturers and workers in private enterprise to limit their demands for higher wages to the productivity growth rate; however, can we do less than those men? Can we vote ourselves this increase without giving a single thought to our constituents? I do not believe so.
Since 1965, except in unemployment and taxes has this government proposed other increases? To ask the question is answering it.
I would now like to quote excerpts of the Beauprd report because I feel that we might perhaps get to the core of the problem:
In our opinion, the conditions under which parliamentarians are required to conduct the business of a nation ... are completely inadequate. Members of Parliament... are often deprived of even the most fundamental facilities requisite to the efficient performance of their duties.
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. New types of social and technical legislation will present members with the need for additional research facilities in order that they may be better informed. We were struck by the fact that so many able and dedicated members who wished to make positive contributions to issues and legislation both as individuals and in committees were unable to do so because of the lack of adequate administrative and research assistance. This can lead to frustration and
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
loss of motivation in even the most dedicated member. An increasing involvement of government in the lives of the citizens and the increasing awareness, sophistication and participation of the public in positive democratic government will require improved communications between the member and each segment of society. It is our belief that the individual member is the most important link in the communication chain that joins government to the public it serves. The committee visualizes the role of the member as becoming more onerous, more complicated, more responsible and more time consuming. Consequently, it will become increasingly important that provisions be made that will permit him to respond quickly and adequately to the requirements of the people.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are now discussing does not provide for the services needed so that a member can better respond to these requirements.
In my colleagues' opinion and in my own, the most important recommendations of the Beaupre committee were related to the field of services.
The committee suggested that each member should have an assistant "to help him cope with his substantial and complex duties both in Ottawa and the constituency". The government is doing nothing of the sort. It has kept its former position on the committee's recommendation that members who so desire should be assisted in setting up a permanent office in their constituency.
Since I represent one of the largest constituencies in Canada, I believe I have reasons to require that some services be provided.
Last week, in support of his request, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) did compare the services he provides with those rendered by the representatives for the three provincial ridings that make up his own federal constituency.
In my case, comparisons may be made on the federal level since even if the constituency of Portneuf is not the largest in Canada, it is gradually becoming one of the most heavily populated; there are now 115,000 people living in Portneuf and this is more than Prince Edward Island which is served by four federal representatives.
Out of those 115,000 inhabitants, some 60,000 will be entitled to vote at the next election. This means that even if only one out of every thousand constituents wishes to see me, I have to meet 40 or 50 of them every weekend at my two offices located in different places in the constituency of Portneuf. And all this is in addition to the many letters addressed to me and the telephone messages my wife receives.
If a citizen of a 2,000 family locality writes to me, I just cannot say that is abusive. I cannot blame anyone for writing me, since I specifically ask people to get in touch with me whenever they feel it is necessary, whenever they feel I can be of use to them. Nevertheless, the fact that I have 115,000 constituents multiples those requirements. As I say again, Portneuf is represented only by one member, whereas Prince Edward Island, with a smaller population, has four representatives.
I also want to discuss the $6,000 now allowed for our expenses, tax-free. Under the present system, this allowance can be used either as such, or as a salary.
Some members, whose expenses are minimal, have no need for such an allowance; it all depends on the territory to be served.
For instance, the Minister of Justice is really very lucky. He does not need his extra $6,000 and I am truly glad for his sake.
But some need a much bigger allowance than others. It is another matter to which paragraph (b) of subclause (S) clause 44 offer a partial solution. In my view, the only possible solution to such a problem is to request vouchers for all expenses. In this way, members of Parliament would be treated on an equal footing and would no longer be penalized, instead of having this unfair system, and genuine expenses would be paid to each member.
Moreover, I object to the extension of this system with regard to the non taxable allowance. I believe that no member of Parliament has the right to have a different tax system than other Canadian taxpayers. The actual allowances are not imposed according to the taxation principles generally admitted in Canada.
I would like to see this procedure rejected immediately whereby members review themselves their salaries and expenses. Let us settle this problem. I think that it would be better to establish an independent commission which could evaluate and review the sessional allowance every two or five years.
However, it is true that, occasionally, we have to work 80 hours a week; but let us not think that we are the only group in society to make efforts.
In the riding of Portneuf as well as in others, but in Portneuf more particularly, where the footwear and slipper industry, for instance, has managed to hold its own in spite of the adverse effects of imports, it is not infrequent to find men who, in order to hold on, put in countless hours of overtime.
In several fields where salaries are not high, workers often have to hold two jobs in order to make both ends meet.
Among those who are also dedicated enough to put in long work weeks, are lumberjacks, farmers, in short, people from all classes of society.
This does not meant that they are the most highly paid. If, for instance, we compare the work of a mother who toils hard day in and day out without pay, with the achievements of successive CN presidents who earn $75,000 a year and still show deficits, you will agree with me that a high salary does not mean competence.
It is evident that some members feel justified in receiving a more substantial allowance on the ground that it is hard for them to make both ends meet. But how many of their electors are not facing the same problem? How many Canadian industries can boast of an easy success? How many tradesmen are not facing financial problems at the present time? How many Canadians are subsisting on hope alone and are awaiting the effects of the just society?

May 3, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Like every one of us, I cannot ignore the 70 per cent of the Canadian people who are unemployed or earn less than $4,000 per year. There are also those whose annual income is $5,000 or $6,000. In that group, there are also the farmers who worry about the situation in which the present government has put them.
I recall, in that regard, the motion proposed by the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) in May
1967,	asking for subsidies in order to raise the price of industrial milk to $5 per cwt. The answer given is known to all. The motion was rejected on the pretext that no money was available.
On December 17, 1970 I moved an amendment to Bill C-202, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. This amendment was simple enough as it proposed a monthly amount of $150 to be paid to every citizen of 60 years of age or over. This amendment was deemed unacceptable by the Speaker because such action would have neces-situated disbursements on the part of the government. If we cannot make payments for the benefit of senior citizens, of people on pension, I do not see very well how we can today increase parliamentary salaries and allowances.
On three occasions I urged in this House the establishment of a guaranteed annual income for Canadians. Under the pretext that this would cost too much, Liberal members who spoke on such occasions felt a compulsion to stifle my proposals which meant a step toward better justice. All those who wish to refer to speeches concerning this matter may find them in Hansard of October 2,
1968,	April 20, 1970 and April 19, 1971 where I moved a motion to this effect.
Right after my election to Parliament, on the occasion of the Speech of the Throne, that is on January 24, 1966, I had hastened to move an amendment for an increase in family allowances. Once again, all Liberal members present voted against it, again for the same reason, lack of money.
When we consider that there are 700,000 unemployed in the country, and when we see every day, under the present administration, factories that have to close down, whether this takes place in La Tuque, Grand'Mere, Montreal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec City or Rimouski, we cannot but question the formula used by the present administration.
When we see young people looking for work throughout the country, we can be doubtful about the efficiency of this administration.
We have already experienced a depression in the years 1929 to 1939. Great experts at that time had succedeed in making us believe that we were slightly to blame since we were uneducated. However, today conditions are different. Young people are afraid of the future; they must wait for better days and see what the Liberal party has to offer. Finally, each spring, each autumn indeed each season, the Liberal party frankly declares to the Canadian people: We have nothing to offer at the present time, but be patient. So the people are waiting especially the young.
Senate and House of Commons Act
If they do so, especially the young people, it is not because they lack training, because we all know that we have now reached the period of the educated unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, the way a country is run is predicated upon its leaders and the failure of the present administration is a clear indication that our leaders are not up to their task.
It is ridiculous that the Canadian people should lack everything because of our affluence and I will not be in a position to support the bill now before us as long as this situation will prevail.
On January 12, 1969, our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), then in Britain, stated that his most cherished economic formula was communism.
Mr. Speaker, if parliamentary indemnities are increased as much as provided by this bill, the Prime Minister's indemnity will be raised to $53,000 from its present level of $45,000. I suggest such a high compensation should not be accepted by a communist leader.
An article by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, titled "Fluctuations economiques et methodes de stabilisation", appeared in Cite libre of March 1954 on page 34. It reads as follows:
The problem still Is to find out whether there Is any limit to unemployment other than utter misery.
The most obvious solution would be to level off income among the various social classes so that the poor will have more to spend and the rich less to save.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the misery of Canadians, I do not think it is time to pocket but rather to share. As long as the government and members of Parliament will not make better services available to Canadian electors, bills such as Bill C-242 will be unacceptable.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I originally had no intention of speaking on this bill and I will not detain the House more than a very few minutes. My attitude toward the bill has already been expressed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I agree with them, that the problem of narrowing the gap between poverty and affluence is the major problem of this society. It seems to me that this bill is not consistent with that purpose. Frankly, I would have a hard time facing the old age pensioners and others on the edge of subsistence in my constituency if I supported this particular measure.
I do think that there are no objections in principle to an increase in the salaries and remuneration of Members of Parliament, but this bill does it in the wrong way and at the wrong time. I think an admirable case can be made out and, indeed, was outlined in the report of the advisory committee on parliamentary salaries and expenses headed by Mr. Beaupre, for a complete change in the practice regarding expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament. An allowance of $6,000 or $8,000 for expenses, income tax free but not accountable for by the members, creates a serious injustice. Some members have actual and clearly accountable expenses of very

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
large amounts, while others have minimal actual expenses. Some members of this House have constituencies so large that travel expenses alone could eat up that expense allowance. Some, such as those with families and younger children, face the difficulty of double residential expenses, while others do not. Some members, and I must admit I am one, have expended considerable sums to maintain at their own expense offices in their constituencies for the service of their constituents. Others do not do so. The result is that the equity of treatment theory, that is giving the same salary to all and the same allowance or expense to all, produces serious inequities among members.
I would be in favour, Mr. Speaker, of increasing accountable expenses which would enable Members of Parliament to do a better job in the service to or in communication with their constituents. However, that is not what this bill does. This bill substantially increases salaries and non-accountable expenses. It fails, however, to provide for the principle of accountability of expenses. I am quite sure there are members in this House whose obligations are such that they need the money involved in the proposed increases, but the plain fact of the matter is that this substantial increase is proposed at a time when every public interest and every public exhortation by the government stresses the necessity of restraint in respect of wages, prices and salaries. I ask this question: how on earth can we, as elected representatives of this country, expect restraint from others which we do not practice ourselves? In short, Mr. Speaker, I think the proposed increase is simply wrong. I know there are sincerely held opinions to the contrary, but I feel obliged to act according to my own judgment and my own conscience and vote against this bill.
Some months ago when this matter first came up for public discussion I made it quite clear to my constituents, and shall do so again, that I do not propose during the present Parliament to accept any personal benefit from the increased salary if it is approved by Parliament.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I may be the last speaker in this debate. I do not know, either, whether an arrangement had been made to perhaps end the debate. I can only say that I have wrestled with this problem for a long time, and perhaps that is the reason I have not risen before now to participate in this debate. On matters affecting my constituents, I try to speak for them in this House. On matters affecting me as a person, I think I owe it to my constituents to allow them to speak for me. I realize there are many members who require a pay increase. I do not think any person really realizes what each Member of Parliament has to go through, any more than I know what type of business operation is behind the store I see as I walk down a street. One day I see a beautiful store. The next day I notice that it is closed down, although I had the impression that it was making a lot of money.
I know people look at the present salary of $18,000 and are influenced by that figure. This is what they throw
back at us. In the past I have supported pay increases and have taken the brunt of the attack in this regard. However, I have not suffered too badly as a result of my stand. I believe I owe an explanation to the House, and perhaps to my constituents, concerning the course of action I intend to take. I realize that my position is different from that of anyone else. I have found it necessary to supplement my income from the income derived from my farm, whenever it has made money. I can honestly say that during the past three or four years it lost money. At the same time, people on farms in the same area suffered the same fate. I have a young family which I must consider. I must also consider the electorate and remind myself that some day they may ask me to stay home.
I realize that the situation may be different in respect of a bachelor because I was in that position myself as a member of this House over a period of four years. I know how easy it was for me to get around the constituency when I had no other obligations. Now, however, the situation is different. I have a constituency which is perhaps different from most constituencies. In addition, I know the difficulties involved in trying to get around my constituency and still maintain some semblance of family life. I realize there should be a better system of pay increases than we have at present. The bill does not set out a formula which would avoid the necessity of our having to go through this same procedure again. I believe the constituents in my area have perhaps a different attitude from that of constituents in many other areas. In many urban areas where there are many doctors, lawyers, successful businessmen and the like, it is conceivable that the people accept the principle involved in this legislation. I, however, must walk up and down the streets of nearly deserted towns.
My constituency has been expanded to the point that it is almost impossible to serve it properly. Many Indians and others who populate the northern part of my constituency have not been visited because it is most difficult to do so. The area is very great. As I have said, the constituency has become larger and larger after each redistribution. The population in this area has become smaller because there is no money to be made in that area. I noticed an announcement in the newspaper the other day that bricklayers are to receive something in the order of $6.69 an hour. In areas where such salaries are not unusual, it is perhaps easy to obtain a measure of support for an increase of this kind. In my situation, this is not the case. Also, in a rural area campaign funds are pretty difficult to obtain. I have been involved in seven campaigns and I know who has had to foot the bill. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, quite freely that there would be some political advantage in my supporting this bill because I could easily use the extra money to my own advantage. But I believe there are other important considerations.
Because there are many people in my area who have low incomes, it is possible that rather than having volunteers come forward to see what might be done, people might come forward to see how much they could get from a member in view of the increase in pay. Try to
[Mr. Brewin.l
May 3, 1971

divide this amount among constituents and then see how much you have left. As an experienced Member of Parliament I believe I have some contribution to make in this House and to the welfare of our country, at least more than was the case 13 years ago when I came here as a greenhorn. Therefore, I wish to set out my views on what I believe is a very difficult situation. I realize there are members here who sincerely need this increase in pay because they have no other source of income. I wish to state also that I believe most members so far have indicated-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


@Acting Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth (Mr. Gibson)-Elections-Provision of right to vote to Canadians residing outside country; the hon. member for Humber-St. George-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-National Parks-Bonne Bay-Letting of contract for survey work; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Youth-Opportunities for Youth Program- criteria used in considering applications.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like the consent of the House to revert to motions for a moment in order to move a reference to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which has been requested. This is a reference I promised the committee some time ago. If I had the consent of the House, I would move it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I move:
That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be given authority to hear the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Supply and Services in respect of procedural changes made and action taken in accordance with item 5 of the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on paragraph 101, refit and improvements of HMCS Bonaventure laid before the House May 13, 1970.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The House has heard the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
National Education Standards


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business, as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Louis-Roland Comeau: That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should consider the advisability of taking the initiative in securing to collaboration of the provinces in the convening of a national conference on uniform standards in primary and secondary education.
He said: Hon. members will recall that this subject was debated on March 2, 1970. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were put forward then, nor do I intend to repeat my own arguments. However, I am very concerned about this matter, and it is for that reason I have again included this motion on the Order Paper in this session.
Last year the motion was talked out, and it will probably receive the same treatment this year. But if I can achieve one purpose, that is to get the provinces along with the federal government, but particularly the provinces, to look at this problem and to consider it at any future conferences, then I will have achieved something. So I am certainly glad to have another opportunity to debate this matter. It is a very important matter because it affects both youth and the movement of families. This debate also gives me an opportunity to respond to some of the objections raised by hon. members in the last debate on this subject. At that time, some hon. members felt, for one reason or another, that they could not support the motion while others felt they could. So, my argument today will be a rebuttal of the arguments put forward by hon. members on March 2, as recorded at page 4242 of Hansard of that date.
I wish to make it very clear that I believe educational matters are the responsibility of the provinces. Section 93 of the British North America Act sets this down very clearly. I am not advocating that the federal government take over this responsibility. The motion simply calls for the convening of a conference for the specific purpose of trying to work out a deal whereby our students will not lose credits by moving from province to province. I am simply advocating a greater co-operation between provinces rather than that the federal government take over education because, while education is a provincial matter, surely we agree that the federal government is also involved in it. Grants and loans are made to the prov-
5448

May 3, 1971
National Education Standards inces for educational purposes. We are very involved in student loans, in vocational training, in the program of training and retraining through the Department of Manpower and Immigration. These programs make it clear that the federal government is involved in an indirect way in education, and for this reason I have no hesitation in moving this motion which simply calls for a conference to be convened to inspire co-ordination and co-operation among the provinces.
In this motion, I ask the government of Canada to convene a conference, in view of its involvement in education, because of the inequalities that exist in the educational systems of the different provinces, in equalities that existed last year and continue to exist this year.
True, representatives of provincial governments meet at times to consider certain problems which come up in the field of education.
But I am not satisfied and that is why I would like the point on which I want to insist to be brought to the attention of provincial ministers of education in order to satisfy young people who travel across Canada.
Last year, I quoted figures, and I do not want to recall them. But I said that more than 100,000 young people who moved many times from one province to another are facing different education systems, which is no doubt likely to delay their progress.
It is therefore important to know that over 100,000 young people go from one province to the other every year.

course. I simply want the authorities to come together and realize that people are moving across this country, and that the credits given by one province should be recognized in another province. This is all I am asking, Mr. Speaker.

I therefore trust, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will understand my objections and the purpose of this motion.

Therefore I hope that hon. members who participate in this debate will recognize the spirit in which I am moving this motion. I am not seeking a uniform standard in the sense that the same courses should be offered in all provinces, but simply to have the credits given by each individual province recognized by all the other provinces so that our young people will not lose their credits when they move from one province to another.


Mr. Maurice Fosier (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) is to be congratulated on his perseverance in bringing this matter before the House today because the uniformity of education at approximate levels across the country is a matter of great concern. The constitutional committee has been travelling across the country recently, and I understand there is hardly any matter which comes up more frequently at its hearings than the uniformity of educational standards across Canada.
Section 93 of the British North America Act sets out that education is a provincial responsibility. I am sure that when the Fathers of Confederation sat down to draft that document in the years immediately preceding 1867 they thought of education in terms of small red brick buildings along concession roads throughout rural Ontario and the other provinces which were to become Canada. In this day of computers, modern technology and rapid transit, education has become an all-encompassing part of our way of life. We are involved in education from the age of three or four years right up to adulthood. If we were drafting a new BNA Act today, it seems to me it would be a far different document from the old one. I believe that most Canadians, if they had a chance to vote in a plebiscite, would opt for education being a federal matter so that people moving from one province to another would be able to move freely, without their children having to move back a grade in school or having to wait for a year while the students in their new class caught up with them.
Many representations have been made to the Constitutional Committee, and I am sure the hon. member for South Western Nova has received similar pleas, by people who believe that our educational standards should be more unified. Senator Cameron, who is an outstanding educator in our country, particularly experienced in the adult level of education, has often advocated the establishment of a national office of education which would be a sort of clearing house for the provincial departments across the country. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this would be a very valid start on providing a more uniform system throughout the country.
National Education Standards
Even though the federal government has no responsibility for education it is deeply involved in education, not only at the adult level through the Canada Manpower programs but even at the post-secondary level. Recently, Mr. Speaker, I placed a question on the order paper asking how much was spent by the federal government on the various universities throughout Ontario, and the reply listed the grants made to these institutions. It pointed out that grants were made through three programs, the first being health resources fund which assists the province towards the capital cost of health training facilities at various universities. The second program is the Medical Research Council grants, and the third is welfare grants, both of which consist of funds for a combination of capital and operating expenses, and are given to individual investigators rather than to universities.
The total for Carleton University for the last five years was given as $170,377. Another example is the University of Toronto which received $32,879,745 over the past five years. The list totals upwards of $50 million in this area of health grants alone for post-secondary education. As I say, the hon. member is to be congratulated for bringing this motion before the House. Certainly, within our provincial boundaries we have trouble maintaining the same quality and level of education. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I had considerable experience in establishing district school boards which would provide an equivalent standard throughout a small area. When this project is moved to the national scene in an attempt to provide equivalent standards across the whole country, it poses some problems but this does not mean we should not strive toward this end. Perhaps a national conference would be the first step.
In the area where I was active on the school board, for instance, there were very few kindergartens. When the new district board was established, which combined ten small township boards, then we had kindergartens throughout the area. This was a rural area where it was difficult to provide transportation and busing. It seems to me when larger units of administration are established the level throughout the district tends to rise to the top level, so perhaps this would be the case throughout Canada. If we were to have national levels and a grant system to support this, I am sure we would find that the level of education would move upwards in the provinces from the lower standards toward the highest standards which exist in the country.
Surely, education and training combined are the most important factors in the standard of living of any country. We used to believe that national resources or capital were the key to providing a high standard of living, but I am not sure that this is the case today. We know of countries which are very rich in natural resources, but which have a very low level of education and usually their standard of living is low. In other countries with large amounts of capital, if the education level is low then the standard of living tends to be low.
24081-64J

May 3, 1971
National Education Standards
I like to use the term "training" as well as "education" because it seems to me that we tend to relate the word education to academic subjects whereas training tends to encompass more. When we raise the level of training and education in a country, we automatically raise the standard of living. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support the motion of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). I think he was wise in bringing this motion before the House this afternoon for debate during private members' hour. I am sure this is one of the most worth-while motions we will be debating in this House.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I, too, admire the motivation which prompted the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) to move this particular motion this afternoon. I find myself in somewhat the same position as the minister of education for the province of Manitoba. The member for South Western Nova indicated that perhaps the minister did not understand what he was seeking, I am not quite certain either what the member is seeking.


Louis-Roland Comeau: You didn't listen.


Mark Willson Rose: In his motion he makes the point that he would like the federal government to convene a national conference on uniform standards in primary and secondary education. In his speech he went on to say that he really did not desire uniform standards at all, but really was favouring the more individualized instruction. I do not know whether this means that he supports what he has said in the motion or whether he has qualified that in the speech we heard this afternoon.
In previous speeches I, too, have pointed out the desirability of some sort of uniform minimum educational norm across Canada. Perhaps this motion is quite modest in its extent because it calls for a conference on the subject. I am going to commit the supreme act of egotism and refer to a press report of my maiden speech in which I made some points on this very subject. At that time, I suggested that we should have a permanent national office of education. I agree with the member for South Western Nova and also the member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that education is assuming a much larger role in our present society than it did when the constitution was first framed. I also agree that the constitutional picture would be quite different if this matter were before us now. I should take a mild excursion here to point out that, although education in the United States is a state matter there has been a federal office of education there for nearly a century. There is nothing to prevent us from having the same thing in Canada.
I suggest that a national office of education would give leadership in establishing some uniform minimum grade equivalents and subject norms across the country; it could stimulate and co-ordinate education research so that we would not remain dependent upon the importation of foreign educational research, money and skills; it could effectively help administer grants, directly to institutions if necessary, and hasten the day when postsecondary education at public expense would be accepted
in the same way as secondary and primary education and, finally, it could handle education matters at the international level. We have had a number of embarrassing moments because education comes under provincial jurisdiction, when provincial representations at certain conferences have been taken as representing all of Canada. An office of education could co-ordinate such things as the Canada Council and other agencies in programs to make our cultural identity and cultural life much more meaningful.
I can go along with the member for South Western Nova from that point of view. Perhaps he has thought about it since presenting his original resolution last March and is beginning to recognize that what he suggested, that is uniform standards across the country, really means a return to the lock-step approach in which every child is taught the same thing in every classroom at the same hour of the day. I think he now realizes that this is contrary to the trends in education outlined in the excellent Ontario Hall-Dennis report, moving away from all kinds of rigidity, inflexibility and superimposed external structure. Instead, educators are concentrating upon a much more humanitarian and individualized curricula and methods in a modern way which is more in tune with the child's unique talent, interest and needs.
I recognize that support of minimum norms across Canada is only a halfway house. I also recognize the problem of mobility of people. Many people with children face a great deal of difficulty in the educational system when they move from one area of Canada to another. The minimum norms might be useful there in a number of ways, but only as a halfway measure to the day when each school system will have an individualized type of instruction for each child.
One of the reasons we talk about standards of norms is that each school system is hung-up with screening devices. In order to achieve academic respectability, each child has to be successful in jumping certain prescribed academic hurdles. The only way to academic sense is through the five holy roads, which include English, social studies, mathematics and a foreign language. It is about time our universities and schools got away from that type of thinking. There are many more meaningful things for young people, and certain intellectual interests, than this recipe which is not necessarily nourishing for all children. Uniform standards in the extreme are very wasteful in terms of manpower; they are grossly inconsistent with the objectives of the modern state.
As I said earlier, I recognize the problems of co-operation. Canada is recognized as a country with vast regional variations. I support the statement made by the hon. member that the people of some regions are permanently disadvantaged because of an impoverished educational system. This is certainly true of many rural areas in all provinces. It is true in terms of parts of the Maritimes, parts of Quebec and mid-Canada.
As the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) pointed out, there is a strong correlation between educational

May 3, 1971

standards and affluence. The poor areas do not have enough money to spend on teacher training, buildings, equipment, curricula, development, and so on. The students are disadvantaged because of this, and the gap is growing wider. The same can be said from country to country and, as in our case, from province to province within a country.
About one year ago the Globe and Mail contained an excellent article about the lack of educational opportunities for Metis and Indians and how the lack of a suitable educational system had a negative effect on the future they could build for themselves. I would have been much happier to support this motion if the word "norm" had been used instead of "uniform standards". I think a standard applies undue rigidity. It also applies an autocratic superimposition upon the student of a particular area. The public regard it as a box in which all children, regardless of ability, are squeezed. We stamp-out a particular product, like cookies. If we had a minimum norm for all children it would be extremely useful to students, parents and teachers.
As long as we look upon norms as being voluntarily accepted, they will be valuable as objectives. They are of value to parents and students to compare the quality of education in a particular district with the national minimal norm. If one area is below the norm, parents can bring certain pressures on the local educational system to have it at least brought up to the minimum standard. It would be useful to have this pointed out.
When talking about norms, we should consider special norms for disadvantaged groups. Children in some areas do not have the same educational advantages nor the social, domestic or home advantages. This is reflected in their level of achievement in school. If we had minimum norms for these people it would be very useful. There could be a special norm for certain ethnic, immigrant minorities. We cannot expect everybody to jump over the same hurdle at the same time. We do not expect this in athletics, nor should we expect it in education. There could be special norms for Metis and Indians who are so often out of their own depth. It is very tragic when Indians and Metis, who have reached a certain level in their schools, come to an urban school and find that they cannot "hack it" because their educational background is insufficient. This would be helpful in assisting these disadvantaged groups.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Algoma that education per se will solve the problems of all people. I do not agree that a high educational standard necessarily means a high economic standard or high standard of living. I do not know whether it is a cause or effect. It may be that a high economic standard produces a high standard of education. It is like the chicken and the egg. I am not convinced it is necessarily so.
We have tended to oversell success through education. In the past few months many people have placed their faith in being highly educated, only to find that the economy of our country is not sufficiently developed to absorb them. Ph.Ds and others with high academic qualifications are joining the ranks of the unemployed.
National Education Standards
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is nodding in agreement. I know that he believes in this because he has mentioned it in the House many times.
There is a fundamental disillusionment with universal literacy. We thought that when literacy became universal everybody in our country would suddenly become very interested in politics, that they would become leaders, and that sort of thing. However, people are becoming influenced, not by the press but by the listening media. Mr. McLuhan has had some interesting things to say about this subject.
I think the motivation behind this motion is positive and goes in the right direction.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Does the hon. member think that grade 11, for example, should be recognized as grade 11 from one province to the next? This is what I think is meant by uniform standards in the sense that credits are not lost in moving from one province to another.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has risen on this point. He asked whether I believed this. I was not certain, after his speech, what he believed. I would be prepared to say that grade 11 is grade 11; it should mean 11 years in school. We should not rule that grade 11 means the successful passing of one particular course as opposed to another when one course might not be suited to a student's particular talents. I should like to go into a great deal more detail on that point, but time will not permit.
Employers have been unduly impressed by certain documents such as certificates and diplomas. I do not believe education makes a person intelligent. I do not think education has anything to do with intelligence. Education provides a certain amount of verbal facility, perhaps, but it does not make a person smart. There are many young people who do not possess the standard academic qualifications yet they are capable of making an excellent contribution to society. Too often they are ruled out because they do not possess a union card or a certificate of education. Employers deduce from this that they lack ability. I do not think this is necessarily so. Moreover, school is often not the best place in which to store people for 11, 12 or 15 years. We are foolish if we suggest that education ends when we leave school. Frequently, far more education takes place out of school than inside it.


An hon. Member:: You are talking it out.


Mark Willson Rose: I shall not talk the motion out. I cannot, in any case, because I am limited to 20 minutes. If there are no further interruptions, I shall end in a few moments; otherwise I shall ask the Speaker to substract the time taken by interruptions from the total time available to me.

May 3, 1971
National Education Standards
In addition to considering the interchange of educational levels from province to province, we might give some thought to the interchangeability of teaching services. I see no reason why a teacher should not be able to move, freely across provincial boundaries. For example, if a person wishes to teach in my own province of British Columbia rather than in the hon. member's province of Nova Scotia, he should be free to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It would be quite a benefit.


Mark Willson Rose: The contempt shown by some provinces for certificates issued by others is something we could do without. I support the concept dealt with by the hon. member in his explanation, but I do not support what the hon. member has put down in the written part of his motion as it appears in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. Nevertheless, he has explained his proposal satisfactorily to me and in these circumstances I think the conference he proposes would be a tremendous step in the right direction. Incidentally, the hon. member may not know this but there has been a secretariat of ministers of education in existence for the last three or four years. It is not the most energetic body in the world, and if it has done anything in that period it has failed to impress me by what it may have accomplished.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because I know other hon. members wish to speak, including the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams.)
I had the privilege of speaking on this subject when it was raised by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) last year. I simply wish to report to the House that the problem he has raised for our consideration today is a very practical and important one in Canada. We have an extremely mobile population and in the course of a lifetime many families move not only within provinces but from province to province. This presents an extremely serious situation for many of those who live in my constituency in the suburbs of Ottawa, members of the public service who are obliged by the nature of their occupation and in the service of their country to move from province to province. I have found in all my dealings with my constituents that one of the problems which is most real in their minds is that of the proper education of their children having regard to the fact that they must move from province to province.
My main reason for speaking in this debate is not to repeat what I said last year, but simply to report that our debate at that time struck a very responsive chord in my constituency and elsewhere in the country. I see the hon. member for South Western Nova nods his head; I am sure he received a similar response. I was amazed at the number of letters I received from people telling me about the difficulties they had encountered in the education of their children because of the necessity to move from one educational system to another.
I was delighted that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) qualified his contribution toward the end of his remarks. I say this because there has been in the
discussion of the matter before us a certain academic prissiness; I might say, a degree of pedagogic rhetoric. The idea has been put forward that because there are new theories of pedagogy apparently designed to concentrate on the individual characteristics of each child, it would be a step backward for a conference to consider the better co-ordination of educational systems in this country. As the hon. member for South Western Nova made very clear, the mere fact that we now have new theories of pedagogy makes it all the more important there should be close co-ordination; children who move from one province which might still be operating under an old educational theory to another operating on the newer theory would suffer an even greater disadvantage.
I am not at all concerned whether we say that our aim is to secure more uniform standards, to establish what are called norms, to bring about co-ordination, or simply to recognize the fact that in Canada we have a unique problem arising from the extreme mobility of our population. The truth is that there is a problem which Parliament ought to recognize. It is not one just for pedagogues, boards of education or Members of Parliament: it is a problem for children whose education has been impeded-some of them, indeed, have suffered grave disadvantages likely to affect their future simply because we labour under a disorganized educational system.
In my opinion we should compliment the hon. member for South Western Nova on bringing this motion before us, and we should urge with all the force at our command that the proper authorities meet to consider what might be done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak at any length because in my opinion this motion is of such importance as to justify the House approving it before private members' hour ends at six o'clock. I support wholeheartedly the motion put forward by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). It is obvious that the hon. member has worded his motion with a great deal of care. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should consider the advisability of taking the initiative in securing the collaboration of the provinces in the convening of a national conference on uniform standards-
That is, uniformity of curricula.
-in primary and secondary education.
So he is talking about uniformity across the country in education, whether in the province of Quebec, Alberta or Ontario. Why has the hon. member worded it in that way? The reason goes back to the British North America Act and to the question of constitutional jurisprudence. In order to bring together Upper and Lower Canada, the province of Quebec-and properly so-asked that in the terms of confederation the question of education be left to the provinces. I suppose this is also the reason we had the B and B Commission.
I do not think our constitution is going to be changed in this regard, and perhaps this is why the party to which the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. 
May 3, 1971

Rose) belongs has had such a lot of trouble ironing out their Quebec policy. But I am confident that no matter how many conferences or committees study our Constitution, the provisions relating to education will remain intact.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The motion does not say that we cannot get the ten provinces together at a conference in order to iron out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) rising on a point of order?


Mark Willson Rose: To ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. I have listened intently to the distinguished member for Fraser Valley West and I do wish he would give me a few moments. As far as his argument is concerned, every member of this House climbs the political ladder. Although he endorsed the motion, like many politicians he was climbing the ladder but proving himself wrong by wrong by wrong. As far as this motion is concerned, he defeated his own argument by his own intelligence-his highly-developed intelligence, I might say, since he is one of the best scholars in this House.
So the reason the motion was worded in this way is because of the Constitution. To the provinces was delegated jurisdiction over education. Therefore, I submit the motion is properly worded. The gist of both speeches on this side is that the hon. members were asking for the same thing but by a different method. The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) was absolutely correct in putting the motion in the way he has.
I support the idea that has been put forward in the motion. We are becoming more nationalistic today. We are entering a period where people move much more from place to place. Members of Parliament who have young families have to move from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, as I did myself some years ago. My children are a little older now, of course, and I have grown a little older myself; but when students from Alberta come to Ontario they almost have to start a new course of study. This is what the motion is trying to cure. Perhaps I am being disrespectful to my own province in saying this, but when my daughter came to Ottawa, although she had been an accelerated student in her class in Alberta she found she was at the bottom of the heap here and had to work hard to catch up. The elementary curriculum in Ontario is of much higher standard than it is in Alberta. This is what the hon. member is seeking to cure.
I hope that government members will endorse this motion and not talk it out. Uniformity is a matter that is important to the welfare of our youth, particularly to the education of our youth. This is why I endorse the motion. It is drawn in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement reached at confederation; it is in accordance with the terms and conditions of our constitution; it is also in accordance with the needs and demands
National Education Standards
of our young people who require uniform standards of primary and secondary education across the country.
In view of the arguments put forward, I hope the House will now move to adopt the motion so that the government is moved to gratify the desires of the hon. member who was motivated to prove it.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the intervention of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has inspired me to say a few words on this motion, though not with any intention of talking it out. However, I have been left with so little time that perhaps I shall not be able to complete all my remarks in the time allotted to me, in which case I shall look forward to continuing them the next time this important notice of motion comes before this chamber.
My opening remarks are to express the gratitude of the House for the thoughtful care with which the hon. member for Calgary North clarified the careful thoughtfulness of the motion moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), and we are indebted to him. Most of us understood the motion before the clarification, but since we have had this clarification we can now deal with the motion itself.
In his remarks the hon. member for South Western Nova was correct when he pointed out that whenever we in this House embark on a discussion of education we are always careful to point out that jurisdiction over this field is clearly with the provinces. He made that point and all other speakers have confirmed it. He also made a fairly good case for common standards of education across the country-not, as he said, where there is one history book and one geography text. Like the rest of us, he claimed that he would support a system which allowed for the maximum degree of diversity along the lines suggested so cogently in the Hall-Dennis report.
He then went on to make a very interesting and fairly compelling case for the calling of a conference to discuss such standards. I share the views of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) that a conference is perhaps not the best forum. I suggest this would really fall to the council of ministers of education. I think that the step the hon. member took in the interval between his previous address to the House and his speech today, namely, if writing to provincial ministers of education and making the submission to which he referred, is a constructive and useful one.
The hon. member also made the point, and made it very well, that in a federation children raised in one province should not be penalized academically if for one of a variety of reasons the head of the household is transferred. I feel strongly that this is the sort of thing that could well be discussed by a council of ministers of education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The private members' hour having expired, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act

On a rainy day, in troubled times, the following lines might be consoling to


some hon. members:: Be still, sad heart! and cease repining;
Behind the clouds is the sun still shining;
Thy fate is the common fate of all,
Into each life some rain must fall,
Some days must be dark and dreary.
Longfellow wrote those words in his poem "The Rainy Day".
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 an 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.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, just before private members' hour I was attempting to point out that each constituency is different and that each member must therefore see things from a different point of view. I attempted to indicate that in many urban areas a great many people such as bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, and so on, earn more than the salary of a Member of Parliament. I represent a riding which is faced with a different situation: the average salary in my riding is much less.
There are many Indians resident in my riding, and I do not have to tell anybody what their average salary is. I represent a riding in which the miners are involved in a strike. Hon. members will appreciate the effects a strike situation has on a community which is almost solely dependent upon the payroll of one industry. For a consecutive number of years there have been crop failures in my area. This has caused a great deal of difficulty because the area is dependent upon the sale of grain. These are the types of people I deal with and live among.
To these people a large increase in the salary of a body of legislators is difficult to explain. Very few people really know the problems of others, but the salary an MP receives is public knowledge. People often get the impression that an MP is able to save his salary. Many have the impression that we still have the first nickel we were paid; they feel they have expenses, but we do not.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
This situation remains difficult because the government has not devised a formula of increasing the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament. Within one, two, three, four or five years, this or another Parliament will again be faced with a similar problem. The public seems to accept the fact that civil servants deserve increases. I think there is a time and place for this. In any event, I have to explain to my constituents an increase such as is proposed in this bill.
Perhaps to some extent this increase is justified. Like everyone else, my banker and I know what the situation is. I think a partial increase on the basis of a formula would have been far more acceptable. Even if I were to go along with the proposed increase-and there may be some justification for it-it is difficult to explain. In my federal riding there are no less than eight provincial constituencies. Each member of the Saskatchewan legislature receives $9,000, and the legislature may sit for only six or eight weeks per year. During the remainder of the year these representatives can be gainfully employed at their own occupations. In addition, these representatives are within easy reach of all parts of their constituencies: perhaps within an hour's drive they can visit all the areas they represent. They do not have to maintain a second residence because they are away from home only three or four days each week and can climb on a bus in Regina and travel home each weekend. When I compare this situation with my own, I wonder why I should apologize for any action of this type which the federal government sees fit to take.
Many of the Members from Saskatchewan represent northern ridings and have to fly into these areas in order to keep in touch with their constituents. In order to do so, one is lucky to get by on less than 50 cents per air mile. Hon. members can imagine how quickly this expense will grow. On such a trip a member might visit 50 communities where he sees some very shy children and a few squaws who have not accompanied their husbands to their jobs in the bush or on the fishing lakes, whatever the local employment might be.
You find out how fruitless and wasteful the expenditure of money can be in such areas, as well as how politically ungainful these things can be-because the money can be spent in many better ways. But, I believe these people have as much right as anybody else to be represented. When I realize that eight members of the provincial legislature take home something like $72,000 for representing the same area which I represent federally, and realize also that I am about 2,000 miles away from home, I think of the frustrations I have in attempting to maintain a farm for the future benefit of my family and myself should I be asked to stay home.
When I think of such things I have no hesitancy in respect of this increase. Most people, however, are very reluctant to accept it because when they look at the size of someone else's farm they believe that farming operation makes money while their does not. This is an automatic point of view. When I consider that some public servants, as I understand it, have had an increase from
May 3, 1971

1963 until the present time from $12,000 to $28,000 a year, I see some justification for our increase. But I think there must be a limit in respect of this whole matter.
In my final assessment of this question, I hope the government will take a hard look at the subject of salaries and place it in its proper perspective. I believe this question should be taken out of Parliament because nobody wants to talk about his own needs. I suppose our job is to talk about everybody else's needs but not our own. I suppose our families should tell us about our needs. This is not a very pleasant subject. It is not very pleasant to be involved in an argument about what we should or should not get, because each of us has his own requirements. All one needs do is become involved in a poker game with people who each have $100 to realize that pretty soon one or two individuals will have all the money and the others will either be in the hole or will have no money. This is the way of life.
However, if I should decide to vote against this bill I do not think I have any obligation to turn the money over to the government or to any other organization. I realize some members have committed themselves to such action. On reflection, I believe they may find in a year or two that their situation has changed and they will find things much more difficult than they do today. Whenever I vote for an issue which is voted down by the House, I have to live with it because it becomes the legislation of the land. If it should involve a tax increase, I must pay it whether I voted for or against it.
If, for instance, I should vote against Bill C-176 and Parliament should vote it in, I would have to live with it. I was in this House on the day when to all intents and purposes we voted down a government and one day later another vote was taken and the government was given another chance. Those were the rules that were established. I had to live with that decision. I voted for personal income tax exemptions, and they were not accepted -but I had to live with it. So I do not believe I must commit myself to anything. If Parliament in its wisdom says there will be an increase, so shall it be. But if it should say there will not be an increase, so also shall it be. I believe it is necessary that some of us stand up and object to these things. It will be a sad day in Parliament when someone does not rise and object to some of the actions being proposed.
I do not think an increase which can be interpreted to represent a 50 per cent salary boost can in any way be justified. We have lived through a period of several years and I believe we may be able to survive during the next year. I believe a better time for any increase would be after the next election. Perhaps a partial increase would have been acceptable at this time, but not a final one. I think that would have been a wiser course to have followed.
A formula should have been adopted in which rules would be set up to take this whole messy business out of this House. If it were taken out of this House, perhaps a commission could be set up either under the Auditor General or the Public Service Commission so that if an increase should be granted to the public service we would receive whatever increase might be applicable to
Senate and House of Commons Act the category in which it was decided we should fall. Although this is detail in which I do not wish to become involved, I believe it would have been a wiser course to have followed.
Another thing which might be noted at this time is that most of the objections to this increase have come from members from western Canada. It must also be noted that western Canada is the area of greatest frustration at this time under the present government. It is because we reflect the feelings of our constituents that we must speak out now to indicate that there is grave concern in the minds of many people about the course of action now being followed.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, this debate, which has been going on for three days so far, is a very important one in that it is a touchy matter for members to vote themselves a raise.
This matter has been thoroughly aired over the last few weeks and it seems that this publicity has not brought about a clear understanding of the situation so far. This is why we have been receiving-for I believe my colleagues also have received a lot of mail-numerous protest letters on the subject of a raise in indemnities for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), for ministers and for members of Parliament in general.
A recurring argument advanced in these letters as well as in private conversations is that members should not be entitled to a big indemnity since they are not working. When people say that members are doing nothing, they do not mean so much that members are not working, but rather that they do not produce, that they produce little or badly, that is to say that most of the laws they enact, as is the case for that matter in most provincial legislatures, are not wanted by the electorate. In all their operations, Parliaments seem to be a knack for passing laws which people do not want. Therefore it is not surprising that there is a great deal of protest against the increase in the allowances and expenses of hon. members and senators.
Mr. Speaker, is a ticklish situation for hon. members to have to decide on their own allowances, but it seems that nobody else has the jurisdiction to do so. When an employee seeks an increase in salary from his employer, the latter considers first of all whether the employee is hard-working, qualified and efficient. Then, he will analyse the financial situation of the concern. If it is flourishing, the increase will likely be granted. But if it is in deficit, or on the verge of bankruptcy, I doubt that the employer will accept to grant the increase.
The situation being what it is, I feel the question is timely. Are all hon. members competent, industrious, efficient? That is what the public must ask themselves.
In addition, is the business of the country that prosperous, especially in the largest industry in the land, that is the Canadian Parliament?
The present economic situation leaves much to be desired. Indeed, were an industry as deep in debt as the

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
Canadian government is, it would not go very far. Were that industry to pay as much interest to financiers as the largest industry in Canada does, I am afraid it could not continue to produce and sell at a profitable price. Yet that is the situation of the largest industry in Canada. The Canadian Parliament must bear that monumental debt and pay $2 billion in interest this year. Yet, the administrators of that large industry are asking, in addition, that their allowances and expenses be increased.
When the last increase was voted in 1963, the main argument of the right hon. Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was that in order to attract men of high caliber as prospective members of Parliament it was necessary to offer them a decent salary. I agree, but that same reason was given by the present Prime Minister, at least at a press conference following the introduction of the bill before us.
But did many men of value get closer to the present Liberal Party? I have no doubt that men of worth became interested in the Liberal party as in any other political party. However, have those talented men been fully efficient? Have they had the opportunity to let their constituents or the Canadian people benefit by their ability? This answer is quite simple. No. The system does not enable them to do so.
When we consider the actions of our government since 1963, we can ask ourselves if the laws enacted show the merits of the elected representatives. Do they represent what the people had asked from their representatives or from the government?
The repeal of death penalty for qualified murder, the legislation on divorce and homosexuality the liberaliza-ment and inflation, were those measures asked to the representatives of the people? Do we deserve, in their opinion, this raise?
I have here a recently established newspaper run by one of the former colleagues of my hon. friends opposite, the Hon. Yvon Dupuis. This week, he asks the following question:
Are our Members of Parliament worth $30,000 a year?
According to Mr. Dupuis, the remuneration of $26,000, of which $8,000 are tax-free, is equivalent to a salary of $30,000 in other fields of the Canadian industry.
Do they deserve such a salary?
If each citizen asks himself the following question: "Is my MP worth $30,000 a year?", he may draw favourable or unfavourable conclusions according to the type of MP who represents his constituency in the Commons. Indeed, there are at least two kinds of MPs who have a different way of exercising their mandate. For instance, certain representatives of the people owe their election to the mere fact that they were candidates of the best party running or under the banner of the best leader-
Mr. Dupuis should have added "especially of the party with the biggest slush fund." There, he would have been on more familiar grounds.
He went on to say:
-our parliamentary system allows this kind of phenomenon even though this is basically unacceptable.
Then there are the members who were elected above all on the strength of their individual ability or of the prestige they enjoy in their communities. It is therefore easy to say that the former are overpaid while the latter deserve the greatest consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the best answer to that question is to be found in that paragraph. Many members have succeeded in getting elected only because they had the support of their party and they have spent some thirty years here without once opening their mouths. They are like fish. Do those members deserve a raise in salary such as the one now proposed?
On the other hand, there are many others in all parties who work hard for their constituents. Some give up 70 to 80 hours per week to the service of their electors. Those deserve a decent salary, at least as much as in the building trades in the large cities such as Montreal and Toronto.
Mr. Dupuis also speaks about the noodles, and I quote:
The late Andre Laurendeau and Gerard Pelletier (former newspaperman and editor of La Presse) were fond of saying that many of our members, especially in Ottawa, were noodles.
It is easy to describe the member who is a noodle. He is the one who never sees his electors, who does not take part in debates in the House, who does not belong to any committee, who is never seen anywhere during his four-year term and who only comes back before his electors once every four years to ask for re-election on behalf of this great leader or that great party.
Mr. Speaker, I have often heard a Liberal member of Montreal say that the best way to get elected is to be known as little as possible by the electors. Today this hon. member holds a certain post in the public service. He is now quite prosperous. And God knows that such members are numerous enough to be talked about.
We rely on our electors to find these ghost members who are not doing much in Ottawa. Of course, $30,000 a year is much too much for them. Is it not paying rather a lot per pound for noodles?
While reading an article in a newspaper called Defi, a newspaper of the people for the people, written by the people, where everybody may express freely his opinions, I remembered that in the index of House of Commons Debates for the current session, from October 8, 1970 to March 11, 1971, that is 94 sessional days, there were 13 Liberal members who had not yet made any comment. On the other hand, there were 12 who had made comments only once, 12 who had made comments twice, and nine who had made comments three times. It is a rather poor record!
Mr. Speaker, I would rather not name these hon. members. I think it would be deemed unparliamentary. At least, objections would be raised somewhere, I think. If it is agreeable to the House, I am ready to table the list which could be published as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should know that, under Standing Orders, it is forbidden to table such a document. I will suggest to him that this is quite elementary.

May 3, 1971


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I will comply with your recommendation and go on with my remarks.
Considering this much too high unemployment rate, the uncontroled inflation, the destitution, poverty and worry of those who still have a job, I feel this is not the right time for members of Parliament to grant themselves such a substantial increase at one fell swoop. When a third of our fellow Canadians are enduring hardships, with little hope of an improvement in their situation under the present system, they are justified in being dissatisfied.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, two or three letters from my constituents. I could quote from hundreds of that kind Here is one:
Mr. Minister,
The writer is not addressing the Prime Minister, or any minister. She just calls me "minister".
This is to ask you to peruse the notice of acceptance I received from the Quebec Pension Plan.
I am writing you because I have faith in your ability and in your efficiency within the government. This is why I would ask you to plead on my behalf with the provincial government so that they review the amount of the widow's pension they want to allow me.
Just a few weeks ago, her husband was killed in an
accident and she received a notice to the effect that the Quebec Pension Board will pay her a monthly pension. The notice reads as follows:
We are pleased ...
They are tickled pink-
... to inform you that the Board has approved the application for benefits which you have made. Payments will begin at the under-mentioned date.
This is the glorious amount of $43.52 a month!
They are tickled pink indeed to inform the widow that she will be the recipient of this amount. She has a dependent crippled daughter. The widow will receive $43.52 a month for the winter of her years.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this lady has cause for concern. I think that she has grounds not to be satisfied with the increase in salary that we are about to vote for ourselves.
Here is another letter that reads as follows:
This is to ask you to help us. I appeal to you because you inspire confidence and I also know that you are very influential.
Do you think it possible to live decently on a meagre pension of $160 per month, which is the amount that I have been receiving as welfare until now, but the officer in the La Sarre office advised me that from now on I shall receive only $130 a month; I do not see how we shall be able to make it, as with this amount we must pay food, clothing, school and municipal taxes, electricity, everything; this is nonsense, do you not agree?
My husband is handicapped, I am sick myself, we must take a great deal of drugs the cost of which is prohibitive, and we cannot possibly pay taxes on our house.
This family has to live on $130 a month and thousands of other families are in the same predicament, not only in my own constituency but all across Canada. This situation is not exclusive to the province of Quebec. One merely has to read the proceedings of the Senate Corn-
Senate and House of Commons Act
mittee on Poverty and the briefs submitted to them to know of the extent of misery everywhere in Canada. While we do nothing to stop the sufferings of people who did nothing to deserve it, we are considering a raise in our own salaries.
The importance of our representation here in this House certainly justifies an adequate salary. Our expenses run higher than those of the head of any industrial establishment, or of any store manager, or of any public servant because we have to fulfil so many requests from our constituents. But to make everybody understand that is hard enough and I believe that before thinking about the administrators we should think about the administered. There is one thing however the government should have considered in drafting the bill before us, namely to facilitate better contacts between members, electors and departments. That is why the right hon. Prime Minister should have provided for the services of a secretariat in every constituency. People say that we can afford it with our expense allowance. Yet everybody knows that is not the only expense a member has to make.
In a riding as large as mine-there are others also that are very large-at least three offices or more should be opened to give satisfaction to all my electors.
The Abitibi constituency is larger than any other, except that of the Northwest Territories! In fact, it is bigger than the four Maritime provinces together and greater than France.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, needless to say that the $6,000 granted for expenses or the $8,850 granted to meet the needs of two or three offices in a constituency like that one, where one has to travel through the whole of New Quebec in order to visit remote communities, are absolutely inadequate.
The establishment in every constituency, like in the province of Quebec, of a well-equipped secretariat to meet the electors' requests, should have been provided for. Every weekend many people call on me or many others write to me during the week to ask me to plead their case with certain departments. Some people tell me that after writing four times, they have received no reply.
Therefore, if we had a well organized office, staffed with people in a position to contact the electors, the public servants and the departments during the week, with the help of the member, this would render a service not to the member but to the electors. The bill should have provided for the establishment of the services required.
Secondly, those who call on their member here are astonished to see in what conditions he must work. There is not a single civil servant, even among those earning only $6,000 per annum who would accept working in the conditions imposed on the member.
Imagine that the member who gets a phone call from an elector or must communicate with some department while two typewriters are running close by. Can the

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act member have an interesting conversation while he is deafened by the noise of two typewriters?
When some visitors call on us, we have to ask the secretaries to wait in the hall.
This situation should have been foreseen long ago. However, very little progress is being made.
I do insist on those points in order to have the situation corrected as soon as possible. In the Beaupre report, mention is made of those conditions. However, all the recommendations put forward therein have been ignored in the drafting of the bill before the House. This is one thing that surprises us and it will surely surprise both the authors of this report and the public.
We are often asked this question lately: "Will you accept this salary increase if the bill is passed? Of course, we will accept it. At least as far as I am concerned, I will accept it. When we vote against tax increases and that the majority, the government steam roller, votes in favour of those tax increases, we agree to pay for them. This is why we accept these salary increases if they are granted. The news media are already reporting that it is an accomplished fact. Such is not the case. Once we have accepted this increase, if it is adopted, we will use this money as we please. You can be sure that no member will be at a loss to dispose of this money. The numerous demands made upon us will make it quite easy for us.
I intend to vote against this allowance and salary increase because the government should have thought first of the people instead of their elected representatives.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long in my remarks. My purpose in speaking is to register my opposition to the legislation now before us which, among other things, provides for a rather substantial increase in the indemnity and expense allowance paid to Members of Parliament and Senators. I have two real difficulties in so doing. First of all, I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as an attempt at a public display of virtue. My objection is not to a pay increase as such but, rather, to the fact that the pay raise is being provided in the worst possible manner in a piece of legislation that could not be much worse if its drafters had been instructed to make it as bad as human ingenuity could devise.
My second problem is related to the first, in that I find so much wrong with the legislation that I hardly know where to begin criticizing it. I have taken note of the Prime Minister's invitation to amend the bill. I am not taking him up on that invitation because as legislation, this bill is so bad that it needs not so much amendment as total rewriting. The ineptitude of its sponsors is unbelievable.
I have sat in this House for only a year, but I have been able to supplement my limited personal experience on this touchy question of salaries by conversation with my colleagues in all parts of the House. There remains no doubt in my mind that the present salary and expense allowance works severe hardship on many members of this House. Such problems have been well documented in
earlier speeches, so I need not go into them again. I am also convinced that the manner in which expenses, especially, are paid creates injustices and inequalities none of which are corrected by this legislation.
Thus, my first objection to the bill is that it does nothing to correct the inequities and injustices in the present method of payment-I shall return to this idea in a moment-and that it attempts to meet the financial problems of some members in a manner which can only suggest to the electorate that their representatives have their hand in the till up to the elbow.
I think it unacceptable that the Liberal government has once again chosen a course of action the end result of which can only be to further debase the reputation of this institution in the eyes of the public. I do not say it is unacceptable because as a member of this House the government's action will also cast discredit on me, although to be honest I do not like that effect one bit; rather, I say this legislation is unacceptable because it is short-sighted and wrong-headed to bring down a piece of legislation which can only further detract from the credibility of the central institution of Canadian democracy, and to do so at a time when powerful social currents are already placing in doubt the utility of the institution. So doing may cause more people to seek other channels of influencing the way in which they are governed, some of which may have the decidedly adverse effect of intensifying the aura of societal confusion and disintegration which characterizes this decade.
This rather unsavoury aspect of the legislation could have been avoided by the simple expedient of having the increase come into effect, not last October but, rather, at the beginning of the next Parliament. I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that this approach was rejected because he felt it would have the effect of making the next election centre around the issue of MP's salaries and that, in effect, we would be treated to the ridiculous spectacle of candidates for Parliament bidding for office on the basis of how much lower than their opponents' would be the salary they would accept. Undoubtedly, some of the more simple-minded candidates would adopt such an approach but I have enough confidence in the good sense of the Canadian electorate to believe that it would get them very far.
On the other hand, making the raise take effect at the beginning of the next Parliament would give the Canadian public the sense that they do have something to say about the remuneration their representatives are to receive-an opportunity denied them by this legislation. Moreover, it would enable them to view candidates with an eye to determining which of them would be worth the increased emolument, and it would meet the argument- which to me has considerable validity-that we agreed to run for the office knowing what the salary would be and we have no business altering the agreement midway through the term of our contract.
My second objection to the legislation is that it offers no formula to spare Parliament from having to go through this ridiculous and degrading exercise in the

May 3, 1971

future the legislation contains no provision for regularizing the process of reviewing salaries of Members of Parliament. In a letter to all members of this House, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) drew to our attention the procedures for review employed in New Zealand. The leader of my party has suggested relating MP's salaries to those paid to a selected salary classification in the public service. Many other suggestions purporting to have a similar effect have been put forward, but none of these is included in this legislation. Because this legislation makes no attempt to regularize the salary review procedure, and because it has the effect of perpetuating the currently entirely unsatisfactory method of salary review, it is bad legislation and I am opposed to it.
My third reason for opposing the legislation is that it does not meet our most pressing needs as members of this House. It does not provide us with the services, the accountable expense allowance-I emphasize the word "accountable"-nor the staff necessary to adequately discharge our duties as Members of Parliament. It does not provide us with the means necessary to provide our constituents with the kind of services they have a right to demand of us. Nothing could do more to assist us in re-establishing this institution as a relevant, important and central institution of our democracy than providing Members of Parliament with the tools properly to do their job. If we were able properly to do our job, I am sure there would be few objections raised to our receiving a salary commensurate with the responsibilities and the demands of our position. However, this legislation makes no provision for levels of service to members necessary to enable them effectively to do their job.
Finally-and this is not my final objection to the legislation but merely the final objection I wish to inflict upon the House this evening-this legislation does not rid us of the very distasteful practice of placing Members of Parliament and Senators in a special category by providing them with a non-accountable expense allowance. As long as the expense allowance remains non-accountable, the public will continue-with every reason-to view with a jaundiced eye our protests of virtue that this money is spent on doing our job. As long as expenses remain unaccountable, the inequities and injustices within this chamber will persist.
Because of the nature of my constituency, it costs me more to represent it properly than it does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to represent his, while the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), whose constituency covers two-thirds of the land area of Manitoba, encounters more expenses than I do. Yet we all receive the same expense allowance. That is unjust. A fully accountable expense allowance incorporating the substance of the recommendations for classes of expenses, maximum limits and differentials, according to the type of constituency, included in the recommendations of the Beaupre report, would have helped overcome these injustices and inequities. There are no such provisions in the legislation before us; therefore I oppose it.
I now come to the awkward part. I intend to vote against the legislation; but what will I do beyond that,
Senate and House of Commons Act
should the legislation pass? I can only say I will ensure that I receive no financial benefit from the increased indemnity for the duration of this Parliament, nor will I collect it in the form of back pay should I be re-elected. How I will dispose of it, I have not yet determined, although it will probably be in the form of a gift to the Crown in right of Manitoba because that government at least makes the kind of mistakes which I would be likely to make myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: I realize that what I intend to do is merely a gesture and, beyond that, a gesture which is a luxury some members simply cannot afford. For various reasons, including the fact that my children are still too young to involve much in the way of additional expense, and because my parents are still willing to support me to the extent of supplying me with a room and a free car when I am in my constituency, I can afford to make this gesture and thus reinforce my protest against the legislation. Because it is bad legislation, and because I can afford to do it, I am doing it.
I do not feel particularly happy about taking this action. I do not even feel particularly virtuous. I simply feel that this is one of the few occasions presented to me where I can do something meaningful to register my protest against yet another act of stupidity on the part of this government, and I intend to take advantage of it.
As this legislation concerns me directly and no other class of citizen, for once I am placed in the situation where I do not have to vote for an essentially bad piece of legislation because it has some good points and will help some people. For a change, I can say it is bad legislation and I want no part of it. That is what I am doing.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Douglas Charles Rowland: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In view of the sincerity of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), I would ask if he is in favour of the increases that the NDP government of Manitoba is giving the total membership-an increase from $7,600 to $12,000 per year-in view of the fact that the provincial governments sit approximately two and one half months per year? Does the hon. member favour that?


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I can say quite frankly that I think the legislators in Manitoba are underpaid.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Rowland: I have not seen the details of the legislation to which the hon. member has referred. If the legislation is framed in the same way that the legislation

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act before us is framed, I would have the same objections to it, but I doubt very much that it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Just one short supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor. The hon. member can make a speech if he wishes to do so. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) can be deemed to still have the floor and allow a further question from the hon. member.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Selkirk. In view of the proposed increase in the province of Manitoba, and in view of the fact that over and above the $12,000 salary they are proposing to pay $40 per committee meeting, I would ask the hon. member for Selkirk whether he favours that idea of the NDP government of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Charles Rowland: By virtue of the fact that I have not seen the legislation, I can only repeat what I have already said to the hon. member.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, like many other members I am very concerned about this matter. I am concerned in the same way that I was in 1963. At that time we probably did not hold-out long enough to make any major change in the legislation. I am not sure whether we can do that at this time. It may be very well for a board of directors to arrive at a salary increase with the agreement of five or six of its members, knowing full well that the company they are operating belongs mostly to them: in most cases the directors control the majority of the stock, so it is not unreasonable for them to vote an increase in their own salaries. The other shareholders probably do not care very much about it.
In our case the shareholders care very much indeed, and their attitude is a reasonable one because they assess the situation in terms of their own wages and responsibilities. It is very hard to determine the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament because they vary so much from one constituency to another. Many members over the years have given a great deal of themselves and sacrificed a great part of their family lives in representing their constituencies. They have gone much beyond what would normally be considered the normal call of parliamentary duty. On the other hand, there are members who don't do a damn thing in return for the money they get-and that is a fact. There are members who seldom, if ever, are here. I am sure we can all look around and think of people we only see a few times a year.


Gerald William Baldwin: And there are some we see too much of.


William Arnold Peters: That may well be true; but as long as this is a place for talk, anyone doing that is fulfilling part of his duty. My hon. friend who just finished speaking left me with the impression he would favour leaving the matter up to the voters. This would be an excellent way of doing it after an election, but I can imagine the chaos it would cause during an election. There are some who are sufficiently well-off to get on the negative side-"If you vote for me I will give the constituency $50,000."


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Arnold, take your money and sit down.


William Arnold Peters: That is the easy way. That is what is wrong with this legislation. Some are saying the constituencies should have a voice in this, and I think they are right. For a long time the hardest wage negotiations in the unions were those conducted with their own staff. I have sat a number of times in talks with two large international unions when these matters were up for discussion. These are the people who negotiate on behalf of all their membership. They negotiate for all kinds of trades and they take whatever the traffic will bear. But when they start negotiations with a district director or national director, the shoe is on the other foot; it is a case of how cheaply they can run the organization and how much they can get away with.
When these representatives were negotiating with their own staffs they said: Let us be reasonable and fair, but let us keep it as cheap as we can get away with. This is partly the trouble we have in Parliament. I would be pleased to support this legislation if I were sure the committee would insist on doing something about the kind of negotiations we carry on. Surely we can attach ourselves to some segment of the civil service, not deputy ministers because the government decides what their salaries should be, but we should be able to attach ourselves to some senior division of the civil service on whose behalf bargaining is conducted by outside agencies. I realize the idea is not new; it has been mentioned by a number of others.
No doubt the government will make something of this debate, but I think the House is likely to do what the hon. member on the other side said, that is, sit down and take the money.


An hon. Member:: You are going to take it.


William Arnold Peters: Certainly I am going to take it. That is the part I don't like. The hon. member says I am going to take it. I represent one constituency of this country and as its representative I will get the same salary as any other member. It will be equal to any other. That remark was an insult; the kind of insult you always get from nincompoops. But I do not want to be sidetracked. Let me make it clear that in my opinion it is cheap politics for any member to say he intends to take less for his riding than other members who are paid to represent their constituencies. What I am suggesting is that we are doing a lousy job of deciding how to arrive at a suitable arrangement. But whatever is decided in the end will be the result of a majority decision in the House, and every constituency is entitled to the same amount of money no matter where it is situated.
May 3, 1971


Douglas Aird Hogarth: And you will tell them you voted against it.


William Arnold Peters: I intend to vote against it, against the system. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) has arrived very late. I have gone over this before. I assure him that if he can change the system, if he will arrange for our salaries to be linked with those of civil servants on whose behalf bargaining takes place, I will support the bill on third reading no matter what the conditions are. I went through this once before. I told my constituents: That is the amount of money which will be paid. I voted for it and all you have to do now is indicate who you think is going to earn that money for the riding. And that is the way it will be after the vote is taken.
For some time now our interests have been diversified. Many of us are in the House less often than we used to be. We attend committee meetings and take part in the work of Parliament in other ways. But listening to many debates recently, especially about nine o'clock at night, I have noticed there has only been about one person in the press gallery. Tonight there are quite a number of people in the press gallery.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Probably they ran out of booze.


William Arnold Peters: I shall not make a pitch to the press gallery, but one of the difficulties about deciding the pay of parliamentarians is that we must do it in a fishbowl while great agonizing goes on in the news media. This matter will be discussed for years. It is only recently that I have gone back to earning $12,000 a year; for a long time it was $18,000 a year. Now, to make the increase appear larger, it is $12,000. When the members of the Ontario legislature got as much as they did, I was surprised to find there was very little said about it in the press. But when we get any concession there is a great deal of coverage, most of it adverse.
There are other questions which must be answered before the question is settled. One is the idea of making crooks out of Members of Parliament simply because the commissioners of internal economy reached a decision regarding the interpretation of one word in an act which was already on the statute books. When a member of Parliament is out of Ottawa he telephones his office, asks for himself, and his secretary says that he is not there. When Bell Telephone makes the connection with the member's office they are given the number from which he is calling, the office then phones that number back and as a result the call costs nothing.
We are proposing to pay Members of Parliament $26,000 indemnity and expenses, but surely to God we can make honest men of them! It is rather like the prostitute who wants her customer to pay for the bed; it is a small consideration. But after all, if I get $26,000, why steal nickels from Bell Telephone?


An hon. Member:: What do you want, double the amount?
Senate and House of Commons Act


William Arnold Peters: I am sure every member does. If not, he must be nuts. After all, Bell Telephone pays the bill and we have not yet nationalized that company.
There are other considerations. Many of my colleagues have referred to improved accommodation, and I think there is a great deal to be said in support of that argument. But I am going to oppose this bill just the same. If there is no real issue for the next election campaign, someone will make an issue of our pay increase and some members will be defeated because of it. In 1963 only ten of my colleagues voted against similar legislation, as did the former Leader of the Opposition-and only three of those ten are still in the House, the right hon. member being one of them. So I do not have much sympathy-I say this sincerely-for those who oppose this legislation on the ground that they will run into problems in the next election campaign.
There is no doubt that we need an increase in indemnity, but we should not have had to wait ten years for it. Colleagues of mine in all parts of the House are in serious financial difficulties. It may be their own fault in that they have been overly generous, but you are always asked to be fairly generous when people are trying to raise money for charitable purposes. It is very nice if you are affluent enough to make a hand-out as a sort of emergency measure. I remember that prior to the 1963 increase I was getting a further $1,000 into debt to the bank each year and, like every other hon. member, if I was out of town I tried to get someone to buy me a meal. I simply did not have the three bucks for the price of a meal. I am not suggesting that I am badly off. My family has mostly grown up now and I do not need as much as some other hon. members. Certainly I do not need as much now as I did when I had a family of five or six children at home who were growing up.


An hon. Member:: Well, which was it?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member laughs when I give the number of children I have had. Some people have a set number of children, but at my own home this was not necessarily so. One night I went home and found we had added another 15-year-old. My other young boys found him sleeping in a car and since it was getting cold decided to bring him home, and he lived with us for about a year and a half. So the number varied. I thought I should explain that, Mr. Speaker.
I do not oppose this legislation on the question of amount. I oppose it because I am afraid that unless some of us take a very strong stand we will again find ourselves passing the same sort of legislation some time in the future. I do not think it is fair to ask Members of Parliament to vote their own increases. We should not be put in this kind of position. There is a rule that we are not allowed to participate in something that is to our financial advantage, and with the exception of increasing our salary it is true that we do not.
I think a government that has pledged itself to providing leadership should appoint some person outside the government to negotiate our indemnity so that the public is made aware of how the negotiations are carried on.

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act Without this we will again find ourselves agonizing over similiar legislation. No matter the outcome of this vote, I strongly urge that we attempt to solve this problem and that in doing so we make no distinction between the remuneration paid a member from one riding as opposed to that paid a member from another riding. The indemnity should be the same for all members. If an hon. member wishes to give large grants to charity, that is his affair. We each represent ridings which are equal in terms of this Parliament and in terms of the law. Therefore, I strongly urge that no attempt be made to change the situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member a question. I was impressed by what he said and I have the same problem as he, but would he be more inclined to support this legislation if the government House leader were to indicate, when he winds up the debate, that it is the intention of the government to establish a committee charged with the responsibility of examining the question? Such committee could examine ways and means of dealing with the specific problems to which he has referred, such as arriving at some formula by which our increases are dealt with automatically from now on, and the question of expenses which has bothered a lot of members. If the government House leader would indicate that it is the intention of the government to refer the question to a committee, would the hon. member change his mind on this bill?


William Arnold Peters: I should like to be able to say yes, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Don't waffle.


William Arnold Peters: Waffles from all sides of the House come in different shapes and categories. I should like to say yes, but I do not believe that the minister will say that, because the matter has already been referred to a committee. I am sure that that committee will make some decisions in this regard. If the minister can give that categorical assurance, I would support the bill; but I do not believe the President of the Privy Council can do so, even though he might be willing to try. I will wait until third reading, which is acceptance of the bill, and if that kind of proposition is put forward I am sure a lot of other hon. members as well as I would be pleased to support the bill, though doubtless many others would not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) I should advise the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope not to take too much time in making some comments and that I will maintain the generally moderate tone of the debate. I congratulate hon. members who have participated and who almost without exception have resisted partisan considerations when making clear their positions.
Having listened to all the speeches, my impression has been reinforced that this is a very difficult issue. Almost every member who has spoken has had a somewhat different approach. While most members of the NDP who spoke were generally opposed to the bill, there was a very distinct difference of opinion within that party on certain details.
I begin by saying that foremost in the minds of most hon. members was the effect that the passing of this bill would have on the image and credibility of Parliament. That is a real concern, and it seems to me something ought to be said on the other side of the issue. It is true the image and credibility of Parliament will be judged in part by what we do on this issue, but it will also be judged by the people of Canada on what Parliament has done in this and previous sessions to assist broad classes of people in the country. It would be unfortunate if we supported the impression that no progress had been made in other fields during this session. We have dealt with old age pensioners-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Forty-two
cents' worth.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have dealt with retired civil servants, we have dealt with retired CNR pensioners, we have dealt with adult members of the labour force, through unemployment insurance amendments and amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, and we have dealt with a major summer program for students, costing $57 million, bearing in mind that the cost of this measure represents a small part of the total program for that group. We have on the order paper a number of measures dealing with assistance programs for the farmers in Canada. I make this point in order to clarify for my own benefit and for others that Parliament has been occupied all this session with issues affecting the people of Canada generally, and we have for these three short days been dealing with an issue that is very troublesome but does affect Members of Parliament.
The leader of the NDP, I am sure mistakenly and not deliberately, made a point in his speech which I should like to mention. It had been mentioned earlier that day in an editorial in one of the daily newspapers. It was to the effect that in making the last increase in 1963 it had been intended that the increase would take into account future years as well as past years. I have read the entire debate of 1963 and nowhere can I find any reference by any member of the House, let alone of the government, that the increase made in 1963 was to be projected into the future. In fact, the opposite case was made by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, who stated that the increase was large because the government and Parliament had failed to act for a long period of time, and because of the increase in the cost of living and the general cost increase. For those reasons the increase made in 1963 was very large.
Hon. members have said the timing of this measure is wrong. Of course it is wrong. There will never be a good time to increase the salaries and allowances of Members

May 3, 1971

of Parliament in this way and the timing will continue to be wrong in the future. In 1963 the action was taken at a time when the economy was on the upswing and unemployment was relatively low, or at least declining. Yet the increase was criticized by many of the same people who are questioning the present increase as being unwarranted and inappropriate. I agree that the timing is wrong. It will never be right; and it will never be right because there will never in my lifetime be a time when all the needs of the Canadian people will have been met, when every aspiration will have been realized, when every goal will have been reached in social and economic fields so that at that moment we could say: Now is the time, because everything is fixed up in every field and members should have a raise.
When I was speaking earlier I remembered a speech made by the late Clarence Gillis who spoke in favour of the pay increase of 1954. He said, in effect, "I have fought all my life to improve social security and to eliminate unemployment, and I continue to fight. I do not see that my efforts will be reduced if I now recommend that the salaries of Members of Parliament be increased."
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) took the view that it would be better to eliminate poverty entirely and it would be better to reduce unemployment or remove it altogether before taking action on this issue. I seriously suggest to him that this applies to every sector of the economy. Carried to its logical conclusion, a well-organized group of workers should not increase their own wages through collective bargaining and should not be permitted to do so under that prescription, unless those less fortunate and the weaker in the economy are brought up to their level. I do not foresee when it will be possible to totally reach our social goals making it possible to do something about members' salaries.
That places all of us in the unfortunate dilemma of admitting that everything is not 100 per cent in our society but that we are taking this action. I do not see much comfort, either, in the solution advanced that we should not decide on this question until after another election, that is, that we should do the job at the next Parliament. That suggestion has a certain attraction but one could question its validity. It would almost certainly make the question of members' indemnities a matter of partisan debate. It would certainly make the level of remuneration an election issue.
Do we want to make it an election issue? It would be bound to encourage candidates and prospective members, who were well-heeled, to offer themselves to the electorate at a lower rate of pay in the hope they would be elected instead of persons of modest means who needed all the income in order to carry out their responsibilities. Is this what we want? Is this our objective? Do we think this would improve the credibility or the image of Parliament? As was pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), if we pursued that possibility the government would probably state its future policy before the election.
Senate and House of Commons Act
In any event, the pay and allowances proposed in this bill, if carried, will be subject to the strictures of the electorate at the next election. We cannot escape that responsibility. They will know what has happened, and if they wish they will bring this government to task if they feel it has gone too far. Suppose, however, that the government did take a position and held it over until the next election. Members and candidates would be free to choose their own course in the election campaign, by the very nature of things.
If, by the way, the proposals were to take effect only after the electorate had passed judgment-a situation which does not often happen in our system because verdicts on legislation are usually given by the electorate post facto-under what circumstances is it to be concluded the proposals have been sanctioned by the voters? I wonder how one would determine that the proposals had been sanctioned by the voters. Would this be determined by the re-election of the government which proposed the increases and, if so, would it apply even though that government did not receive 50 per cent of the votes cast? If the majority of members-this is probably what would happen-of all parties spoke out against the increases during the campaign, would this mean that the increases would not take place even if the government which proposed the increases should be elected?
I see nothing but difficulty in this course of action. We can talk about a problem at the moment, or talk about a dilemma-but this is what we would bring about if we put this issue before the people in an election campaign. That is my personal opinion. I believe it is much better, in the interest of Parliament, to do the job now and take our responsibility as a government and as Members of Parliament. I have said the government is not selling this legislation to anybody. We do not think we have much to gain politically by bringing in this legislation. There are a few politicians on this side of the House as on the other side, and they know there is not much to gain. But we do it because-


An hon. Member:: It is a matter of principle?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. We do it because, as the hon.
member for Selkirk said, there are members in this House who are suffering severe hardship. That is our difficulty. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has stated in somewhat similar terms the difficulties faced by members of the House of Commons. That is why the government is bringing in this measure. We have been told by our supporters what their difficulties are, and we have been told by members in other parts of the House what their difficulties are. It was only after we had heard that and after we had appointed an independent committee that we decided to bring in this measure.
Remember that before we had the committee we thought everything would be a lot easier if an independent body recommended what we ought to do. We said that if an outside body looked at us and told us what to

May 3, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act do, we would accept it, the public would accept it and it would be a lot easier. We had the independent examination by the committee and we did not have-I do not know what to call it-the courage to go all that way and decided to give, on the salary side, a little better than half what the independent body said we were worth. That is what is before the House on the salary side, and members are not satisfied. Members still ask for an independent body. It would not help us to have an independent body make recommendations in the future, because we would still have our own misgivings. The only way that would work-and I refer to the comments of the former leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-would be not only to give that independent body the right to examine but also the right to fix the rates. That is the only way it could be taken out of Parliament.
But having made the canvass of members themselves, having had the Beaupre report tell us what we ought to get, and having had consultations in our own caucus and with all the opposition parties, we finally came forward with what we thought was probably the best and most acceptable arrangement considering the diversity of views which exist. Everybody has a different idea about what should be done. Some say the raise is all right but the expense allowance is wrong. Some say the raise is fine but it should come after the next election. Somebody must take the responsibility. The government did take the responsibility and placed the bill before the House, and the House now must take its responsibility and accept it or reject it. That is the way our system works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have had a very good debate. I believe any person who wishes to read the debate will find that every point of view has been canvassed. I am sure that nothing I say will convince hon. members who have made up their minds to go a certain way. I am satisfied nothing I say will change their point of view. That is fine, but I believe it is important to have all points of view on the record.
I wish to conclude by referring to comments made by a number of members, the most recent of which is a comment by the hon. member for Timiskaming. He wondered why we did not provide a formula for the future. It is not that we did not think of it or consider it; it is simply that we did not have the conviction that we could devise a formula that would fit the situation. Is Parliament ready to give an independent body the right, not only to consider what the remuneration should be but also the right to fix the rates in the same way we have given the Representation Commissioner and his group the right to fix electoral boundaries? Many Members of Parliament would say we went too far in giving that right to an independent tribunal. Do we want to do that?
We considered the idea put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) which was supported by others and which has a certain value, namely, that we tie our rates in the future to an appropriate public service category or to a range of categories. We were on the verge of accepting that idea. Why did we not
accept it? The government at some point is obliged to set rates for the public service. It might be better to attach these rates to the bargaining groups, but at some point the Treasury Board, the representatives of the government, must agree on what the final bargain is to be. That is understood. We wondered whether there would be a ground for criticism to the effect that the government, in setting the rates or in agreeing to certain rates might have had in the back of its mind a way of increasing the rates for Members of Parliament.


David Lewis: Not even your government would do that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps we have been much too punctilious and much too perfectionist-


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member
may ask a question if the minister is in agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to complete my remarks. I will answer the hon. member's question later. I want to say that we are still interested in this proposal, and if in the committee members generally feel that this is a common ground by which we can set rates in the future for allowances and expenses, we will honestly search for that solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If members generally feel that tying it
up with some appropriate category-I do not know what it will be-that will be generally accepted is the right way to proceed, then we will search honestly for that solution, because we have not ruled it out and I told hon. members quite frankly why we did not put it in the bill. I think it would be much better to have it come this way than through a government recommendation before the debate commenced.
I have nothing to add to what I have said, except to refer to the comments I made on the non-accountable, tax-free allowance. That has been subject to considerable discussion. I will not repeat the arguments I made. I said when I introduced the bill that it was an arguable point and we decided to move in the direction we did on the basis of the argumentation which I gave in introducing the bill and which I will not repeat at this time. So we are not rushing this bill forward. If it goes to the committee following the vote, the committee can examine the details of the bill, and certainly, speaking on behalf of the government, let me say that we are ready to search honestly for a future formula.


William Arnold Peters: May I now ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) a question? In referring to bargaining in the public service he indicated that bringing in bargaining units from outside would have some effect on that bargaining unit. Was he referring to the fact that if there were any serious difficulty in those negotiations, Members of Parliament might line up on the side of the civil servants for strike action?

May 3, 1971


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I was saying is that I have full confidence that no government would use this route to improperly effect increases for Members of Parliament. The question I raised was whether our critics might not say that a certain bargain may have been influenced by the fact that Members of Parliament might need a raise or might welcome a raise. If we can remove that possible criticism, then we would search for that kind of formula.


David Lewis: May I ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) a question in order to clarify this matter? Is it not true that bargaining is not done by members of the government but, rather, by the top civil servants on the staff of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), and that the top civil servants are as much affected by increases that might be given to the bargaining unit because eventually, as sometimes happens, everyone else might be? Is it not true that that is the point which the President of the Privy Council should have in mind, that it is not bargaining between Members of Parliament and bargaining units but, rather, between senior civil servants and the bargaining unit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is quite true, but in the final analysis the stamp of approval and the responsibility for any final bargaining must be taken by the Treasury Board, by members of the government. That is the point I have been making. I am delighted to sense that perhaps my fears in that direction were not as well-founded as I had thought earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion v/ill please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. MacEachen) which was agreed to on the following division.
YEAS
	Messrs:
Allmand	Boulanger
Andras	Breau
Badanai	Buchanan
Baldwin	Cafik
Barrett	Carter
Bechard	Clermont
Beer	Cobbe
Bell	Comtois
Blair	Corbin
Blouin	Corriveau
Borrie	Crossman
Crouse	Division Messrs: Marchand
Cyr	(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Danson	Marshall
Ethier	Monteith
Fairweather	Moore
Faulkner	Munro
Forest	Murphy
Forget	Murta
Foster	Nesbitt
Gendron	Noble
Gervais	Noel
Gibson	O'Connell
Gilbert	Olson
Gillespie	Orange
Guay (St. Boniface)	Osier
Guay (L6vis)	Ouellet
Guilbault	Paproski
Hales	Peddle
Hopkins	Pepin
Howe	Portelance
Isabelle	Prud'homme
Jerome	Reid
Kaplan	Richard
Lachance	Ryan
Laing	Smith
(Vancouver South)	(N orthumberland-
Lambert	Miramichi)
(Edmonton West)	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Lang (Saskatoon-	Stanbury
Humboldt)	Stanfield
Laniel	Sulatycky
Leblanc (Laurier)	Thomas
Lefebvre	(Maisonneuve-
Lessard (LaSalle)	Rosemont)
Loiselle	Thomas (Moncton)
Lundrigan	Thompson (Red Deer)
MacEachen	Tolmie
Mackasey	Trudel
MacLean	Turner (London East)
McBride	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
McCleave	Wahn
McCutcheon	Walker
Mcllraith	Watson
McIntosh	Weatherhead
McNulty	Whiting
Major	Woolliams
Marceau	Yewchuk-109.
Marchand (Langelier) Beaudoin	NAYS Messrs: Laprise
Benjamin	Latulippe
Brewin	Lewis
Broadbent	Mather
Burton	Matte
Caouette	Ny strom
Dionne	Orlikow
Douglas	Peters
Fortin	Rodrigue
Gauthier	Rose
Gleave	Rowland
Godin	Saltsman
Howard (Skeena)	Schumacher
Knowles (Winnipeg	Skoberg
North Centre)	T6trault
Lambert	Thomson
(Bellechasse)	(Battleford-Kindersley)-31.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wenlworih):: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised before the House tonight involves the enfranchisement of Canadian residents outside Canada when an election is called. Our election laws have been progressively improved, augmented and modernized, and I submit with great respect that the time has come to enfranchise all Canadians who can in practice be included on the election list before writs are called.
This question is prompted by my attendance at the United Nations as a parliamentary representative. I discussed this subject with many of the staff at the United Nations, Canadians employed there more or less permanently? They were distressed that they did not have the right to cast their ballot. I understand some steps have been taken to improve the situation and that they may be included at the next election: some progress has been made.
There are other employees at the United Nations in New York, particularly-I understand there are about 250 of them-who are concerned about this issue and I suggest polling arrangements should be made for these people. Possibly a special advertisement could be placed in one of the New York newspapers. I do not confine it to New York; I realize it is a long-range plan.
I understand France has a system of enumeration under which some attempt is made to give every French citizen, no matter in which part of the world he lives, the opportunity to vote. This is the direction in which we should be moving, and I commend the government for the action they have already taken in regard to the Canadian staff at the United Nations. It seems to me that in these days of fast communications, and with the type of government we have at present, with a real push we could make the effort to see that non-resident Canadian citizens are given a chance to cast their ballot at election time. After all, all Canadians are equal in the eyes of the law; that is a simple rule of law which is enshrined within the Bill of Rights. All Canadians have the same rights.
I have often wondered what would happen if the agent of, say, a resident in London, England, applied to the courts of one of the provinces for an order of mandamus regarding his placement on a residence list in Canada. There might be a technical flaw to such an application, but I would rather see the law changed now than wait for this sort of situation to arise. I can envisage a judge having a very difficult time struggling with a case brought under the Bill of Rights where through oversight or lack of planning a Canadian citizen had become disenfranchised.
I realize that this is not the sort of matter that can be remedied overnight. Nevertheless, I submit that in large

centres outside Canada arrangements could be made for polls to be transmitted through the mails. For example, we could examine the French system and in time evolve our own system under which all Canadians who left the country would know what their rights were. I submit that this would be a worth-while reform and I hope action along this line will be taken.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, at the present time only members of the Canadian armed forces and those persons considered as public servants may vote outside of Canada. The Canadian armed forces have their own polling stations on their installations, and public servants may contact the nearest Canadian embassy and see the officer responsible for handling the vote. Persons employed by the United Nations and who are considered as public servants may vote, which is a point that the hon. member would like to see clarified. At the present time there is no provision under the act for those other Canadians living outside of Canada who are not in the above two categories to vote.
The hon. member's representation is a thoughtful and serious one and I shall be pleased to bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).



NATIONAL PARKS-BONNE BAY-LETTING OF CONTRACT FOR SURVEY WORK

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having to bring back the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan). I wish to inquire into the letting of a contract for survey work in regard to the establishment of a national park in my district on the west coast of Newfoundland. I am not so concerned about the letting of the contract for survey work as I am with the effect it will have on the people living in the area. There are many Newfoundlanders living within the boundaries of the proposed national park and I am concerned for their future.
Tonight I am asking the parliamentary secretary to say what are the implications for these people. I have offered the government many suggestions in this regard, on many occasions. I feel that the department responsible should send experts to the area to advise every family living in the vicinity what the future holds in store for them. These families have lived in the area for a number of years and if they have to change their livelihood they may suffer. Many communities within the boundaries of the national park at Bonne Bay will have to be resettled, and therefore it is incumbent upon the responsible department, in liaison with other departments who are involved, to advise each and every family of their future once the park is established.
I am an advocate of the creation of a national park on the west coast of Newfoundland which is a remote and isolated area. Everyone knows that development there will mean very much to the future of this community. The future of citizens is my concern, and I should like to
May 3, 1971

obtain an answer to my question. I have not been able to obtain an answer from the provincial government. Because of the interest of the federal government in the creation of national parks, I am sure it will give me the answer I seek.
I feel sincerely that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should send a team of experts to the area to advise and support the statements of the ministers of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The people who are to be involved should be allowed to participate in the development of their future and the advancement of the economy of this area for the benefit of their families and children. I humbly request the parliamentary secretary to provide me with an answer to this question.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that we are also very concerned about the residents of his constituency, particularly those who will be resident within the boundaries of the park. We intend to do everything possible to minimize the hardships and the inconvenience they will suffer. Let me refer to the question posed by the hon. member, which was:
-would the minister indicate whether a contract has been let to do survey work on the national park in western Newfoundland, Bonne Bay park?
The specific reply is that a call for tenders for the boundary survey of Gros Morne National Park has recently been concluded. Twelve interested firms were contacted and six bids were received. The bids have been reviewed in concert with the Surveyor General and a recommendation has been forwarded to Treasury Board, where it now rests. A contract is presently being prepared and an announcement of the successful bidder will be made shortly.



YOUTH-OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CRITERIA USED IN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS

Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, when the Opportunities for Youth program was announced, members on this side of the House took exception to the very short period of time available for applicants to prepare projects, submit them and have them approved or rejected. The program was announced so close to the termination of the university year that we felt adequate treatment of potential projects would be impossible before university students were looking for jobs. This has proven to be the case. The vast bulk of funds allocated to the program has not even now been assigned, and university students are looking for jobs.
The government took some pride at the time in the fact that it had prepared its program for students three weeks earlier than last year. I see this as no cause for self-congratulation since, to be really useful, employment opportunities for students should be announced prior to the new year in order that unsuccessful applicants may have the chance to look elsewhere. It is not as though the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
government did not know there would be a problem of student unemployment this summer. The government's own policies created the conditions which have produced potentially high unemployment. Having created these policies, it should have been prepared to deal with their side-effects.
Opposition critics of the program suggested the program's funding would be inadequate to meet the demands placed upon it. This worry has again proven to be valid. The program is already vastly oversubscribed. I should like to know, as I asked in the House this afternoon, how many projects will be rejected, which would otherwise have met the program criteria, on the sole ground the government has run out of money; and how many jobs would have been created by the projects rejected on this ground alone? If I do not receive an answer to my question this evening I intend to place it on the order paper, because I consider the answer to be part of the information the public will require in order to judge the efficacy of the government's program.
Another worry the opposition critics had at the time of the introduction of the program was that the criteria upon which a judgment of the acceptability of projects would be based were too vague. We were worried about applicants having to recast their applications at the eleventh hour because of their failure to meet some standard they did not know of in advance. That is why myself and others repeatedly asked the minister specific questions about the criteria being employed. That is why so many of us attended a meeting convened by officials administering the program to explain it to Members of Parliament. We asked questions about the criteria even though the meeting was held only a week prior to the effective deadline for applications.
Our concern about the lack of published criteria has been justified in the event because projects are now being returned to their sponsors to have them recast to meet criteria which they were not aware existed, or returned because of confusion about the meaning of published criteria. A number of such examples have come to my attention. 1 have referred them to the minister for inquiry and have no reason to believe he will not be conducting the requested inquiry.
My point this evening is to bring this specific principle to the attention of the House. I am asking now for assurance that the criteria created after the program was announced-criteria never generally known to the public and not included among the published instructions to applicants-have no part in establishing the acceptability of a project submitted for consideration.
I await this assurance with interest. Because this program was introduced so late in the day, because it is so inadequately funded and because its administrative apparatus has not yet had time to properly take hold, the program is bound to be a mess. I am simply requesting that the government not make it worse and more unjust than it need be through an attempt to enforce criteria which no one, not even the minister, knew about in advance.

May 3, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 the hon. member raised a question about criteria and it is precisely that with which I shall deal tonight. The criteria applying to the summer youth program have been carefully planned in order to achieve the greatest student participation at all levels.
Student participation means several things: first, that the greatest number of students should be employed in meaningful and worth-while projects both to the students and the communities they wish to serve. This implies that the cost for each job is limited, but in no way to the point of creating cheap labour. Second, large segments of the population should benefit from these projects and regional disparities should be taken into account. Third, young people have to be involved in planning and carrying out projects. This aspect is particularly important to show the vigour, the perseverance and the capability of young people to carry out and terminate what they have started, thus demonstrating the responsible manner in which young people can identify problems which face their community and their ability to respond to them in a satisfactory manner.
Fourth, projects should reflect creativity by introducing new services, programs and activities. In this respect the
extension of already existing programs, whether federal, provincial or municipal, are not to be accepted: first, because there is the danger that the students might not be sufficiently involved in the process-making and because this program was never designed to be involved in transfer of funds from one government level to another.
Fifth, funds will not be allocated to purely leisure projects, for which reasons are obvious. Sixth, funds will not be allocated to organizations whose only goals are to make profit, since this program is designed to avoid competition with the private sector and is primarily set up for social and not financial benefit.
All in all, the criteria for this program were set up to answer the needs, aspirations and goals of a young generation that threatens to drop out if governments do not make an effort to work with them on their own terms. For the first time a government is financing creativity, not enclosing it within its own structures but permitting it to be as it is-in other words, providing youth with a genuine role in society.
Motion agreed and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, May 4, 1971