1971-04-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege that affects the House and all members. By way of a preliminary perhaps I ought to say that yesterday the hon. member for Broadview, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Timiskaming and I took the occasion to visit Millhaven penitentiary, which has received some publicity lately. When we arrived we were received with cordiality and friendliness by the warden and deputy warden, who were in no way hesitant about our right to visit the institution during reasonable hours of the day. Actually, I understand that there are some internal memos within the department on the matter which indicate that Members of Parliament may receive courtesies and opportunities not available to anybody else.
It has been a longstanding British tradition going back to long before Canada was founded and it has been a Canadian tradition as well that Members of Parliament, as the elected representatives of the public, should have the right to have access to those areas where the public invests its money in order to determine matters involving administration and also to assist in developing public policy relating to penitentiaries as a result of their understanding of the situation concerning penitentiaries. Thus they can assist in developing public policy. Such visits in the past have certainly brought about a greater appreciation of the desire and need to make changes in the penitentiary system.
After about three and a half or four hours in the institution and at a time when we were speaking with one of the inmates in Millhaven, there was an interruption by the warden who carried with him the following
message:
The minister has asked me through the Deputy Commissioner that the M.P.'s be asked to leave the institute right away. A legal opinion has been obtained that they have no statutory right to be in the institute. The minister's request is made because the whole matter is under review by a commission of inquiry and also because of a police investigation into a murder.
I assume that was the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer). There was no indication that it was any other minister, and penitentiaries come under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General.
The phrase in that message about a legal opinion having been obtained with regard to the statutory right of members to visit such institutions is in reality a subterfuge. In activities of this sort, and I hope the Solicitor General feels this way, we should not be concerned about legal opinions but about moral rights and obligations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Although this is not directly a part of the question of privilege, the reference in the message to the matter being under review by a commission of inquiry and about a police investigation into a murder is somewhat offensive in that it implies that we may have been intent upon impeding or in fact were impeding either of these inquiries. Such is not the case.
Members of Parliament are the elected representatives of the public. In that sense they have certain rights and privileges that are not available to other citizens. In the pursuit of their duties and obligations they have an obligation to visit areas where public money is being expended. There should be no consideration on the part of the cabinet of interference in the normal course of events with those examinations and studies, especially by one who has so little sensitivity to British and Canadian traditions in this field. It is the right of Parliament and Members of Parliament to review the administration of the cabinet. It is not a right of the cabinet to abrogate that review.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: It is not only a traditional right but at one time in our Canadian statutes it was in fact a statutory right. Prior to the session of 1960-61 the Penitentiary Act contained a provision in section 45 which read as follows:
The following persons may visit any penitentiary during business hours, that is to say-
Then it lists a number, including the Governor General of Canada and "any member of the Parliament of Canada".
When the Penitentiary Act was revised in 1960-61 the Hon. Davie Fulton was Minister of Justice and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister. The point was raised about leaving out of the proposed new Penitentiary Act the provision containing the right of Members of Parliament to visit penitentiaries during business hours. We were assured by the then Minister of Justice that this action had the endorsement and approval of the then Prime Minister. He said that it was considered appropriate because of the legal construction of statute law not to have that provision carried forward into the new act but that it would be contained within the regulations and that there would not be any interference with that particular right. This has been the course followed by every warden of every penitentiary which has ever been visited since that time by any Member of Parliament; they have respected the

April 29, 1971
Penitentiaries
right of Members of Parliament to inquire into and visit these institutions in the course of their obligations.
I consider the action on the part of the Solicitor General-I am commenting on the basis of the information given to us by the warden; if that information is incorrect, then, of course, I am in error, but there is no reason to think so-to be highly affronting to the privileges of this House, highly affronting to the general public and an abrogation of a privilege which is basic in character. Parliament must always be very jealous of its rights, because the preservation of these rights is directly con-nec ed with its ability to carry out its duties and respon-sibili.ies. Particularly in areas such as penitentiaries where the general public is denied the right and the opportunity to visit and see what is happening, it is even more important in the public interest that the public should have knowledge about the administration of penitentiaries, both in terms of their proper administration and of influencing public policy. Every time Parliament loses a right it loses part of the freedom of this nation in the process.
Wi'hout going further into the matter, let me say I believe there is a prima facie question of privilege. If, in Your Honour's estimation, this is the case, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the matter of the right of Members of this House to visit penitentiaries under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada during business hours be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If there is to be no reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena I am prepared to express an opinion on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege in the circumstances alluded to by the hon. member for Skeena. He has, of course, given the Chair the required notice and that has afforded the Chair an opportunity to reflect on the situation and to consider whether there is, indeed, a prima facie case of privilege involved.
The hon. member suggests that the refusal on the part of the government, or of a representative of the government, or of the Solicitor General to allow him access to a penitentiary constitutes a breach of the parliamentary privileges. The question to be determined is, whether included in the rights and privileges belonging to the House and to its members individually is a right or a privilege to visit certain institutions, including penitentiaries.
On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is that which sets hon. members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his
duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons. It seems to me that the fact that the Penitentiary Act in the past, until 1961 I believe, did provide for a right on the part of members to make visits is an indication that if it were part of parliamentary privilege, it would not have been included in the statutes.


Mr. Peters:: That is why it was taken out.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming suggests that this is why it was taken out, but there is nothing anywhere it seems to me which will indicate that is the reason for removing that provision.
I suggest to hon. members that if there is cause for complaint it ought to be in the form of a grievance against the minister or against the government. I would hesitate very much to suggest to hon. members that there is included as part of our special rights as members of this House the right to visit certain institutions, including penitentiaries. The hon. member says that this right does apply to penitentiaries but he has not said what other institutions might be covered by this suggested special right. I do not think that our special privileges should be deemed, construed and interpreted as including that particular right.
I recognize that there is a very special problem here. It seems to me that if there is not a question of privilege, as I am inclined to conclude, there is a problem which might very well be considered by the House in some other way or form, but it seems to me that the motion proposed by the hon. member is in the form of a substantive motion rather than a question of privilege. He has suggested that a very important problem, which has been brought to the fore by the fact that he and o'her of his colleagues in the House of Commons have been denied what they consider to be a traditional right, and the question should be investigated. It is my thought that the matter might be looked into not under the guise or cover of a question of privilege but perhaps by or as a result of a substantive motion.
I fully recognized the importance of the matter and the seriousness of the situation brought to the fore by the hon. member. I would hope it might be cleared up in one way or another, but it should not be dealt with through the agency of a question of privilege.


MR. LAPRISE-CORRECTION OF STATEMENT BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege to set the record straight concerning an erroneous and misleading statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), before the Sherbrooke Optimist Club, last Monday, April 26, 1971, when he said, and I quote the newspaper La Tribune:
-the position of the Creditistes is most regrettable. He called the latter mean, miserly and heartless because they object to

April 29, 1971

Canada's allotting 0.5 per cent of its gross national product to ease the misery of the third world's 2 billion inhabitants.
Mr. Speaker, this statement which has been made by a public figure, is erroneous and misleading, since the members of the Ralliement creditiste did not object to assistance being given to underdeveloped countries, but they even requested the same privileges and considerations for our provincial and municipal governments.
I wanted to set the facts in their true light, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi has given the Chair notice of the question he wanted to raise. As he is not moving a motion in the House, it may not be necessary for me to express an opinion as to the merits of the question of privilege raised by him.
Nevertheless I may perhaps refer the hon. member to Citalion No. 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, which states as follows:
-a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
And elsewhere, it says:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament.
I do not want to repeat my remarks with regard to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). What I said then applies, to a certain extent, to the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member. I have come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case of privilege; therefore, no motion can be considered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter of resignation, as a member of the government, from the Hon. Eric Kierans, Minister of Communications, and that I have recommended to the Governor General that it be accepted.

The Acting Minister of Communications will be the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Cote).
Under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Kierans and myself.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Europe, where I had the honour to accompany the Governor Gen-
Minister's Statement on Visit to Europe eral and Mrs. Michener on a series of official visits to the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Queen Juliana and the Prince of the Netherlands, the King and Queen of Belgium and the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg received Their Excellencies with great kindness. These visits served to underline the closeness of the bonds of kinship and affection between Canada and the host countries, bonds forged by a shared history, strengthened by comradeship in two world wars and maintained by our alliance in NATO. His Excellency reminded his hosts in all three countries of the contribution made by so many Canadians of Benelux origin to the development of Canada and the friendship between our countries. He stressed the growing importance of trading relationships and scientific and cultural exchanges. I am sure I speak for us all when I thank the governments and people of the Benelux countries for the warm welcome given to the Governor General and Mrs. Michener wherever they went. Their Excellencies took advantage of their visits to The Netherlands and Belgium to join with their hosts in paying homage to the Canadian dead of two world wars by visits to Canadian cemeteries at Holten and in Flanders.
While in Europe, I had useful talks on a number of questions, including particularly the Common Market, with the Benelux governments, the Italian government, members of the European Economic Commission and the Secretary General of NATO. Our ambassadors to France and Germany joined me for a day of discussions in Brussels, enabling me to have some contact with all six countries of the European Economic Community.
The principal subject of all my talks was the current negotiation for the enlargement of the community. As the House is aware, the government, through meetings at the ministerial level, diplomatic representations and public speeches, has been making known over a period of many months Canadian concern about some of the effects of the anticipated enlargement of the Common Market. The government is not opposed to the broadening and deepening of the community; on the contrary, we see this development as an important contribution to greater stability and prosperity in Europe and the world. We have urged, however, that it is neither desirable nor necessary that this economic unification should take place at the expense of third countries like Canada. We have made concrete proposals to minimize the possible adverse effects of enlargement. In the same constructive spirit, we have urged the community to be open and outward-looking and non-discriminatory in its trading policies, and to do everything to avoid a trade confrontation with the United States costly to themselves, to us and the western world as a whole.
While in Europe, I re-emphasized these points, as did my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who, as the House knows, was in Bonn at the same time. I went a step further on this occasion and urged both the member governments and the commission of the EEC to give serious consideration to the establishment of procedures for regular consultation with Canada. Hon. members will readily understand that if and when enlargement is achieved relations between

April 29. 1971
Minister's Statement on Visit to Europe Canada and the other great trading entities-the European community, the United States and Japan-as well as among these entities themselves, will assume even greater significance for us and for them. It will be a different trading world.
I believe I am justified in saying that the Canadian concerns are fully understood in Europe and that the response has been positive, principally because our fundamental attitude to European unity has been constructive. We shall continue to press our case on every suitable occasion during the months ahead when crucial decisions are to be made.
While in Brussels, I signed, on behalf of Canada, an agreement for scientific and technological co-operation with Belgium. This agreement will facilitate and encourage expansion of scientific industrial and technological co-operation between our countries. The agreement illustrates how Canada is broadening the scope of its relations with Europe, one of our major policy objectives, as identified in the government's foreign policy review.
While in Rome, I was received in audience by the Pope. Our discussion ranged over the troubled areas of the world and concentrated upon the Middle East, which is one of His Holiness' gravest concerns. The Pope recalled with pleasure a visit he paid to Canada some 20 years ago, and the expression of his warm sentiments for this country brought to mind the thoughtful comment he made in 1969 when he said that the forces uniting Canadians seemed to him stronger than the forces that tend to divide us.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by welcoming back the minister. It has become my pleasant and frequent duty to welcome him back from very extensive and sometimes exotic tours abroad. This time he was in an exalted role in which he was an escort to vice-royalty, to dukes, duchesses, kings and grand duchesses. How many of us commoners have such a role cast upon us, to walk with kings and sup with queens.
I see in this morning's Globe and Mail that the minister is cast in the mantle of Sir Walter Raleigh. I would not presume to comment upon the courtier's function-I would not know it-but I must caution the minister to recall that Raleigh is not a very good model for a politician. That attendant knight had a political career which was something less than glorious. He spent much of his time forecasting discoveries, inventions and achievements which never came to pass. He pursued many goals which he never did attain. He was often away from home and, worst of all, ran afoul of the personage who held the political realm at bay and he spent many years in the Tower devoid of influence, power and freedom. I have no reference to the erstwhile Minister of Communications!
Of course this was a most important visit. I believe that the current pilgrimages to Europe are efforts by the government to overcome some of the ill effects of the government's own recent policies toward Europe. We have, I fear, given Europe a lower priority, and I am afraid we are being taken less seriously by Europe as a

result. In its preoccupation with other ventures the government appears almost to be taken by surprise at the tremendous developments now taking place in western Europe. It should not surprise anyone that Britain is interested in moving into the ECM. This is not something which took place yesterday. It was some months ago that the government in its contemporary wisdom decided to downgrade our NATO role and diminish our interest in the Commonwealth and especially in the senior member of the commonwealth, Britain, but now we are rudely awakened to the impact of a much larger and more closely integrated European community.
In the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence the other day we were told by a distinguished witness in the international field that the great danger facing Canada today was not that of being taken over but of being left out in light of the many important and massive trade relationships which are being built up. I wonder-and I express this with great concern and anxiety-if the Canadian economy is in any way prepared for the developments which will take place when the United Kingdom enters the European Common Market. The Canadian economy is in a very precarious position because not sufficient was done before. The minister is quite right when he says that in the future there will be a different trading world. Will it be a world for which Canada is prepared and in which Canada will play a prosperous and useful part? This is the essential question. Western Europe is still an area of vital concern and profound interest to this country and no flirtations with other deviations and developments of frills in foreign policy will ever blot out that fact.
I notice that the minister had an audience with His Holiness the Pope. I had that great honour a year ago. At that time too the Holy Father expressed his interest in the Middle East and his grave concern about the trouble in that part of the world. I read in the European press that the Holy Father expressed the hope that Canada might play a more important and more valuable role in the Middle East. I would say that the minister might well be urged to follow the advice and suggestion of His Holiness the Pope because we cannot, should not and dare not evade our responsibilities in the Middle East, that tense, troubled and explosive spot.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to join with my colleague in welcoming back the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am quite sure that during his visit to Europe he probably used his very considerable persuasive powers to convince the Economic Community that Canada must have some entry into that organization. However, what disturbs me about the minister's statement is that obviously he has returned emptyhanded without any encouragement and hope for a relationship with the European Economic Community, and the rather Pollyanna, head-in-the-sand attitude he has regarding our future prospects. While I appreciate the efforts the Secretary of State for External Affairs is making in terms of pressing our case on the members of the EEC, it is quite obvious that we are not in a strong position in terms of getting concessions in that market. What is imperative at the moment is that Canada frame
April 29, 1971

alternative policies and thereby have a set of policies in the event that our persuasion of the Europeans does not work.
It is also very obvious that the Europeans are worried about the growth of international corporations and are making very determined efforts by combining with each other to ensure they have some control over the future of their countries and their economies. This is not going to go away and will not succumb to our blandishments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while welcoming the minister back I would hope he will take an early opportunity to tell us not only the kind of representations he has made to the countries of Europe but also what alternatives the government has in the event that we cannot get entry into the European Common Market. He should not fob us off by saying we are still trying because obviously our efforts are not meeting with success in that direction.
[ Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, like the colleagues who spoke before me, I welcome back the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I feel it might be well to consider posting a permanent welcome at the entrance of Parliament since during the past few months a procession of Canadian ministers, as also provincial premiers bound on somewhat different business, have been travelling abroad.
We note in the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as we did in a report presented earlier this week by another minister, the Canadian government's concern with the creation of a European Common Market. It would appear that the creation of this common market would be fatal to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he urged the members of states and the EEC Commission to seriously consider the creation of mechanisms conducive to continuing consultations with Canada, as if we were telling member states of the common market to ask us permission to organize themselves and find ways and means to live better, and turn their industries, the agricultural potentialities and their trade with central Europe to their best account.
We cannot prevent the Europeans from improving their lot and in my view the organization of the economic community is by no means a catastrophe. This we find rather amazing and we should be able, thanks to our immense country and our hard-working countrymen, to do quite well for ourselves. We often hear that Canada is one of the most industrially developed countries in the world; therefore, we need not fear the commercial development that other countries are trying to achieve.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that he also met His Holiness the Pope in Rome. I am happy that he deemed it advisable to meet this high international authority; I am convinced that this was beneficial to him and that relations with the Vatican should be multiplied. This would doubtless be helpful in seeking better international agreements, perhaps not in the commercial field, but in seeking world peace, which people desire, but which few are dedicated to attain.
Public Service



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Waller C. Carler (SI. John's Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43 in light of the declaration made yesterday by Mr. Claude Edwards, President of the Public Service Alliance, to the effect that the hiring procedure by departments of government has resulted in increasing personal and bureaucratic patronage in the appointment of federal employees, contrary to the merit system.
I therefore move, with the consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates investigate and report upon the hiring practices used by various departments of government in recruiting for the Public Service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put at this time.
I believe the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton seeks the unanimous consent of the House to return to the item, presenting reports, for the purpose of presenting a report. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Victor Forget (Sainl-Michel) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House on Tuesday, April 27, 1971, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of Prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes.


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


[Stage Direction]
(TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT-APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE OF SENATE AND HOUSE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice relating to the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. Has any decision been made following the meeting of the government? Whatever the decision, I gather that the minister has not decided to resign in any event. Can the minister tell the House whether or not a decision has been reached with regard to the continuation of the so-called Turner act or as to any measure to take its place?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The government has decided not to seek extension of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The President of the Privy Council will be giving notice of a resolution to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to examine, inquire into and report upon the nature and kind of legislation required to deal wi h emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian society that would endanger the existence of government or the maintenance of peace and public order.



NUMBER OF CHARGES PENDING FOR MEMBERSHIP IN FLQ

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question following that very decisive measure announced by the minister. I should like to ask the minister whether there are charges pending, where trial has not been completed, for membership in the FLQ, and if there are such charges pending where trial has not been completed, approximately how many such charges are there?


John Napier Turner: I have sought that information and will give it to the House, but I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that any charges pending under the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act remain valid charges even after the expiry of that act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, but I wonder whether the minister would make a statement to the House promptly with regard to the confusing situation which now exists whereby, for example, it is today a crime under the Turner act to be a member of the FLQ whereas on Monday it will not be. Will the minister make a statement explaining the position of the government and setting forth exactly where matters stand and how the government proposes to justify the situation that will exist?


John Napier Turner: I do not need to make a statement; I can reply to the question very briefly. While it is true that membership in the FLQ will no longer, per se, be a criminal offence, I believe it can properly be said that having regard to the proposed aims and purposes of the FLQ it will continue to be an illegal organization in the sense that any group of individuals who conspire together to commit criminal acts and who do in fact commit such criminal acts can properly be described as an illegal organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewis:: I told you that on October 16 and you
denied it. You just discovered the Criminal Code.



NUMBER OF CHARGES LAID UNDER WAR MEASURES AND PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACTS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: When my friends to the left are a little quieter I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the answer now given by the Minister of Justice and in light of the answer he gave to the news media yesterday, were not all the offences in reference to this matter covered in the Criminal Code if the law had been administered under the Criminal Code? I wonder, therefore, if the Minister could answer why the act was brought in at all?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is an argument, and I have the impression that I have heard that argument on a number of occasions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. In light of the answer given by the Minister of Justice I should like to ask the Prime Minister how many charges were actually laid under the War Measures Act and the Public Order (Temporary) Measures Act out of the 497 who were arrested?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
have the information, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Justice has given the statistics from time to time that he got from the Attorney General of Quebec.

April 29, 1971



TERMS OF REFERENCE OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE OF SENATE AND HOUSE

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we are all pleased by the enlightenment that has taken place on the other side of the House, although it was a little long in coming-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have noticed that a few other members wish to ask supplementary questions. Perhaps the hon. member should ask his supplementary while he has the floor.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With reference to the proposed committee announced by the Minister of Justice, can the minister indicate whether the terms of reference will be such as to empower the committee to bring before it persons and papers and to review the actual events in order that this may not be simply an academic discussion but that a full evaluation may be made of the events last fall so that proper action can be recommended by the committee?


John Napier Turner: When the President of the Privy Council gives notice of the resolution he will set forth the terms under which the committee shall sit and the terms of reference will speak for themselves.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF JUSTICE APPEAR BEFORE SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE TO GIVE INFORMATION CONCERNING APPREHENDED INSURRECTION

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the Minister of Justice that the government has full authority under the Criminal Code to deal with illegal organizations guilty of seditious conspiracy, is the House to take it that the minister is now making a public apology to the people of Canada for having introduced unnecessary legislation in the form of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act and is the minister prepared-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is in order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase it in some other way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the rest of my question was to inquire whether the minister would be prepared- preferably the Prime Minister but I am directing the question to the Minister of Justice-to appear before the committee when this matter is referred to it in order to acquaint the committee with all the facts and information that the government had at its disposal at the time it decided there was an apprehended insurrection in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that depends upon whether the committee decides to call me. If so, I shall appear before the committee within the terms of reference of that committee. I want to say, for the enlightenment of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, that the special crime of illegality
Inquiries of the Ministry
of being a member of the FLQ was necessary in the circumstances to lower the burden of proof in a time of crisis and, more important, to expand the scope of the procedural advantages that were given to the Crown, namely, an extension in the power of arrest, and in the power of search.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister for interrupting him but it seems to me that the question period has now changed into a debate. If hon. members wish to have a debate about this very important matter I am sure they can arrange this between themselves. However, I would not think that the question period should be turned into a debate on this very important matter. I understand there are a number of members who wish to raise different questions, and if we spend the whole question period debating this matter rather than seeking information we will not achieve as much as we might otherwise. I would therefore invite the Minister of Justice to reach the conclusion of his statement as soon as possible.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Baldwin:: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Justice on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I take what you say to heart, but I would have thought that in the fairness you show in your presidency of this House you would have allowed me to reply to the preamble that was bootlegged into the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Minister of Justice and to all hon. members that if the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was not entirely regular, in the same way the minister's response was not entirely regular. They were both interrupted as soon as the Chair could get the floor.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order Your Honour has raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River rises on the point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point which you raised, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the Minister of Justice could have answered very simply in two words-"more power".


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question? Will either the minister or the President of the Privy Council undertake to assure the House that the terms of reference for the setting up of this investigation by a joint committee will be broad enough to permit an inquiry into the grounds upon which the government decided both to invoke the War Mea-
5344

April 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
sures Act and to pass the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have to wait until he sees the terms of reference. The resolution is debatable and he may make whatever representations he has at that time.



EXPIRY OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT -LETTER FROM QUEBEC PREMIER CONCERNING ACTION

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question on this matter to the Prime Minister. Has the government just now received a communication from Premier Bourassa which demands this action and, if so, can the Prime Minister tell the House the contents of this wire?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not precisely the action that Premier Bourassa has suggested the federal government should take. As I said to the House yesterday, he has communicated with me in different circumstances. I think the clearest thing that I can put on the record as being his most important request is that we should enact specific legislation to make the FLQ and like organizations illegal, but particularly the FLQ. As to the matter of continuing the present act, I believe I answered the hon. member for Calgary North yesterday to the effect that this was not the premier's request. He is asking this specific thing, that the FLQ be made illegal and he is hoping that the gaps in the law will be studied by Parliament and that Parliament will act on them as soon as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the Prime Minister table this wire that has just been received in this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was a letter that I received from the premier and we had a series of telephone conversations. I cannot table the latter and, as to the former, I think if the premier wants to make it public he will do so of his own accord.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow one last supplementary question to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie and then recognize the hon. member for Skeena.



REASONS FOR APPOINTING JOINT COMMITTEE RATHER THAN ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
Why did the government decide to establish a joint committee of the House and the Senate rather than appoint a royal commission, which would have excluded politics from the judiciary field? Why did the minister decide to proceed that way?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government believes that this issue is so important, involving as it does the balance of individual liberties and the safety of the community, that the people of Canada ought to be involved through their representatives in Parliament.



PENITENTIARIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as expected, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Inasmuch as he sat silent during the question of privilege that was raised earlier, I wonder if he would mind telling the House whether he in fact gave the instruction or orders that we were not to be permitted to remain within Millhaven institution?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Would the minister mind enlarging upon that a little bit and take the House into his confidence and tell us by what authority he did so?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as it has been said, visiting rights in penitentiaries were abolished by act of Parliament in 1961. However, the practice has been maintained and since I was appointed Solicitor General, I have given no instructions to end this practice, or, in other words, to deprive hon. members of the right to visit our penitentiaries without advance notice.
On the other hand, I have not forgone either the advantages of the act and in my opinion whenever there are valid reasons to prevent any visit, I must make a decision and advise hon. members when they are courteous enough to contract me beforehand.
Considering the present conditions, there are three reasons why I feel justified in denying this visit: firstly, a board of inquiry has been appointed. Besides, two investigations are now being carried out, the first by the coroner and the second by the Ontario Provincial Police.
The second reason-
[English}


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have one additional supplementary question. May I say at the outset to the Minister that evasiveness is no substitute for intelligence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as he has already said that the report of the commission of inquiry will not be made public, that none of the reports of other inquiries will be made public and that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will not have the opportunity to visit Millhaven, may I ask him very simply if he would mind telling the House what he is afraid of? What have you got to hide?
[Mr. Douglas.)
April 29, 1971


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I did not appeal to the intelligence of the hon. member but to his courtesy, and I see he lacks both.
Following the Kingston events, we had no choice in Millhaven. We had to transfer inmates in an institution that was not completed. Therefore, Millhaven is overcrowded and after the troubles in Kingston, the population is of course still in a precarious psychological state.
The third reason is that if I had allowed four members of the same party to visit Millhaven, which was not proper in the circumstances, I would have had to agree to similar requests which might have come from government members, members of the official opposition or the Ralliement creditiste. I feel that a visit to Millhaven would be inopportune at this time.



RIGHT OF COUNSEL TO VISIT PRISONERS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the directive he has given and his answer, may I ask the Solicitor General whether counsel representing prisoners who are incarcerated in various penitentiaries in Canada must obtain his consent before they can see their clients?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the practice is well known; when a prisoner advises the authorities of an institution that he wants to see a lawyer, steps are taken for his rights to be respected.



MILLHAVEN-CURTAILMENT OF VISIT BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, who is presumptuous enough to judge the intelligence and courtesy of other people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: This is not the Waffle.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he inquired as to what the conversations were about before taking the authoritarian action of deciding that conversations could not take place? Did he inquire what the members were talking about, whom they were talking to, and what the subject of the conversation was before he decided that it would interfere with inquiries that somebody else was carrying on?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I had and have absolutely no intention of interfering with what hon. members have to say to the prisoners. It is their right, and I respect it. On the other hand, I explained the reasons which motivated my decision and I feel they are valid.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



INCREASE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL- REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the recent increase in the price of gasoline and fuel oil, can the Prime Minister indicate whether he intends to ask the Prices and Incomes Commission to inquire into that matter since oil companies like Imperial Oil and Petrofina announced today a significant increase in their profits for the first quarter of 1971?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister responsible to the House for the Prices and Incomes Commission.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had any request that we can fulfil. Of course, it is only recently that the Canadian government was providing substantial relief to Pakistan in connection with the flooding, and I cannot say whether all of this has arrived.']
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. First of all, I want to thank him for the statistics he sends us every month about the number of days lost across the country due to strikes or lock-outs.
Would the minister be prepared to provide us also with the statistics concerning the number of days and millions of dollars lost by the 700,000 unemployed Canadians during 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to give him statistical information and a question of this nature should be put on the order paper.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable and courtly Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he advise if the government is contemplating any steps to ameliorate the terrible suffering of the people of East Pakistan? Can he also advise if, in concert with other Commonwealth states, the government is taking any initiatives toward diminishing the fighting and the possibility of its broadening into conflict between two of our Commonwealth members, India and Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has made it plain that we are prepared to join with other countries in measures to assist in the relief of the people of East Pakistan. We are also urging, of course, that there should be a political settlement of this question and not one that involves so much bloodshed.

April 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Can the minister advise if any relief is now proceeding from Canada to that area?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had any request that we can fulfil. Of course, it is only recently that the Canadian government was providing substantial relief to Pakistan in connection with the flooding, and I cannot say whether all of this has arrived.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the warning of the head of the Bank of Canada that the economy may be entering a period of rapid price rise before inflation is brought completely under control, is the government preparing further controls, other than the present fiscal tools, for application in the future?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, the government for a long period of time during the recent battle against inflation has been studying the possibility of other types of measures that might be used in order to combat rapidly rising prices.



PENITENTIARIES


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General if his directive yesterday was issued only because members of the opposition were involved and does not apply to other members? I understand that one member of his party has been in the penitentiary within the last few days and there was not this kind of directive.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that fact.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General, in my opinion, was aware of this because I understand that he took the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands in with him as the Member of Parliament for that area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for
External Affairs. According to a release from his office dated April 28, proposals have been made by Canada and Norway which could serve as the basis for agreement between the two countries on the future conduct of fishing and sealing activities in Canada's territorial sea and exclusive fishing zones. Would the minister indicate whether any progress has been made in arranging similar meetings with Portugal, Spain, Italy, Denmark, the United Kingdom and especially France which would cover the phasing out of fishing operations and the acceptance of Canadian jurisdiction in the newly created 12-mile territorial sea and fishing zones off Canada's east and west coasts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, negotiations and conversations are under way with a number of those countries. I should like to take the question as notice before giving a precise answer.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Does he intend to initiate any discussions with the government of Denmark with respect to the failure of that country to act on conservation measures with respect to the overexploitation of Atlantic salmon off the coast of Greenland?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the first week of June.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the hon. minister responsible for Information Canada.
Can he indicate to the House what possibilities there are for Information Canada to lower the prices of books sold to students in order to make it much easier for young students who would like to use these books to get information?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question was put yesterday. Unfortunately, I do not remember whether the hon. minister had promised an answer. It would be simpler maybe to allow him to do so briefly.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, Informaiton Canada does its utmost to make available to students, at the lowest prices possible, certain publications which may be of some use to them.
Besides, Information Canada offers a 33J per cent discount to any school board or school which orders its publications with the special order forms of this agency.

April 29, 1971



FINANCING OF NURSING HOMES-INCLUSION ON AGENDA OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-AMENDMENT OF ACT

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the House, although this is his day, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister if I can get his attention. 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?


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this question will be brought to the attention of the minister, who will undoubtedly consider it with the greatest care.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What has he to report to the House on the question of assistance to potato growers in the Atlantic provinces as a result of his meeting last Monday with the Minister of Agriculture from that area?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the representation that we received from the Ministers of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick was of a somewhat different nature from that of the past-in that they were not asking for a program under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. There were good reasons for that which I cannot explain now. This is a new departure in the form of assistance and we are looking at it very carefully.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES-COMPOSITION OF DELEGATION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe that on Monday next the minister will be meeting with Mr. William Rogers, Secretary of State of the United States. Is the minister planning to have discussions with him regarding the trans-Alaska pipeline system and will any studies on the ecological dangers of transporting oil by tanker down the Pacific coast be presented to the American government? If
Inquiries of the Ministry
so, by whom have they been prepared? Also, will there be representatives of the Canadian Department of Transport with the minister when he makes these representations?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked whether I am going to be present at these meetings. On the contrary, these meetings are going to be held at the official level. The Canadian delegation will be led by the Director General of the Bureau of Economic and Scientific Affairs of the Department of External Affairs. There will be officials of the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the Canadian embassy in Washington, and the province of British Columbia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I may have misunderstood the Prime Minister the other day. I was under the impression that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be meeting Mr. Rogers. May I ask if such a meeting has been arranged, because the minister will recall that some time ago he indicated his intention of having discussions with Mr. Rogers regarding the TAPS program?


Mitchell William Sharp: What I said in the House was that I had been in touch with Mr. Rogers to arrange a meeting. The Prime Minister has confirmed to me that he did not indicate that I would be present or that Mr. Rogers would be present. As the House knows, Mr. Rogers is engaged in a very important mission in the Middle East, and we certainly would not want to bring him back to meet with me at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if any representations regarding the proposed underground nuclear testing on Amchit-ka Island be made at this meeting? If so, what representations will the Canadian government be making?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the House will agree that the purpose of this meeting should be to examine the dangers to the environment from the building of the trans-Alaska pipeline and the accompanying movement of oil by tankers down the west coast. We have made representations to the United States in connection with the Amchitka tests. The President of the United States has not yet made a decision. I hope he will make one that recognizes the dangers we have pointed out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has there been some omission in the list of officials read by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? He did not mention anyone from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. When I asked for some information from ministers the other day, the Prime Minister said I would have to get that information from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as he is in charge of this operation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but he is not in charge of the mission to Washington.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

April 29. 1971


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Since the Minister of Labour has called into question the activities of the Minister of Finance, will the minister explain for the benefit of the House, particularly for the benefit of the Minister of Labour, just what he is doing as Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: That statement should be made on motions.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to follow up my original question by addressing a supplementary to the Minister of Labour. In order to satisfy his own curiosity and the curiosity of members on this side of the House, will the Minister of Labour ascertain from the Minister of Finance just what he is doing in that department, thereby informing himself and other members as to what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. I will bring the discussion back to the pocketbook and ask about that multimillion dollar headache, the CF-5. Has any decision been made with regard to the future of the CF-5?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my proposals with regard to the aircraft are before cabinet in the form of a white paper. When a decision is made in that regard, I hope to be able to announce it.



BILINGUALISM


Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Following the announcement by the Ontario Minister of Academic Affairs that special grants to bilingual universities, including those of Ottawa and Sudbury, will be discontinued effective next year, is it the intention of the hon. minister to enter into negotiations with provincial authorities to suggest that they should pursue this form of assistance which is necessary to the promotion of bilingualism in Ontario, or is he now in a position to tell the House whether the federal government intends to provide special assistance to the only two bilingual higher learning institutions in Ontario?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have been amazed by the news which was reported in this morning's papers. Hon. members know that, for the time being, the incentive policy for the teaching of official languages in Canada does not cover universities. However, some recommendations concerning higher education will be discussed with the provinces. I intend to take opportunity of these consultations to open the dialogue with provincial ministers in this regard and particularly with the Ontario minister.


Mr. Serre:: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I wonder if the hon. minister could tell us if he intends to ex'end the existing program with regard to the $50 million assistance to second language teaching at the elementary, secondary and higher levels?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think it is too early for me to answer this question.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN MONEY ALLOCATED

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the
Secretary of State. In view of the concern felt among students across the country about the Opportunities for Youth program, can the minister tell us whether he has received any additional allocation of funds from Treasury Board in order that a greater number of programs can be accepted this summer?


Gérard Pelletier: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship. Has the hon. gentleman yet replied in an affirmative way to telegrams he received yesterday and today from the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood to the effect that unless they get their grants for 1971 immediately they will have to cease operations and lay off their entire staff?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Can the minister tell hon. members whether he has agreed to transmit the money in time in order that the operations of this very important organization can continue?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The grants are being transmitted as quickly as possible in light of the speed with which the financial information required is received from organizations.

April 29, 1971



PUBLIC SERVICE


Walter C. Carter: May I direct this question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board. Would the Prime Minister undertake to investigate the allegation by the Public Service Alliance that government hiring practices are resulting in increasing personal and bureaucratic patronage in the Public Service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will try to see what representations were made and follow them up.


Walter C. Carter: In view of the allegation by the president of the Public Service Alliance that abuses have crept in since the Public Service Commission turned over hiring practices to the departments, will the Prime Minister take action to have the Public Service Commission assume full responsibility for hiring practices in all departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said in answer to the previous question, I will look into the matter. I am satisfied there is no accusation of patronage exercised by the government; this relates to the Public Service, as I understand it.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murla (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns proposed legislation which would assist owners of small farms to retire or take up other trades or professions. Would the minister tell us when we can expect the legislation to be brought down?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot give a precise date. Obviously, the legislation cannot be introduced until we have reached a satisfactory level of agreement with the provinces, and negotiations are still being conducted.


Jack Burnett Murta: Is it true that the minister plans to place a ceiling of $20,000 as the maximum value of farms which would be covered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny a statement, and a question in those terms is not in order.
sis %	*



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Solicitor General has left the House. I will therefore ask my question of the Prime Minister.
Inquiries oj the Ministry
Would he tell us when he will propose a federal-provincial conference on the sharing of jurisdictions and on the provincial and federal responsibilities in the criminal field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the general issue of distribution of power between the two government levels was put on the agenda as early as the February 1969 conference if my memory serves me right. Of course, the issue of penal and criminal jurisdiction is included but, as far as I know, no province has urgently requested a study of this question.



FINANCE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the House whether he has sent to the Quebec premier a list of Canadian institutions from which he could obtain the funds he needs instead of looking for money outside this country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is being put as a suggestion to the minister. I do not believe that, in such terms, this question is in order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I should like to insist since the matter is vitally important and since the minister himself has made this point. I think that people would be happy to be informed of the minister's views in that respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister could indicate his views on motions, if it is the hon. member's wish.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the federal government held any discussions with the provincial authorities in Alberta concerning the diversion of water into the Saskatchewan River from water sources now flowing north to the Arctic?


Hon. Jack Davies (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: There have been discussions concerning the Peace River and the flooding of the Athabasca delta, but our discussions have been confined primarily to that subject.


Randolph Harding: Has any agreement for diversion been reached and, if so, how many acre feet are involved? Have surveys been made to assess any ecological damage which may result from such a diversion?


John (Jack) Davis: I have no knowledge of a possible diversion, Mr. Speaker.

April 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



QUOTA PROGRAM-REASSIGNMENT OF ACREAGE TO GRAINS OTHER THAN THOSE ASSIGNED IN ORIGINAL PERMIT BOOK APPLICATIONS

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: This question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It pertains to the new grain quota program recently-announced. Is any provision being considered to allow for the reassignment of acreage to grains other than those assigned in the original permit book applications to compensate for changes in farmers' programs necessitated by abnormal weather conditions or other unforeseen situations?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At all times it was intended that some permission would be given to make changes in the event of crop failures or some similar situation. The Wheat Board is now giving serious consideration to authorizing a general right of reassignment prior to a certain date in the late fall.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have delayed doing so until the end of the question period because I did not want to interfere with the time available for questions. I thought the selfappointed repository of courtesy and intelligence in this chamber, the Solicitor General, would be here, but he is not. He left about 10 minutes ago. Had I known he was going to leave I would have raised my question of privilege earlier. It relates to something the hon. gentleman said. At one stage he said one of the reasons for refusing entry to Millhaven penitentiary of Members of Parliament was that if he did it for one he would have to do the same thing for others, and he did not wish to set that sort of precedent.
When my hon. friend from Timiskaming asked whether other members had visited the penitentiary during the time of the riot or later, he said no. The supplementary question of my hon. friend from Temiskaming established that the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands was a visitor to Kingston penitentiary, and such being the case I submit it casts some doubt upon the truthfulness of the remarks of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member is debating with the minister what were the actual circumstances. This cannot, in my estimation, constitute a question of privilege. I would say that the citation I quoted earlier when the hon. member for Abitibi rose on a question of privilege, Citation 113, is relevant in this case. I suggested to him that his question did not constitute a question of privilege and I have to make the same ruling in the case of the hon. member for Skeena. This is a matter for debate. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the minister again and try to have the question elucidated tomorrow.


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to simply state that I have never been in Mill-haven penitentiary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Skeena seek the floor at the same time. We shall have to recognize them one at a time. We shall begin with the hon. member for Skeena, but I would remind him that he has raised a question of privilege, that a ruling has been made by the Chair, and that the ruling is not subject to appeal.


Frank Howard: I am not appealing your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I know I am not able to do so. But the evasive, cover-up answer from the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, shows precisely how far he and his colleagues will go to hide from the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has to resume his seat. The question period has expired and there is nothing before the House at the moment except calling orders of the day. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege and the Chair ruled it was not a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance rose on a question of privilege and again it was ruled there was no question of privilege. I do not see in what way we can continue the debate at this time.


Frank Howard: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I just rose to indicate, on a question of privilege, that both the Solicitor General and now the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands have not been telling the truth in this House. Surely that is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have just ruled that it is not a question of privilege. I would invite the hon. member to read Citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I have made my ruling. The hon. member can make the point ten times, but he will still get the same ruling ten times. It is not a question of privilege. Orders of the day.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a very simple question of privilege. In the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, and in the remarks that I made we were asking about entrance into a penitentiary. The Minister of Finance, who is also the Member of Parliament for Kingston and The Islands, visited a penitentiary in similar circumstances, and that was my point. The answer that the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands has now given in his role as a member, in my opinion, is not correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This again is debate. It seems to me that the whole situation is very clear; certainly it is to me. These questions can be asked again by the hon. member, not by way of a question of privilege or point of order but as straight questions. The question

April 29, 1971

is a valid one and should be asked in the question period. If hon. members think that we should pursue the question period seven minutes after it has expired, this can be done, but only by unanimous consent. I will inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I respectfully suggest to the hon. members for Skeena and Timiskaming, who are seeking information that they are certainly entitled to obtain, that they raise the matter again when we reach the question period tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday, is the hon. member for Peace River not going to ask what is the business of the House for the ensuing days?


Gerald William Baldwin: I was, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to make sure that all questions of privilege had been thoroughly exhausted. Can the government House leader indicate what will be the business for today, tomorrow, Monday and as far along into next week as his strong eyes can see?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today, as was announced yesterday, we will begin with the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act, followed by the amendment to the Prime Minister's Residence Act. Following that I would call the agricultural bills, of which there are several, and then the Post Office Act. I should like to discuss further with my colleagues in what order I will call the various agricultural bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this particular bill, and the issue surrounding it, have really been in the public domain since February 1970, when the committee on parliamentary salaries and expenses was
Senate and House of Commons Act
appointed, and remained very active until its report was completed on November 16, 1970. In introducing this measure, and before paying some attention to the details of the bill, I should like to make a few comments about the role of the Member of Parliament.
The government and members on both sides of the House have for some time been concerned about the ability of the Member of Parliament to perform his role. As a result of this concern and the concern expressed by members themselves, members' facilities have gradually been improved. Some members will recall a time not so long ago when office accommodation had to be shared between two Members of Parliament. This situation has gradually been changed under successive governments, and plans are being developed for further improvement in office accommodation.
Following the 1968 election the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the creation of research facilities for Members of Parliament, with the result that research divisions were established for the first time and attached to each caucus. Recently, improvements have been made, slight but definite improvements, in secretarial facilities. These are among a number of steps that have been taken to assist members in the performance of their function as representatives of the people.
While there are some aspects of the Beaupre report which the government does not feel ready at this time to accept or to recommend to Parliament-for example, increases in salaries for office holders-it does fully support the analysis of the role of the Member of Parliament contained in that report.
Touching upon the role of the member and the facilities required to discharge the responsibilities undertaken by members, the Beaupre committee makes the following comment:
And yet, Members of Parliament, charged with the complicated and onerous responsibility of representing individual rights and interests as well as directing the affairs of the country are often deprived of even the most fundamental facilities requisite to the efficient performance of their duties, either because governments have not seen fit to make them available, or because of the strictures of the member's personal financial situation.
Then, in commenting upon the modern role of the Member of Parliament, the committee states:
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-
That is, the Beaupre 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 of Canada.
It seems to me it is not quite fair to demand of our Members of Parliament such a high degree of dedication to the public interest and then to fail to supply them with the necessary resources to help them discharge the tasks imposed upon them. Although the duties of a Member of Parliament cannot always be set down in a carefully drawn job description, these duties are never-
5352

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
theless real and important and have always been recognized as an integral part of the job of representing the electorate of Canada.
The simple fact is that constituents expect and are entitled to a certain amount of attention and service from their member and, in the modern context, usually the provision of these services costs money. In addition to that, Members of Parliament have certain duties imposed upon them by the electorate. They are not always in a position to pick and choose what they shall do and what they shall not do. We, who serve as Members of Parliament, all know that often times we respond to the requirements and needs of the constituents we serve at a time when we have carefully determined goals for ourselves. That is to be expected and it is quite supportable.
Members of Parliament are not always in a position to control the time spent on their jobs, nor do they have nicely categorized responsibilities and carefully determined jobs to which they can direct their attention. A member is usually and willingly at the beck and call of his constituents, and must at the same time serve his responsibilities in the House. These are important responsibilities which lie at the very heart of our democratic parliamentary system.
The late Mr. King, as Prime Minister, put the situation in these terms:
We cannot seek to detract from the importance of Parliament and we must afford to Members of Parliament that which will help them to preserve their independence and cause the best men in the country to enter its halls.
That objective is still modern and relevant, even though these words were spoken by Mr. King in 1945.
Even before the appointment of the Beaupre committee, it was obvious that members without independent means were unable to fulfil their responsibilities to their constituents and maintain a decent and reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families. The proposed measure is an attempt to deal with the problems, which members know better than anyone else, in a reasonable, honest and adequate fashion. The House will, of course, have the final determination of the proposals contained in this bill. The proposed bill has been put forward only after wide consultation and prolonged investigation by an independent committee and hon. members of the House. It is being introduced with the knowledge that it may not represent a perfect solution and that further study of this question will continue into the future, along with consideration of the role of the member in the functioning of the parliamentary system in the various ways in which members can be assisted to participate to the fullest extent in the adequate functioning of this institution.
These proposals are designed, in our view, to meet immediate requirements and alleviate present hardships. We believe that the goals suggested in the Beaupre report will be more directly attained by following the method outlined in the bill than by pursuing a course which may in the long run affect the status of elected members in a way not hitherto contemplated by Parliament.
The provision of $18,000 in indemnity and $8,000 in expense allowance will assist members to meet the pressing problems of maintaining two residences and fulfilling their personal, family, parliamentary and constituency obligations in a reasonable way. The bill is put forward as a solution which it is hoped will meet the problems with which members have had to deal in recent years and which have formed the basis of change. If better solutions or more effective proposals can be brought forward, the government is disposed to listen with sympathy and attention for future consideration.
The bill also contains amendments to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. The amendments proposed are designed so there will be no increase in either the contributions or pensions payable as a result of the proposed amendments to sections 33 and 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. The amount of contribution which a member pays is a percentage of his sessional indemnity as defined in paragraph (2)(l)(d) of the act. As a member of the House of Commons has been contributing on the sum of $12,000 sessional indemnity and $6,000 expense allowance, or $18,000 year only, there shall be no change in the level of contribution or the eventual pension as a result of the increase set out in the bill. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the definition of his sessional indemnity so that contributions will be made only on the net $18,000 sessional allowance.
The effect of this amendment is really to maintain a status quo in respect of the level of contributions and the maximum pension possible to a Member of Parliament. Similarly, a Senator who is under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act has been contributing on the sum of $12,000 sessional indemnity and $3,000 expense allowance, or $15,000 a year. In order that he shall continue to contribute on $15,000, it is necessary to amend the definition of his sessional indemnity. That is achieved by an amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Because it is of interest to members and to members of the other place, a Senator who is under the 1965 act which makes provision for the retirement of members of the Senate has been contributing on his $12,000 sessional indemnity alone. An amendment proposed in this bill is designed to provide that he will continue to contribute and have his pension calculated on the basis of $12,000 instead of the new allowance of $18,000. No change in the rate of contribution is proposed. So much for the amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Special provisions are made for members representing northern constituencies because they are subject to heavy burdens of expenses. These provisions are spelled out in the bill and will go a long way toward ensuring for elected representatives a degree of personal security which will compare with that in other less uncertain professions and contribute, I am certain, to the more efficient discharge of their responsibilities to the public.
Also of some interest is the provision to widen the existing authority for providing assistance to members for legitimate transportation and telecommunications expenses. As Your Honour is aware, the capacity of the

April 29, 1971


David Lewis: You mean we try.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So, it has been felt wise to preserve the allowance feature. Therefore a clear distinction is made between what a member receives in indemnity, $18,000 under the proposed legislation compared to $12,000 at present, and what he receives as an allowance to enable him to discharge his function as a member. This will rise from $6,000 to $8,000. I should like to make clear that the government's thinking in providing the $8,000 allowance, and in increasing the amount of the allowance by $2,000, is to assist members in providing additional facilities or services for themselves in order

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act better to serve the public. The need for such services is repeatedly stressed in the Beaupre report.
The $8,000 so recommended can be used by the member for accommodation in Ottawa, for a certain amount of travel including travel in his constituency, accommodation away from home and facilities in his constituency for keeping the member in closer contact with the electors of his riding. We are, therefore, recommending non-accountable expenses of $8,000 following the policy and tradition of this parliament since 1945. It will be recalled that the tax free allowance was introduced, I believe, in 1945 "for expenses incidental to the discharge of his duties as a member". In successive revisions since that time the principle of the allowance has been preserved, relating directly to the discharge of duties encountered by a Member of Parliament in his role as a Member of Parliament. I want to emphasize, with regard to the provision of facilities for constituency purposes, that the allowance is intended to enable the member to provide those facilities which in his own judgment are best suited to the needs of his particular constituency and in the way in which he can best use that sum of money to serve his constituents.
The elected member should have the authority and responsibility, in our view, to apply the allowance in a manner appropriate to his own particular situation. The Member of Parliament is continuously accountable, it seems to me, in a much more meaningful and relevant way to his fellow members of the House of Commons, to public opinion, and to the electorate. He will be required to give an accounting, and is giving an accounting, for all his activities to all these observing groups at all times. Surely, they will observe also and take him to account for the way in which he deals with the responsibility that he has now.
The considerations which the Beaupre committee used in reaching their conclusions on services are found on page 39 of the report. I will not repeat them here, but these were the considerations that led the committee to conclude that the welfare of Parliament demanded an increase in facilities and a substantial increase in salaries. We have differed somewhat in method from the recommendation of the Beaupre committee, but our approach favours the same goal. I have stated already the reasons which led us to reach this conclusion.
I want to make one point, and I think it is important to make it, that if you examine the Beaupre report and you make a list of those items of expense for which the Beaupre committee said members should be reimbursed, and if you put a figure on these, which is not hard to do, you will find that the total of these recommended expenses which should be met out of the public purse will, according to Beaupre, reach at least $8,000. The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) said that his total was in excess of $8,000. The expenses which Beaupre said should be reimbursable on voucher will at least reach $8,000 in my view, and I agree with the hon. member for Malpeque that it exceeds $8,000. So, we are really attempting to implement the facilities proposals of
Beaupre. All we differ in is the method, whether it be by submission of vouchers or through a fixed sum, with the responsibility in the hands of the member. That is the difference in method, and I believe there can be valid differences of opinion on that approach. The cabinet has certainly given very careful consideration to this matter and has concluded that it would be more in accord with the position of Members of Parliament to maintain this tax free allowance non-accountable.
My colleagues will recall that this was a very important point of argument, and the conclusion was reached on the basis of principle that we ought to maintain this, not because of any personal status which we want to confer on ourselves individually, or because of any personal glorification. We will pass out of here in due course, perhaps some of us quicker than we would like, but other Members of Parliament will come in to perform that office. We think this type of method is more in keeping with the traditional role of a Member of Parliament.
Today we had a question of privilege. It was on the grounds that Members of Parliament had a right to visit penal institutions. Presumably because the job demanded a particular independence that no other citizen required, Mr. Speaker made clear that Members of Parliament enjoy certain privileges under act of parliament which no other citizen enjoys. We can say what we please in this House within our rules. Why have we been given this special privilege? It has been given so Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, will be able to speak freely without fear or favour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They will have the independence to say what they think is necessary without fear of reprisal of any kind. If a member exceeds the bounds of good conduct, the House will discipline that member, but it is a special privilege.


David Lewis: For which we should get paid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I am arguing is-and I believe the hon. member will follow the argument if he does not agree with it-that Members of Parliament have certain privileges that no other citizen has in order to maintain their independence. That is the point. There are precedents. This situation was not created by this government or by this Parliament. It was created a long time ago. The Senate and House of Commons Act says that Members of Parliament shall have immunities, privileges and powers equivalent to those powers and privileges enjoyed by members of the British parliament. These continue for reasons that I have stated.
It may not be a great point, but I think the point is worth making, that we should preserve the independence of Members of Parliament and their status by not equating them to other civil servants who have to submit their accounts for minute examination. That is the only point that I am making. You can disagree with it or not, but I thought I should explain to the House that this is the reason that we have adopted this approach.

April 29, 1971

I should like to say a few things in conclusion. We agree, I believe, that we cannot afford to close out parliamentary life or parliamentary careers to men of modest means. Over the years, the principle followed has been that of attempting to draw a line between what is necessary as adequate compensation for those without private income while at the same time rejecting the principle that parliament shall be made attractive purely as a source of income. I think we have tried successfully to accomplish these objectives in this measure. I do not see any great danger of people running for parliament purely in order to obtain the remuneration and allowances spelled out in this measure. If they did so, I think they would be fooling themselves and I do not think in any such situation they would likely be elected. We do not need to ask the Beaupre Committee to tell us of the definite possibility of some hon. members, who otherwise might have been constrained to withdraw from public life in order to provide adequately for their families and meet their responsibilities, now being able to reconsider. One can only visualize cases of competent and able persons prevented from standing for a parliamentary seat because of financial obligations who will now be able hopefully to make their services available. That, at least, is one of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Anyone who is a member of this House knows the problems that have to be faced. They are recognized in the Beaupre committee report and in other studies over the years. The government is certainly not going to try to sell the measure to the House. Members will act according to their own personal assessment of the situation in which they and others find themselves.
In looking over the debate in 1954 I came across a statement by the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent. When introducing the legislation on that occasion he made the point which the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party made on Monday. He said:
Hon. members will appreciate, however, that these recommendations, which affect all of us in Parliament personally and directly, present an unusual situation. All of us feel reluctance to do for ourselves what we would not hesitate to do for others.
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. However, the job has to be done and it has been made clear in all the debates that nobody can take this responsibility except the government. We feel that in this instance, and based on a lot of thought, the move we are making is in the best interests of Parliament and not just the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) or the member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) or the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but Parliament as a whole. It is in that spirit that I believe we ought to consider the measure.
Mr. St. Laurent made this further comment:
However, all of us have a duty to consider first what is advisable in the interest of upholding and strengthening our democra-
Senate and House of Commons Act
tic parliamentary institutions, and I ask every hon. member on both sides of the House to put aside all personal or partisan considerations and to approach the consideration of this resolution and the consequent legislation in an objective spirit, and deal with it not because of the way in which it may affect him personally, but in the way in which he honestly believes will be in the best interests of our Canadian parliamentary institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Later, an amendment was made by the then hon. member for MacLeod that would make the proposal at that time optional. In other words if you wanted to take the salary, there would be a clause in the bill giving you that option. The prime minister of the day refused that amendment because he said the bill had to be considered not on what was the wish of any individual member, on whether he wanted to take it, but that these measures ought to be judged on what was good for the institution of Parliament. That is the spirit in which I am proposing this bill to the House and I hope I have displayed that spirit in making my presentation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is for second reading and reference to the Committee on Procedure and Organization of Bill C-242, which deals, among other things, with the question of increasing the pay and allowances of members of Parliament. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has said, this is not a task that any of us look forward to or relish, but nevertheless the responsibility rests with the government to bring in the proposed measure and with Parliament as a whole to determine what its fate will be. This being the case, there is no way that we can avoid our responsibility.
Members of Parliament must therefore look objectively at this problem as it affects this institution and its future, and as it will affect the men and women who will replace those of us who sit in this chamber at the present time. I refer to the young men and women just starting their parliamentary career who would look forward to a considerable number of years in the service of this chamber. It would be easy to cater to the fact that the general public may be lacking in information with regard to the peculiarities of the duties of Members of Parliament. It is therefore a rather thorny nettle that we must grasp but we must grasp it now. I feel that nobody should look upon the sessional allowance of Members of Parliament as a salary for the simple reason that nobody should consider service in this House of Commons as a career that they can choose as young men and look forward to as a way of providing a livelihood in their productive years. Anyone who looks to service in the House of Commons from this selfish point of view, as something that he sets out to do, usually does not get here. Rather he may end up in some university teaching Political Science, but he certainly would not be elected as a Member of Parliament because the very opposite is the case.

April 29. 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
Members of Parliament, as a rule, do not put themselves forward in the first instance as candidates for nomination by a political party; by the reverse process, political parties representing bodies of opinion throughout the country seek the man they think will attract the greatest confidence of the greatest number of people in the area and they call upon the electorate to elect him. He is not home free yet by any manner of means. He is then subject to an election campaign where he is presumably running against two or three others who are the best people their parties can find in that area. Only one can win; there are no second prizes in this business. Having gone through that process, he has no security of tenure. He is subject to re-election, usually at least every four years. Over the last period of years elections have been much more frequent than that. I have not served in this chamber for quite 20 years, yet I have had to win eight elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: What I want to try to impress on the chamber is that we are not looking at a salary that can be accurately compared with a salary in any other field of endeavour. To begin with, the salary does not increase automatically as one gains experience and as one serves over a period. The fellow who has been here for 30 years, and since confederation several members have served here for 30 years, gets exactly the same as the fellow who was just elected in the last election. In other words, you do not get more simply because you have been here for a long time, or succeeded in staying here for a long time, unless you happen to be given the opportunity of taking on additional responsibilities or are made a cabinet minister. I shall say more about that later.
So, the ordinary criteria that apply to suitable remuneration in an ordinary career cannot validly be applied to the remuneration for serving in this place. It is difficult to know any field with which one can validly compare this place. It occurs to me that an allowance one is paid here is something like damages. When somebody, through negligence, causes an accident that destroys some person's ability to carry on an ordinary career and earn his ordinary means of livelihood, damages are paid. There is an element of this in the sessional allowances paid to Members of Parliament. Many members are pressured, I might say, into running for Parliament by their parties. They are elected because they are doing well in their careers. Usually at that time when they are making a good living and they should be consolidating their positions. Sometimes they serve here as members for one or two parliaments, and are defeated. When they go back they find that the business they had built up or the professional career they had established as an income producer has been virtually destroyed, and they must start over again at great financial sacrifice to themselves. That is why, basically, we must look at the salary in the first instance as a sessional allowance.
What is an appropriate figure? As I have said, it is difficult to be just in this matter. We should need the
judgment of Solomon to come down with a figure, applicable to every member of the House, that would be fair. It is difficult to do, since what we are trying to do applies to ourselves and our colleagues. Therefore, as the minister has said, we must try to remain somewhere between two levels, between the figure that would be so attractive that people would seek election to this place for monetary gain and the second, lower figure, below which Canadians except those of independent means would be completely precluded from serving in Parliament. I sincerely believe that we are well below that figure now and will be below it until this legislation is passed. The proof of that pudding is that there are a number of members in this House who, if the indemnity were not increased, could not in conscience continue in this House. They would have to refrain from running in the next election in the interests of maintaining their obligations to their dependents and to themselves.
As I said the other day, there are roughly three categories of members in this House: those of independent means; those who can serve here as a result of a combination of favourable circumstances; and those who, if the present situation were to continue, would have to discontinue membership in the House if they were to be fair to their families. On a different occasion the wife of a member made a caustic comment to me. She said, "You know, I worked for two or three years to put my husband through college. We had to pay for him for the last three years until he got his degree. I didn't expect that I would have to work for a number of years to put him through parliament as well."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: May I say a word about the amount that has been recommended by the minister. I ought to say at once, and I neglected to say this at the beginning of my remarks, that this is not a party, political matter and, therefore, I am not in a position to bind the stand of members of my party on this bill. Nor would I wish to do so even if I could. I think it is fair to say, nevertheless, that the vast majority of members of the official opposition agree with the proposition that, in principle, something must be done. Since we have gone through a long period of inflation and rising costs, I deplore the fact that there has been such a long period without adjustment. The longer such a period is, the more difficult it is to adjust the matter fairly and accurately.
I point out that when wages increase by 3 or 4 per cent per year, each year's increase is a percentage of the previous year's total. Wages, therefore, increase as compound interest increases, in geometric progression. If our salaries had been increased by 6 per cent every year for the last eight years, the amount would be $19,000 and not $18,000. If the increase had been 5 1/4 per cent for seven years in a row, the total amount of the increase would have been greater than 50 per cent of the original at the end of eight years. A 6 per cent increase every year for seven years is a little bit greater than a 50 per cent increase in a "slap". I am not putting these figures forward in justification of the figure suggested. I am pointing this out in passing.

April 29, 1971

Actually, in my opinion, the increase in salary is a little high; on the other hand, if there is to be another long lapse before another adjustment is made, it is not adequate, especially if the erosion of the value of the dollar continues in the future. I recognize that the government probably arrived at the figure of $18,000 because they were not completely free to go below it when all considerations had been taken into account. One consideration is that we are amending the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. The retirement allowances that were provided by the amendments to the act last year were long overdue. They are now adequate, but no more than that. I do not agree with one aspect of that legislation, but on the whole the legislation which was passed last year is reasonable.
I do not think there was any justification or logic in making our allowances for expenses, now $6,000 which will be increased to $8,000, a part of the amount on which we should be able to contribute for our retirement. That was completely illogical. Even if the government has had to raise the salary figure a little higher than it intended, by making it $18,000 and by amending the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, I am pleased that they thereby kept retirement contributions and benefits constant and now will have them only on the indemnity side of the benefits where they logically should be.
I wish to make a couple of other comments in passing. Although the minister did refer to it briefly, he did not say much about the fact that the government is not recommending any increase in the salaries of office holders, namely the cabinet, parliamentary secretaries, Speaker and others of that category. As a result of that, the differentiation between the remuneration of a backbencher and the office of Prime Minister, cabinet minister or Speaker has diminished substantially. That is as it should be.
When the very large differential was established between the sessional indemnity of a private member and a cabinet minister, it was justified because the office holders were required to remain in Ottawa and work all year. In those days, the sessions of Parliament were relatively short, at that time members of Parliament could apply some of their time in the course of the year to their ordinary occupation. That is no longer the case. The sessions of Parliament have increased to such a degree that not only the office holders but the private Members of Parliament are here virtually all year. This is a full-time job. There is not as much need for a wide differential between the two classes.
I recommend, however, that a review be made in the very near future of the pay of office holders. If and when this bill passes, a review of the position of office holders should be reviewed in the light of this legislation with a view to adjusting it upwards in some cases. I believe that the salary of the office of Speaker is not adequate. The position of members of the government should be reviewed, including the positions of Prime Minister,
Senate and House of Commons Act Leader of the Opposition, parliamentary secretaries, whips and others.


An hon. Member:: And House leaders.


John Angus MacLean: It is not appropriate that the person holding the office of Prime Minister of this great country should receive roughly the same remuneration as a deputy minister. That is what the position will be in the very near future. If it is not adjusted, it will not be too far from that. I have no firm recommendations to make on this at the moment, but it is something which should be reviewed in the not too distant future.
Amendments are also being made to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. As I have said, it was appropriate for the government to draw this bill in such a way that the increases in the sessional indemnity and allowances will not be changed with regard to the size of either the benefits or contributions to be made in connection with retiring allowances. It is appropriate that the contributions should be based only on the sessional indemnity total amount which Members of Parliament receive. That is as it should be.
Because this act is being opened, it gives me an opportunity to make an observation. There were a number of Members of Parliament in the last Parliament who for various reasons such as age and health are no longer members because they did not stand for Parliament in the last election. I am not speaking about the people who stood for Parliament and were defeated. That is their tough luck. I am referring to those who did not stand for Parliament in the last election. After long years of faithful service to the people of Canada, they forfeited the benefits which would have accrued to them had they been in this Parliament when the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was amended. I realize it is difficult to do anything retroactive for ex-members of Parliament, but it is within the power of this government to compensate for this situation in other ways. I hope the government will examine the situation and make suitable appointments or something of that sort to a few outstanding cases in this field.
There is very little else I want to say at this time. I believe that most members of the party I represent are in agreement with this bill in principle. I hope it will be given second reading and referred to committee for detailed study within a reasonable time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by saying to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that I very much appreciate the tone in which he introduced the bill and the sincerity with which he obviously spoke. I appreciated his approach to it in a way that did the best that could be done for the bill which he presented. Even though I am going to express opposition to it, I hope that in my remarks I can match the same approach of responsible discussion as he did in the introduction of this bill.

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
The President of the Privy Council said the government was introducing this measure, not for the benefit of any particular member or members in the House, but in the best interests of Parliament. I want to say that my opposition to this bill derives precisely from my concern for the best interests of Parliament in the eyes of the people of Canada. I think it is impossible for the government or for members of this House to ignore the economic and social context in which the bill before us is being introduced and discussed. If we were living at a time of relatively full employment, with two or three per cent unemployment only, if the promises of three years ago had been even partially fulfilled and some of the inequalities in our society had been lessened, if not removed, if we could look at what Parliament and this government had done in the last three years and feel the people had really benefited from efforts to eradicate or at least to reduce the injustices in our present society, then the President of the Privy Council might have a situation on which to base his statement that he was bringing forward this proposal in the best interests of Parliament.
As things are, I do not believe the bill will serve the best interests of Parliament. I can think of no better way of putting it than the words the minister quoted from Mr. St. Laurent when he was prime minister in 1954. He was quoted by the President of the Privy Council as saying, in connection with a bill of the kind presently before us: "All of us feel a reluctance to do for ourselves what we would not hesitate to do for others." This is what worries me. Can the people of Canada really think that this is the case when they consider all we have failed to do for the poor of Canada, or the limits we have placed upon what we are prepared to do for the old age pensioners in Canada, or the deliberate creation of unemployment throughout the country as a result of government policies, or our failure to remove the slums in this country or even to affect them appreciably, or our failure to build homes for the people who so desperately need them, or the mincing steps we have taken to clear pollution from the environment of our cities, or to clean up the air and waters of Canada for the benefit of the people? Can we sincerely agree with Mr. St. Laurent that we would not hesitate to do for others what we are prepared, now, to do for ourselves? I suggest we cannot, because it is not a correct statement, and because we cannot do so I submit we cannot in conscience support the proposition placed before us today.
Too many millions of people are today suffering deprivation of an extreme kind, and we have taken only a very few uncertain steps to deal with this situation. I am not making an attack on the government only; I suspect that other governments would encounter similar difficulties with respect to some of these intractable problems. But it is in this context I am obliged to look at the bill before us. I cannot support it. I cannot support it because I can imagine what all these people will feel. And there are millions of them. I am not thinking about one per cent of the Canadian people. I am thinking about 80 or 90 per cent of the Canadian people, half of whom are living

in poverty and the other half in extreme financial and economic difficulty. I am thinking about the overwhelming majority of our people, not only those in the industrial plants, in the mines and in the forests, but working people on the farms who are going through a situation of extreme financial want and inadequate cash income.
These are the people we are asking to make our situation relatively quite comfortable. I cannot agree to this. I cannot accept the notion that we have in fact been ready to do for others what we are prepared to do for ourselves, because we have not. Representatives of the government, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, have gone about the country saying to the workers: You must not take more than 6 per cent. The Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission says: You must not take more than 4 or 5 per cent. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says the increases received by ordinary working-people are too high, that they must come down. This is the context within which the present bill is presented. This Parliament has said to the people of the country generally-and even though I disagree with these statements I am a member of the House: You will have to accept a situation of difficulty and economic pressure, of financial inadequacy. To the poor we have said: We sympathize with you, but you must continue to live in poverty and degradation. To the unemployed we have said: Because we are fighting inflation we shall create unemployment, and we have done so.
I feel it is impossible to support this bill for four simple reasons. First, because of the size of the increase, if any increase is justified. There are Members of Parliament who have been in difficulty and one must recognize that some increase is justified. But this is too much. Second, I object to continuing and increasing the nontaxable allowance. Even if we decided to leave the $6,000 where it was as a non-taxable allowance, any additional expenses that we allow members to charge to the public treasury ought to be on the basis of vouchers. I object strongly to the provision of seven months retroactivity. Seven-twelfths of the increase will go to Members of Parliament if this bill passes today; if it is passed a month from now it will be eight-twelfths of the total increase. We do not deal with public servants in this way; they must be satisfied with only part of the increase being made retroactive and the rest from the date of settlement. But in this case, the increase is retroactive to October 7 or October 8, whatever the date may be. I object, finally, to the method by which the incomes and expenses of Members of Parliament are adjusted.
Let me deal with each of these objections separately. I do not buy the idea of a 50 per cent increase in salary, leaving the allowance aside. The increase in indemnity proposed is from $12,000 to $18,000, that is, 50 per cent. I was among those who were defeated in 1963 before the increase took place and I did not come back until 1965. But I have had occasion to look at Hansard.
In 1963, the indemnity of Members of Parliament was increased from $8,000 to $12,000 and the non-taxable allowance was increased from $2,000 to $6,000. If my
April 29, 1971

memory serves me aright, in the discussion at the time it was pointed out that it was difficult to make adjustments very frequently and that the adjustments that were then made would take into account future years as well as past years. If an adjustment had been made for the past only, the increase would not have been so high. Therefore, I do not buy the argument that we go back seven and a half years, because I am certain that at least half of that time was taken into account in the adjustment made in 1963.
The simple fact is that this represents a 50 per cent increase in salary for a Member of Parliament in one crack. If it is also being done for the moguls and mandarins in the public service, I object to that as well. If they can make more in private industry, then I suggest they should go out and mislead private industry instead of misleading the government and the people of Canada, as so many of the mandarins have done and are doing now. This is too large a chunk of increase for me to buy.
As for the additional non-taxable allowance, I think expense vouchers would have been preferable. I take second place to no one in this House in wishing that the facilities of members could be improved so that we could improve our service to our constituents. I do not believe that the Bri ish system is so right. There are many things in the British system upon which we have improved. I have long ago cut my apron strings from the head of what used to be the Commonwealth and Empire but what is now just the Commonwealth, of which Britain is a member like any other member country of the Commonwealth. This has brought about a great improvement in international relations.
I see no reason for following the British example regard to facilities. I find nothing more depressing than to go to Westminster and see a Member of Parliament dictating to a secretary in the hall. I think we have made some improvements in this country in this regard. When I first came to live in Ottawa in the late thirties I remember visiting Mr. Coldwell and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who had just been elected, both of whom occupied the same room. They had no secretary but had to get a typist from the pool whom they brought to their office. Although there has been some improvement, a great deal more improvement is necessary before our work can really be as effective as it ought to be. Until very recently I, like other backbench members of the House, occupied an office with my secretary. I always found awkward the fact that she had to walk the halls of this building for at least half the day while I was being interviewed or was interviewing someone in my office. So our facilities do have to be improved.
I simply could not get, no matter how much I tried, some little improvement from the government in the amount of money allocated to research for opposition parties. The $35,000 a year allotted by the government to our party about three years ago has not been increased. We have to provide for increases in staff, or for better staff if possible, out of that amount. I have spoken to members of the cabinet many times in the past two years about making some little improvement, but have always been turned down.
Senate and House of Commons Act
I say to the President of the Privy Council that this would be one improvement in facilities that would help the members of my party as well, I am sure, as the members of other parties, including the government party. I could not even get a $10,000 or $15,000 increase in order to improve the salaries we have to pay to three people, plus a secretary, plus other expenses to which the $35,000 had to stretch. We have to provide for three researchers, a secretary and meet these other expenses out of a total of $35,000.
Our services to our constituents ought to have first place. We ought to be able to afford an office and some staff in each constituency, particularly in large constituencies. I might be able to do without in my close metropolitan constituency in Toronto which is very small in area. Those who represent constituencies that stretch over tens, sometimes twenties, of miles long and wide certainly need assistance to enable them to travel in a proper manner, adequately and quickly. Such services are essential.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council why the expense of providing these services cannot be met by a voucher system. This would not denigrate the position of a Member of Parliament. We would have the $6,000 non-taxable allowance as before, though the Beau-pre committee objected to it and I agree with their objection. With a voucher system, additional expenses would have to be set out and only those who incurred such expenses would be reimbursed.
There is no restriction on how we use the $8,000, as was the case with the $6,000 also. The problem is in the context not of mistrust of any member but in the context of the taxpayer outside the House of Commons who, before he is allowed any deductions from his taxable income, has to show how he has expended certain moneys. He has to prove his expenses. Assuming that he donates to charity more than $100, he then has to prove every penny he has spent.
The average taxpayer of Canada has the right to ask: What is it that places the Member of Parliament in such a special position that he can get eight thousand bucks a year for which he does not have to account, and with which he can do anything. It is in the context of the best interests of this institution in the eyes of the people that I raise all these points.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Compulsory transfer from non-taxable war veterans allowances to taxable guaranteed income supplement-Application of tax relief to 1971; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Finance-Representation of general public on banks' boards of directors.

April 29, 1971
Private Bills
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 private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonton-Siraihcona) moved: that Bill S-12, respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to permit Central-Del Rio Oils Limited to acquire the status of a company incorporated under Part I of the Canada Corporations Act and, subject to the provisions of that act, to amalgamate with its wholly owned subsidiary Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited. The circumstances are these. The Central-Del Rio Oils Limited is a public company incorporated under the Alberta Companies Act of 1947. Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited is a company incorporated under letters patent under the Canada Corporations Act. All shares issued and outstanding are wholly owned by Central-Del Rio. Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited is, therefore, a wholly owned subsidiary of Del Rio.
The operations of these two companies, both of which are engaged in the exploration and development of oil and gas resources, mainly in the Prairie provinces and and in the Northwest Territories, have been completely integrated for a considerable period of time. For administrative reasons only, it is desirable at this time to amalgamate the two companies. Section 128A of the Canada Corporations Act provides for amalgamation of companies incorporated under that act but Central-Del Rio is not, of course, incorporated under that act at the present time. The Alberta Companies Act under which Central-Del Rio is incorporated provides that the company, if authorized by special resolution of its shareholders and the laws of Canada, may apply to be continued as if it had been incorporated under federal law. No comparable provision is contained in the Canada Corporations Act, hence the necessity for this bill.
The bill authorizes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), on application of the company authorized by a special resolution of its shareholders, to issue letters patent to Central-Del Rio continuing it as a company under Part I of the Canada Corporations Act. It will then have the same status as if it had been incorporated under that act in the first place. I should point out that no change is proposed in the authorized capital or in the powers of the company and, of course, all of the rights of creditors are preserved.
In addition, the bill provides that an amalgamation agreement, adopted at a meeting of the company shareholders at which the special resolution approving the application to continue the company as a company under
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
the Canada Corporations Act was approved, shall be deemed to be an amalgamation agreement for the purposes of section 128A of the Canada Corporations Act. You will readily understand the reason for this.
The alternative would be that a shareholders' meeting would be necessary to pass a special resolution to authorize the company to apply to become a continuing company under the federal act. Then, a second shareholders' meeting would be necessary to approve an agreement for the purpose of amalgamating the two corporations. There is, therefore, a provision in this act which avoids the necessity for these two shareholders' meetings by providing that the amalgamation agreement passed at the same time as the special resolution authorizing the company to apply for continuation under the federal statute will be regarded as an amalgamation agreement under the Canada Corporations Act.
I might add, as a matter of interest, that Canadian Pacific Investments Limited is the majority shareholder in Central-Del Rio Oils Limited. Canadian Pacific Investments Limited holds 89.27 per cent of the outstanding equity shares. Out of a total of 83,074 shareholders, 72,047 are residents of Canada and hold some 29,825,000 shares. There are fewer than 1,000 shareholders who are resident in the United States, and they hold in the aggregate only 311,000 shares. The remaining group of shareholders, about 128 in number, are resident in other than the United States and Canada and hold in total approximately 319,000 shares.
The bill really contains a simple provision which is necessary if these two companies are to amalgamate. The only alternative procedure would be to disband the existing company and re-incorporate under the federal act which is a much more complicated procedure than that proposed by this legislation. I therefore urge that this bill be accepted.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to commend the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill for the clear way in which he explained its purpose. I followed his introductory remarks word for word and noticed that he stayed close to the extent, and that with one or two exceptions which are appropriate in this House as distinct from the Senate, his speech was identical to that of a great Canadian, Senator Manning.


An hon. Member:: Senator Manning! Who is he?


Frank Howard: In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is something with which this House should concern itself beyond what Senator Manning said and beyond what the hon. gentleman from Edmonton has said. We should be concerned about the position of resources in Canada and the potential and existing relationship between Central-Del Rio, Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited and foreign corporations. As I understand it, and this is not clear from either reading or listening, Central-Del Rio is considered to be a Canadian owned corporation in the sense that Canadian Pacific Investments owned it and that there are fewer than 1,000 shareholders resident in the United States holding $311,000 shares compared with 29 million shares in Canadian hands.
April 29, 1971

What we should be concerned about, inasmuch as we have just witnessed the end of one phase of the consideration by the government of the position of Home Oil vis-a-vis Canadian ownership, is the general expectation that the government will eventually get around to developing and making public a policy statement about Canadian ownership. This matter has been of concern to different governments for quite some period of time. It is a matter of tremendously increasing importance to Canadians from one end of Canada to the other. This is the activity to which I should like to refer.
Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited, which is the subsidiary, has a 9 per cent investment and interest in Panarctic Oil which is, as we know, a consortium of a number of private companies, I think 20 in number, and the Canadian government, as the representative of Canadian taxpayers. This Parliament of Canada acts on behalf of these Canadian people in respect of an investment to the extent of 45 per cent in the equity ownership of Panarctic Oil. We are participants, along with Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas, Central-Del Rio and Canadian Investments Limited in oil exploration and development in the Arctic area.
In addition to our general concern about Canadianism we must consider what we should do in respect of acceding to the request of this company for the passage of this bill. It is my view that the Parliament of Canada should exact from the proponents of this bill-the owners of the company or companies involved-an admission that it should always be the case in the Canadian interest that a maximum be placed upon the degree of foreign ownership permitted in the oil industry or particularly in this segment of the oil industry of this country. In another way, and at another time, we determined this in so far as the banking institutions of Canada are concerned. There shall be a limitation on the equity ownership in banks. On two other occasions, this Parliament determined in respect of two insurance companies that there should be and is in fact, a limitation upon the extent of foreign ownership of those Canadian subsidiary companies. In those two instances as you may recall, Mr. Speaker, because I think on one of those occasions you were in the Chair when the House dealt with those matters, we started from the point that the company which sought incorporation by way of a private bill was in fact United States owned, and that in that regard it was a matter of putting a limitation that had involved in it a point of time as well as a percentage of ownership.
It was the approach of Parliament at that time to ask for a reversal of the foreign ownership situation to get to a point where Canadianism was the prominent factor in those companies. Here, we do not have that situation. We have a company which, according to the hon. gentleman from-


An hon. Member:: Edmonton-Strathcona.


Frank Howard: -Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries)-I apologize for not knowing the proper name
Private Bills
of the hon. member's constituency but in order to remember names of constituencies one must have the opportunity to hear them often and this has not been my privilege in this case. In any event, according to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and Senator Manning, there is a large degree of Canadian ownership within this company. I think this Parliament should continue that large degree of Canadian ownership. I think we should incorporate some type of provision in this bill. I am not attempting to draft the words of it now because that would become a technical and legal matter. However, I believe there should be some provision in this legislation which would limit for all time the extent of foreign ownership in this particular company.
I believe a similar approach should be taken in respect of the other bill concerning Mic Mac Oils, but we have not looked at it sufficiently to determine what the inner corporate structure of that company is. This is a Canadian firm and we should be concerned about what is best for Canada. I think it would be well, through you, Mr. Speaker, in an indirect way to ask the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona if he would communicate to the principals of this company, the board of directors or the lawyer representing the company, the fact that it has been stated in Parliament-it is true by only one member so far-that this bill should have contained a provision which would limit the amount of foreign ownership in the company. In this way, it would remain Canadian by declaration of this Parliament. I am not at this moment advancing any arbitrary figure because I have none in mind. I think one would have to look at the relative percentage of ownership involved. Does the hon. gentleman from Edmonton-Strathcona desire to ask a question?


Hu Harries: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this bill is going to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and at that time it would be our intention to have as many of the officers of the company as required there. I believe that would be an excellent time to discuss this particular matter with them, if that would be satisfactory?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that would be quite satisfactory. However, I think it would be even more satisfactory if we had some indication from the hon. member before the bill receives second reading that there is a commitment on the part of the company to the proposition we are making, so that it would not be just a simple matter of answering questions. On the two previous occasions on which Parliament dealt with legislation of this nature and put some delimiting features in the legislation, if that is any precedent, the amendments were drafted before the bill received second reading. That would seem to be a reasonable way to do it in this case. I would be glad to accommodate the hon. gentleman at some subsequent time when the matter is revived for second reading by permitting him an opportunity to disclose the type of information he receives from the principals behind this bill. If there should be agreement in respect of what we propose concerning foreign ownership, then we could give second reading at that stage and proceed to the consideration before the committee.

April 29, 1971
Private Bills
At the conclusion of my last remarks, the hon. member leaned back in his seat probably as an indication that he is not willing to accept the suggestion I made. But I believe it would be a very pertinent and worthwhile thing to do because we are dealing with the resources of Canada. Some of these come under the jurisdiction of the provinces pursuant to the BNA Act, but none the less they are resources which should be available for the use of Canadians.
I think it might be worthwhile to look at what Central-Del Rio Oils Limited comprises in so far as its ownership of producing oil and gas wells and the leases it holds and so on are concerned. We could then see what is involved at the moment, without looking into the future to see what advances this company may make. Central-Del Rio Oils Limited has a wholly owned subsidiary Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited, and another wholly owned subsidiary as well, Leduc Limited in the United States. There is also Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas of Canada Limited which carries on operations in the United Kingdom and an affiliated company, Minerals Limited in the province of Saskatchewan. At least this is the information provided by the Financial Post Survey of Oils, 1971.
Central-Del Rio Oils and its subsidiaries hold interests equal to more than 705 oil and gas wells and some 20 million acres of oil and gas rights, chiefly in western and northern Canada. The company specifically owns mineral titles, Crown and freehold leases covering 11,787,827 gross acres in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba of which 2,926,409 acres are under lease or sublease to others, with the company reserving a royalty, and are therefore excluded from a table which I have here. Unleased mineral title lands are included within the table. I did not refer to the table because I do not think it is necessary at this stage to list in detail what these holdings are. In addition, mineral titles are held on 1,800,000 gross acres on Vancouver Island, B.C., as are mineral prospecting permits covering 332,490 net acres in Keewatin district in the Northwest Territories.
The company in the first half of 1970, just about a year ago, purchased 4,160 acres for $1.1 million at West Pekis-ko and West Quirk Creek in Alberta; 60,000 acres for $800,000 in northeastern B.C.; and additional interests in southwestern Alberta and the Fort Simpson area in the Northwest Territories. One of the things which we could probably explore about these purchases is that presumably-and this is not clear from the Financial Post Survey of Oils 1971, I am just speculating about the possibility of what exists here-the $1.1 million which they paid for the 4,000 acres in Alberta was simply paid for the rights and not for any producing wells. If that is the case, it is almost like real estate speculation in which someone buys a lot of land or acquires leasehold rights to it and then sells those rights with the consequential sale price being reflected in whatever the commodities are that are produced later on.
In other words, I am sure that this $1.1 million which was paid for the 4,000 acres in Alberta and the $800,000 which was paid for the 60,000 acres in northeastern

British Columbia will eventually show up, if it has not already, in the price which consumers pay for gasoline, for fuel oil and all other oils as well as for natural gas. Also, it will add to the inflationary trend in the price of gas and oil. In addition, it will add to the inflation which arises out of speculation, not out of the actual cost of exploration and development which is probably a legitimate cost. I say again that I am guessing that that is what has happened here, and if it is inaccurate, I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) will correct me when he closes the debate on second reading, if that time ever arrives.
At the end of 1969, Central-Del Rio and Canadian Pacific Gas owned the equivalent of 428,000 oil wells and 266 gas wells. Since that time, some additional wells have been developed. It has a 75 per cent working interest in a 1970 gas discovery at North Bragg Creek in Alberta which has an open flow potential of more than 100 million cubic feet per day. This well went into production in the summer of last year, incidentally, and there are quite a number of other gas discoveries which it is not worth while going into at this time. I am just citing these figures to show that there are some rather extensive holdings of resources which should primarily be used for the purpose of serving the interests of Canadians. We can do that in one way, by preserving an element of Canadian ownership in the companies themselves, and it is for that purpose that I recite the information.
At the end of December 1969 there were net reserves, after royalties, of a certain number of barrels of oil and a certain quantity expressed in millions of cubic feet of natural gas as well as a certain quantity of long tons of sulphur, which were proven reserves. There is an interesting item here, and I am not that familiar with the intricacies of working relationships between one oil company and another oil company, but the phrase which intrigues me and which appears in brackets here relates to royalties. With respect to reserves, it says:
At December 31, 1969, net reserves (after royalties) were as follows:
I wonder whether or not "after royalties" means some of the royalties to other companies to which the company is indebted. I am not sure what that means, but in any event it indicates that there are proven reserves of 165 million barrels of oil.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: I wish to give general approval to this bill. There is great need for oil development in Canada, and if we are to argue for Canadian participation we have to expand our development of Canadian oil. There is a great danger at the present time if we do not do this that the development of oil on Prudhoe Bay and other fields in the North and South American complex will be taken over at a time when I think oil development is an important link in our economic need. I agree with the last speaker, however, that we must insist that every effort be made to keep not only
April 29, 1971

our oil resources but all other resources under Canadian control, in so far as we can. This is impossible unless we have tax concessions which would be at least equal to those enjoyed by U.S. companies in our country. So, as the mover of the bill is on the government side, I hope he will keep this in mind and make sure that he uses his not inconsiderable influence to see that there are indeed changes in our tax laws so that Canadians can participate with their own money when they can buy these shares.
It is impossible for us to buy shares in these companies unless we can compete, and one of the reasons that we cannot compete is that the United States, with its 200 million people, has ten times as many people in the market for our Canadian industries. They have a tax advantage, of up to at least 20 per cent compared to Canadians. Of course, this is a bonanza.
The argument that to pass this bill might increase inflation makes me speechless. Quite the reverse is true. Because the oil industry is capable of reducing costs, this is what they are trying to do. They are trying to cut down their overhead, and this saving should be passed on to the shareholders of the company. If the shareholders of the company are to be Canadian, then they will receive a bigger return for the share dollars that they put into the company. Whether or not these two companies, when they amalgamate, will be more active in the exploration field rather than in the speculation field, who can say. The oil business operates under the free enterprise system. I imagine that my friends to the left would criticize this, saying that it should be entirely state owned. I am not one of those who believe that state ownership necessarily improves the efficiency of any industry, certainly not the oil industry where the knowhow is in the hands of private development. Had it not been for the private development know-how of the Americans, we would have had no oil industry in Canada. So, I do not think we would be quite fair if we did not give them some consideration, after allowing them to come here and do the pioneering in this industry.
I would oppose any suggestion that we nationalize or expropriate any private enterprise. When this company receives its charter to amalgamate and cut down overheads, I hope it will proceed as soon as possible with the extraction of oil from the Athabaska tar sands. Only yesterday I heard from a man who is supposed to be an expert in this field that there is no need for us to take oil from the Arctic because there are great, known reserves in Alberta sufficient to handle Canadian needs. Apparently the reserves in the Athabaska tar sands are astronomical; indeed, I have never heard a figure of less than 200 billion barrels mentioned.
We are relying entirely on American risk capital at this time, Mr. Speaker, and I feel this is a mistake. Here is a company with a great future and a great opportunity to get into this field and develop the Athabaska tar sands for Canadians. Surely we should be the last people to stop them. Instead of nationalizing the oil industry, I think we should do all we can to put money into this
Private Bills
endeavour. At a time of world need this reserve of oil may well become the lifeblood of western democracy, and surely it is our duty to spend the money, even on a defence budget, to make sure that it is developed. In North America it is far removed from the danger of atomic submarines and is as safe from air attack as anything can be. Surely it is up to us to see that this great reserve is developed as rapidly as possible.
Taking the long view, even looking to the days when war will be no more, we can see that the need for oil will be doubled in ten years and perhaps quadrupled in 20 years, and even with the Prudhoe Bay find we may not have sufficient to meet all requirements. We need the Athabaska tar sands with its 200 billion barrels-and that is a very conservative figure; the reserves would probably run to four or five times that figure if we did more exploration. It is easy to see what is there; great quantities of oil are staring us in the face, waiting to be extracted. It is very high-grade oil which is more expensive than oil taken from wells, but exploration costs are practically nil and the size of the reserve is tremendous; we should not ignore it.
I take pleasure in seconding the motion for second reading of this bill which still has to go through committee where the question of percentage of Canadian ownership will be thrashed out. Then we will have no need to provide this added incentive unless the two companies involved play ball with the Canadian people.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, like some other members of this House I had not anticipated the opportunity of speaking on these oil bills. Some of us were pleased that the bills had been handled in another way and were surprised to find two bills concerning oil companies on the order paper for discussion at this time. Over a period of years I have been concerned about how we should provide for the control of natural resources in basic industries remaining in Canadian hands. It has been suggested that we nationalize industries to achieve Canadian control, that we regulate for Canadian control or, as we did with Panarctic, that we buy for Canadian control. I think most Canadians are of the opin:on that it is necessary to ensure that resource industries in Canada are controlled by Canadians.
I have considered the complexities of this company, Mr. Speaker, and I presume that it is really the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Canadian Pacific has a holding company, Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, they have Central-Del Rio Oils Limited for exploration purposes and under that they have several other direct subsidiaries such as Pacific Oil and Gas and a 9 per cent interest in Panarctic Oil Limited. My colleague read from the Financial Post Survey of Oils, 1971, some of the properties held by this company. I presume they include most of Vancouver Island and a large part of all the provinces. Listed in this survey are some of their holdings in terms of areas in which they develop.
This is not an oil company, Mr. Speaker; it is a company which owns, controls and participates in a very large portion of the development of Canada. Yet we are not

April 29, 1971
Private Bills
informed by the mover of the bill or the ex-premier of Alberta, who now is in the Senate and is sponsoring this bill, what guarantee can be given to the Canadian public that this company will remain in Canadian hands. It is pointed out that at the present time the majority of shares are held by Canadians.
It is interesting to note that the mover of the motion indicated that Canadian Pacific Investments Limited is the majority shareholder in Central-Del Rio Oils Limited. Canadian Pacific Investments holds 89.27 per cent of the outstanding equity shares. Out of a total of 83,074 shareholders, 72,047 are resident in Canada and hold some
29,800,000	shares. Less than 1,000 shareholders are resident in the United States and hold an aggregate of approximately 311,000 shares. The remaining 128 are residents of countries other than the United States and Canada and they own approxima'ely the same number of shares as the United States residents.
Mr. Speaker, we have only recently become vitally concerned about Canadian control. As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) poin'ed out, we have in a number of ways in the past tried to ensure that ownership of Canadian industry would remain in Canadian hands. I presume that in its investment portfolio the Canadian Pacific Railway has found it lucrative to keep its money in Canada. I presume that employees' pension plans are involved and that large investments have been made with moneys originally given to Canadian Pacific in the way of grants. I believe there is a possibility that control over some of these matters may be transferred to nationals of another country. This danger was forcefully brought home to Canadians recently when they tried to involve themselves in re'aining Home Oil Company under Canadian control. The agonizing which I am sure the government went through resulted in the proposal that if a Canadian owner could not be found for the company, the Canadian government was willing to spend money to make sure that the company remained under Canadian ownership.
The oil industry is vital to Canadians. Only now are we becoming concerned about the environment. We want to control environmental pollution and the use of carbon by-products. We are thinking of substituting natural gas for other forms of energy. Only now are we taking steps to ensure that there will be enough Canadian companies with sufficient reserves to meet the projected future requirements of our population. Any company coming before Parliament would be remiss in its duty if it overlooked the desire of Canadians to retain ownership of Canadian companies. Any company coming before Parliament ought to consider these factors.
I am confused about what this company wants to do. The mover of the motion suggested that one could readily see the reason for this action because the alternative would be that a shareholders meeting would be necessary to pass a special resolution authorizing the company to apply to become a company under the federal act, and after that a second shareholders meeting would be necessary to approve the amalgamation of the two corporations. The provisions of this bill make it unnecessary to hold these two shareholders meetings. It provides that the amalgamation agreement passed at the same time as the resolution authorizing the company to apply for continuance under the federal statute will be regarded as an amalgamation agreement under the federal Corporations Act. Hon. Senators may readily see the reason for this action, but as a member of this House I do not see it.
I suggest that it might have been easier not to involve members of this House in the manipulations in which Central-Del Rio Oils and Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas are involved. Whenever this House has been involved it has been our contention that we ought to know what we are involved in. I should understand what I am voting for and I am under the obligation of putting in my five cents' worth in debate.
As I have said, I support the idea of Canadian control of these companies. I am not suggesting that the company in question is not under Canadian control. I am only saying that for some time I have been of the opinion that we should write into bills like this provisions which would ensure Canadian control. Despite anything hon. Senators may have said, it might have been much simpler had the two shareholders meetings been held, even though it might have cost a few bucks.
I should like the sponsor of this bill, on behalf of Central-Del Rio Oils, to advise us what additional steps the company is prepared to take in order to accomplish what I suggest ought to be accomplished. Will any clause of the bill be amended or changed in order to accomplish that purpose? It has been necessary sometimes to represent the public interest through members on boards of directors. That has been done without share capital being acquired. There have been cases, as with Panarctic Oils, where we have found it necessary to control 45 per cent of the investment and exercise control that way. I am not sure if that method accomplishes what we seek.
I believe there ought to be inserted in the bill of any company seeking incorporation a clause to the following effect: If the company ceases to be under the majority control of Canadian shareholders normally resident in Canada, its charter shall be null and void. Then we would be assured that the company would remain Canadian.
This company is not small. A company that owes the bank $22 million is not small. A company that pays out as much as this company is not small. A company that controls so much land is not small. I therefore think it should be willing, if it is interested in having this bill passed, to agree to a clause that would make it mandatory for the company to remain Canadian and to limit its shares to Canadians normally resident in Canada. Such provision would ensure that this company in the important field of oil development would remain in Canadian hands.
Although several years ago we were only worried about financial control and that Canadians should have a say in the operation of their natural resources, it has become apparent to the Canadian public that we are not really well equipped to maintain an inventory of carbon

April 29, 1971

and petrochemical products and we cannot ensure that projected Canadian needs will be met. It is also safe to say that for the first time Canadians are paying attention to the ecology of their land and to the advisability or inadvisability of drilling wells in sites of aesthetic value.
Our population has suddently decided, the young people in particular, that merely because a company wants to drill a well is not sufficient reason for drilling the well. Before the company drills, it should consider the ecology of the area, its aesthetic value and all those who will be using the area for other than oil-producing purposes. No longer will an oil well be drilled in the middle of a community simply because a company wants to drill it. The area I represent does not worry so much about oil wells as about headframes. There are headframes in all sorts of places because mines close down and other industries do not replace them. The usefulness of headframes is limited, I suppose, to anybody who wishes to open a new mine in the area. In the early days headframes were located wherever anyone wanted to locate them. The town, the streets and everything else was built around them. Oil companies believe they have the right to do as they like to the environment and the community in which they operate because they are the main employer and sustain the local economy.
There has been a recent development, particularly with regard to the young people, whereby people feel that making money and having a wealthy company producing revenue by getting more oil out of the ground is not the prime but only one of the considerations involved. The previous speaker said that the lack of desire to drill in many areas should be encouraged. We must take into consideration the Canadian interest rather than playing around with the proposition of drilling a well every so often regardless of the situation.
More than one million acres of land on Vancouver Island are under the control of this company. I do not know the total acreage of Vancouver Island. I am not sure whether they are referring to gross or net acres. In fact, I do not know the difference between a gross and a net acre. Both are referred to in some oil contracts: companies talk about owning 71 million gross acres or 22 million net acres. If any drilling is done near the shores of Vancouver Island, the problems which we are discussing with the United States will occur in that area.
The public has an interest in this matter. It must be assured that its interest is given due consideration by corporations which we set up. If it is a foreign-owned corporation, we will not have very many opportunities to protect the public interest. Our experience in other industrial fields has been that when a company is under the jurisdiction of two countries one of which is the United States, there is very little doubt about which interest will be served: it will always be the American interest. We will not be able to exercise jurisdiction over that company.


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


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I realize there are only five minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I wish to put on record some of my observations with regard to the bill before us. I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) for his imaginative speech, which I read in Senate Debates for March 23. It is just as easy to repeat the remarks made then as to make a new speech in this chamber.
I think all hon. members agree that we should have Canadian ownership and participation. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is well-known to members of this House and to the people of Canada. Canadian Pacific Railway was the main driving force in creating some of the subsidiaries and conglomerates which are now under its control. I suggest that some of the non-rail profits should be taken into consideration when Canadian Pacific Railway makes application for rail line abandonments which are invariably approved by the Canadian Transport Commission.
It is not fair to the people of Canada to pass a bill without ensuring that a commitment is obtained from the parent company that it will meet the original obligation and charter which it was given. We should not pass this bill without asking the company for an assurance that it will try to give Canada the service to which it is entitled, and meet the obligation which it has had since it was incorporated and granted vast tracts of land and moneys.
A United States Senator said as follows:
Montana Senator Lee Metcalf insists that Congress should consider non-railroad income of carriers if it decides to inaugurate operational subsidies.
I suggest that we have operational subsidies in one area of railroad operation. If we look at the over-all operation of this company we will see that the subsidies are not given any consideration. I quote:
Metcalf said in September, 1969, before the ICC: "The question of a carrier's non-rail income as part of its entire total financial position is pertinent to any discussion of our government's transportation policy, and more particularly so if the carrier happens also to be a conglomerate."
The bill before us puts Canadian Pacific Railway in the position of being a conglomerate. We should consider the non-rail operational income of this company and its overall structure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House will rise until eight o'clock this evening.
I was in deep reflection today about man's share of wealth and honour for the work he has done on earth. I came across these lines:
How seldom, friend, a good, great man inherits honour or wealth, with all his worth and pains. It sounds like stories from the land of spirits, if any man obtains that which he merits or merits that which he obtains.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MaeEachen 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.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock when the House turned to consideration of private members' business I was dealing with the increase in the non-taxable portion of hon. members' expense allowance. I suggested that at least the additional expenses which were to be covered should have been based on specific allowable areas and on the presentation of vouchers in respect of them.
I say to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MaeEachen) that this is not an unreasonable suggestion. He told us that the services and facilities which the Beaupre committee report proposes would, if implemented, have amounted to more than the $8,000 to be allowed as a non-taxable amount. This may be so; I have not done the arithmetic and I am prepared to accept the minister's statement without question. He then went on to say that the only difference between what the government proposes and what the Beaupre committee report proposed was the method. By gad, if this is a small difference I should like to know what an important one would be, because between being paid for expenses actually incurred and being given a global amount which one can use as one pleases, and which continues to be nontaxable, lies a difference not only in method but in basic principle.
I repeat: even if the government had decided to keep the $6,000 as a global sum there was, in light of the Beaupre committee report, no excuse whatever for increasing that non-taxable sum. Why was it not possible to say that members would be paid up to a certain amount per month as rent, if they were obliged to rent a home in Ottawa, or an allowance for an office in the constituency, and provide that in either case they would have to show that these expenditures had actually been incurred before they could obtain reimbursement in respect of them?
I turn now to the retroactive aspect of this bill. As a person who practised labour law for many years and represented labour unions for many years in various parts of this country, I find disagreeable the ease with which it is possible for Members of Parliament to get total retroactivity for seven or eight months with respect
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard) .1
to the whole of the increase. I have known strikes called by workers to get even part of an increase in a settlement retroactive. Yet the whole of this amount is to be made retroactive to the beginning of the present session, which means to the beginning of last October. Why?
In the case of an ordinary industrial situation there is a collective agreement which ends at a certain date and efforts are made by the workers concerned to get their increase dated back to the end of the former agreement. They have a contract over a certain period. What period do we have! What right have we to say that the increase provided by this law should go back seven or eight months? I say there is no moral justification for that and no social justification for it either.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The senior civil servants' increase went back two years in 1967.


David Lewis: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says the senior civil servants' increase went back two years. The only reason it went back two years is that there is a certain period to which their increase was applied. If it takes a year or so to negotiate an increase, it is logical and morally defensible that the increase should go back to the date on which the last agreement ended. But where is our agreement? We simply say: We are Parliament and we can enact it. So we make it retroactive to the beginning of this session. I suppose I ought to be glad it was not made retroactive to the first day of this Parliament; that is about the only consolation I can find.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what was done the last time.


Mr. Alexander:: Did you hear your hon. friend?


David Lewis: No doubt we shall be hearing from him. Finally, I want to say a few words about the method which has been used. I would have hoped that whatever increases the government might have proposed, it would also have had the courage to propose a change in the method of adjusting members' salaries and emoluments. There are two ways in which this might have been done. The bill ought to have provided for one or other of them so that within eight, nine or ten years people who are members of the House of Commons and the Senate at that time-if the Senate still exists seven or eight years from now, and I hope it will not-will not have again to go through this embarrassing and disagreeable task of voting themselves increases.
In addition to whatever the government might have wished to do in connection with the bill before us, in terms of the actual increases contemplated, they should have incorporated in the bill a new method of doing it, possibly through an independent body consisting of whoever the government chose, perhaps the Chief Justice of Canada or the president of a federal court. There are one or two other people they might choose who could by law be given authority to state periodically what adjustments ought to be made, in line with some comparison. Alternatively, I suggest that the indemnities of Members of Parliament be placed within some appropriate public
April 29, 1971

service category or some average of appropriate categories; there are various ways in which it could be worked out. There would then be an automatic adjustment every year or two years.
I suggest the time is long overdue to improve the present system. We should take away from Members of Parliament the unpleasant duty of dealing with our own salaries and expenses and give this task to an independent body, or place the indemnity in some appropriate category in the public service in the way I have suggested. This proposal should have been embodied in the bill so that this would be the last time Members of Parliament had to go through this unpleasant exercise.
In closing, I want to make the point as seriously as I can that there is throughout the country widespread disenchantment with the democratic process and a great deal of dissatisfaction with the parliamentary process, particularly among young people. The slowness with which we do anything for the benefit of ordinary people, and our failure to meet basic problems in society have produced growing unhappiness with our parliamentary and democratic system. I am deeply concerned about the effect that this action now proposed by the government, in the circumstances I described earlier, will have on people who are already dissatisfied with our democratic process. I am concerned with the cynicism that it will evoke, particularly among the young, and the questions it will raise in the minds of many people in Canada.
Although I do not condemn any member who wants to support the bill before the House, I cannot but feel depressed by this further example of the double standard that our present system imposes and which Members of Parliament are willing to adopt. In our privileged position we are able to get what we ask for. The rest have to fight and wait for every niggardly improvement, be he worker, old age pensioner, farmer or fisherman. These groups have to argue, fight, demonstrate, protest, needle and threaten before getting some kind of niggardly improvement. But we in our privileged position can get because we are in a position to take. This is what worries me about our present system and the position of Parliament within that system, particularly the position in which all members of the House are being placed by the proposal we are discussing.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering Bill C-242 to increase the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament.
In the statement he made in this House on April 26 last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the government intended to introduce legislation to increase the salaries of hon. members from $12,000 to $18,000 and the non taxable and non accountable allowances from $6,000 to $8,000. Right then, through the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), the Ralliement creditiste members announced they were absolutely opposed to this measure. But the mass media have practically ignored this position.
Senate and House of Commons Act
Yesterday, at the opening of the sitting of the House, the bill was introduced for first reading. There is never a debate on first reading since it is only a formal introduction according to the rules governing our debates.
Nevertheless yesterday, without warning, the news media disclosed to the public unaware of course of our procedure that hon. members had unanimously agreed to the bill on first reading and that none of them had the opportunity to speak at this stage and to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, we can see there the narrowmindedness and dishonesty of some news media that knowingly release controlled information to the Canadian people. However, it is common knowledge that no one can judge how a member feels about a bill simply because he refrains from speaking on first reading since there is no debate at this stage.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we were going to make our position clear beyond all ambiguity.
This, then, is the official position of the Ralliement Creditiste.
I also want to point out that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) give their unqualified support to our views. They both did their very best to be here tonight, but they are now tied up in Alberta and it was absolutely impossible for them to change their schedules, arranged several weeks ahead. They could not foresee that the government would proceed with such speed to the debate on this matter. In any case, whether it seems funny or not to members opposite, to whom salaries are more important than services, be it said and understood that the Credi-tistes have all taken the same position on this question, because they all think of their role as a public service and their devotion bears the most eloquent testimony to the performance of this task.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Langlois:: Speak loud, vote against it and take it.


An hon. Member:: Bunch of hypocrites!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Does the hon. member who just called us a bunch of hypocrites-


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I see that the hon. members for Abitibi and Lotbiniere are seeking the floor at the same time. There should be some order, and we should determine immediately who has the floor.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a question of privilege.

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to our views in this house, especially on a bill which concerns directly each and every member. The member who has just accused us of hypocrisy should be honest enough to rise and identify himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
An hon. member opposite saw fit not to rise, knowing that by remaining seated he would not be identified and that what he said would appear in Hansard under: "An hon. Member". Indeed, we shall never know who said Creditistes are hypocrites.
Therefore, I refuse to pursue the matter if that member is not courageous enough to stand up and withdraw.
Mr. Speaker, I humbly point out to you that we always have respect for the institution of Parliament and our colleagues. We respect the opinion of government members and we ask them to respect us.
Not only is the language of the member opposite unparliamentary, but it reveals a lack of good manners and honesty.
Knowing your integrity and fairness for minority parties, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to enforce our Standing Orders in order that our rules and our right of speech be respected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member has the floor and may obviously continue his remarks. The hon. member objects to the fact that some comment was expressed in some mysterious quarters of the House. He invites the hon. member who made this remark out of turn perhaps to reveal his identity. The hon. member who made the remark which was unnoticed by the Chair except when the hon. member for Lobtiniere referred to it does not want to reveal his identity and it seems that the hon. member for Lotbiniere who has the floor and who was speaking very ably for the benefit of the House should continue his remarks which the Chair and all hon. members will listen to attentively.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, while minding your-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must once again interrupt the hon. member for Lotbiniere as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in turn raises the question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take too long but I think it should be recorded in Hansard that the mysterious remark which came from the floor of the House, to which Your Honour referred, did not come from the left of Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that we get on with the debate. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was making a very positive, constructive and interesting speech and I am sure hon. members on both sides of the House are anxious to hear him.


André-Gilles Fortin: I shall go on, Mr. Speaker, on your kind invitation, but I find it strange that this mysterious voice cannot be identified, whereas tomorrow the words spoken will be printed in Hansard without the speaker being identified.
I should now like to pursue my comments honestly, briefly and precisely.
First of all, we feel that the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not take into account the proposals and findings of the report of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses tabled in November 1970.
Quite extensive studies are made but we do abide by their conclusions.
Secondly, it is abnormal that hon. members according to the will and the decisions of the current government, should vote themselves an increased allowance. This is a ridiculous system to which exception is being taken throughout Canada. A permanent and independent commission should make such a decision jointly with the Treasury Board approximately every two years.
Third, it is inconceivable that the revision of hon. members' salaries should come every five or ten years. For instance, the last increase dates back to 1963. Moreover, this biennial increase should be governed by the very standards imposed by the government on the Canadian people under the current economic situation. We submit that our decisions must be consistent with what we require from ordinary people.
Fourth, we cannot accept that the government should propose to raise hon. members' allowances and indemnities without improving and streamlining the instruments at their disposal so that they could give better service to the people in their constituency and in Parliament, a measure which would upgrade the role of Members of Parliament and parliamentary institutions.
Fifth, it is anomalous that the government should propose an $8,000 unaccountable expense allowance without any obligation for us to produce vouchers. Members have no right to treat themselves any better than other Canadians.
It is a proven fact that a Member of Parliament has to spend such an amount within a year and even more if he wants to fulfil his tasks; there is no doubt about it. So why should we not be required to present vouchers if we really incur these expenses, taking into account, of course, the distance between our constituency and Ottawa.
The Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) have both stated that each member could choose not to spend or to spend only part of the allowance. In so doing the government is setting up a wrong principle.
There are minimum services which a member of Parliament must provide to the people. Among them, we include the salary of a secretary working for the member in his riding.

April 29, 1971

Sixth, it is unbelievable that the government does not mention, and even refuses to mention, that a research assistant will be supplied to each member so that he can better discharge his responsibilities.
Seventh, we find it unacceptable for the government to deal in the same bill with members of Parliament and Members of the other House. We sincerely suggest that the Senate should be abolished immediately. Therefore there is no question of us accepting to vote them increased salaries and allowances.
Not only do we refuse to increase the senators' salaries and allowances but we call for the immediate abolition of the Senate, for in spite of all the respect due to its members it is an antiquated institution which has no justification any more and which irritates, and we can understand that, the Canadian taxpayers by its inaction, its ineffectiveness and its uselessness. Why would the government not do away with that institution? We get no reply from the government. Instead of answering, the Prime Minister wants to increase their salaries and allowances.
Mr. Speaker, we must absolutely give new vigour to Parliament in 1971, bring it closer to the people, modernize our parliamentary and democratic institutions. We must update them and make them more modern, human and effective. Let us start right away by doing away with the Senate. Let us then provide members with the facilities they need to discharge effectively their responsibilities.
As far as we, the Ralliement creditiste, are concerned, we are ready. I quote from page 24 of the Beaupre report:
It seems self-evident that no taxpayer would employ a tradesman or a professional man unless he were satisfied that the individual had available to him the tools with which to do the job at hand.
In other words, the 1971 member of Parliament has the same tools as the 1950 member. It should not therefore come as a surprise that the Canadian people are dissatisfied and wonder-and rightly so in most cases-what their member is doing.
Mr. Speaker, many people rightly ask this question when they are represented by people who indulge in making charges against other members without identifying themselves.
What is more urgent? Increasing salaries or improving work conditions of members? This is the question that we have to answer and the Prime Minister and his Government have chosen to increase parliamentary allowances. We choose, as honestly as these people say, an improvement of services. We must get Parliament nearer to the people by making government services available to all Canadians, and by revamping the important role of members of Parliament through a modern approach. This is why we say that secretarial support, both in the constituency and in Parliament should be improved, and my colleagues will come back to this matter during the debate. That is why we say that every member of Parliament should have at his disposal a researcher and at least two offices in Ottawa.
Senate and House of Commons Act
At present, four of us are crammed into this tiny office of mine. None of my colleagues is better off. Mr. Speaker, this must change in 1971, otherwise the member of Parliament, regardless of his party, will no longer be in a position to adequately discharge the various exacting responsibilities assigned to him in his capacity as an advisor, a protector of the people and a liaison officer, for he is here to serve the public.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore our intention to oppose the proposal to increase salaries of members of Parliament because that in no way settles the problem and only makes for increased dissatisfaction not only of the people but of those members who want to carry out their duties.
Just think, for instance, that each member of the Quebec National Assembly has a permanent office in his riding, with a permanent secretary, in order to better serve his constituents. On the other hand, there are 75 members in the House of Commons, who come from Quebec. Now, in the federal riding of Lotbiniere, for instance, there are three provincial representatives, provided with three secretaries and three permanent offices, all paid for by the government. Why? In order to provide permanent, continuing service in the riding even at times when the member is sitting at the National Assembly.
The same applies in all ridings.
At the federal level, to serve the same population and almost the same number of parishes, I am alone with my wife. To serve the population well, I had to set up an office, for which I pay out of my own pocket, because I believe in the role of the member of Parliament and because I believe the people are entitled to their member's services. All my colleagues have done exactly the same.
Every week end, I see in my office at Victoriaville an average of 40 persons,-which can be easily proven. It is also true for my colleagues. It is an important thing.
At the provincial level, the same population has six persons at its service while at the federal level, where there are over 375,000 civil servants, while we administer a budget of over $14 billion, there are only two persons in each riding, the member and his wife to look after the electors. It is ridiculous, in 1971, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you agree with me.
Hon. members of this House upon whom rests the heavy and complex responsibility of defending the rights and the interests of the citizens and of running the country's business often lack the necessary means of action to play their roles efficiently. The government does not seem to have deemed advisable to make these means available to them. From the statements of the right hon. Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council, once more we come to the conclusion that the government does not deem appropriate to provide the people and the members of this House with these services. Or perhaps in view of their financial situation hon. members could not afford them. In many cases, it is true.
However, I must say that my colleagues and I have given ourselves these tools, in spite of the carelessness of the government, even though we had to spend money to

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act do so. We have led the way. We now ask that the government accept our position as a principle to be applied to all hon. members. A member should not work occasionally, as some would have it, but lull time. That is what the people require from us.
Likewise, the population, and justly so, is against our giving ourselves a special treatment as opposed to other citizens. The Beaupre report suggested a maximum expense account with a voucher system, according to the actual amount of expenses incurred.
Mr. Speaker, the present proposal of the Prime Minister and of the President of the Privy Council does not take this recommendation into consideration. We grant $8,000 to every hon. member. It is for them to decide if they will spend $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $8,000 or more.
Mr. Speaker, that system is not acceptable. It is like building on shifting sand. It is not in this way that we shall enhance the value of our parliamentary and democratic institutions and of the function of the member of Parliament. Let us remember this: the hon. member who decides against opening an office or making regular trips to his riding will be able to put $8,000 in his pocket without having to account for it to anyone. Who would ask for an accounting? And at any rate, if there is an election, the party funds will be used to help him and he will be re-elected, and the people will know nothing of this.
But the hon. member who understands his function, who decides to give proper service to the people, will spend the $8,000; that is what we are doing. The latter will be penalized while the former will benefit.
It is impossible to apply the same yardstick to all members whether they come from western, eastern or central Canada. Their working conditions are not the same, nor are distances they have to travel. To be just, the system must take this into account. Otherwise, we will be compelled to think that expenses are used as an excuse to increase salaries, all the more so as expenses will not be taxable.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that a member's work entails a great deal of expenses, but the government should realize that they are not the same for all members. Besides, they recognize this principle in the bill by saying that the members from the North will have to incur more expenses than the others.
If the government acknowledges this principle for a certain group of members-and we commend them for it-let them extend it also to all members.
Mr. Speaker, I would have some important questions to put, to which it is urgent to have some answers.
First, what are the responsibilities of a member of Parliament, and to what extent are they likely to change in the years to come?
Another question which should be answered is the following: How does a member view his function and how does the public see it? My colleagues and myself have been wondering about it for a long time. We did something to get an answer. Several of my colleagues and myself sent more than 10,000 questionaires to each of
[Mr. Fortin.I
our ridings asking people of all classes of society poor and rich alike, how they viewed the role and duties of their federal representative whatever his political party, in the riding as well as in Ottawa.
The people of my riding and elsewhere were not afraid to answer. The population considers the member of Parliament as a public servant. The position we take today is largely based on the results of this comprehensive poll.
It is obviously difficult to answer and solve those questions perhaps simply because the role of the member of Parliament is mostly what he makes it, according to his own concept of it, his competence and dedication. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people expect no less from us.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I should like to tell them what questions we put to the people, when we asked whether or not they agreed with the definition of the duties of a member of Parliament. This is what we put to them, solely to give rise to a dialoque in the riding:
1.	To be aware of and Interested in the problems of all the citizens.
2.	To participate actively in the economic development of his area.
3.	To fight against the injustices that victimize some citizens.
4.	To work steadfastly to achieve security for all.
5.	To protect the freedom and the rights of each individual.
-whether his pockets are well-lined or not.
6.	To be always available.
-to the population.
7.	To consult frequently with all classes of society in order to express the opinions of constituents.
When we proposed to the electors this definition of the work of the member of Parliament in his constituency, people gave an almost unanimous response. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we have no other choice today but to urge the government to give the population permanent secretarial services in the constituency in order to keep the people in touch with this extremely important institution which Parliament is.
Insofar as Ottawa is concerned, we have proposed the following definition to the people so that they may comment on it, criticize it or make suggestions:
1. To sit in the House of Commons on behalf of all the people in the constituency, not only on behalf of his-
-supporters.
That is another point, Mr. Speaker, which is most important.
2 To advocate or support all policies favourable to the people as a whole-
-in his constituency.
3.	To protest strongly and freely against the measures contrary to the best interests of the citizens in his constituency.
Finally, still in Parliament-
4.	To try to build a great country meeting the wishes of the people in his constituency and his province-
April 29, 1971

-and throughout the country, giving the interests of a political party second place and looking first of all after those of the people.
Mr. Speaker, such is our creed, since it is the one that people have dictated to us. Generally, we are only restating today in the House what people have suggested to us both in our constituencies and in the country at large, particularly the have-nots, whose hardships are the consequence of the current economic situation.
I thank my hon. colleagues for their sympathetic attention and, Mr. Speaker, I hope that, within all parties, the members will consider positively and honestly the suggestions we are putting forward in order that this country's parliamentary and democratic institutions, as well as the function of the member recover their true value, and that the parliamentary institutions and hon. members get closer to the people and thus serve them better.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this subject because as chairman of the caucus of this party during the period when the Beaupre report was under discussion I had perhaps more than an average member's involvement in what was taking place as the Beaupre committee worked to assess what should be the salary and expenses of a member. Moreover, I had an opportunity to listen to many of my colleagues-many of them a good deal younger than me, and with young families-discuss the problems of being a Member of Parliament, coming perhaps from a remote constituency in the west or in the Maritimes and living in the city of Ottawa, carrying out parliamentary duties effectively.
When I came first to the House in 1963 I was a member of the committee which at that time looked into the question of the increase in salary which took place in 1963. I remember how much this question involved every member of the House and what a sensitive issue it was to the welfare, the esprit de corps and the working capability of members. The question of salary and expenses was a serious matter to hon. members. So perhaps a little more than members who came here in 1968 for the first time I can look at this question with a philosophical attitude. I think every member knows from his mail and from the way the press often deals with the subject of salaries and expenses that there is much misunderstanding everywhere about the subject. For a short while I want to deal with some of these misunderstandings.
I begin by saying that a member of the Canadian House of Commons is not the best paid parliamentarian in this country, as some people, perhaps even members of the press, believe him to be. I refer to the table which appears at page 59 of the Beaupre report, called "Comparative Summary Table of the Annual Salaries and Allowances of Members and Those Holding Certain Leadership Offices in Canadian Provincial Legislatures". When we look at this table we discover that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the salaries are the same as ours, $12,000 in each case, and the tax free allowances are the same, $6,000 in each case. But we also
Senate and House of Commons Act
know from the studies which were undertaken when the Beaupre committee was active that in addition there are emoluments for committee sittings, for services rendered in ridings and for positions on boards which make the salaries of Ontario and Quebec members much more desirable than ours.
So we may say that in positive terms we are third in Canada in pay and allowances-not first. It is much more desirable, if you live in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario, from the standpoint of pay and emoluments to be a member of the Legislative Assembly than to be a member of the House of Commons of Canada. This is the fact in respect of the pay scales of members of legislatures in Canada.
When we move to other legislatures, the story is even more remarkable. We see, for instance that in Prince Edward Island for 15 days' work members of the legislature receive a salary of $2,666 and an allowance of $1,333. What Member of Parliament would not like to be a member of that legislature? In New Brunswick they receive a salary of $5,000 and a sessional allowance of $2,500 for a 32-day sitting. In my own province of British Columbia it is $5,000 sessional indemnity and $3,000 plus $50 a day for 40 consecutive days in 47 days of sittings, making approximately $10,000 for the 47 days.
A man with an established business in any of these provinces would find it profitable to go into their legislatures. We are really the poor cousins when it comes to pay for legislative work. No one holding a seat in a provincial legislature would want to come here on the basis of pay. That is a fact of life which we must face, and decide whether we want to change it.
The press seems to enjoy saying that a Member of Parliament has a salary of $18,000, but of course that is not so. They add together the salary of $12,000 and the expense allowance of $6,000 and call the total, salary. It implies that a member has no expenses connected with his job and can therefore take the expense allowance into salary. But no member of the press would claim that his own expense account should be lumped with salary.
What personal expenses does a member incur because of his job? If he lives outside the Ottawa area-and that means most members-he must pay two rents. He moves his wife and family back and forth across the country, puts the children in school here and takes them home and instals them in his constituency for the summer and also for the Christmas recess if he can. He pays all his car expenses no matter how much the car is used in the course of his work. He pays for taxis, entertainment, telegrams. If he wants to send a birthday greeting or a message in connection with his work, it is paid out of his own pocket, the only reimbursement being from the nonaccountable expense allowance which is so condemned.
Charges for telephone calls made from his own home come out of his pocket, so do secretarial and clerical services in the riding. To get a letter typed or circulated, to buy paper or postage stamps are expenses which come out of the allowance. No account can be rendered for

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act these expenses; the member must pay them. He pays for household mailings no matter where he makes them. It is true he can get them cheaper than the ordinary man for business or commercial purposes, but still he must pay for them and they are part of his expenses as a Member of Parliament.
All miscellaneous travelling expenses, even the expense of staying overnight in the course of travelling to his riding if the trip is so long, must come out of his own pocket. Contrary to popular opinion, he does not have an air pass to travel anywhere in Canada and must pay his wife's fare. He cannot even charge taxis between airport and his home because that comes out of the magic non-accountable allowance. He does not travel first-class, as do cabinet ministers, public servants and even executive secretaries and special assistants who carry a minister's bags on and off the plane. I hear laughter in the chamber, but I think it has been the experience of every member on the backbenches to go through the first-class section and bow to the special assistants as they sit there having champagne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: That is the gourmet tour. Finally the member gets to the economy section and struggles to a seat in the middle where he may sit for five hours on a trip to Vancouver. Does this ring a bell with anybody in the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: The member's only travel privileges are economy air fare or free basic rail passage between his riding and Ottawa. He does not even have the privilege of being paid for climbing into an upper berth and attempting to get his pants off in there; that luxury is not accorded to him.
There is no way of describing the expenses of an average member, because there are no average members. No one in this House wants to be called an average member. Each case is different, and that is why it has not been possible for Mr. Beaupre or any member of this House to itemize these expenses as is done for a travelling salesman whose expenses can be carefully identified. I remember how Mr. Pearson and his cabinet in 1963 struggled in an attempt to identify a member's expenses. Should an Ottawa member be cut back because he does not live far from this House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: However, one could see in the corridor outside his room the chairs lined up for people who wanted to visit him and had access to him in his constituency every day of the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: When you considered that he had to campaign in his constituency 365 days a year, you realized that it was impossible to come to grips with what was fair for an Ottawa member, what was fair for a Vancouver member and what was fair for a Yukon
member. It was extremely difficult. Mr. Pearson solved that problem by giving members a non-taxable expense allowance of $6,000 and allowing them to use it as they saw fit in administering their own peculiar circumstances-because, believe me, all members are peculiar or they would not be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Some are more peculiar than others.


Grant Deachman: There is one way in which it might be possible to split up these expenses; it is pretty arbitrary, though some members of this House of Commons may recognize themselves in these figures. Take rent, for instance, at $2,400 a year. Has anybody in the House of Commons been able to find accommodation in the Ottawa district for $7 a day? And car expenses: has any member who is using his car for constituency or business purposes been able to do it for as little as $1,200?
Then there is family travel. If you live in the Mari-times or in one of the four western provinces and have kids and are moving them back and forth, do you not incur expenses? Was any member of the House, for instance, able to sneak away with a travel bill that was less than $1,200 by the time he accounted for air fares or rail berths, taxis, overnight stops in hotels or motels and all those things that go toward moving a family across Canada? If those have been your expenses for those kinds of items alone, if you have spent about $1,200 on them, you will know how much you have left to take care of every kind of expense that you can possibly imagine, out of an expense allowance of $6,000.
One can see that this expense allowance in itself is hardly adequate. I do not think that even the Globe and Mail in its wildest dream can imagine that that is an adequate way of dealing with a Member of Parliament. In many cases members are living on other income as well as their parliamentary income in order to stay here. I ask, are we getting good representation when we ask people to come here and of their own charity serve the people of Canada? I do not think the people want us to do that.
Another point to observe is that there is virtually nothing left in this kind of expense allowance for any service at all in the members' riding. There is nothing left with which a member, could hire transportation which in a remote riding would enable him to get out to villages and communities he had never seen before. That would bring him in greater contact with his people, enable him to be a better Member of Parliament and make this place more representative of the people of Canada. But the expense allowance does not provide for that. It hardly provides for the kinds of essential expenses that members incur. Thus, in the illustration I have given, the increase of the expense allowance to $8,000 will permit a member to meet his personal expenses and to have a little left for service to his riding. What is wrong with that?

April 29, 1971

Now let us look at the member's salary. Mr. Beaupre suggested a top salary for members of $25,000. That was his proposal and the proposal of his colleagues. They were unanimous on this. The present proposal is $18,000. I do not know where all the figures come from which have described this increase. To me it represents a salary that is 50 per cent higher than the $12,000 we have lived on since 1963. To find out how much of an increase that is, I looked at the compound interest tables. It represents an increase of slightly less than 5 per cent per annum. I heard and read so many figures that I thought I would look at the compound interest tables. At 5 per cent per year you will have, at the end of eight years, 1.47 of the original. So that here you have an increase that is a hair under 5 per cent per annum-if we pass it. However, if as suggested in this House we do not pass it and if we employ, as we have in the past, the Chicago garbage disposal system for salaries, that is, kick them around until we lose them-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: -then the increase for members since 1953 will have been from $8,000 to $12,000, the amount we got in 1963. That will be a 50 per cent increase from $8,000 in a period of 18 years. Let us see what the compound interest tables say about that increase. A 50 per cent increase over 18 years-I want to be accurate about this because there has been very little accuracy in the figures quoted-will be brought about by an annual increase of 2.5 per cent. That will have been the rate if we do not pass this bill. If we decide to let it go and leave it to the next Parliament to decide, the yearly increment for the member who came here in 1953 will have been 2.5 per cent. That is where we stand.
The problem is that we have heaped no end of troubles on ourselves in this House by postponing the regular revision of salaries until this "shocking" increase was required to adjust our salaries to a simple 5 per cent per annum rate, which we will have achieved over the last 18 years if we pass the current increase. But the rate will remain at 2J per cent if we do not.
There is one more point that I should like to deal with because it is pretty often distorted. The expense allowance that we receive is not unique in Canada, as some people would lead you to believe. Members of other legislative assemblies and hundreds of municipal councillors receive tax free allowances which are recognized under the Income Tax Act. There are, I venture to say, thousands of people in Canada at other levels of legislative service whose expenses are recognized in this fashion. I do not know of any immediate intention by the government, or as set out in the white paper, to remove those expense allowances. There is no mention of that in the policies of the government with respect to tax reform. There is no intention to strip these people of their tax free allowances and nowhere is it said that they must receive their expenses for rendering public service in some other form.
Some people have said that this increase is too much. Of course, even 5 per cent looks too much if we let it pile
Senate and House of Commons Act up for eight years or if we do not adjust matters for another 16 years. It is said that this increase is inflationary. If other salaries and wages in our economy had increased at the rate that ours is increasing, John Young would not have a thing to say and probably would not even have been hired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: I do not know why there is all this applause from my side of the House, because that is so.
It is said that we are greedily using our parliamentary power to inflate our own salaries. Mr. Speaker, we hired a commission which recommended a salary of $25,000. We in this House are talking about $18,000. That has been our decision, whereas outsiders decided that our salaries ought to be $25,000. It is said that we should not raise our salaries while there is unemployment, or until we raise pensions, until we check inflation, until the next Parliament is elected or until Utopia is here.
I agree that there is no good time to raise the salary of a Member of Parliament; but we know that we cannot escape this question forever. If we wait for another two years the increase will need to be 60 per cent in order to achieve a 5 per cent per year increment. If we postpone dealing with this matter from year to year for one good reason or another that is given in this chamber, we will eventually find it almost impossible to bring parliamentary salaries in line with other salaries in the economy or with salaries in other legislatures. We are already falling behind them; we are in third place.
It is said that we should set up an independent tribunal to deal with our salaries or to hitch this increment to public service salary increases. This would not relieve us of the duty, of course, of voting for the increases out of taxes, nor would it bury parliamentary debate or public criticisms on the subject: it would still be there. On the other hand, it would put us in the curious position of accepting public service rates of increase which the public service had achieved from Parliament after bitter bargaining or even after strikes. For those reasons I believe that we must always settle our own salary adjustments in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: Perhaps we could best do this, Mr. Speaker, by building into this bill a clause which would automatically refer the matter to Parliament in the first session of each new Parliament. This would guarantee more regular revision. The automatic feature would overcome the squeamishness of members to deal with the subject or to get involved in the debate. Regular revision would quickly become understood by the public and, I think, eventually accepted.
I hope this idea will receive the attention of the committee when it examines the bill. I believe it will help to bring some reason and sanity into a discussion which has been unreasonable, unrealistic and frustrating since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 29. 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest today to the debate on Bill C-242. I would like to say at the outset that I appreciate the views of those members who have spoken both for and against the bill. I thought I would wait a while before taking part in the debate, but I feel it will last a little longer than this evening and I expect to be absent from Ottawa tomorrow. I wish to express my views on this legislation in the event that there is a vote while I am not here.
I am opposed to the legislation. I fully endorse the views of the leader of our party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I feel he has fully outlined the position which I can take. However, I would like to give my views on several aspects of the proposed increases and 1 will take this opportunity to do so. At the same time, I would like to make some general remarks about the role of Members of Parliament under our parliamentary system. I believe that this legislation should not be on any priority list. It certainly is not on mine.
About four months ago we passed legislation raising the basic old age security pension by 42 cents per month, or $5.04 per year. When I look back at that increase I find it impossible to justify an $8,000 increase for Members of Parliament. There are many other groups in our society which should have priority over and above Senators and Members of Parliament, when it comes to spending from the public purse. Despite recent improvements in some categories, many of our old age pensioners, veterans and retired workers still live at or near the poverty line.
I would like to very briefly and concisely outline my objections to the legislation with which we are dealing. I feel that the increase is excessive-a 50 per cent increase over the salary that members are now receiving. Second, I take very strong exception to the increase in the nontaxable allowance. The proposal is to increase it from $6,000 to $8,000. The third thing I object to is the retroactive provision in the bill. Very few pieces of legislation come before this House which make salaries retroactive for a number of months. This legislation will pay the members back to October, 1970, when this session started.
Another point, Mr. Speaker, is that members have to be credible when putting forth their views. We have massive unemployment in Canada, one of the highest rates of unemployment in the history of our nation. This summer there will be many thousands of students out of work. Guidelines have been laid down by the government and endorsed by the members of this House. For the past two or three years we have heard the message that there must not be more than a 6 per cent increase in wages so far as labour groups are concerned. This year we heard the message that wage increases must be kept to 4 per cent or 4J per cent. The House of Commons, in one swoop, will raise the wages of its members by approximately 50 per cent.
I realize that the last increase for members was in 1963, eight years ago. Some hon. members have made a pretty good case for an increase being made at this time. There is certainly a case for a number of members to
receive an increase to cover various types of expenditures. I can think of members who come from scattered ridings whose expenditures over the year are far higher than those who live close to Ottawa or in an urban area. Further consideration should be given to members in this category. If they are to do a job for their constituents, they need money to get around the constituency in order to see and hear the problems. This is very difficult if much of their salary is spent for travel or other excessive expenses by those who live in these rural areas.
There are one or two points I would like to leave with the members of this House. I feel this method of raising the salaries of members is something we should not tolerate very much longer. Some members will be outlining what should be done to change the present set-up. We have heard a number of suggestions. I shall make another one. Members of Parliament should receive an adequate salary based on the job they do. I do not think that anyone here or in the constituencies would object to that. However, I firmly believe that it should not be left to periodic voting on an increase, and frequently great embarrassment to members of the various parties who take part in the debates and vote for or against salary increases.
The job of a Member of Parliament should be evaluated. A benchmark should be set, in the same way that benchmarks are set in the civil service. There has never been a proper evaluation of the job and work of a Member of Parliament. This is what a committee should do. An independent committee should evaluate the work done by a Member of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Beaupre did.


Randolph Harding: Beaupre did a partial job. We have recently been tussling with a similar problem in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. There was a tremendous amount of debate when we were trying to find a proper benchmark as far as the Auditor General of Canada was concerned. The committee members finally came up with a solution. There is no reason why a similar evaluation could not be carried out as far as the members of this House and Senators are concerned. It might not be an easy task. We would have to take into consideration every facet of the job a Member of Parliament does and then compare it with closely related jobs in the civil service. If we cannot find such a job in the civil service we should look for one in private industry which parallels the work we do here. Find the job, find what the going rate of pay is and fix it at that level. Then, I believe, as civil servants get increases every two years there could be step by step increases for Members of Parliament and the problem would be dealt with. This is a proposal which I pass on to the government with the recommendation that serious consideration be given to carrying out an evaluation of this type.
There is one further point I wish to make before I sit down. It seems to me that the most important job an MP can do in Ottawa is to police legislation and carry

April 29, 1971

out the research work which is really necessary if one is to be an effective representative here. I have not been here very long, but I find we are overburdened with a large amount of correspondence. We do a great deal of committee work and other work which often prevents our carrying out research, the task of digging down to find out exactly how legislation will affect the people. Improved research facilities are necessary. This is one of the first steps which should be taken if it is intended to give assistance to Members of Parliament. Perhaps assistance could be provided in each of the offices by way of an executive assistant who could take a great deal of the load from hon. members as far as correspondence is concerned, besides assisting in the research projects which in my opinion are so essential. This is one of the first priorities if members are adequately to fulfil the task we are sent here to perform, that is, the checking of legislation and the making of the best possible laws for the people of this nation.
I realize that things change as we go along, and no doubt we shall hear a variety of opinions expressed on the legislation which is before us. But I shall have no hesitation in voting against the legislation. The somewhat excessive amounts prescribed in it are certainly not warranted at this time. Whether the bill passes in its present form or whether amendments are made to it, I urge the government to set up machinery for properly evaluating the type of work we are doing here. Once and for all this question should be taken out of the House of Commons so that members of the various parties would not be called upon to vote for their own salaries.
It will not be so tough a job if we put our minds to it and are prepared to make a move. I hope this line of reasoning will be followed up before many months are passed. Again, I wish to assure all hon. members that I appreciate the views they have expressed. I intend to vote against the legislation, if I am here and the bill comes to a vote on second reading. I trust that some amendments will be made to it during the committee stage.


Mr. Kaplan:: Would the hon. member permit a question? He criticized the Beaupre report as being only a partial study. I should like to ask him in what sense he considered it to be partial. Second, with the insight he has displayed as to the job of a Member of Parliament, what does he believe salaries of hon. members should be? The hon. member refrained from expressing a view on that point.


Randolph Harding: The point I was making is this: the Beaupre report never did compare the work we are doing here with other jobs in the civil service or in the business world. This is what I am suggesting should be done.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The second question?


An hon. Member:: What do you think it is worth?
Senate and House of Commons Act


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, the question of remuneration of members of Parliament has always been a very sensitive one, but I want to say immediately that some members are not sincere when speaking against an increase of that remuneration. I can even say that some of them, and I refer particularly to the Creditistes want that increase badly while wishing to make Canadians believe they do not want to get it. You can't have it both ways, and here I use the very apt French word "politicaillerie", which means petty political manoeuvers. That is what the Creditistes are doing. I am quite under the impression that their voters do not always believe them.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) spoke a while ago. I have lived two years in the constituency of Lotbiniere, at Saint-Patrice-de-Beau-Rivage, and I can tell you that the people of Saint-Patrice-de-Beau-Rivage and of the constituency of Lotbiniere are not foolish enough to believe what the hon. member said a little while ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: You see, the hon. member for Lotbiniere-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to say to the hon. member who now has the floor that Saint-Beatrice is not located in Lotbiniere, but in Levis, a riding which is represented by an hon. member of the Liberal party.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, when I was in Lotbiniere, people were not foolish. I know that things may have changed since, but the people's thinking has not.
I was greatly interested in a thing that the hon. member for Lotbiniere said a few moments ago. He asked a question and said that an answer just had to be given. He asked: what is the role of an hon. member? Well, if the Creditistes do not know what their role as members is, they have no business in this House! As for me, I know what being a member and serving my constituents in Cochrane means. My electors know and so do I. If I was not entitled to a salary increase, I would leave politics, for I am convinced that the members who serve their constituents well are entitled to a better salary.

Just a word about what was said earlier today by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I respect his opinions and the point of view of his colleagues but I do wish they would not take a journey into the realm of fairy tale. One thing in particular that he mentioned was that
5376

April 29, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act the last time there was a raise in indemnity it was decided that it would be big enough to last for the next several years. I say that is a lot of nonsense.
The same thing was said by that brilliant associate editor of the Globe and Mail in this morning's editorial, which stated that for the next 10 to 20 years Members of Parliament would not have to ask for another raise. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, my hiring a secretary in 1963 at a salary of $6,000 a year and telling her that since this was a very good salary she would not be able to have a raise for another 10 years! I suggest that the hon. member's argument is absolutely infantile and should not have been put forward.
There is no question that the members of this House require enough to be able to carry out their duties and to live in a decent way. If some hon. members want to live in a garret, that is their business. But my constituents would not want me to live that way, I have no intention of living that way and no Member of Parliament should be expected to live that way. Certainly there is a need, one that has been pretty well universally accepted.
When the Beaupre committee was first formed I recall that a very prominent journalist, Charles Lynch, wrote an article in very strong terms, in which he said the following:
It is my view that the increases are valid, and I would have said so had the MPs voted them through forthwith, instead of taking the more considered line of turning the matter over to the new "advisory committee on parliamentary salaries and expenses." I think they should raise the wages, and put the chop on election spending.
There is no doubt, as Stanley Knowles of the NDP said yesterday in sanctimoniously opposing pay raises, that the impartial committee will propose substantial increases, effective this year.
In the last paragraph of his article he had this to say:
The nation expects a professional job from them-
That is to say, Members of Parliament.
*-and public expectations are rising. The MP, if he is to meet the increasing demands upon his time and his intellect, needs more money and more staff. Above all, he should not be prey to the pressures that burden a man who is forced to spend more than he is paid.

I represent a large constituency of northern Ontario. I have always said that it is as large as France but unfortunately someone has told me that it is not as large as France but a few square miles smaller. In any case, it is almost as large as France and certainly larger than Italy.
There is only one member of Parliament for this constituency while there are 400 deputies in France and I do not represent 50 million Frenchmen but I must serve
80,000	Canadians. I have to travel all across the constituency. My constituents are quite scattered. I know what it means to spend money on air fare and accommodations throughout my constituency. I am among those members of Parliament who find themselves short of money every month. This is why I hope this legislation will be adopted as soon as possible and I would ask my colleagues from all parties to support it.

It is never pleasant for a Member of Parliament to have to raise his own salary. This is something that seems to irk the public. They say, "There you are; you are just voting yourself a raise". It's not quite as easy as that and I think it is high time that the press, so ready to criticize us, explained this to the people. First of all, we do not just suddenly decide to vote ourselves a raise. Cabinet has first to be convinced that we need one, and they have to bring it forward. This is something the people do not understand.
Various things could be said on this subject, but it seems to me that since we have been discussing salaries for the past two years, in caucus, in committees and among ourselves, we should make this debate as short as possible instead of carrying it on. We have given our opinions from all parts of the House, representing all parts of the country. I suggest to hon. members that we should complete second reading as soon as possible so the bill can go to committee.
I do not think there is any member of the House who does not agree that something has to be done and that action is long overdue, though we cannot all agree on the action that should be taken. Many of us would like to take different action. Perhaps some prefer not to have a non-accountable allowance. But the point is that this is what has been proposed. It is a difficult situation and so far no one has been able to come up with a better solution. Perhaps they will in the future.
In the meantime, I think it behooves us all as Members of Parliament to stand behind the proposal of the government and to pass the legislation with the minimum of delay. We would then begin to serve our constituents in the manner they expect. We do not want to live in the lap of luxury, and that is not the idea. But we do want to be able to give proper service to our constituents. We do not want to have to say at weekends, "I am afraid to visit part of my riding because I simply cannot afford big hotel bill and the trip home." Although this should not happen, it has happened and it means we are being thwarted in our efforts to serve our constituents. I therefore implore all my colleagues to co-operate with the government on this measure so we can better serve our constituents.
e (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak after the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I fully endorse his stand on Bill C-242 concerning increased allowances for members of the House of Commons and Senators.
I was rather surprised tonight, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) say to the members of the Ralliement creditiste that they were against this bill. Yet, we are only using the time allotted to us. I should like to point out to the hon. member who was asking me a while ago if we meant to engage in

April 29, 1971

filibustering, that three Liberal members, two from the New Democratic Party and one from the Progressive Conservative Party have already spoken while only one representative from our group contributed to the debate. I believe the hon. member for Cochrane should address himself also to the Progressive Conservative and the NDP members because some of them will surely express opinions contrary to his own. He was right in inviting us to share his opinion but we are absolutely free and still under a democratic government.
I agree to describe the facts before voting. I am keeping to the priorities I promised our citizens I would always defend.
That is why I warn the government that I will not be able to vote in favour of Bill C-242 until it accepts the three following priorities: First, the adjustment of family allowances in keeping with the increase in the cost of living while maintaining their universality; second, the immediate increase of the basic federal income tax exemption to $5,000 for married couples and to $3,000 for unmarried people; and, third, the establishment of secretarial facilities in Roberval county to provide adequate services there.
If we are legislators we are also elected representatives of our ridings and above all social workers for all those who require our services.
Of course, this work requires dedication but also money. That is why I claim that it is incumbent upon the government to supply us with the facilities needed for our work.
We have been asking for such services for almost nine years and we have never been able to get them.
And yet the province of Quebec has set an example for Ottawa in this regard while Ottawa is getting much more taxes from our citizens.
For a long time we have also been asking that the government take over the car expenses incurred when we travel in our constituencies and, here again, we only got promises. Several members told me: Well, thanks to that increase you will now be able to set up an office in your constituency. This office already exists but it keeps going with my own money.
That increase will almost be brought to nothing because of the double taxation. Indeed, on the taxable $6,000 I will have to pay $3,000 in income tax alone. And if I take the balance to pay a salary to a young man, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) will again take $1,200 from this young worker. This shows us that the increase will have the effect of increasing the receipts of the federal treasury by $4,200 while only $1,800 will be left to me to render some services to my fellow-citizens. That approach is typical of the government. That is its way of getting taxes. It seems to promise an elephant, and delivers a mouse. But it is the taxpayers who foot the bill.
I cannot therefore go along with this hypocritical game because I have always been loyal to my constituents. As soon as these three priorities have been accepted, I will
Senate and House of Commons Act be prepared to consider new increases in parliamentary allowances.
I am amazed when I realize that the government, after eight years, suggests such an inrease. I think that it would have been much more logical to adjust members of Parliament allowances every year, as they do in the industry or elsewhere, taking into account the rise in the cost of living. But it seems that the government can never be as logical as others. Surely our expenses have increased in the last eight years, like those of other citizens, and I get a good laugh when I see a labour leader like Mr. Laberge being shocked at that increase. I will say to Mr. Laberge, that if he wants to be honest with himself for a change he should sit down with ten of his members and figure out what the increases in salary and expenses have been in the last eight years. He will not even dare open his mouth after that, I am sure.
It is not that I am not aware of the need for an adjustment, but it is a matter of principle and loyalty to my electors. In reply to those who claim that members take it easy today, I invite them, as I did last year, to follow me around just for one week. I maintain that few workers put in as many hours per week.
As for me, my week starts at 4 a.m. Monday, when I
leave home, Mistassini, for Ottawa. I drive 500 miles to get here for the opening of the sitting at 2 p.m. and sit until 10.30 in the evening.
From Tuesday to Friday each week, I am on the Hill from 8.30 in the morning till 10.30 sometimes 11 at night, except on Wednesday when I leave at 6 and on Fridays when I leave Ottawa at 5 p.m. to reach my riding at one o'clock the next morning. On Saturdays I must be in my office at 8 o'clock and stay there until very late. On Sundays, when there are no receptions or meetings in municipalities, I receive my constituents in the office and finally I must be on my way at 4 in the morning to travel the 500 miles.
I apologize for having given all those details, but Canadian people must know the truth about members of Parliament. Certainly reporters will not tell them for us. Some may say that not all Members of Parliament work that hard!
With nine years' experience, Mr. Speaker, I do not dare pass judgment on anybody anymore because I know I will be 95 per cent wrong. Being better acquainted with my colleagues, the members of the Ralliement creditiste, with whom I have the pleasure of working, I can vouch that all of them give the best of themselves. And our only reason for being in Parliament is the fight for our principles and the loyalty which we must show to those who have elected us. And it is precisely because of these principles and this loyalty that we cannot accept Bill C-242 as drafted, mainly because of its Part II, concerning the increase for senators.
As I have already said and repeated in this House, I am absolutely against an increase in salary for senators; I am simply in favour of abolishing the Senate so that those who are actually governing the country may have more space.
24081-59;

April 29. 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is always a very delicate thing for an individual to have to discuss a problem in which he is directly involved, as is the case with Bill C-242 dealing with allowances paid to members of Parliament. However, I feel it is my duty to take part in this debate and give my opinion as briefly as possible on the substance of this bill.
This afternoon I listened with great interest to the speech made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I was very attentive in trying to understand every word of his remarks, and I must congratulate him for the fairness with which he expounded and defended the bill he sponsored. I feel that he stated clearly what is the real role of a member of Parliament and how this role must in fact be conceived even among the population. But, I will say this: Unfortunately, the function of the member of Parliament is sometimes despised by the people-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: You do not mean that.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The minister in charge of the Post Office (Mr. Cote) says that I do not mean this. It '.s because he knows that I mean ever word that he tells me this, by the way. I know that he is a friend and that he is saying this to tease me. At any rate he recognizes that I am a serious man.
In Quebec, when the Committee on the Constitution was holding meetings on April 19, only eight days ago, I found that French Canadians, some of our own people unfortunately were scornful of the representatives of the people.
It was useless to protest since they had already made up their mind. For them, all members of Parliament are to be despised because they are not exactly aware of their real function and of the way they are performing it.
In the past, unfortunately, some members may have failed to do a good job. But this does not mean that such failure is now general. As for myself, since I have been sitting in the House, I had the honour of meeting every member for whom I have much respect. I think their functions are really honourable. In fact, a citizen who has the good fortune of filling such a post should consider himself appreciated by his fellow men and must, in return, give the best of himself by trying to honestly represent his electors.
Mr. Speaker, I also consider that the remarks made today by my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) were honest. And when we hear sometimes-and I know that it is neither serious nor sincere

some hon. members voicing that the Creditistes lack sincerity or that they are hypocritical, I think they speak beyond their minds. In my opinion, it is only a way of saying that we do not share the same views. I excuse them heartily, and I am convinced that, as early as tomorrow, they will be ready to tell people: These people have the courage of their convictions and say what is on their minds.
Some may say also-or at least they may think-these are members who seem ready to refuse a salary increase.
I am not against it because we don't need it; we do, it is obvious! Nobody turns down a raise. Sometimes people will ask us the following question: If the bill is passed as it will necessarily be because the government has the majority, will you refuse what is offered to you? No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, when I vote against taxes increases and when the bill is passed by the majority, I have to pay these taxes as a responsible citizen. The same will happen for this bill respecting increased parliamentary indemnities; and I shall go along with the law and accept the decision of the majority.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have a frank and honest opinion of the role assigned to me and of the situation as I see it.
Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1970, the government appointed a commission to consider the matter of parliamentary allowances and expenses. The members of Parliament were invited to state their views in this regard. That is exactly what I did. I submitted a brief. So you see, this opinion of mine is not something that I made up tonight.
One only has to refer to the notes of the Breaupre Commission to see that the member for Bellechasse did answer the invitation extended by the Commission.
In the brief I submitted on May 19, 1970, I humbly stated my opinion in answer to the Commission's invitation to make our views known to them.
And this is what I said:
First, since the last readjustment of electoral boundaries, rural constituencies have been enlarged, and as a result a member has to incur heavy car expenses to travel within his constituency and maintain contact with the people.
Second, the constituency of Bellechasse, which includes almost three provincial counties, and which was represented up to June 25, 1968 by three federal members, is now represented by one member only, which has tripled the workload of maintaining contact with the people, travel and other expenses with respect to various organizations and citizen groups, as well as contributions of all sorts.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council, as government House leader, if by any miracle members should become shy and tongue-tied on this sensitive matter tomorrow, what we will be doing afterwards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the present item, the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act, followed by the bill to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act, followed by the bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the bill to amend the Post Office Act.

April 29, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 26, as recorded in Hansard at page 5222, I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in the following words:
In view of the hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has held out to veterans, especially those who are being forced to transfer from the non-taxable war veterans allowance to the taxable guaranteed income supplement, that something will be done this year to relieve their tax position, can the Minister of Finance give the assurance that any changes affecting the position of these veterans will apply to the year 1971?
The reply of the Minister of Finance was to the effect that he could not indicate in advance to the House what the position of the government would be with respect to tax measures. May I say quite candidly that in asking this question tonight I know that I will not get an answer. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) will tell me that what I am asking for is a commitment in advance regarding a tax change. I know he will tell me that to give a definitive answer to my question would be to disclose proposed tax changes and that under the practices of Parliament he cannot do that. He may then put to me a rhetorical question, asking me why I am taking up the time of this "late show" to raise this matter. Sir, I do so because to me it is a very important issue and I think that the only way we can hope to get action on it is to keep the issue alive, to keep reminding the government of the fact that it must do something about it.
As hon. members are aware, certain regulations were passed recently under the War Veterans Allowance Act which have the effect of forcing veterans who are 65 years of age and over, and who are in receipt of the war veterans' allowance, to apply for the guaranteed income supplement that can be attached to the old age security pension. The result in terms of dollars that a veteran receives, having been forced to make this move, is the same. There is a ceiling on a single war veterans' allowance recipient of $161 a month. Therefore, if he gets only $80 old age security, he gets $81 in war veterans allowance, which gives him a total of $161 a month. On the other hand, if he applies for and gets the guaranteed income supplement along with his old age security pension, that adds up to $135 a month, whereupon he gets only $26 a month in war veterans' allowance, but the total is still $161.
Since these two totals are the same, someone may ask, why do we complain about it? Apart from other reasons
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for our complaining about this practice, the fact is that war veterans' allowance benefits are not taxable. Therefore, the single war veterans' allowance recipient whom I described-and I have done it in the simplest terms- would be getting only $80 a month of taxable income, or $960 a year, and therefore he would pay no income tax. But when the same veteran is forced to take $135 a month as old age security and guaranteed income supplement, that results in his having $1,620 a year of taxable income.
If he is 70 years of age or over, he has total exemptions of $1,600 so he has to pay income tax only on $20. Of course, that is. not much but the fact is that he has less total income than he would have had otherwise. If the veteran is between the ages of 65 and 70 his exemptions are only $1,100; therefore he has to pay tax on $520. I suggest that this is unfair and should be corrected.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) has held out the hope that before the end of the year the tax changes to be put into effect by the Minister of Finance will take care of the situation, but we have had no positive or definitive assurance that this will be done and therefore a great many veterans are concerned.
I raise this question, despite the fact that I do not expect to get the answer I would like, in order to underline that concern and to keep the issue alive. I do this in the hope that it will be dealt with in a manner favourable to the veteran just as soon as possible.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has placed this matter on the schedule for debate tonight under Standing Order 39 (6), which implies either that the question was not regarded as urgent by Mr. Speaker in the original instance or that the hon. member was not satisfied with the answer. Since the first was not the case, evidently he was not satisfied with the answer and, of course, in his comments a moment ago he indicated what my answer might be. I appreciate the importance of the matter and the concern of the hon. member in underlining it. I know that with his well-known respect for the institution of Parliament and the traditions upon which Parliament is founded, he cannot, in a technical sense, fail to be satisfied with the answer.
He is asking for a statement involving a change in the tax laws and what, if anything, will be done in that regard must await a budget in the tradition of this House. I should say that the representations made by him on this and other occasions and the representations made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) with respect to the problem that has arisen for some veterans as a result of changes in war veterans' allowances, have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). He is aware of them, they are under consideration and the results of that consideration must await a budget announcement.

April 29, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion FINANCE-REPRESENTATION OF GENERAL PUBLIC ON BANKS' BOARDS OF DIRECTORS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on April 4, in an appearance on the CBC program "Weekend," the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) made a brief statement in relation to the banks of Canada and the views of their chief officers. He made some suggestions that would indicate he was seriously thinking there should be representatives of the public on the boards of directors of Canadian banks. The Ottawa Citizen of April 5 reported the statements of the minister in some detail and I shall quote two short sections. The first reads:
Government will have to "play a greater role" in the management of Canadian banks if their presidents "really don't care about the economic and financial independence of Canada," says energy minister Greene.
The article continues:
Mr. Greene suggested government might have to "sit at the table where the great financial decisions are made in far greater degree than it has in the past to enable Canadian companies to have the financial muscle to play in this very tough league with the American companies."
Because there was wide comment on the statement of the minister, and much editorial comment, the minister wrote a letter to the Toronto Star on April 16. I quote a couple of sentences from that letter as follows:
a (10:10 p.m.)
-we cannot permit the resource and industrial entities of production to be in a continuing and growing degree owned by non-Canadians.
A new factor on this question may have been brought into focus by the recent statements of chartered bank presidents to the effect that they do not support such entities as the Canada Development Corporation to enable a greater Canadian presence in our resource and industrial complex, and further that they apparently do not subscribe to any growing degree of economic nationalism.
He ended the letter by saying:
These factors would suggest that there should be a public discussion in Canada as to whether, as has been found beneficial in other countries, those responsible for the political direction of the country should have an adequate voice in the financial decisions which will determine the future make-up of our country.
I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on April 5, as a result of news reports of what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had said, whether consideration was being given to legislation which would give the government power to appoint public representatives on the boards of directors of the chartered banks of Canada, which was precisely in line with what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had said. I also said that I am concerned, as is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, about the tremendous power which the banks of Canada wield, a power which stems from the tremendous financial resources they have, resources made available to them by the people of Canada. These resources they hold in trust.
A report on business carried in the Globe and Mail in December, 1970, showed that the chartered banks of Canada had as of October 31, 1970, over $45 billion in total assets; that they had loans and mortages outstanding of more than $25 billion; that they had personal savings on deposit in Canada of over $16 billion; that they had other deposits, not counting moneys deposited in banks by the government of Canada, provinces or other banks, of over $18 billion; and that bank profits in the last two years had risen by more than 25 per cent. I am referring to the net profits of banks.
This is tremendous financial power and it seems to me, as it seemed to the minister when he made those statements, that the people of Canada and their government ought to have a good deal more say about how the banks operate and in the decisions which they make, decisions which will affect the well-being of every Canadian citizen. We have not done that up to now. For that reason I asked the Minister of Finance whether he was giving consideration to bringing forward legislation which would permit the government of Canada to appoint to the boards of directors of the chartered banks of Canada public representatives.
I was very disappointed with the minister's reply to my question. He said that the directors of banks are representatives of the public. I agree that they are representatives of a small section of the public of Canada, of that 1 per cent or 2 per cent who have large financial resources. I am not critical of the directors; they represent these people and represent them very well. What I am suggesting, and what I suggested when I asked my question, is that the banks are so important to the well-being of this country that the government of Canada ought to pass legislation such as I have suggested, as has been done in other countries.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources suggested in his statement, the governments of other countries have power to appoint representatives to the boards of directors of banks. I put forward a relatively moderate suggestion to the Minister of Finance but it met no success. Hopefully, I shall now receive a more sympathetic response.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) I responded to a question from the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) on the same subject matter but from a somewhat different angle. Rather than repeat the general comments I made at that time concerning the financial institutions in Canada, particularly the banks, I refer the hon. member to the answer given on Tuesday evening of this week.
Section 18, subsection 3 of the Bank Act requires that at least three-quarters of the directors of a chartered bank shall be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in

April 29, 1971

Canada. At the present time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has no intention of recommending amendments to the Bank Act, although I would point out that the regular decennial revision to the Bank Act will be a matter of urgent importance to the next Parliament. No
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion doubt suggestions made by the hon. member and others in this regard will be considered when the government formulates the proposals it intends to put forward at that time, whatever government it might be.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, April 30, 1971