1974-12-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third, fourth, fifth and sixth reports of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Poulin.
[Editors Note: For text of reports referred to above see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday or the day before I indicated that I would endeavour to come to a decision today about the alleged question of privilege that was raised concerning remarks in two recent presentations made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been presented and I have examined again and again the record of the remarks made. In addition, I have consulted the precedents respecting applications for consideration by the Chair that a prima facie question of privilege has arisen and I find 'certain difficulties in connection with the precedents and their relationship to the present situation.
I have some grave concern about the nature of the practice that was referred to and about whether the kind of conduct referred to is in fact a breach of the law or amounts to an immoral or illegal activity. On the other hand, the allegations were not made simply against one member of the House, and on two different occasions. Particularly on the second of such occasions, which was last Thursday evening, they were directed against members of all other parties in the House except the one led by the hon. member who was then speaking. He implicated himself in the practice to which he had referred.
I have additional concern about the fact that the allegations relate to the relationship between the members of this House and the members of the press gallery here, or at least some of the members of the press gallery, because to a certain extent the press gallery is an extension of the
functioning of the House in bringing before the Canadian people, the electorate, the events of the House through the faithful and objective reporting of such events. This is not the sole responsibility of the press gallery but is a matter over which this House wants to exercise some interest, if not some direction, and to take some responsibility therefor. In view of this particular fact, and because, as I say, I have serious questions on both sides, I must bear in mind that my decision is not on one side or the other of the various technical questions involved but is simply a decision whether or not a prima facie case of privilege exists.
I would remind hon. members that the decision hereafter as to whether or not the matter ought to be investigated further by a standing committee is not the decision of the Chair but the decision of the House. If I do find there is a prima facie question of privilege, it is for the House to decide whether or not the motion of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would carry and the matter referred to a standing committee.
Because the allegations directed against hon. members are so broad, and because they relate to the press gallery, in view of the reasons I have outlined and the doubts that I have on both sides of the question I feel I ought to resolve those doubts in favour of having the matter cleared up and investigated by a committee, so that whatever allegations have been outstanding can either be verified or denied. Accordingly, I propose to find that under the circumstances a prima facie case of privilege does exist, and in my view the question contained in the motion of the hon. member for Joliette that this matter ought to be examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections ought to be put to the House. I therefore put that question to the House at this time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion of the hon. member for Joliette carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the members agreed that it is satisfactory to have the recorded vote now without the necessity of the bells calling in the members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether other members are in the same position as I am, but I did not hear the motion being put. If it has been put, it is obviously debatable, but it is a bit unusual to put a motion relating to the privilege of a member of the House when

December 19, 1974
Privilege-Mr. La Salle
that member is not in his seat to take the opportunity to comment in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the last point raised by the minister, perhaps I should retrace what has taken place in respect of the motion. The first time the question was raised was after the hon. member had made his remarks. At that point I deferred the motion and consideration of the question of privilege until the following Monday. Because the hon. member was not in his place I again deferred it until Tuesday, at which time the House leader of that party, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), said he was prepared to have the matter discussed at that time.
Under those circumstances, I feel the House has extended to the hon. member for Temiscamingue every opportunity to discuss the motion. The question, therefore, is on the motion of the hon. member for Joliette, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the charge made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, namely, that hon. members bribed reporters from the press gallery, be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, I declare the motion carried


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to explain the absence of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). He has been detained in Rouyn because of the strike in Montreal.
If we have not voted, it is because we did like the Chair, we relied on the decision of the House.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When voting today, I had the impression I was settling two matters at the same time and I think when you vote "yea" or "nay"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must know that no comment can be permitted on the casting of any vote in the House.

December 19, 1974


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I request you designate an order of the day for consideration of the remainder of the notices of ways and means tabled in conjunction with the budget on November 18, 1974.


TABLING OF GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I table copies, in both official languages, of government guidelines for notices of motions for the production of papers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I now turn to something that is apparently of greater interest to hon. members. As I indicated yesterday, conversations have been taking place among the parties and among members in order to determine if a somewhat different approach to the determination of remuneration of members might produce a result that would command even greater support among the membership of this House, and might help to remove any public impression that the proposed increases were excessive or out of line with prevailing standards in public and private life.
As the House is aware, proposals were originally made by an ad hoc group of private members. The government included some of these proposals in the bill now before the House, and rejected others. Quite clearly, the bill commanded widespread support in this House, including that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the House leaders of the official opposition and the Social Credit Party. Equally clear, however, is the fact that the proposed, single 50 per cent increase in remuneration for members for the duration of the present parliament was both misunderstood and misrepresented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Many people, either through ignorance or design, equated this proposed 50 per cent increase, the first for four years and the last for another four years, with the demands being made by groups which engage in bargaining at regular intervals and whose wages rise annually under existing contracts. It was pointed out that the average annual increase over the eight-year period was less than 6 per cent, but it has to be admitted that this
Members' Salaries
argument made little headway against the popular idea that somehow members of parliament were demanding exorbitant increases in their pay.
That being so, the government came to the conclusion that a different method of determining remuneration might be open to less misunderstanding and I was authorized to explore the possibilities with government supporters and with other parties. As I have said on several occasions, this measure is essentially a parliamentary, rather than a government bill. The advice the government received came from private members from all sides of the House who in tendering advice made it evident that they were prepared to defend publicly and to their constituents their recommendations. The government has never considered MPs indemnities and allowances matters for partisan conflict, although of course there might be legitimate differences of view among individual members, as evidently there are.
After receiving authorization to explore possibilities for a different method of determining remuneration, I was approached immediately by the Leader of the Opposition who expressed the same view, that a different approach was desirable and suggested that the level of indemnities and allowances might be determined in relation to the average increase in wages and salaries as determined by Statistics Canada since 1970, when the present rate of remuneration was instituted, and that these figures might be adjusted annually in accordance with the future trend of average wages and salaries. The government had itself considered a similar approach, and I expressed sympathy. I then had conversations with the leader of the New Democratic Party, and at a third stage I had some exploratory conversations with the House leader of the Social Credit group.
Out of these exploratory conversations I made a series of proposals that I felt might command general support. In light of the comments received from the leaders of the parties after consultations with their respective caucuses, and after consultation with government supporters, I am now in a position to say that when the bill which is now under consideration by the House for second reading does receive second reading and is in the committee, the government will be prepared to support amendments to accomplish the following. First, as of the beginning of this parliament, indemnities would be $24,000 and allowances $10,600. This is 33'/3 per cent above the present levels. The increase in the industrial composite index from the effective date of the last adjustment until July of this year is quite a bit higher than 33'A per cent, but there is a disposition, I discovered, on the part of most of those consulted to recommend somewhat less than could be justified.
Second, the foregoing level would be maintained from July, 1974, to December, 1975. Third, beginning in 1976, indemnities and allowances would be adjusted annually in accordance with the percentage change in the industrial composite index between the two preceding years. For example, the level in 1976 would be adjusted by the percentage change in the industrial index between 1974 and 1975.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking members on all sides, and the leaders of the opposition parties in particu-

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
lar, for their contribution to our common consultations on this matter which concerns members of parliament as a whole and not the government in particular.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the changes indicated by the government House leader, I would be prepared to support the bill for second reading and reference to the committee. I just want to make one or two very brief comments. The government House leader referred to the bill introduced as being misrepresented and misunderstood. I do not want to suggest in any way that it was misrepresented. However, as I said yesterday, it seemed clear to me it was understood by the public to indicate a very substantial increase, 50 per cent immediately, and was taken by the public to be inflationary and excessive. Consequently, it seemed to me that whatever we might think our indemnities and allowances ought to be or deserve to be, we should proceed on some different basis.
The suggestion that this was a 50 per cent increase over eight years and, therefore, amounted to something like 6 per cent a year was clearly not one the public was prepared to accept. The suggestion of an increase of 33'A per cent seems to me to be appropriate and moderate, one that ought not to appear in any sense to be inflationary, ought not in any way to encourage those outside parliament to demand higher settlements, and ought not to be regarded as a departure from restraint on the part of members of parliament, because the one-third increase is clearly less than the increase in the general index to which the government House leader referred.
I am also pleased that the escalation factor in the future is delayed by a year and will therefore run somewhat behind the general increase in the index. That provides, and I am pleased to see it, I think some general incentive to members of the House to fight inflation. I think it is noteworthy therefore that any escalation which takes place in the future will not commence until 1976. What the escalation factor will mean in terms of an indemnity in 1976, 1977 or 1978 of course will depend upon what happens in the future and on what success the government and this Parliament have in fighting inflation and encouraging restraint in the country. Clearly, what is now being proposed will amount to very significantly less than what was proposed in this particular bill. In other words, a parliamentarian will receive significantly less for 1974 and 1975 than was first proposed. I think this is a very important step toward restraint and is a step in the right direction.
There is one further point. With regard to the parts of the bill relating to ministers, officers of the House and myself, I want to keep that question open for the moment as to whether this should go forward on the basis of what is proposed. However, I do not object to the bill being read a second time so that this matter may be considered by the committee, but I want it understood that in speaking as I am now, I am not necessarily endorsing the proposals with regard to ministerial and other salary increases including mine. I think this is something which should be reflected upon further and considered by the committee when this matter is before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, in contrast to the government House leader (Mr. Sharp), that the bill presented to the House, far from being misunderstood was perfectly understood throughout the country. People from one coast to the other correctly saw that the government, with overwhelming support, with the exception of one party in this House, was presenting a package that would move the salaries of members of parliament from being in the top 1.5 per cent of the income scale in Canada, among those who pay income tax, to the top .5 per cent. It was clearly understood and clearly rejected. Following that proposal and the reaction to it in this House from the New Democratic Party, and I do not want to exaggerate the importance of that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I hear the catcalls again, Mr. Speaker. All the members of the other parties know full well that the original attempt was to get the original package through this House without opposition, without amendment, with every cent and including every period and every semi-colon. It was to be left intact and it was the New Democratic Party that stopped it. Let us not have any illusions about that.
I come now to the government's marvellous compromise proposal which was so readily accepted by the Conservative Party. I want to say at the outset that, far from being a compromise which would reduce the benefit for members of parliament it would do just the reverse. I will demonstrate that by way of explanation in giving the reasons my party does not agree to these proposals. We made proposals in all seriousness that would have taken into account real increases in the cost of living experienced by members of parliament since 1971. We would have readily accepted that. We would have supported in the House and out of the House such a proposal.
But, what does the compromise so-called effectively do? It does the following: The reduction of the initial pay increase for members from 50 per cent to 33*/3 per cent for the first two years looks impressive if one conveniently neglects point two that was introduced by the Government House Leader and which will be presented to the committee for purposes of amendment. I refer to the introduction in 1976 of the industrial wage composite index as the basis for increases between now and 1978. If one takes that into account and applies it to the past average increase in recent years of about 10 per cent per year, what does one get? One would get the following: under the original bill the salaries of members of parliament would have been $39,000 a year in each year between 1975 and 1978, the four years, for a total of $156,000 in that four-year period. Under the marvellous compromise suggested by the Government House Leader he did not propose any reduction in the proposed increases for cabinet ministers or leaders of other parties including my own. He only proposed what I would call with care and accuracy a deceptive reduction in respect of members of parliament.
(Mr. Sharp.]
December 19, 1974

The net effect of that reduction, if one considers point two, under the escalation beginning in 1976 is that members would receive under the new proposal-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: How can it be nonsense until you have heard the figure under this proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I do not wish to unduly restrict what he is saying to the House. However, a statement on motions is after all an indication of what may happen to the bill and is an indication of the position to be taken by parties in respect thereto. The hon. member certainly should have an opportunity to indicate the position of his group with regard to this statement, but I wonder whether the hon. member is not going beyond that and actually getting into debate on the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: I shall summarize very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I simply point out that I have taken less time than the Government House Leader. If one totals up the income for regular members of parliament under the new proposal with the escalator clause, I think that between 1975 and 1978 inclusive, you would get a total of $160,882 which is $4,000 more than the original government proposal. It is for this reason, among others which I shall make clear in debate later this afternoon, that the New Democratic Party will have absolutely nothing to do with this proposal.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, there would be a very simply way of solving the objections and it would be to allow the use of an optional formula whereby those who need a raise would accept it while those who do not need it would refuse it.
Mr. Speaker, the debate going on in the House and especially in the news media deals with the salaries of politicians. A proposal has now been made and I wish to confirm on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada that we have taken part in those discussions, because we also have our own concept of the member's function and also because we were directly involved in those discussions.
Generally, we endorse those proposals subject to minor changes which I will state later on. Two particular points urge me to speak now hoping that the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) will understand my message. Mr. Speaker, the members on this side of the House, especially those from Quebec-it will reach your corner later on-are more especially interested in the specific duties that we must carry out in our constituencies. We have a typical concept of the member's function. We are indebted for it to the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) who insists that members must give personalized service to every citizen within their constituencies and be present there every weekend. We have learned from him to provide a good service and to defend our constituents against civil servants. Our notion of the function of a House member is such that our fights in the House stem from principles and not from petty politics.
Members' Salaries
Because of this notion, we are full-time members exclusively concerned with our duty to represent our constituents and fight for their rights, so that our working conditions are quite different from those of others.
Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Kamou-raska (Mr. Dionne), the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) must use their cars every weekend to travel within their respective constituencies, there are hon. members from eastern and western Canada who are not faced with the same sacrifices.
When a member of the House represents a constituency like mine and that each time he wants to settle an unemployment insurance case he has to call Drummondville long distance, that is an expense other members do not incur. This is why I think that must inspire-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I simply want to say to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) exactly the same thing I said to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


André-Gilles Fortin: I understood that, Mr. Speaker. This is why I think that in considering the government's proposal, it is important to keep in mind the member's role. It is important to act in such a way that the idea people have of the politician fully warrants these salary increases.
What disappoints us is that we keep on maintaining the Senate and increasing the senators' allowances, although they do not have to provide any relevant vouchers. As for Social Crediters it would not be difficult for us to provide vouchers. In any event, we are going to keep on taking a very active part in these discussions.
Since this question greatly interests the public and the media, I wonder if it would not be in order to suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that rather than referring the bill to a standing committee we discuss it in committee of the whole House. The general public could then assist to the proceedings, and every member could set forth his position.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to forget nor put in the same boat all members, from sea to sea, since the working conditions for a member from Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, Quebec City or Montreal are not and will never be the same as those for a member who represents an urban or semi-urban constituency.
That is why we will take an active part in these proceedings, for we, in the Social Credit Party of Canada, have never relied on any contributions from the unions to do our job.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I assure Your Honour and the House that it is a point of order and not an attempt to get into the debate. My point relates to the terms of the Governor General's recommendation which, I suggest, will

December 19, 1974
Air Canada
have to be altered if the proposed amendments are to be made to the bill. The Governor General's recommendation fixes a limit on the amount of salary and expense allowance that can be made to members of parliament during the thirtieth parliament. It is possible under these new provisions for that ceiling to be exceeded. The Governor General's recommendation also provides for an escalation formula to come into effect only in the thirty-first parliament. It is now proposed that there be an escalation formula that will apply during this parliament.
I submit that at some point along the road if these amendments are to be proceeded with there will have to be either a new Governor General's recommendation or a revision of the one that is now before us. I ask Your Honour to take this matter under advisement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I say to you, sir, that these points have been considered by the government and if, as the hon. member says, it proves to be necessary to introduce a new recommendation or to alter the present one, we will certainly abide by your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty, of course, is that the decision can only be made when the amendment is put together and viewed, and that can only be done in the standing committee. This is a forewarning that the point will have to be dealt with when it arises.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the increasing labour unrest throughout and affecting Air Canada'a operations, and in view of the low morale in the Canadian Airline Employees Association, compounded by widespread rumours of lay-offs which resulted in the president of CALEA, Mr. Tom Saunders, sending an urgent telegram to Mr. Yves Pratte, chairman of the board of Air Canada, on December 17 requesting that the company make a statement on its intentions regarding possible lay-offs, a course of action which the company to this point has not denied, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the matter of employer-employee relations in Air Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at the first available opportunity and that in the meantime the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport take appropriate steps to make certain that there are no confrontations developing that could interrupt the operations of our country's national air carrier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. I take the hon. member's word for a fact that the telegram between the chairman of the association and the president of Air Canada was, in fact, an urgent message of some sort, and I will therefore put the question. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43,

it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, it cannot be debated at this time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in response to earlier questions I wish to table in English and in French a report on the crash in Syria on August 9, 1974 of a Canadian Buffalo aircraft which was operating with the U.N. emergency force in the Middle East.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act.


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

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-47, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was otherwise engaged and I understand that you stood the Railway Act bill. I will be prepared to move that for Mr. Marchand (Langelier).
December 19, 1974


RAILWAY ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-48, to amend the Railway Act.


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


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the minister's statement in this House this week that much of the evidence touching on SIU activities is "related to criminal activity" which provincial authorities would deal with by laying criminal charges, and in view of the observation of the deputy solicitor general for Ontario in his letter to the Department of Justice that there are questionable SIU matters including internal management problems that do not fall within the purview of the Criminal Code-the letter points out that there is specific provision made in federal legislation to investigate such matters- would the minister indicate if the matters referred to in that letter are under investigation and if so, who is conducting that investigation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a number of investigations are under way at the same time. The Minister of Labour, under his responsibilities in respect of unions, had indicated to the House earlier, I believe, that he is giving consideration to some of the questions that arose in that fashion. Other matters are being investigated by both the RCMP and the provincial police. The point I was making the other day in the House was that so far as any substantial evidence was concerned it seemed to relate to matters which could produce criminal charges and there was very little that had been brought to my attention which indicated anything else.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate at what point he thinks he might be in a position to recommend an inquiry be set up with respect to this SIU type of activity?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise prediction as to when I will have enough evidence to warrant reaching a final decision.
Oral Questions


ALLEGED COMMITMENT TO SUPPLY LIST OF INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE IN PRIOR YEARS INVOLVING SIU-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council, perhaps I could put my supplementary to the Prime Minister. In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Peace River on December 5 last the President of the Privy Council, who was the Acting Prime Minister that day, undertook to supply to the House a list of incidents in recent years involving improper conduct, violence, and intimidation with respect to SIU activities. This material was to have been obtained from the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General and their predecessors in recent years. Would the Prime Minister indicate if such a list has, in fact, been prepared and when may it be tabled in the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize on behalf of the House leader. I was not aware of this commitment but I am sure he will be able to fulfill it if indeed he made such a commitment.


SYNCRUDE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would put my question to the Prime Minister. Recent reports indicate that the government of Alberta has said it has no objections to federal participation in the Syncrude project. In view of the statements made by the minister in the House on this subject recently, I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the House whether the government has begun to negotiate with Syncrude to see if it is wise for the federal government to take part in the project and under what circumstances, from the point of view of Syncrude, would this be acceptable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, following the new position taken by the premier of Alberta, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indeed been considering this possibility and discussing it with some of his colleagues. This afternoon he is meeting with representatives of the oil industry, and I believe after he has had those consultations he will be in a position to make recommendations to his colleagues.


SYNCRUDE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY CONSORTIUM
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the minister I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider this question and draw it to the minister's attention. He indicated in the House yesterday that he was studying some documents from the Syncrude consortium with respect to price and other financial matters. In view of this, I wonder if the Prime Minister on his behalf or after consultation with the minister would make a commitment to the House that

December 19, 1974
Oral Questions
these documents would be tabled in the House so that representatives from all parties could look at this very important information in preparation for reaching serious judgments on the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that commitment on behalf of the minister without knowing what the documents contain. They may be of such nature that he would not be able to table them without the authorization of the authors, but I will certainly convey to the minister the representations of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am sure in whatever event, the minister will want to inform the House very thoroughly of the reasons for whatever decision he recommends to his colleagues.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Earlier this week I drew to the attention of the Minister of Justice the fact that the number of assassinations is increasing at an alarming rate in Canada. I asked the minister whether he intended to introduce legislation to restore capital punishment or take steps to thwart this crime wave which is growing ever worse. This week, five people were murdered at Saint-Joseph-du-Lac, in Quebec, which is making people indignant.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether faced with such an alarming situation, he will introduce in the House legislation to fight this unprecedented violence wave, to protect more adequately the life of our citizens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has had the opportunity to take a decision on this matter, and the existing legislation is the result of a thorough study and a comprehensive consideration by the members of parliament.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would address my question to the Solicitor General. There has been another serious escape in British Columbia. In view of the fact that one of the four men who escaped on Tuesday from Riverview Hospital in British Columbia is a convicted murderer, can the minister advise the House why adequate security precautions were not taken at the hospital to prevent this occurrence?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that question. As far as I know Riverview Hospital is not under our jurisdiction and I am not sure under what auspices the inmate was there.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question. When the minister makes his inquiry I should like to know whether he can assure the House that full co-operation will be offered-I repeat the verb so as to distinguish between the initiative and the responsive nature of the verb-if full co-operation will be offered to local authorities so that these men can be apprehended to protect the general public?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour about the material which may be hidden from public gaze in the National Archives on instructions of the Department of Labour. I wonder if the minister would inform the House or inform me if the order in council he referred to yesterday which restricts public gaze on this material was actually formulated in 1973 and is not a long standing rule of law but formulated only in 1973, about the same time that this material actually was sent to the National Archives?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can check into the precise date for the hon. member. I am advised, and it is my recollection, that the rule devised in 1973 was designed to loosen rather than restrict access to records of this kind.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST OF MEMBER FOR HAMILTON WEST TO SEE REPORT OF CONVERSATION WITH MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to determine whether it is possible for me to have possession of the tape in which the Minister of Labour is alleged to have had a discussion with one Roman Gralewicz. In light of reports that I am mentioned in the tape or reports by way of a racial slur, can the Minister of Labour advise me whether he also now adopts that view?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has known me for some considerable time and knows otherwise. As far as the tapes are concerned, as the hon. member is fully aware, these are in the possession of the police. They have them. They are restricted. They are using them for the purpose of their investigation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know whether the minister understood my question. Perhaps I was not too clear. As I understand it, the reports indicate that the tapes refer to "the black bastard in Hamilton". All I am trying to find out from the minister is whether in fact the reports indicate that the person referred to is the member for Hamil-
December 19, 1974

ton West. In order to determine whether the minister can assist in this matter, will he advise whether he has arrived at the conclusion that in fact the person to whom the reference was made is Lincoln Alexander. If it is, then I think I have ground for requesting that the tapes or records be shared.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General has indicated that the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West was not mentioned. I cannot give opinions on matters of this kind. I cannot comment on the contents of a tape that is restricted and in the hands of the police in the course of their investigation. I think it was a very serious offence indeed for any portion of this to be leaked. Every member of this House must regard this type of thing as very serious indeed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is fair. I know he approaches this matter with a feeling of charity toward me. I also know he has had an opportunity to look at the records. Keeping in mind that the reports indicate the racial slur was directed against me-we are discussing a federal election and there is only one black member in the House of Commons and therefore we cannot be talking about just any black person-I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare laughing.


Mr. Lalonde:: I was smiling.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It doesn't matter a damn. I don't like you laughing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will not prevent me from smiling in the House about another matter. What I was smiling about had nothing to do with what the hon. member was saying.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Under these circumstances, will the Minister of Labour speak to his colleague, the Solicitor General, in order to have the tapes released so that I can look at them as well as my front bench members and leader so that we can determine what went on at that particular time. Would he do that for me?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, a question of that kind should more properly be directed to the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. With particular reference to that matter, I can only say that in my own personal opinion, the leak of tapes gathered during the course of a police investigation and reference to comments that might have been made is highly improper and has implications-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. The first day after Mr. Shulman referred in the legislature to the fact that federal officials were being bribed and did not name them, I ordered an investigation. It was I who ordered an investigation.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are missing my point. You had a chance to look at them.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not checked this, but it is my understanding that last week when talking about the tapes which the Minister of Labour had, the Solicitor General said he would produce them to anyone who asked for them, even if we could not get them from other sources. Even if the Solicitor General did not mean that, and I think he did, will he now permit these tapes to be produced so that the hon. member for Hamilton West can see what is in them. Why should the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General have a right to see tapes that are denied to the hon. member for Hamilton West? That is the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. A week or so ago I said I would reveal transcripts of a CBC radio broadcast that was alluded to by one of the backbenchers on the other side of the House. I did not say I would reveal the transcript of a wiretap. As a matter of fact, if hon. members examine the privacy law which we passed earlier this year, they will see that it is illegal to reveal a transcript of a wiretap to anyone except the parties involved. The people tapped in this particular case were the SIU office and the Minister of Labour. In addition, it was the Minister of Labour who requested the investigation.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS OF MEMBERS TO MINISTER OF LABOUR
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General if during the course of the current investigation into the SIU he has been made aware of the criminal records of certain SIU employees and their relationship with the underworld? If so, does he intend to urge his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to have a closer look at the internal workings of this particular union?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not been made aware of any criminal records. I might point out that I am not conducting the investigation. The RCMP is doing that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I say to the Solicitor General that if he is interested, I can supply him with some of these. I will be doing so later this evening in the late show.


William Warren Allmand: Why don't you supply them to the police?


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISION AS TO WHO SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO TAPES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Does he take the position that it is for him or other members of the government to make a judgment as to who is or is not involved in these tapes, either directly or by innuendo, so that the

December 19, 1974
Oral Questions
minister in turn can make a judgment as to who should have the right to see them?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. We did not make that judgment. However, in this case the Minister of Labour requested an investigation of the allegations made by Mr. Shulman. He is the one who made the first request to me for an RCMP investigation. No one else, including Mr. Shulman, came to me and asked for an investigation. The Minister of Labour is the only one. In addition, in accordance with the privacy act, which was supported very strongly by opposition parties, the transcript of a wiretap cannot be revealed to anyone except the parties involved in the case.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-POSSIBILITY OF RACIAL SLUR DURING CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. GRALEWICZ AND MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I am not asking the minister to reveal the contents of the tape. I am simply asking with regard to his own memory of the conversation. During the conversation he had with Mr. Gralewicz, did Mr. Gralewicz make a racial slur? I am asking about the minister's recollection of the conversation without referring to the transcript.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that was the initial question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the answer to the hon. member for Hamilton West. I cannot comment on the contents of a tape or refer to what somebody else may have said. I cannot do that. I do not think it would be right or proper.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly nothing improper about the minister referring to a conversation he had. It is done daily in the House of Commons. Without asking anything about any transcript, will the minister advise whether a comment was made which could be construed as a racial slur against the hon. member for Hamilton West?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, that is the third time that question has been asked. Twice the minister indicated he could not answer that question. Whether he does or not, that is the answer the minister has given twice in this regard. I do not know if there is any other point in repeating it.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. During the hearings of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing, Mrs. Plumptre stated she had reported to the Minister of Justice direct evidence with respect to trade barriers in the egg industry. Can the minister tell the House whether he has received such a report from Mrs. Plumptre in letter form and, if so, what action has been taken to date?


Otto Emil Lang: There was a letter received in connection with certain matters involving the movement of eggs across provincial boundaries-I should like to refresh my memory as to its details. I asked for an examination of some of the matters raised, and that is all I can properly say at the moment.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of a reply he gave yesterday in which he said he was uncertain as to the whereabouts of the Minister of Transport and suggested he might be consulting with the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Has the Prime Minister yet had an opportunity to confirm whether or not my right hon. friend was, in fact, discussing transportation problems with the Minister of Transport? Can he advise us, should this be the case, whether a report of the proceedings and recommendations will be made to the House since this seems to be the only ray of hope when it comes to developing a successful transportation policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must confess that in spite of my numerous staff I have not yet been able to get precise information about where the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is at the present time.


An hon. Member:: You seemed to know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said, perhaps he was consulting with him. But if the hon. member could tell me where the right hon. member for Prince Albert is, I might be able to answer his question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General
December 19, 1974

in the light of an answer he gave earlier today. He was talking about the law, and he said that under the privacy legislation he could allow people to listen to tapes only when they were involved in some criminal or other investigation. In the light of the fact that he allowed the Minister of Labour to listen to the tapes, is he suggesting that the Minister of Labour is involved in any such activities?


William Warren Allmand: No, I am
not, and the hon. member misunderstood what I said earlier.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: A question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Prime Minister stated in this House that he always takes the advice of the RCMP. Assuming that statement to be government policy, and in the light of the fact that the RCMP advised the government some time ago not to allow Soviet KGB agent Alexander Gresko to enter this country, notwithstanding which he was ultimately allowed in on numerous occasions, will the Prime Minister clarify the obvious inconsistencies in government statements with regard to RCMP recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is somewhat involved. The RCMP does not make recommendations, for example, as to who I should or should not receive in my office, nor does it recommend to me that I should, or should not, issue visas to certain people. These are not matters which are referred to the Prime Minister. What I did say in my answer in the House was that both the Department of External Affairs and the RCMP were aware of the alleged identity of the gentleman in question, and that both departments took their responsibilities. The question was not directed to me but, as I believe was stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or some other minister in his absence, the role of the police is to give advice on such matters. The role of a department, including my own, is to listen to the police. Surely, the hon. member must recognize that each department has to make its own decision on the basis of its own judgment and policies, and that after listening to the police we must all make our decisions as to what we should do then.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Otto John Jelinek: I would direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since this House will probably not be sitting in the early part of January when meetings of the Olympic Games organizers will be taking place in
Oral Questions
Montreal to discuss, among other things, security measures to be taken during the games in 1976, can the minister assure us today that no further visas will be granted to any KGB agents, particularly to Gresko, who is planning to visit Canada again, in the light of espionage activity and in accordance with RCMP recommendations that he be excluded?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give any undertaking today with regard to the manner in which a visa application would be dealt with. The question is hypothetical. No approach has been made, to my knowledge, with regard to a visa application in January. If an application is made it will be dealt with at that time.


FINANCE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: May I address a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? It arises from a request made by the government of British Columbia to clarify the definition of fair market value in budget ways and means motion No. 9. Since the companies exploring for natural gas have announced that they will end all activity in the province unless a response is forthcoming, would the Prime Minister advise us whether he is in a position to clarify this question as to the fair market value of natural gas in British Columbia, and, if so, whether this information has been communicated to the government of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must advise the hon. member that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance. I know the minister has been giving consideration to it in consultation with his colleagues, but I cannot say at the moment whether any advice has been sent to the province.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Premier of British Columbia says he has obtained a commitment or an assurance from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the fair market value would be determined by the amount presently being paid for natural gas. If this is the commitment, would the Prime Minister tell us whether it has been taken into consideration in resolving this issue between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the premier is correct in saying that this commitment has been made, I am sure it is part of the consideration being given by the two ministers.
2394

Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
December 19, 1974

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the continued absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct this question to his parliamentary secretary-it relates to a question I asked earlier about whether or not there was to be a take-over of the management of a CN hotel; the response was to the effect that discussions were under way with Conrad-Hilton. In the light of present information that Skyline Hotels would like to be involved in any such discussions, and since Skyline is a Canadian-owned and operated hotel chain, might I seek an assurance that no further discussions will take place with Conrad-Hilton until there has been full discussion with Canadian firms?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I have nothing new to report since the last time this matter was raised. I shall certainly be glad to convey the point made by the hon. member to the management of Canadian National which is considering this whole question.


FINANCE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance? Would the right hon. gentleman give serious consideration to recommending a winter works program either in co-operation with the provinces or directly through the municipalities, conservation authorities, parks commissions and other agencies, bearing in mind, particularly, the unhealthy state of the automobile industry and other industries, especially in the Province of Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question relates to a very broad, general policy and perhaps in those wide terms is not particularly suitable for the question period. However, the Prime Minister may want to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my reaction was the same as yours. The hon. member is asking for a policy statement. I can assure him that his recommendations have been heard. I must point out that they appear to me slightly in contradiction to statements made by a member of his own party who was leading off on my bill yesterday and who said that consultations with the provinces, particularly on winter works, had been ideal in the past. The hon. member is now suggesting that perhaps we should deal directly with the municipalities, and I would think that is something that we would have to consider in order to reconcile the two suggestions.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister undertake to review the decision of the Federal Court of Canada in the case of Rodier Jean, who was a public servant engaged in a legal strike under the statute and who, by the judgment of the court, has been denied the right to recoup any superannuation lost as a result of compensation or payments not made during the course of that strike, in order to see whether the statute has in any way been circumvented by the court?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I shall review the whole question. As I am not aware of this problem, I shall make inquiries and report later to the hon. member.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FURTHER SALES TO REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of reports today that the Chinese are considering cutbacks in the purchase of grains from Canada, would the minister please advise the House whether he has been in contact with the representatives of the People's Republic of China with respect to existing and future sales contracts, and what steps is the government taking to protect our export markets?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is in constant contact with its principal customers, such as the People's Republic of China. In this case, as well there were discussions concerning the actual timing of deliveries. The Wheat Board is always alert to the appropriate time for further negotiations.


ALLEGED CURTAILMENT OF EXPLORATION FOR NATURAL GAS ON FEDERAL LANDS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as for specific statistics, I cannot say I have exact figures in mind. We do know of the importance of federal lands, and the whole slate of federal policies is designed to ensure that exploration and development will continue, as indeed they are continuing. Not only that, but they are being successful. One of the most successful ventures is Panarctic, which was set up, as the House knows, by the Liberal government some years ago.


Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that exploration activity on federal lands has fallen in the last two years by almost one-third; and would he tell the House whether we can expect the federal government's regulations relating to these lands in the very near future, and what would be the outside date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I really cannot add anything to my previous answer to a question that is of the same nature, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the fact that the Sydney airport is without one of its main instrument landing systems, and in view of the information from the Ministry of Transport that a replacement system is not presently available, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would investigate and advise whether a mobile ILS can be made available to MOT for use at Sydney in the interests of air traffic safety?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will make the necessary inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and consult with the Minister of Transport.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the hon. gentleman's quick action in response to the question when I first raised it in the House, would he follow the matter up with the Minister of National Defence and ascertain whether something can be done regarding this very serious situation?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is supplementary to the question the
Oral Questions
hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe put yes- , terday to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Now that we have seen the bill amending the housing legislation which was introduced earlier today, and in view of the fact that it contains no reference whatsoever to any special provisions for veterans, may I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether the promises of some special arrangements for veterans housing, once the Veterans' Land Act expires, are still under consideration?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF HOUSING LEGISLATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that he gave an affirmative answer, would he give the House more detail as to when he will introduce these measures and whether this will be done before the Christmas recess? If not, will it be done definitely before the March 31, 1975 deadline for phasing out the Veterans' Land Act, or is the minister going to extend the Veterans' Land Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be time to introduce them before the recess, as suggested. I suggest it will be some time after the House resumes.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In some of the local unemployment insurance offices claimants are being told by the staff that if their insurance cheques are late they should apply for welfare while they are waiting for their cheques to arrive. Is the minister aware of this and, if so, could he tell this House whether this is government policy?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I was not aware of it, Mr. Speaker.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a very brief question. In light of the fact that there are 21 passenger elevators in the House of Commons and that every one of them is working under a permit that has been outdated for two or three months, I am wondering whether the elevators are really safe, or if there is something in the House that can elevate safely around here?
28626-17'/2

December 19, 1974
Oral Questions


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Howard Johnston (Ohanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is a redirection of a question I asked the Secretary of State earlier and follows upon some informal discussion with the Secretary of State. Is the minister giving any consideration to launching an aid program throughout Canada to assist school and college boards in meeting the cost of implementing the changeover to the metric system?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker. I think those questions are properly the province of the provinces. However, I hope early in the new year to be able to introduce a resolution dealing with the whole program on metric conversion, but I do not want to anticipate the debate at that time.


HOUSING
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing, but since he has unavoidably left the chamber perhaps his parliamentary secretary could give me the answer. My question concerns the $500 housing grant for families building a house for the first time. When will the criteria for this plan be made known and put into effect?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and draw it to the attention of the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his recent talks with the President of the United States, did the President of the United States at any time bring up the question of the Garrison project of North Dakota?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel empowered to speak on behalf of the President of the United States, but I might satisfy the hon. member by telling him that this matter was brought up by myself in the presence of the President, and I asked him to consider very seriously the representations that I made on behalf of Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is a current question on an old topic, concerning federal lands at Base Jericho in Vancouver. In the hope of helping the minister to avoid another battle of Jericho, I should like to ask whether the federal government has given any consideration to the disposal of the remaining Jericho lands and, in particular, are there now or have there been any negotiations between the federal government and the government of British Columbia concerning the proposal to exchange the remaining DND property at Jericho Base in Vancouver for provincially owned land in the area of the DND base Chilliwack?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge the Jericho matter was settled some months ago. I do not believe there are current negotiations.


AIR CANADA
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Has he been looking into labour-management problems in Air Canada and keeping in close contact with his colleague, the Minister of Labour? If so, will he assure the House that matters are improving in this regard?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In terms of the immediacy of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can merely take it as notice. I might say, however, from past experience, the kind of liaison to which the hon. member refers is a regular part of the consultations between Air Canada and the ministry of transport. I will be glad to look into the matter and get additional information for the hon. member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order but I do so to draw to your attention that today once again, as on so many other occasions, hon. members in this House have been denied the right to obtain answers to very important questions in the field of transportation. We are unable to illicit any policy from this government in the field of transportation. The minister has been absent for a number of days and there has not been another minister designated to answer the day by day questions that arise in the House. I must say that even when the minister is here the situation is not improved very much.
We have had the first piece of legislation relating to transportation introduced in the House today. There are no less than 10 commitments in respect of transportation

December 19, 1974

in the throne speech. There were several more proposals announced during the election campaign, and the bulk of the promises and commitments by the government at the Western Economic Conference have yet to be fulfilled. Surely, it is time this government took some responsibility, and I would urge the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of appointing a new full-time Minister of Transport so that we can get answers and action on this very important matter.


Otto Emil Lang: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be observed that questions in the area of transportation were answered this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and, if I may say so, were answered in a very effective way. It is now 25 minutes after four and the parliamentary secretary has had to leave the House, as I notice have a great number of members of the Conservative party who may not have as many duties as the parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fred McCain. (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, sometime ago there was a freeze on rail rates and a subsidy introduced to compensate rail carriers of this nation for the loss they might suffer as a result of there being no increases in the rates. I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Transport what steps the government plans to take to compensate the trucking industry for its loss of business and financial loss? Does the government have a policy to put the rail and trucking systems in a fair relative position policywise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the first question is related to a very general matter of policy. As I understood the last question it was, does the government have a policy to do such a thing. I think that question ought to be answered.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that the question was too complex to be answered in this manner during the question period. However, I think it can be said in a general way that the very fact that when the freeze was introduced it had certain effects in so far as the trucking industry is concerned illustrates the distortions that come about when one seeks to compensate one mode of transportation as opposed to another.
Members' Salaries



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-38, respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I concluded my remarks the other day after having attempted to establish the following case. Using the criteria laid down by the government House leader at the time we last received an increase as members of parliament, it was proposed that in terms of the personal lives of members and their families, members should be able to afford what could be described as a comfortable life. It was also proposed that the facilities and services provided members of parliament should be adequate in order that they might do their jobs well. I said, on behalf of my colleagues, that we accept entirely that proposition as being the desirable criteria for setting the salary level for members of parliament and for establishing facilities and services for members.
If we consider the facilities which have been provided members of parliament since 1971, both in terms of new services and a substantial improvement in those which were already in existence, the only justification one would have for arguing in favour of an increase would be that it

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
would put them in relatively the same position they were in 1971, using the government's own criteria. For that reason, I reached the conclusion that the only salary increase that is warranted would be one based on the increase in the cost of living since 1971. I say, on behalf of my colleagues, that this is exactly the position we take and it is exactly the proposition I put to the government House leader in recent hours. I say most sincerely that I regret it was not accepted.
I say, on behalf of my party, that the suggestion I put is fair and its acceptance would have removed some of the acrimony that has been created. It would also have ensured, if there is any doubt about it, that MPs would be home in time to spend Christmas with their families and able to stay there for a reasonable period of time.
This brings me to the principal point in stating our opposition to this bill as it now stands and to the bill after it is amended, if it is amended, along the lines proposed by the government House leader earlier today. This bill will not only leave members of parliament in the same very high income position vis-a-vis the rest of Canadian society, but in fact it will heighten our position in terms of the distribution of income in Canada.
In 1972, members of parliament were in the top 1.5 per cent of all income tax payers. Stated differently, this means that 98.5 per cent of all the working people in Canada who pay taxes and who have living expenses as well, earn less than members of parliament. So we can hardly see ourselves as being part of an economically depressed minority. Quite the converse is the case: we are among the affluent in society and I do not think we should forget that. I do not deny the expenses which many of us have and will continue to have in terms of carrying out our responsibilities.
I want to stress, for the benefit of all members, that it seems to me we must keep in mind that we are among the very affluent in our country. As 1 have said, if this bill should pass, that position vis-a-vis the rest of society will be heightened for members of parliament. We will move from being among the top 1.5 per cent to being among the top .5 per cent. Surely this is unacceptable. At a time when our government, and indeed governments around the world, should be doing whatever they can to overcome inequalities within their societies, this measure will do just the opposite: it will exacerbate existing inequalities in Canada rather than alleviate them.
A month and a half ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in a speech in Toronto, provided a very disturbing set of statistics. He did so in a very eloquent and persuasive manner. I wish to refer to some of the current information provided by the minister in that speech. I shall very briefly summarize four points. First, the minister pointed out that in 1972, in Canada, 20 per cent of our families had an income of less than $5,500. Second, in 1972 the bottom 20 per cent of our families received only 6 per cent of the total income in Canada. Third, the top 20 per cent, in contrast, received approximately 40 per cent of the income, exactly twice what would be deserved if strict proportionality were used as a criterion. Fourth, and perhaps most significant, the minis-

ter documented in that speech that during the last 20 years of so-called progressive governments at the provincial and federal levels there had been virtually no change in the income distribution among our people.
In statistical terms there has been a slight change of rather insignificant proportion. That change has been a regressive one. The change that has occurred has meant that the rich have been, and are, receiving proportionately more of the income in Canada today than they were 20 years ago, and the 20 per cent of Canadians who are poor are receiving somewhat less in proportion today than they were 20 years ago. Surely this situation is unacceptable to members of parliament who are concerned-and I think members of all parties are concerned-about the problem of inequality. The members of this party are concerned about the need for demonstrable leadership on this question. This does not mean increasing our own salaries and making ourselves proportionately much wealthier than other Canadians.
I wish to refer to one more statistic which was not contained in the minister's speech. It is one which should concern all of us. This information was obtained from Statistics Canada. In 1973, 5.7 million Canadians lived at or below the poverty level. That is just a year ago. That figure represents a little better than a quarter of our population; in other words, a little better than a quarter of all Canadians, whether they live in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Oshawa, whether they are farmers, fishermen or whatever, are living in poverty. We are not talking about the depression; we are not talking about the thirties; we are talking about the seventies. A quarter of our population is living at the poverty level at a time when many members-specifically the government, because it must accept responsibility for making this proposal-wish members of parliament to be among the most affluent people in Canada.
I repeat that surely that is unacceptable. In his speech in Toronto when he provided this information, the Minister of National Health and Welfare intimated that he believed it was wrong that this degree of inequality should exist and persist in the future. He indicated that his government would soon be taking steps to reduce these inequalities. I repeat the point I made a few moments ago, that instead of narrowing the gap and showing that we are concerned about the poorer people and about the maldistribution of funds, which means maldistribution of the capacity to enjoy life for adults and their children, instead of doing something concrete about this problem we are simply improving our own position with these proposals.
To my party, at least, and everything it has stood for in the history of the socialist movement in Canada, that is unacceptable. I would also suggest that one does not have to be a member or supporter of the New Democratic Party of Canada to take this position. I not only suggest that, but I know it very well because of the telephone calls, letters and telegrams which have been received in the last few days. Thousands of Canadians who have a sense of decency and equity find it unacceptable for us to move in the way the government, in terms of its original wage proposals or the amended proposals, suggests we should move. This situation merely exacerbates the inequities which exist in our country.
December 19, 1974

I wish to move to a matter that is related to a serious political problem, although not directly connected with this bill. Because of the inequality to which I have attempted to address myself briefly, this question does have a direct and important connection with this bill if it should pass. I refer to the government's general program to deal with inflation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in recent weeks, and indeed in recent months, has indicated that the government is concerned about restraint. I think he has been entirely correct in expressing concern about restraint by those who are very well paid in our society. I think that a very good case can be made, for example, for a program that would impose serious restrictions on the capacity of middle and upper income people to extend their wage levels beyond the cost of living increases in the foreseeable future, while others are much lower in terms of their existing income and must deal with an inflationary economy.
I think some kind of restraint program for upper income people would be totally justified, some kind of approach in talking seriously even to organized labour about wage gains being considered as part of a package that would involve tax reductions for average and low income people, and a wealth tax on upper income people such as has been introduced in a number of countries might gain acceptability among trade unionists who would like to see our country cope with inflation.
I say that the government, by going ahead with the 50 per cent wage increase proposal, will totally undermine the negotiation process upon which the Minister of Finance has embarked. It will make a complete and utter mockery of such an attempt and I suppose the politest kind of response that the minister will get from other groups will be the cold shoulder. I suspect that the language he will run into on many occasions will be very strong if he suggests to working people, of whatever occupation, that they are not entitled to a 50 per cent increase while members of parliament are. So in terms of the economic general policy of this government, this wage proposal, I suggest, will have disastrous consequences. For that reason it ought to be rejected by the House.
In conclusion, I want to make clear two points on behalf of my party. First, we do favour a salary increase for members of parliament, for cabinet ministers and for others, based on cost of living increases which have occured since the last increase. That cost of living increase should be on the salary portion of MPs' indemnities only, and not on the expense allowance portion, for reasons which I indicated in my remarks the other day. I genuinely believe that the government has moved very substantially since 1971 into the area of paying many of the expenses that we were paying on a voluntary basis before, and therefore it seems to me we simply cannot justify an expansion of the tax-free expense allowance provision in our income.
The government has provided benefits, and my party entirely agrees with those benefits being provided. They do not increase the disposable income of MPs; all they do is increase our capacity to do a good job for our constituents. As such, it is tax money well spent. Therefore, the cost of living increase is justified for members of parlia-
Members' Salaries
ment up to the present, based on their salary and not on the tax exempt allowance, and should be continued in the future on exactly the same basis, adjusted each year.
Second, we would favour the establishment by this parliament of a commission on which there would be representatives of farm organizations, trade unions, professional groups and businessmen-a cross-section of the community. The purpose of this commission would be to report back in the second session of this parliament with recommendations on the subject of MPs salaries and benefits, at which time parliament could consider their proposals. These are two specific recommendations that I put forward, on behalf of my party, that seem to me to provide economic justice for members of parliament in terms of our great responsibility. They are just, in terms of the distribution of income within Canada, in the sense at least that they do not exacerbate it in the way the government's proposal does, either in its original or in its amended form.
I conclude by saying that the NDP has the serious intention, not of breaking rules but of working within the rules, of doing everything we can to stop passage of the legislation that the government has introduced. Just before I sit down I want to propose an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That Bill C-44 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the subject of salaries and allowances of members of parliament and cabinet ministers should be referred by the government to an independent commission.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before you put the amendment, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am looking at the amendment. Perhaps I could listen to hon. members' points of view. I have not made up my mind regarding the acceptability of the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just heard the amendment read, and it strikes a familiar chord. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in somewhat similar terms, and another by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), both of which were ruled out of order by the then Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if it would be in order for Your Honour to reserve judgment on this issue and possibly allow argument, if it is deemed necessary, to be made later as to whether or not the amendment is in order. We have only ten minutes to five o'clock, in any event, and I would urge that this course be adopted by the House.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It would be helpful if we could have a debate at eight o'clock on the procedural aspects.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could make my own suggestion to hon. members. I would not like to deprive the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) of a chance to make his comments. Perhaps a ruling could be made after he has completed his remarks, so that all four party leaders will have been heard.

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would make a few short remarks, which I hope are essential to this debate.
As I said earlier in this House and elsewhere, Bill C-44 met with a number of objections among the Canadian people, and therefore a number of misunderstandings.
Mr. Speaker, the thing to be stressed in this debate is the following question: How do the Canadian people view their elected representatives? At what level do they see them? How do they perceive their members of parliament? I sometimes enjoy comparisons. Baseball players, football players, hockey players, whose performance the New Democrats watch as everyone else, are paid $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 or $125,000 a year for a short season. People will even pay $5, $10, $20, $25, $30 or even $50 for an opportunity to go and see them play, but nobody protests against that fact, not even the New Democrats.
Curiously, socialism does not apply in this case; but when it comes to politicians, those who represent the people, who make laws in the highest court of the country, the House of Commons, then enters socialism. For puritan and electoral reasons, it is going to be argued that the politicians' work is going to be diminished. But in so doing, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) does indeed bring support to the false views held about the politician and his public image being diminished. Such views, Mr. Speaker, reflect in my opinion a serious lack of understanding of the important role of the member of parliament. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: Buying prestige!


André-Gilles Fortin: Buying prestige! That's it. According to the socialist system, one must take money away from those having $100,000 and give $5,000 to everyone. If socialists had their say, there would no longer be rich and poor, but only have-nots without anybody to represent them, as in Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this kind of argument unfortunately has been overly used and exaggerated by newsmen who, in this case, did not show a conscientious approach to their work by reporting them in the papers; as a result, public opinion will keep maintaining an attitude of reserve to their duly elected representatives.
The citizen of the Lotbiniere riding, Mr. Speaker, as anyone of any constituency, has got the news from the radio, the television or the papers, he has been witness to those exaggerations and falsehoods. For the time being, let us disregard the fact that I am for or against the principle of this bill or the amount of increases, and, for a moment, let us forget the figures concerned. Let us consider only the principle. I live on Notre Dame Street, in Victoriaville, and I read in the papers: "Members of Parliament up their salaries to $44,400". In addition, on the screen of his television set, he can see a broadcast of the CBC, with a man by a Christmas tree saying: Members of Parliament will play their own Santa Claus and vote themselves increases of up
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
to $47,440 and ministerial allowances will be raised to $65,000. First, Mr. Speaker, the poor man in the street who shoulders inflation cannot see any solution in sight. Second, he feels that members of parliament go a little too far, because he does not know that he is being misled by newsmen who do nothing except speak ill of Canadian men in public life.
I think it is high time for us to speak out. It is very easy for people at the top to judge people at the bottom, and very easy too to write anything in the papers. Mr. Speaker, I will say that today the House of Commons has passed judgment on the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). Today, people passed judgment, and quite a sweeping judgment, on a member of parliament, but he will appear before the committee without any problem. We do not fear that. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Temiscamingue is to be responsible to the public, if he is to account for his expenses and his salary, as a representative of the people, I also say that those who stand for the public opinion or those public faces in the press gallery who come here to see and hear what is happening in the House and report it accurately should be worthy of their salary and carry out their job in as scrupulous a way as the hon. member for Temiscamingue or other members do.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to pass judgment. How many reporters are now in the gallery? I can see only one. Mr. Speaker, they will be saying tomorrow that the members of Parliament did not have a quorum, that they are present only during the question period, for the exciting bit, and they will be backed up by members of the New Democratic Party and of the Progressive Conservative Party and sometimes by ministers. After that, they beat it and hon. members do their work, and columnists contribute through their often fraudulent writings to misrepresent the functions of members of parliament to citizens who are deprived of adequate information. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have always insisted in this House that members should have the necessary money to inform their constituents. And one of the wonderful means they could be given, and I once again urge the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to take it into account, would be this: instead of giving each member 16 copies of Hansard every day which is ridiculous when you represent 85,000 constituents, members should be granted not monies, and let that be so reported, "not money" but more copies of Hansard so that they could, with the help of reports written in black and white, inform their fellow citizens and show them the other side of the picture which newspapermen do not describe.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member calls it five o'clock, it will have to be with the unanimous consent of the House. Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: In the same spirit, if this mood-


An hon. Member:: We all agree to call it five o'clock. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 19, 1974



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-National defence-Effect of financial restraints on operational roles of forces; the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Finance-Request for reconsideration of tax on pleasure boats; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Labour conditions-Possible amendments to legislation to protect union members from discriminatory treatment by unions.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely Private Bills, Notices of Motions (Papers) and Public Bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) moved: that Bill S-18, respecting International Air Transport Association, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to thank my colleagues for their courtesy, enabling the House to accept so kindly a harmless bill, Bill S-18. May I take advantage of the opportunity to tell the many parliamentary reporters who are in the gallery that, if they were in greater number, between five and six o'clock, they might produce reports different from those they made recently on the incident that happened the night before last.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, a disposition has been demonstrated to allow this bill to go through very quickly, and I would not want to do anything to change this. I would say, for the record, that we on this side support the bill and hope it will advance the service of all air carriers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Public Information
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no notices of motions (papers), the House will now proceed to the consideration of public bills. I am told there is an understanding that we shall proceed with Bill C-225, standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and, at the request of the government, stand the bills preceding it. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Gerald William Baldwin: that Bill C-225, respecting the right of the public to information concerning the public business, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best not to take up any more time than necessary, certainly not my full allotment, because I think this is a very interesting subject to many concerned people. It is most appropriate that it should come up today when we witnessed "the last tango" in the House of Commons with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) doing his level best to secure information from the government benches, which he was unable to obtain. Therefore, I repeat; it is most appropriate that this measure should be discussed at this time.
I think there may be some disposition, before the debate proceeds to the end of the allotted hour, for the subject matter to be considered by committee. I welcome that. I know there are imperfections in my bill, and I know that if the government at some time sponsors a bill dealing with the right of the public, parliament and the press to secure information it will be drafted in a form which is acceptable to the House and to the government. However, I shall refer briefly to the bill without going into the individual clauses.
I am attempting, by this bill, to reverse the practice that exists in Canada, namely, that no information is given by the government unless it sees fit to do so. The government always has the option of falling back on the time-honoured cliche that it is not in the public interest to advise members of this House, the press or the public with regard to certain material. It is true that in the previous parliament the then government House leader introduced a set of guidelines dealing with the production of documents in this House. I take exception to some of those guidelines; I think they should be enlarged. If and when the government sees fit to refer my bill to committee, I hope that the subject matter of these guidelines will also be referred. It would be best to reverse the present process and to put the matter on this footing; surely it is better to have a rule which says the public is entitled to any
2402

December 19, 1974
Public Information
information it asks for, unless the information comes within certain prescribed exceptions. This is a practice which generally obtains in Sweden.
The Prime Minister of Sweden was here not long ago and I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with him at a reception. I was amazed to hear him say that a few days before leaving Sweden, three newsmen had been in his office and had secured some files from his filing cabinet and were in the process of examining them. Obviously, there must be exceptions to a rule which says that the public, parliament and the press are entitled to full divul-gence of any information that is requested. The Prime Minister of Sweden told me that is the case in his country. In Sweden, and I believe one or two other countries, they adopted the principle that you start on the basis that anything in the possession of the government belongs to the public. There are certain exceptions, and these are spelled out. That is what I am attempting to do in my bill: the exceptions are in clause 4 Without breaching the rules, I might touch on them.
Obviously, anything touching upon or concerning national security should not be divulged. Where there is an investigation going on with regard to criminal offences, obviously such information should not be divulged. Private and confidential information that is given, such as in the case of income tax documents, ought not to be divulged. I think that where information on record is so trivial that the cost to provide or to make the record available is not in the public interest, that information should not be divulged.
There must be certain exceptions. However, we must go a lot further than the United States. The United States has an act which is virtually useless and is very rarely used. It does not cover many subject matters and it is easy to escape its provisions If this House decides to proceed with some form of bill on the right of the public to receive information, it should not be a bill comparable to that of the United States.
My bill provides that it not be left to the government to make the final decision whether a subject matter or information comes within areas which are excepted. In my opinion, that would give too much leverage to the government. Should there be a legitimate contest between the public and a government department or agency as to whether the subject matter is, or is not, within the excepted classes, this must be decided by the courts. In other words, I am not prepared to trust any government. I am not prepared to trust a Liberal government, a Conservative government and, particularly, an NDP government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: [DOT]-which would reserve unto itself the right to say that a certain part of the information which it has available should not be disclosed because it comes within the exceptions. We should devise a method whereby a judge or a court has the final say, with proper precautions such as holding sittings in camera, so that if matters of national security are involved they are not disclosed. This subject has been debated in the House on many occasions.
I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is involved in a very serious and earnest

discussion. I do not want to disturb him at this moment. However, I notice that in 1973-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you afraid that we are swapping jobs?


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member says he is swapping jobs with the government House leader.


Mitchell William Sharp: He wants the extra money.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to take a very, very close look to see who would be the loser in that proposition. On March 15, 1973, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre engaged in a debate on a motion following the refusal of the government to supply certain information. It was a very interesting debate. From what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said then, he must be on my side in this case.
I conclude with two points. If this bill is referred to committee, I hope the committee will be ingenious enough to look at the Official Secrets Act. That act goes back at least to World War I. It is very much in need of revision. The act provides for penalties in respect of certain offences alleged which, in my opinion, are so far out of date that this House must look at them. In the United Kingdom, the government set up a commission headed by the distinguished jurist, Lord Franks, to look at this issue and come up with some very substantial amendments. There was a case during the Nigerian civil war when some prominent people in the United Kingdom went to Nigeria and divulged some information. When they returned to the United Kingdom, they were charged under the Official Secrets Act. This precipitated quite a hubbub in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I suggest that if a committee is to be charged with examining the subject matter, it should be ingenious enough to look at the Official Secrets Act as well. I suggest that we should take our time, that we call on the Canadian Bar Association, the Consumers' Association, the Civil Liberties Association and all groups which have an interest in ensuring that some means be found to compel governments to make it impossible for information to be kept secret, as was done today, bearing in mind that there can be no good government in the absence of an informed public and that increasingly, as governments become more complex and more gigantic in scope, new ways are found of concealing facts which should be available to the public. After all, it is the public which pays for this information through its tax money, and subject to very limited exceptions this information should not be refused to the public.
Looking south across the border, in the last two or three years we have seen a government and an executive in Washington in a distressing situation. There can, surely, be no more graphic illustration of the necessity for making information openly available, which means there ought to be no hesitation about adopting a measure intended to compel government to disclose to parliament, to the press and to the public, facts in its possession.
December 19, 1974


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Madam Speaker, I am taking part in this debate because I put forward a similar bill some time ago, but not in the too distant past. I, too, registered my concern at that time about the lack of disclosure, and I am pleased to note that my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has now taken it upon himself to register the same concern-one which I am sure all hon. members share-that is to say, concern about the power which big government and big business exercise and which, for one reason or another, they believe justifies their withholding from the public information to which it is entitled.
What I like about the bill before us, Madam Speaker, is this: in drafting mine, I didn't have enough on the ball to put in the bill the exemptions which are so necessary to cover privileged records. This is where I think my bill bogged down, as was pointed out to me most emphatically by hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Peace River has dealt in some detail with what are called privileged records in clause 4-some seven or eight areas in which the right of the public would not be applicable. This is a commendable step because, as it stands now, the government in its wisdom believes that no document, no information can be supplied to the public on request on the basis of its own determination. This is what I find wrong in terms of participatory democracy. This is what we have been hearing about particularly over the last six or seven years-participation of the public.
It is in this area that you can remove or decrease the alienation, the frustration which arises as a result of callousness, disregard, or perhaps a feeling there is too much power. As long as people believe they are part of the process they will be much more satisfied than they are right now. It is a terrible situation when we, as members of parliament, representing our constituencies, find it impossible to get information which has been gathered at the expense of the taxpayer for his benefit. This is what is wrong. This is what we are trying to correct.
As I understand it, there is some sympathy on the other side with respect to this problem. Perhaps if we sat on the other side we might have taken the same attitude as government members have taken; in particular, those who sit on the treasury benches. It is even likely we would. But now is the time to reverse this process, as was so ably pointed out by my friend from Peace River-to reverse the procedure whereby at the present time not a thing is available to the public. What we are saying is that everything should be available to the public, subject to certain reservations by way of privileged records; and if that doesn't come about, then the public has recourse to the courts. It is interesting to note that the clauses which provide that the matter may go to the courts spell it out. I would like to read the explanation which appears on page 3 of the bill:
These clauses set out the procedure by which the public right to information is enforced when the government refuses to provide it or unreasonably delays in providing it. The right is protected and enforced by the courts. The application may be made to a judge of the Superior Court of any province or to a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. There is no appeal from the judge's decision and there are no costs or fees. The court orders are produced and formally served upon the Clerk of the Privy Council and the government must appoint a minister or other public official to answer for the government before the court.
Public Information
The government has a right to refuse, but its refusal is subject to appeal to the courts. Madam Speaker, as I think of what we are attempting to do here, I can find no fault with it. I hope that government members will see some merit in the proposition that the public is entitled to information which has been gathered on their behalf by the government, subject to one thing, and that is classified matters which should not be revealed. This is one way we can remove the frustration. This is one way we can remove that impression of distance which so many people encounter in terms of themselves and government whether municipal, provincial or federal.
We happen to be talking in the federal parliament at this particular time, but I feel so distant at times and so hopelessly frustrated when I read the questions on the order paper, particularly in terms of production of documents where invariably the answer is no, it is privileged information or it is against the public interest. Surely, there are many matters on the order paper in respect of which such a conclusion should not be reached. But right now we have no right of appeal to determine whether disclosure is against the public interest or whether the government is just playing footsie. Is the government deliberately hiding things? This, of course, is an extremely important question. We should have the right to look behind the government because, surely, whatever they are doing it is for the benefit of the public. If it is for their own benefit, then I think we should have the right to determine whether in fact they are honest. I am not implying that the government is dishonest. I may call them inept, sloppy or a lot of things, but I would not dare to say they are dishonest. But there is always the chance that something is going on over there that we should know about.


Walter David Baker: Chance?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, I want to be as kind as possible. It is always possible there is something going on over there that they do not want us to know about.


Mr. Turner (London East):: You know that is wrong.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear my hon. friend from London, a marvellous chap. He will very likely take my words out of context, send them back to his riding and say, "This is what the hon. member thinks of me". I have seen that done, too. But he is a man who has a feeling for the people and he knows that on this subject we are right. I know he would say "hurrah" for the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Hamilton West because they are bringing to the notice of the Canadian people the fact that we are concerned about a practice that is bad and with which we can all find some fault. We should make the attempt now to give full disclosure of all facts. If you have anything to hide, then that is something else. But surely, Madam Speaker, if you have nothing to hide, then all the more reason to vote for the bill holus-bolus.


Charles Robert Turner: Give us a chance.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My hon. friend says, "give us a chance". Since I hear that coming from the parliamentary secre-
28626-18'/i

December 19, 1974
Public Information
tary, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), and others from the class of '68, I will sit down on this note: this is an excellent bill, we commend it for acceptance by the House, and I hope that on the eve of Christmas hon. members will show that charity which is in their hearts. We have had a few disappointments around here of late.


An hon. Member:: Let's not go into that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No. Let me just say that He who looks after all has been smiling upon us today. I do not know whether He is smiling on certain people to my left, but let us hope that He will understand what they have done. In all seriousness, Madam Speaker, I hope hon. members will take the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River and send this matter to committee to look into the principle of it, so we can at least say that we have tried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in support of the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I suppose there will be some who will find fault with certain of the details of the bill, and I have yet to see a bill that could not be improved here and there. But the principle put forward in this bill is one that I strongly believe the House should support. We seem to have a government that acts on the maxim of "Don't produce it unless you have to". We think that should be reversed and that the rule should be that all government documents should be produced unless it can be proved that such production is really against the public interest.
There are jurisdictions where this more open rule is practised. In some jurisdictions^ indeed, the press is even invited in to see the correspondence of the prime minister himself. I strongly believe that democratic government has nothing to fear from an open policy of that kind. Therefore, I am glad to know that under this new regime that is now in effect in private members' hour, this bill, at least, is not going to be talked out. It used to be that we did not quite know what was going to happen to a bill when it was called for private members' hour, but hon. members have now learned that there have to be 20 members here during private members' hour.


Charles Robert Turner: We have a good example today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I notice there are more than 20 Liberals here today.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: There is only one from your party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also understand that at the end of the debate, along with the reference of the subject matter of this bill to a standing committee, the guidelines for the production of papers which were tabled today by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will also be referred to committee. The committee in question is the joint committee on statutory regulations.
The question of what documents are produced in parliament is, of course, only one aspect of the whole question of the right of the public to information. But it is a pretty

important aspect of that right. What has bothered me about these guidelines that the government has promulgated is that they have been produced unilaterally; there was no input from us into these guidelines at all. They have been produced, modified and brought down on two or three ocassions. But having been produced, they are then referred to as though they were authoritative in themselves.
As I say, these are just guidelines that the government has produced for its own purposes, so that if there are documents the government does not want to produce, the guidelines provide for that non-production. Therefore, it is a good idea to have these guidelines examined by a committee, the joint committee on statutory regulations, which of course has a membership component from this House along with a few members of the other place.
We are glad that these two matters, namely, the subject matter of Bill C-225 and the actual guidelines for the production of papers which were tabled today, are to be referred to that committee. The committee has shown itself to be an efficient and able one in its treatment thus far of its terms of reference having to do with regulations and other instruments of that kind. We believe that given this job, the committee will do a good job of it as well. We hope it will bring back a report to the House of Commons that will put us a few steps further along the road to the kind of democratic government that is open and that really practises the principle that the people have the right to know.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this bill before allowing the parliamentary secretary to make his remarks. May I say at the outset that I am extremely pleased that my colleague was able to present the bill and that the government apparently seems amenable to allowing it to go to committee. I think the principle involved here is broader than simply that of the ability of the public to know the basis on which decisions are made. The principle is perhaps far more important than that.
I think the question that has concerned me more than anything else in the two years that I have been in Ottawa is the deteriorating perception of government and politics in general that the public has. When I first ran for office in 1972, a great many of the people I met-as was the case with so many other members of the House-stressed the fact that they did not trust any politicians, that they thought they were all basically dishonest, secretive and out to further their own ends.
I think that inevitably in a democratic society there is going to be a certain measure of skepticism with which politics is viewed. What has concerned me is that over the course of the last few years, in large part perhaps as a result of experiences of immorality among public officials, which has reached almost epidemic proportions in the United States, the opinion of the public as to the quality of people involved in public life and as to the worth of the democratic process in trying to find solutions to our problems has fallen enormously.
December 19, 1974

What I hope can be done today is that we take this first step as one part of a mosaic of programs which will help to open up democratic government and ensure that the public realizes the government is not something outside and mysterious, but belongs to the people. I hope it will help to make us more responsive to the needs of the people.
During the time I have been involved in government, both here and at the provincial level, I have detected what I think is a very normal human trait among people in government, to view information as being the right of the bureaucracy or of the governors, and that it is up to them to exercise their discretion as to whether the public will have the privilege of getting access to particular information.


Walter David Baker: Information that
belongs to the public.


Henry Perrin Beatty: This information, as my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) states, belongs to the public. It forms the basis for decisions made on public matters, and forms the basis for decisions which affect tax money. It forms the basis for decisions which affect the public on a day to day basis. I think we should put ourselves on record today as categorically rejecting the concept that this information is the property of the government. That is not so, it is the property of the people.
What particularly concerns me about this is that there is a natural inclination on the part of government to try to suppress information which can be embarrassing to the government. In a democracy I simply do not believe we can allow this to continue to happen. I am not suggesting that this is a phenomenon which is peculiar to this particular government, it is unfortunately a phenomenon which is widespread throughout democratic society, and one which we should simply not tolerate.
From my vantage point as a backbench member of the opposition it strikes me that the opposition, or the individual member of parliament, is at a severe disadvantage in trying to make a point of view heard against the point of view of the government. I have asked myself since coming here, as have so many of my colleagues, what our role is as members of parliament, what it is that we are supposed to be doing as members of the opposition, and how best can we fulfil our responsibility?
I think a large part of our responsibility is to point out the cost, in social and financial terms, of decisions and actions the government takes or proposes to take. I think it is important that we point out the disadvantages of virtually any program to government suggests, so that at least before a decision is made there is a fair hearing on all sides of the issue, and so that the public can take a look at the actions of the government, and is able to look at both the pros and cons of any piece of legislation or action by the government.
I am not saying it is our responsibility, and I stress this very strongly, to oppose for the sake of opposing. I think it is our responsibility to ensure that all information relevant to any particular matter under consideration is brought out, and that the public is made aware of it.
Public Information
When you consider the enormous weaponry of the government to propagandize its particular point of view in order to get that point of view across, you realize that the government has literally battalions of flakmen hired at public expense to advance its point of view, to explain, rationalize and to justify decisions that have been made by the government. When you realize that, you will realize that the average member of parliament, on both the government and opposition sides, is incapable of doing the job he would like to do, of keeping the government in check by properly scrutinizing the government's activities. The average member simply does not have the resources to investigate the government's activities in the way he would like to investigate them. We then realize that in fact our democratic system relies to a very great extent upon chance to keep the government in check and to prevent abuses of executive power.
In a very real sense in most western democracies in the last few years, it is the press, and not parliament, that has played the role of keeping the government in check and making sure that abuses of government power have not existed. Because of the enormous disparity of resources between members of the government and members of the opposition, or between the executive and parliament as a whole, the press has in a sense formed the real opposition in Canada and in many other democracies as well. This is simply because it has, the resources which we do not have to do the work. I do not think we can allow our democracies to continue on this basis.
Today we have been discussing a piece of legislation which deals with the ability of a member of parliament to serve his constituents. I want to stress that what is far more important, than that piece of legislation we will be discussing again later, is the need for the individual member of parliament and the public to have freedom of access to information, and the resources necessary to scrutinize properly what the government is doing.
I have had, at the request of my leader, the responsibility for viewing the other side of this coin, or the other aspect of this particular problem. He has asked me to look at the question of computers and privacy.
To me the question of freedom of information and protecting the ability of the public to know what is going on, and the question of having its own privacy protected, are parts of the same problem. We have to ensure, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has tried to do, that information which is made available is not made available in such a way as to damage unnecessarily the personal private life of the individual. For example, it is obvious that information dealing with people's tax returns should not be made a part of the freedom of information act. Obviously that is privileged and private information.
What I should like to propose the government give consideration to when this matter goes to the committee, instead of the plan of action the government has presented in dealing with the question of protection of the privacy of individuals-this will be covered in respect of the federal government by the introduction of legislation dealing with a human rights commissioner who will ostensibly be charged with the responsibility for protecting personal privacy,-is the bringing in a bill that would deal with information per se, and thus deal with both aspects of the

December 19, 1974
Public Information
problem. I refer to the right of parliament and of the public to the freedom of information, and also to the right of the individual to privacy when information about him is held by the federal government.
It seems to me that one formula which might be acceptable, and which I would hope we can consider before rushing off to accept other proposals, would be a piece of legislation that would integrate both aspects of the problem, dealing with privacy and freedom of information. We could appoint an officer of the House, responsible not to the bureaucracy or the executive, but to parliament itself. He would have the responsibility, as does the Auditor General, of reporting to parliament on the progress made by the executive and the bureaucracy in protecting personal privacy, and also of ensuring that matters of public information dealing with public policy are made public.
My concern is that at the present time we are far too reliant upon the goodwill of parliament and the judgment of individuals to see that power is not abused. I think the public has the right to insist that there be statutory responsibilities given to someone, preferably an officer of parliament, who can make sure that the rights of the public are properly protected.
I know that the parliamentary secretary wants to speak, and I would certainly be the last one who wants to talk this bill out. I think it is an important bill to be sent to the committee, so I will sit down now in order to give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to make his point.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I think we have today an indication of the impact that a private member's public bill can have on government policy.
I can assure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that when the government guidelines were drawn up very active consideration was given to the points raised in both their bills. Because these bills are not always discussed in the House this does not mean that no one pays any attention to them. The truth is that when a private member puts down a bill, attention is paid to it by the government and by the bureaucracy.
The guidelines which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) tabled today were developed as a result of cabinet decisions taken before the election of 1972. They dealt not only with the provision for reference to members of parliament but also the treatment of private members' bills, notices of motions and notices of motions for the production of papers. It was a total package the government approved. It was my luck to come on the scene after the decisions were made and to be asked to put them into effect as best I could.
I am sure hon. members who have served in government, or in any other large bureaucracy, know that it is not too difficult to make decisions at the top but it is very difficult to refer them down through the layers of bureaucracy. If hon. members will look back at the way in which answers to written questions, motions and so on, were handled prior to 1972 it will be seen that there has
[Mr. Beatty.)
been a distinct improvement all the way through in that regard. I think this is due in large part to the initiative of people who have brought down hills and arguments in respect of how to deal with some of the points raised in respect of the kind of information which should be released.
This is a very difficult question because there are a large number of what might be termed borderline cases. Let me give hon. members an indication of some of the problems we have had in dealing with this issue. Let us take the information which comes to the government on a confidential basis. Let us take applications for regional economic expansion grants. The information provided the government in such a case always is proprietary and confidential.
In cases up until now when members have put down written questions asking for the details of the information provided to the government on the basis of confidentiality, the government has refused to disclose this material. Should we say, on the other hand, that any company which asks for a grant should be prepared to let us make its total financial economic picture available to a member who might request it in the future? I am of the opinion that on balance the answer is no. This is a difficult subject.
Let us take the case of confidential information which is given to a minister by his deputy minister. If I should go to a deputy minister tomorrow and say that I should like some information on such and such a situation, the deputy minister might ask me a question. He would ask me whether I intended to document it and print it. Then he would say if it is to be documented and printed that he would provide the information, but he would add that if I truly wished to have his frank and unbiased opinion I would have to regard it in confidence. Where do we draw the line?
Of course this applies to cabinet documents. Hon. members show a great deal of interest in what is contained in cabinet documents. Generally speaking ministers on second reading give what is in the cabinet documents, but hon. members often enough wish to have this material provided. What about information relating to security, both national and police? What about information affecting national defence? What about information that relates to the Queen, the Royal Family, prerogatives, and the relationship of the Canadian government to foreign governments? Hon. members probably would be interested in all these matters.
It is difficult to know what the balance should be in respect of releasing information. The problem will not become any easier. The balance will have to be struck again and again, because there is a growing tendency for government to become involved more and more in the economic and social affairs of our country. Consequently there is confidential information on a whole range of subjects. Should this confidentiality be breached, or should governments base decisions on information which comes to them on the basis that the information will be made public? If a government were to do that, very often it would receive information that would be publishable but that would be worthless in terms of making a decision. I do not know where the balance should be, Madam Speak-
December 19, 1974
er. The important point I wish to make is that the guidelines and the bill presented by the hon. member for Peace River are complementary; they both deal with the same subject.
As hon. members are aware, last year as soon as the guidelines were prepared and introduced in the House of Commons they were referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Because this committee had been newly established it did not have time to pay any attention to this particular reference. It is our hope that the statutory instruments committee, having now made three or four reports to the House of Commons, will be able to schedule its work in such a way as to deal with this vitally important subject.
I should now like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen):
That Bill C-225 be withdrawn, the order discharged from the order paper and that the subject matter of Bill C-225 be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Then if that motion should carry I would also move-seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen):
That the Guidelines for Motions for the Production of Papers tabled this day by the President of the Privy Council be referred to the said committee; and that a message be sent to the other place to inform Their Honours of this decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill C-225 be withdrawn, the order discharged from the order paper and that the subject matter of Bill C-225 be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous consent that we adopt the second motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, in view of the time perhaps I could call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.50 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Members' Salaries


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I see that as the member for Lotbiniere, I am in the House at eight o'clock, but that there are no reporters in the gallery at this time.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, there is one.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before it was called five o'clock, the bill before us provides for increases in salaries and allowances and each time such an increase is proposed for the members, it gives rise to more or less scathing discussions among the people throughout the country.
Because of this, reporters have an extremely important role to play, and I note that since I became a member, that is since 1968, they have seldom played it when it was necessary to underline, for the sake of public opinion, the important role of the public servant who is a member.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that as a Creditiste, I cannot accept the economic system protected by the Grits or the Tories. It is also obvious that I believe in a basic economic and social doctrine. It is also obvious that on both sides of the House we are not working towards the same ends nor are we taking the same means to solve some problems. That is for sure. That is why the House of Commons is called the democratic House. Now according to reporters, we have a one-way democracy, what the Tories or the Grits say but never what the Creditistes say.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I find it revolting to have to justify a salary increase when we should rather justify the presence of reporters in the gallery.
Mr. Speaker, I was also saying before supper that we have basic beliefs. I was elected to represent the Lotbiniere constituency which was created following a readjustment of electoral boundaries imposed by commissioners who are not responsible to anyone and consult us only when electoral boundaries have been finalized. However, on that occasion the Minister was the victim of his own system. He gave us a constituency to win, that is Lotbiniere. I therefore ran as a candidate and I was elected, fortunately, although my wife may not agree on that particular point.
Eventually, Mr. Speaker, people realized there was a huge difference between their former MP and the new creditist member of parliament they had just elected, who is not on the government side, and is a member from a third party. But when that representative got on the move



December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
in Lotbiniere, as did the hon. members for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), Rimouski (Mr. Allard), Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), or Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), people realized they had elected a member of parliament who served the people.
I consider an unemployment insurance case as an important one; I consider an old age pension case as an important one. If my fellow citizen does not understand legislation because it is too complex, I think it is my duty to explain it to him and defend his rights. That is what I am paid for: defending interests. That is what my colleagues from the Social Credit do. That is the true basic concept of the creditist member.
It is not original in that some Liberals obviously have the same concept, and some Progressive Conservative members too. I do not know them, but there must be some. There are also some among the New Democrats, but they are getting fewer and fewer, Mr. Speaker, since they have misunderstood the purpose of members of parliament. Anyway, it is important for the citizen to be able to meet his member of parliament representative, at any time, to talk to him, to trust him with his problems, without necessarily paying him, without necessarily binding himself to vote for him, knowing in good faith that his representative will do something about his problem.
Mr. Speaker, such is the system we have established in our constituencies. What are our working conditions, since this is the subject we are dealing with just now? Monday we work in our offices and we leave our constituencies as early as possible in order to return to Ottawa, in spite of the weather. We arrive in Ottawa and we sit from 2 to half past 10 Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, from 2 to 6 Wednesday, and from 11 in the morning to 4 or 5 in the afternoon Fridays. Then we get into our cars to drive back to our constituencies. Gentlemen of the press gallery, take note of this: our wives are alone at home with our children and they are waiting for us.
Personally, I have a six-year old who needs his father and a six-month old daughter. The gentlemen of the press gallery think this is funny. Mr. Speaker, Crediters have fought in the House against other hon. members to try and free our wives. The leader of the NDP himself made a fine speech to extoll all the services of which hon. members can avail themselves. I reminded him that, had it not been for the courage of Crediters, hon. members would still be without offices in federal constituencies. This is not a gain obtained by NDP members, who are unaware of such a function, but by Crediters. Why? In order to protect hon. members' family lives, for they are not slaves like the officials who live in ivory towers, receive exorbitant salaries, and are assured of their jobs. Goodness knows that we, in Quebec, know what job security for a civil servant means, because we have witnessed a stupid strike on this subject; in fact job security means nothing, because we realize that members who want to get elected must work. An official who wants to keep his job should also work.
Mr. Speaker, I feel this debate should give members an opportunity, beyond any political partisanship, whatever their party, to realize their important role in their constituencies, in the House of Commons, in committees, whether they be backbenchers or frontbenchers, Speaker
|Mr. Fortin.]
or clerk. I will not talk about the Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Speaker, but of those who are elected-


An hon. Member:: Right.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this debate should take place without any partisanship and that we should first ask ourselves what is the role of a member of Parliament.
Even if I did not support the government I want to be quite frank about it to show that I am not speaking on a burst of partisanship. Perhaps I did not feel that the increase initially proposed in Bill C-44 was too much but I know what I am talking about since I was involved in those negotiations. The fact still remains that this is a setback for the government, being forced by NDP blackmailers before people aroused by lying and hypocritical reporters. That is how it is!
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the role of the member of parliament be understood. To give you the history of the hon. member for Bellechasse, for example, hoping however that NDP members will understand it, he is a former farmer from Joly who ran in the riding of Bellechasse and was elected. He is not a man with diplomas from here to there nor a man capable of buying everyone off because he does not have a thick, heavy wallet since he is perhaps one of the members in this House with the greatest number of dependent children, and what I am telling you is serious matter. That member, Mr. Speaker, is in his office in his riding as often as he can. He works as much as he can, accepts all invitations, and NDP members will admit that this is not their case, because they do not visit their constituencies every weekend. Therefore, before they vote on the bill in a partisan and electoral way, I would urge them to consider the situation of other members not egotistically, like they do now, but charitably.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellechasse did some figuring because the issue is important for him, as it is for me and for other members. What does this increase represent? Not what a certain Jean Larin said on Radio-Canada when he laughed about members of parliament, imitating Santa Claus by wearing a long beard and standing before a Christmas tree. He never understood the Quebec Parliament, and even less the Parliament in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, what did Bill C-44 represent initially? Not an increase of $60,000, then of $47,400. No. At $27,000 each for 264 members of parliament, it represented a total cost of $7,128,000 a year, and the expenses allowance $12,000 for each member represented $3,000,168 a year. When we add those two figures, we conclude that the salary of the 264 members of parliament, whether they are the leader of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal backbenchers, Progressive Conservative supporters or Social Crediters, amounted to $10,296,000. This is the total cost of the salaries of members of parliament, but not of their increase.


An hon. Member:: It is less than for the judges.


André-Gilles Fortin: It is less than for the judges. Reporters do not say to the population that the 264 members would have paid $3,564,000 in income tax, and that the balance of $6,732,000, would have been paid by the public, the taxpay-
December 19, 1974

ers, our fellow citizens. This is the actual cost for Canadians, who are, like us, affected by inflation. That would be the cost for every Canadian citizen, for every voter, for every taxpayer, young and old, to maintain a democratic Parliament, where people can express themselves freely, where we can defend the interests of our fellow citizens without any partisanship, where we sometimes rub our ears, when we sometimes gain and sometimes lose. The maintenance of Parliament costs each citizen 29.9 cents a year. This is what it costs to maintain democracy in our country, and there is still some opposition to this, Mr. Speaker. There are four reporters now in the gallery. If we shout enough we will make them listen to us.
Mr. Speaker, comparatively to the previous costs, before the presentation of Bill C-44, it makes an increase of 6 cents per capita per annum. They say it is a shame to pay our public men properly whereas they pay $20 to watch people who get $120,000 a year play hockey, and find it quite natural. Mr. Speaker, our system of values is upside down. Some NDP members watch hockey, football or baseball matches and they find it natural. I imagine that if these people believe in democracy, if they believe in Parliament, they will believe that an increase of 6 cents a year per capita for the Canadian people is justified.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress another point. And therefore now three reporters left, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am being interrupted by Liberal and NDP members who probably will not have the guts of rising; it would be a good thing if they would keep quiet and let me speak.
Mr. Speaker, there are now only three reporters left; their number is decreasing.
Mr. Speaker, what I mean is I certainly did not pay them to come back.


An hon. Member:: They are paid $50,000 or $60,000 a year.


André-Gilles Fortin: If I spoke English, would I be better understood?


An hon. Member:: They would not understand any more.


André-Gilles Fortin: Well then, listen and be silent.
Mr. Speaker, what I am doing now is quite serious. When I had the means of having a constituency office at $6,000 a year, plus $2,400 for office expenses, I immediately opened one. I cut the secretary's salary in order to have two, so as to give better service to a 125-mile long by 80-mile wide area, comprising 57 parishes and 85,000 voters.
Mr. Speaker, listening to a CBC program the other night, I heard that members of Parliament will be voting themselves so much for salary, plus so much for expenses, plus $8,400. This was creating the impression in the mind of the public that members of Parliament are going to put $8,400 in their pockets.
Can you see, Mr. Speaker, what harm that can do, when people will have warped minds? This is why I am indicating I have a number of friends among newspapermen, but among those back home. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I
Members' Salaries
suggest this debate should show no partisanship. The debate should allow each member to express his views on the role of the member of Parliament and, by comparison, to conclude whether the proposed salaries are adequate, satisfactory or non-satisfactory, and to base his vote on such a conclusion, not on the fact it comes the Grits, the Tories, the NDP or the Social Credit party.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the Senate, in the other House, to state things politely. I believe it is a non-entity. I believe it is a waste of money. I believe it has no significance, other than to allow the old political parties to organize their campaigns. I believe it is a means for political recognition, to which I shall never be entitled, and I have no desire for it anyway. Mr. Speaker, the other House-there is no irreverence in that, the truth will never be irreverent-the other House is useless. It gets on the nerves of Canadians generally, who are well-meaning citizens.
Let us take circumstances into account; let us give something to those who represent something and take what they have away from those who do not represent anything. Let us turn them back with the old age security pension, we have been thinking of them, they have all they need, they should leave us alone. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people would appreciate such a gesture.
What is the Senate? It is a political reward. No use hiding it. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) hopes to get there. That is why he does not speak against the Senate but against members of parliament. That, I do not know. But Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never.


André-Gilles Fortin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is awake.


An hon. Member:: He never sleeps.


André-Gilles Fortin: But, Mr. Speaker, they are five up there. Abolition of the Senate is an important issue. It is a shame. It is a little like the House of Lords in London where I have just come from. I have not been able to see them, they were not sitting, as it happens here.


An hon. Member:: They were smoking cigars.


André-Gilles Fortin: You walk around after that, you look at it, and you wonder whether it is a mere gust of wind.
Actually they represent nothing. They are responsible to nobody. And they are paid the same salary as hon. members. That is a point on which my colleagues and I disagree about Bill C-44. Canadian institutions ought to be streamlined if we want our people to believe in them. That is one point.
The second one, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that members are allowed $10,600 for their expenses. Let us forget the parties. I wish everybody would listen to what I am going to say. Several colleagues who are here-I do not pass judgment on them, but I would like them to understand what I am driving at-do not even spend a quarter of those $10,600, either because they do not visit their constituency or because they do not listen, they do not provide the service asked by the people in their constituency or

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
because they have no residence in their constituency or still because they travel by plane with passes from Air Canada, like the leader of the NDP, or rather the one who would very much like to be leader but who is not sure that he will be.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are members who do their work, like my colleagues and other parties who, I know, spend much more than that amount. That is why we would like to see in this bill a provision calling for supporting documents concerning the $10,600. Mr. Speaker, the production of supporting documents would put an end to the criticisms against unjustified expenses, would enhance the influence of hon. members in people's mind, because the members could justify their expenses. The member who would fail to do so would not get the money and the one who would do so would not be penalized by the others who stay idle. That is another positive proposal from the Social Credit Party of Canada in order that those who work are not penalized by those who do nothing.
Since the debate began we have been entangled by puritan and electroralist opposition from the NDP. Mr. Speaker, if those people do not agree, let us be democratic like the New Democratic members and let us include in the bill an option formula whereby, after 15 days, if a member did not deem it necessary to accept the increase, he would simply forego the raise; but let him not penalize the others who need it.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the majority of NDP members will be the first to send their letter and by messenger to boot.
I have been elected democratically. I have been elected like my Social Credit colleagues, democratically, without election fund, without any contribution from aircraft or marine workers' unions. We got elected with our won resources, honestly, with the means at our disposal. The Progressive Conservatives bawl out the Grits but after they ask themselves where they are. These days I can hardly tell Grit from Tory.
Mr. Speaker, we got elected with the means at our disposal. We do not pay our representatives at the polls, we do not pay our organizers, we do not have any election fund. When there is an election, we help those people. We may be only eleven, but we do not have behind us 500 guys who have financed us. We represent thousands of Canadians who are like us, who do not have money, but who want members to represent them in Parliament.
Be warned: Thanks to the Election Expenses Act we will be more numerous next time. Mr. Speaker, people did vote for us in all conscience because we did a good job. The best evidence is that each time a minister comes in our riding, we gain 1,000 votes. So, we invite them to come back.
Mr. Speaker, once elected, we represent those people. What is the situation in my riding? I do not want to speak for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (M. Knowles) because he does not go in his riding either. In the riding of Lotbiniere, I work in my office on Friday evenings, on Saturdays and sometimes on Sundays and Mondays, then I return to Ottawa. On Fridays, Saturdays and sometimes Sundays, I accept invitations. Each time I have an unemployment case, I must call Drummondville and it is a long distance. Who pays for it? I would invite

the reporters to take notes. I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in the gallery. Not bad. Who is paying? Always the hon. member for Lotbiniere. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to do it because I was elected to protect the interests of my fellow citizens.
Unemployment is now increasing in my riding. It is seasonal unemployment which we call Liberal unemployment. We have the Liberal economy, the unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: Who is bringing the cheques?


André-Gilles Fortin: All of you. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to take note of the situation in the Lotbiniere constituency, to increase the staff so that my fellow citizens who are unemployed, who are the victims of the economic system sponsored by the Grits and the Tories may be looked after. I asked him for more people to deal with the requests because 150 men are laid off at once and they have families.
The day after, this morning, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration phoned me and said: Mr. Fortin you have six persons more to look after your problems. He has thus showed that he is an honest man: he forgot his party and thought about the unemployed. It proves, Mr. Speaker, that when a member of the opposition is active, he is much better than a thousand backbenchers flopped on their benches. That is what it proves.
Mr. Speaker, some people criticize the members' salary increase. I can see here the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), he understands what I mean. When multinational corporations increase their prices, when a so-called oil international crisis is used as a pretence, when the Progressive Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party do not want eastern Canada to benefit from subsidized prices, Mr. Speaker, when oil companies increase their prices, multinational companies increase their rates, who pays? The people do.
It is strange to note, Mr. Speaker, that every time the price of oil goes up the people pay. Do papers mention it? Do newsmen speak of that situation? Not in the least. A veil of silence is drawn over the cost of oil. But when it comes to the increase in members' salaries, it gets into the headlines; they call it a national crisis. Newsmen are financed by the financial world, by multinational corporations, and it is high time for the people representatives to establish a master in the House.
We have stepped back with respect to the initial motion, but time has come to pass this motion without delay so that justice be done to members of the House, at least to those who deserve their salaries.
Mr. Speaker, when a citizen calls at our office, he expects to meet the representative he has elected in a democratic process. He relies on him. Then let us give this member of the House the necessary means to work and represent his constituents properly. As a first step, we already have an office in our constituency, for which an allowance of $8,400 has been allocated to us; some Canadian Broadcasting Corporation newsmen are bent on adding it to the member's salary, while it has nothing at all to do with it.
December 19, 1974

Mr. Speaker, I say this openly, I am not ashamed to state it because all my constituents in the riding of Lotbiniere give unanimous support to me on that; I ask for an increase in the budget of riding offices in order to prevent all those who want to work in their riding from being deprived of means because of members of parliament who do not understand their duties. That is a very important point.
I am quite sure my representations will be considered as another gimmick to get another salary increase, but it is not true. Those who will dare write or say that could come in my riding, I don't worry for one minute, because my people are very sensible, Mr. Speaker. Those who object to the salary increase do not know about the reactions of their own constituents, and maybe this is because they do not give the services they could render.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my comments this way: We had a fantastic opportunity to prove to Canadians that Parliament is a supreme institution, that members have been elected to represent something and someone-


An hon. Member:: Authority!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we have the fantastic opportunity to prove something to Canadians, to those who believe in democracy, in the role of the member of Parliament, no matter the salary. If we give $5,000 to an individual, he is going to produce for $5,000. If you give someone else $10,000, he will produce for $10,000. If you give $15,000 to yet another, he will produce for $15,000. Give $20,000 to some NDP members, they will produce for $5,000.
Mr. Speaker, I say that if we ask hon. members to justify their salaries, I am not worried. But if we ask some reporters to justify their salaries, then I would worry.
Nobody speaks about that in this House. Let us read Hansard for this week. Yesterday, an answer was given to a question on the order paper concerning a man named Michael Pitfield. Let us consider the career of that man. He started at about $4,000 or $5,000 a year. That was reported in Hansard yesterday. He now earns $54,000 a year as a deputy minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, This week, I gave figures concerning civil servants who do not have to be elected, who are responsible to no one except a minister, in short, who enjoy unlimited security of employment. The Liberal candidate who was running against me in the last election, Mr. Normand Begin-write that down you up there, how many are you now? Two, five! The Liberal candidate running against me, Normand Begin, stop laughing you, Liberals, the said minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) hired him the very next day as a special assistant here in Ottawa. These are examples. It is easy to be a candidate in such conditions.
And, Mr. Speaker, those are examples which contribute to discredit public people in the eyes of the people. Let us make an effort, let us stand together, let us forget our political parties and let us make the people of this country, Canada, proud of their parliament, of their country and of their laws. Let us legislate for the benefit of people who need it, instead of always legislating for the benefit of great corporations and banks, let us make Canada a place where life can be enjoyed by really deserving the salary
Members' Salaries
which we earn through taxes and owe to the sweat of taxpayers. And when we ask for a rise, there will be no outcry of indignation, because newspapermen would not dare criticize members of parliament then, for they would make a laugh of themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Earlier today while this bill was under discussion an amendment was moved to the motion for second reading, and it was indicated that the time that the subject would be discussed when the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) had finished his speech. That moment having arrived, I have to say that the terms of the amendment proposing:-
That Bill C-44 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the subject of salaries and allowances of members of parliament and cabinet ministers should be referred by the government to an independent commission
-caused concern to the Chair on two counts, at least. I would therefore propose, before deciding officially what to do about it, to hear hon. members who may wish to contribute to discussion of the procedural aspect since, as I say, I have some doubt as to whether it is a proper amendment.
I understand there is a desire among hon. members to dispose of the matter this evening, so whatever ruling I make would be made today, if possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member for Winnpeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would have endeavoured to sustain the onus of proof by establishing that this is a useful and valid amendment. I have been under the impression that he knows there are grave doubts about its validity and that it has been put forward as something of a red herring-I underline the word "red".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is this honourable House discussing the procedural aspect or the substance of the motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am discussing the procedural aspects. I would have thought the hon. member would have attempted to justify the amendment. But insofar as it can be taken as a reasoned amendment, for five and a half years, as Your Honour may be aware, I struggled without avail to secure approval for a reasoned amendment, but your predecessor did not see fit to accept my proposals, even though I advanced what I considered to be valid arguments at the time. To my recollection only one reasoned amendment has been accepted in the House over the last few years. This in itself, of course, is not sufficient to lead Your Honour to reject the amendment we are now discussing, but I say that the Standing Orders and the precedents are clear-according to the rule, this is not the kind of amendment which can be accepted.

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
There is another aspect that I put before Your Honour. For some years there has been an accepted practice that when there is some feeling that a bill is not in a form acceptable to the House, its subject matter may be referred to a committee and there considered. I think that is the practice, but it has been laid down by a number of precedents and decisions. There is some comparison here, because this alleged reasoned amendment purports to say that there should be a reference to a task force or group yet to be established.
I suggest, arguing in pari materia, that decisions of the Chair relative to references of a subject matter to a committee have some bearing on the issue. In several decisions it has been held that it is not possible on a motion to refer the subject matter of a bill unless the reference is to an established entity-to a committee of the House or some other established entity. That was a decision in 1971.
On that particular occasion the House was dealing with a bill to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), seconded by myself, moved that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the recommendation in relation to the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House. The ruling was given by Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I refer to Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, January 21, 1971:
Earlier this afternoon the honourable Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), seconded by the honourable Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), put a motion before the House. At that time X asked the House for an opportunity to consider it and to look at the authorities.
Having given valid reasons during the course of his decision, what happened was that we substituted another amendment. But the ruling of the Speaker made it absolutely plain that a bill, especially in relation to its subject matter, could not be referred to a body not then in existence.
Another amendment was moved during debate on the Young Offenders Act which the House was debating on January 13, 1971. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) moved that Bill C-192 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act. The Deputy Speaker, I think it was, for precisely the same reasons, held that as the reference had not been to a standing committee, or to a body regularly constituted and in being, the reference could not be made.
Then there was another precedent. When the House was dealing with the same bill, the Young Offenders Act, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) moved that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act by the Governor in Council after consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties of this House. We argued the point, and the Deputy Speaker was about to make a ruling and indicated pretty plainly that, for the reasons I have already assigned, his ruling would be against the validity of the amendment because it had reference to a task force or body not then in existence. In recognition of that, and in recognition of what the rules were, the hon. member for Calgary North
[Mr. Baldwin.)
withdrew his motion, and we put in its place reference to a body that was then in existence.
While there is some difference between the types of amendment, the reasoning given in the various decisions is very simply that there cannot be a reference of the subject matter of a bill, or of the bill itself, to a body not in existence at the time. For this reason I would suggest that, interesting though this amendment might be, in our view we in this party, as we always try to do, should stay within the four corners of the rules, and therefore I submit that the amendment is not valid.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Peters:: If you will shut up I will move one that is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just because this House is discussing a pay raise, the place does not need to go mad.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invited comment from hon. members on a procedural point of some interest, and I think I should be able to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with one point made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I thoroughly agree, and that is that the subject of reasoned amendments on the second reading of a bill is a very difficult one. I have been here long enough to see the practice change one way and another. I have seen amendments which were allowed in one decade disallowed in the next, and so on. But I submit that if one turns to the authorities, such as Beauchesne in his fourth edition and to the eighteenth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, one will find the general principles regarding reasoned amendments, and there is nothing in the citations in those books that prevents reference to a body not actually in existence.
The implication in the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), is there in the use of small letters rather than capitals; namely, that the subject of the salaries and allowances of members of parliament and cabinet ministers should be referred to an independent commission. When I refer to small letters, I refer to "independent commission" being in small letters. The implication is that in the opinion of this House, that being the governing phrase in the amendment, such a commission should be appointed for this purpose.
I draw your attention to citation 381 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Actually citation 381 does not need to be read because it is a prelude to 382, which is as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, Commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of Judges.
December 19, 1974

That paragraph in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition is, of course, taken from May. I was going to say it was taken from May's eighteenth edition, but May's eighteenth edition was produced after Dr. Beauchesne had passed on, so he must have got it from an earlier edition of May. At page 487 of May's eighteenth edition we read the following:
"Reasoned Amendment"-It is also competent for a Member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment". This amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word "that" and to add other words; and the question proposed upon the amendment is that the amendment be made. A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
(1) It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing
from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
Certainly our amendment falls into that category. It differs from the bill and from its principle in that the bill proposes certain specific pay increases, and the amendment proposes that the bill be set aside and that the subject of pay increases for MPs, Cabinet ministers and so on be referred to an independent commission. I go on with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I correct the hon. member in that the motion which he is defending does not refer to the subject of pay increases, it refers to the subject of salaries. The hon. member has just used the words "pay increases" which are not in the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I confess to some surprise at that interjection. I did use the general term when I said the amendment would refer the subject of pay increases. Your Honour is technically correct. What we are asking is that the subject of salaries and allowances of members of parliament and Cabinet ministers should be referred by the government to an independent commission.
It might well be that such an independent commission would recommend a reduction in the salaries, if that is what Your Honour is driving at, and I doubt if this body would want that referred to such a commission. The point is, surely when you are discussing the level of salaries, whether up or down, you are discussing salaries, and I think that the wording of the amendment-


An hon. Member:: When did they ever go down?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They did once when the Tories were in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I Suggest that the reference of the question of salaries and allowances is a matter that is the subject of the bill, but that the broader suggestion is that the commission should go into the whole question. May I go on to paragraph (3) at page 487 which states:
It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.
Members' Salaries
I underline the fact that in that sentence in May the words committees and commissioners are in small letters, and the inference is that the reference can be to any committee or any commission, whether established or not established. I think that to draw the line that this sovereign body, this House of Commons, cannot express the opinion that a matter as important as our own salaries should be referred to an independent commission which might have to be appointed, is drawing the line in such a way that I simply cannot accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of what was said when the amendment was moved this afternoon, that this kind of view might be held and might be expressed. A couple of hours have since gone past, but I confess I have not had the time to go back over the years to try to find an amendment the other way.
I submit that the words are clear in Beauchesne and May as to the rights of hon. members on reasoned amendments, and in this respect I am amazed that my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), is not with me. He may be happy today to have this amendment of ours ruled out of order, but there will be other occasions when he will want a reasoned amendment that will give him, or his party, the right to move that certain matters be referred for study by an independent commission. He is probably going to get up to say that he has tried it. Since he has wanted that sort of thing I am amazed that tonight, because we are on the subject of pay and allowances for MPs, he takes a different view.
I am quite aware of the fact that there have been rulings the other way, and I am quite aware of the way in which lawyers, in particular, are bound by precedent, but I suggest that under the basic authorities by which we run the procedures of this House there is no reference to the fact that things cannot be referred to something that is not established.
Somewhere in the books there are a couple of examples of reasoned amendments. This one must have been a long time ago, but at any rate there was a case where this was allowed as a reasoned second reading amendment. I would refer to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 396 where it is stated:
"The further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."
There was no such thing as an established referendum. There is no machinery for that at all, but the question of referring the matter to referendum was allowed as the subject of a reasoned amendment in the same way, I suggest, that even if there is not an independent commission in existence for the purpose of studying the pay and allowances of members of parliament, the members of that other place, Cabinet ministers and so on, we should have the right to express the opinion that this is what ought to be done.
Hon. members need not be so restless. There is no use in rushing this thing. We are going home tomorrow night anyway. Members can take this pay bill home with them to their constituencies, and come back at the end of January and tell us what their people think about it.

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
The fact of the matter is that the amendment meets the other conditions of a reasoned amendment. It is based on opposition to the bill, and that is our position. It does not in itself involve the expenditure of money. We recommend that a commission be appointed, and I suppose that someone will say that a commission will require money and, therefore, it becomes a money proposition. So we put it that in the opinion of this House the government should do it. In other words, this leaves it as a matter to be decided later, and the money found for it.
I submit therefore, Mr. Speaker, that if this House is the sovereign body we feel it is, surely when we are discussing a subject as important to us, and as important as it is to the people of Canada, we have the right to ask for consideration by the House, not of a precise money-costing proposition, but of a proposal that this matter be referred for study to an independent commission.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it was a treat to listen to the expose by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on reasoned amendments. He has to be the expert in the House on reasoned amendments and how to achieve them.
I agree with a number of things both hon. members have said. I want to refer to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 278, citation 387, which reads as follows:
On the motion for the second reading of a Bill to amend the Canada Grain Act, and a proposed amendment that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, the Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization had not yet been appointed. On an appeal the ruling was sustained by 108 yeas to 41 nays.
In respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), there is no such thing in existence at the present time as an independent commission of any kind to look into a matter of this nature. In the case I have quoted there was a committee of the House of Commons in existence to deal with the matter in respect of which it had competence, but because that committee had not yet been formally set up, Mr. Speaker disallowed the amendment. I would submit that in this case, where there is no independent commission at all, it is not possible for the amendment to be carried because the subject matter has no place to go.
The second point I should like to make is on the question of cost. It is quite clear that no matter how you slice it, whether it is the government that appoints the independent commission or whether it is the House of Commons that appoints it, money has to be found for it. Whether the government does it on the recommendation of the House of Commons it still becomes a money item which must be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, and which must be approved by an estimate and an appropriation act. I do not believe there is any way to eliminate that proposition.
The next point I want to make is that we have had, in fact within the last four years, a commission to look into the levels of salaries of members of the House of Commons and the Senate, called the Beaupre Commission, estab-

lished in 1970. Basically most of the material in this bill is based on the Beaupre report. Surely it is a simple proposition that we should not appoint a new commission to investigate the work of another commission or a bill which is before us based on the report of that other commission. This does not seem worthwhile, and it would seem to represent an added expense to the taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: My last point deals with a reasoned amendment. If such a reasoned amendment is at all in order then it must in some way oppose the principle of the bill. Further, it must not anticipate at any stage detailed provisions which may or may not come up later on. I would submit that, as cleverly as the motion is drawn, it does not meet that criterion or any of the other requirements I have mentioned.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some remarks on the amendment put forward by the NDP member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That Bill C-44 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the subject of salaries and allowances of members of parliament and cabinet ministers should be referred by the government to an independent commission.
Mr. Speaker, in 1970 an independent commission spent several months studying the problem which still concerns us today. That was the Beaupre Commission. That commission laid down a report which contained a lot of recommendations. Mr. Speaker, even with the Beaupre Commission report, Parliament has been put into a situation which we find ourselves in today, that is to legiferate again on the subject of salaries of members of Parliament.
Here is another example: Tonight in the news, we learned that a bill concerning the salaries of the members of the quebec National Assembly is being discussed. Mr. Speaker, we know that a commission has been looking into this matter for several months. This commission reported to the House and the House is still considering a bill concerning the salaries of the members of parliament. What is the purpose of all this? Mr. Speaker, I know that it is always very difficult for the members of a Parliament to pass legislation about their own salaries. I understand this and I am more aware of this now than ever before. Is there truly a conflict of interest? We may seriously wonder about this.
However, I believe that it is high time we showed the people that Parliament is the supreme authority in the country and that if the authority wants to be respected, it must take its responsibilities. That is my position. And when the authority takes its responsibilities, it sets an extraordinary example for the people who no longer question its sincerity or the validity of its actions and decisions. I am well aware that the authority sometimes makes mistakes but if it does so in good faith and in all honesty, I believe that it will still be respected. I have 12 children. I had and still have to use some authority. I do not consider myself God the Father. I know that I sometimes use my authority mistakenly, but my children have always been generous enough to understand that when I acted that
December 19, 1974

way, I did so for their own good and to ensure respect in the home.
Mr. Speaker, during the holiday season, thinking about the message "Peace on earth to men of good will", I believe that we should take our responsibilities, discuss matters in depth, and go to the committee to discuss this bill. If the committee determines that some aspects of this bill should be changed or amended, we shall have to take our responsibilities and report to this House accordingly.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a very brief contribution to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I know that statement always receives applause in this House, especially in the emotional state which seems to exist at the moment.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not intend to attempt to add to the learned arguments based on Beauchesne, May and the other precedents. However, I suggest to Your Honour it would be a denigration of the sovereign powers of this parliament to rule that we do not have the right to refer this matter to a commission to be created in the future. I do not think it is right for this parliament to start placing limitations on its power to deal with its own affairs. I suggest this is a pettifogging practice which has been suggested, and that Your Honour should rule we can do precisely what we want. We have the right to turn down this amendment, but I suggest we have no right not to put it to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other hon. members who wish to contribute to the point of order, may I say I have some grave reservations about it. It is a very important point, dealing as it does with reasoned amendments proposed at the second reading stage. I understand that hon. members may be anxious to have the matter disposed of tonight and I would hope this would be possible, but because of the number of arguments and precedents which have, been put forward I would need at least a few moments to put them together, and then perhaps before ten o'clock a ruling could be made.
I do wish to say, in respect of some of the contributions which have been made to the debate that the right of hon. members to put forward their points of view concerning what ought to be done, or to argue in the debate or participate in the debate, is not in any way restricted. The right, however, to introduce amendments on a second reading motion may be a subject of somewhat different interpretation, but the two are not necessarily related. It is always possible for a member to stand up in his place on second reading and make a suggestion concerning the course the House might follow. That is legitimate. However, the question of whether he might bring forward an amendment on second reading is another matter, and I do not think the two should be confused.
Members' Salaries
In any case I will take all these very interesting representations under advisement and try to return to the chair at about 9:45 p.m. to give a ruling. In the meantime, I hope much useful comment can be made by hon. members on the matter under discussion.
I understand that there was some disposition in the House to permit the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) to present a report. Is it agreed that the hon. member should have leave to revert to presentation of reports at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement with all leaders of the opposition to allow me to present tonight the report regarding the bill that has been examined by the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I have the honour of presenting the first report of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity since your elevation to that post to speak in the House of Commons, and I would like to congratulate you on the very wonderful way in which you are fulfilling your duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think this is at best an emotional subject, certainly one that can arouse the passions of most

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
hon. members, but in reality it is not a subject which should be discussed in a personal way.
I think that all of us who have been here for a number of years have formed friendships in all parts of the House, and I would not like to see this debate straining the relationships that any or all of us have made. I have been here 13 years, and during those years I have participated in perhaps two or three similar debates about my salary. I can remember the agonizing period under the late Mr. Pearson when we earned, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) described it in the Ottawa Journal, the magnificent sum of $8,000 or $10,000. A very wise old Senator aged 92, when we were discussing a raise in caucus, said if the raise then was right it was politically right. When the NDP are saying that we should give the matter of a raise to an independent committee it is because they do not have the courage of their convictions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Like every other member of the House of Commons I was elected by the most democratic process in the world, and periodically I must go back to those same people and be judged on my performance. They did not give me any mandate to take any problems that are embarrassing to me and give them to some so-called independent committee because I do not have the courage to act.
What is an independent committee? Must we hand this over to the United Auto Workers president who earns $35,000, plus expenses, to judge? Did we hear the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) complaining today about the salary of the president of the United Auto Workers in Oshawa, plus his expense account? Not in the least. But I happen to think that the most accomplished member of the House of Commons works as hard, and contributes as much and maybe more, and puts in longer hours than ten McDerments.
The hon. member from the Social Credit Party said earlier that if we are not worth 30 cents each per year for each person in our constituency, then we have no right to be here in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suspect that, after reviewing their own records, the NDP have come to the honest conclusion that they are not worth 30 cents.
There is an easy solution to this problem since the bill will be amended, and I must admit that I was persuaded by the eloquence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) today, a man for whom I have great respect. Incidentally, I feel that the House of Commons will suffer a great loss when and if he leaves this place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When he said last week that he was prepared to go for the full 50 per cent from $18,000 to $27,000, he was expressing sincerely what he thought was the value of the members of his caucus, based on his observations as a leader of that party over the last number of years. He spoke today in another vein. He spoke about restraint, and he pointed out that the problems that face this country will demand a sacrifice from each and every

one of us over the next few years. He said that we cannot all share in the wealth by receiving precisely what we think we are worth, and that we will have to practice some restraint.
His proposal, that we agreed to today, I am sure had something to do with the discussions behind the scenes. It was a policy of restraint that we do not need to apologize for, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The one nice thing about the NDP is their ability to practice what they preach. Mr. Barrett, when he is not travelling around China, is busy bringing in important legislation. He brought in a little bill that raised his salary to $52,000.


An hon. Member:: Oh no!


An hon. Member:: A 100 per cent increase.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mind you, let me point out in fairness that it is not all salary. It is $44,000 and $8,000 in expenses. His cabinet ministers receive $40,000 and $8,000 allowance, and those hardworking members of the British Columbia provincial legislature, that in some years has put in as much as ten weeks work, only get $12,000 indemnity a session, two sessions a year. That gives them $24,000, plus $8,000 tax free. I will say this for Mr. Barrett. He is one socialist who has the courage of his convictions, which is more than can be said about that party over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What about Saskatchewan, the real home of Socialists? As the Leader of the New Democratic Party said today-and I intend to speak about it because he struck a very responsive chord-everybody in Canada is equal. We should all earn the same income. Well, Mr. Speaker, in 1968 Saskatchewan moved from a $6,000 indemnity and $3,000 expenses for a total of $9,000, to $12,500. That is an increase of a little more than 39 per cent in the years 1968 to 1972. But that was not quite enough.
They have another gimmick. They are paid $20 for every day they are in the House. That would not be too bad for us who work 11 months in the year. It is not an awful lot in Saskatchewan, however, where they only work 65 days a year. Then they get $600 for telephone expenses, and it all comes up to $14,400, which makes for a 60 per cent increase over the last six years. I will not talk about the car mileage allowance because I am not sure whether that has been escalated since they decided to nationalize their oil industry. The cabinet had only moved up 28 per cent by 1972, however.
The province of Manitoba is a little more responsible. I think their premier is probably a misguided Liberal rather than a Socialist.
Listening to the New Democratic Party and their leader you would think that was the only party in this House that cared about people. It is just amazing. When you look at the corporals' guard, over there, however, you can see what the people almost did to them in the last election.


Walter David Baker: Acting lance corporal.
December 19, 1974


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is an easy solution to the dilemma of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker; and there are some very sincere people in that party.


An hon. Member:: Name them!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I say that in all sincerity. Since the bill is to be amended a member of our party came up today with what I thought was a good amendment. All members can think about it. The bill which is passed-or if it is passed-should contain a clause which would simply make it necessary for a member to apply for the pay increase if he wanted it!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If it is against a member's conscience to take the increase, then he need not apply for it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A good idea!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This would solve the dilemma, and we could get on with raising our own pay which we have a right to do because no other body is going to do it. Describe for me an independent committee, if you can.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is like some of the independent judges.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Any committee might be considered as independent depending on whether you like its findings. There was the famous Clyne committee which did a pretty good job for civil servants. Mr. Clyne weighed all the facts before he recommended a pay increase for civil servants. He was a man who ran one of the world's most successful industries in British Columbia, MacMillan Bloedel, and he appreciated the value of employees. He could not tolerate people who could not do their job. He understood work, and understood that civil servants deserved a decent salary because he understood that this country deserved top rated people. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people deserve top rated members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we can turn this into a gentlemen's club, you know.


An hon. Member:: You have that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We can limit this place to wealthy people. In my experience that would eliminate about three-quarters of the members of parliament.
In the Report of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses issued in November, 1970, commonly known as the Beaupre report, there are a number of references to the opinions of a very wonderful man, the late right hon. Mr. Pearson. He was a man of courage because he brought in a pay raise in a minority government. He pointed out some of the problems of the member of parliament.
Tonight's Ottawa Journal quotes the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I do not want to embarrass him as he is one of my favourite people, a man of integrity, a judgment with which I think everybody in this House agrees.
Members' Salaries


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When he was asked the simple question, whether he would accept the increase in pay he said he would because, as a man of conscience, it bothered him that at the end of his political career he would have absolutely nothing material to pass on to his family. He will have memories, he will have his record on the statute books, his speeches to be read. But he has an obligation, as all of us have, to his family that he cannot fulfil on his present income. With no disrespect for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, I say that I will take the word of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal over that of any member of the New Democratic Party any day of the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pearson made six points. There was the problem of maintaining two residences, one in the riding and one in Ottawa, a problem that new members cannot evaluate properly until they get here. They suddenly find themselves in Ottawa with children of school age, and the cost of living here is probably the highest in Canada. Sacrifices have to be made, and new members have to make a big adjustment to the difficulties of educating children because of the school shortage and the distances they travel to and from school.
There is difficulty in attracting young people to parliament because of the loss of income which they could be earning as lawyers or barristers. In the old days when members were only in the House 60 days a year they could earn other income.
I think it is important to notice that the financial barrier to becoming a member of parliament is being allowed to continue, and is a deterrent to many people who might otherwise like to enter public life. Parliament would soon lose its character if only the financially independent could afford to become members.
I would have no apologies to make if I had accepted the so-called 50 per cent increase last week. I feel a lot better accepting the proposal advanced by the leaders of the two main parties today, however, because to me it represents a restraint which I think we should practise. However, in the final analysis, I am not going to be judged by a columnist or editorial writer for a newspaper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to make it very clear that a lot of them understand our problems and sympathize with us. Let us not generalize and categorize them as reactionary. The important thing is that in the final analysis I will be judged sooner or later by the 90,000 people in the city of Verdun.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They have judged me five times, and they have judged the NDP five times. If I could not give their candidate a 10,000 vote handicap, I would not want to come back because the people of Verdun like people who have convictions. They know this is a difficult decision for a member of parliament to make. It is embarrassing to

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries
have to get up and evaluate yourself, or evaluate your neighbour. This is not something that people like. However, in the absence of other procedure, what else is there? An independent committee? How independent, and where do you find them? Hon. members know that an independent committee is nothing more than a very convenient way of escaping your responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know that others want to participate. I just want to say that since 1962 we in this House of Commons have worked an average of 150 days a year. Ontario has worked 105; Quebec, 104. As I mentioned, in the great socialistic havens they work 70 days, 60 days, 65 days.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about British Columbia? They increased their salary $25,000. How many days did they work?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They never work. They show up now and then. That was obvious in the last federal election. They were just about obliterated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The worst trap we can get into is the percentage game. One of the unfairest and unkindest things we as members of parliament often do,-we are now suffering for it in the Press-is get up and holler because the grainhandlers got a 39 per cent settlement and the Great Lakes Seamen 65 per cent. We must do a little soul searching. They received 65 per cent of what, 39 per cent of what, over what period and in return for what- increased productivity?
I remember a case in Vancouver. After signing a collective agreement, this person complained about the cost of the settlement. I asked him if, as a favour, he would let me know the cost of a round trip on one of the ships, the log of which he had kept assiduously for 12 years. He was courteous enough to write me and say that every round trip, under the new collective agreement where the workers had received, according to the papers, a 44 per cent increase, every time that ship made its trip from Vancouver to the Orient and back, he saved $58,000 over the previous contract because of a changing in the wording that removed restrictive work practices. You did not see that on page one of the Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province.
We are all suffering, all members of parliament, from some of our own indiscretion when we talk about the worker receiving a 40 per cent, 30 per cent, 20 per cent or 15 per cent increase. It is an increase of what? On what is it based? A person earning $2 an hour should get a 100 per cent increase, whereas a person earning $100,000 may only be entitled to a 5 per cent increase. However, any member of parliament who does not have the courage of his convictions to do his job, and that includes raising his own wages, does not deserve any increase.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am at a disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby comes in, especially when he has been on television and has forgotten to take off his make-up. It makes me feel older than ever. As a long-time resident of Oshawa, and as one who has been close to the trade union movement, he should know that people are entitled to a decent income. He should know it is impossible to have the type of Utopian society that he described, where everyone does the same kind of work and receives the same income. There is no such society on the face of the earth, and there never will be. Furthermore, it would be a pretty sad world if it ever came to that state.
I suggest that the New Democrats keep supporting the major parties on our social legislation, keep helping us to improve family allowances, unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan and the Old Age Pension. Take credit now and again, because you are dwindling in number, but between now and tomorrow think it over, summon up your courage, join the two major parties and vote for what is a bill of restraint, one which will not force us to go home and hide our heads in shame. If you are not worth 30 cents for each constituent in your riding, you have no right to be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, after the eloquence of the hon. member, which locked members in here, I am a little dubious about putting forth my modest and moderate contribution to this debate. However, I also have convictions, and I want to express them to this House. I hope hon. members will listen to my convictions, even if they do not happen to agree with them.
I am opposed to the present bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not because I am opposed to members of parliament receiving any increase, but under the present circumstances the increases that are proposed are wrong. They are unjustifiable. We must remember the context. We must pay some attention to the current realities of life. As members of parliament we have a great responsibility as leaders of this country.
Some members may not realize this, but we are in the midst of a worldwide crisis of inflation and a rapidly rising cost of living. Some people apparently do not accept this, but it happens to be a fact of life, and a very important fact of life. We ourselves, even on the present scale, can put up with inflation, with a measure of hardship perhaps in some cases, but none of us experience the grave hardship which affects those at the lower end of the income scale, the working poor and those who depend on pensions and small fixed incomes. An upward turn in the inflationary spiral signifies not just inconvenience or a lower standard of living for these people but real destitution and deprivation. I was elected, Mr. Speaker, to help old age pensioners and others with low incomes; I was not elected to help myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: I bet the old age pensioners worry about you.


John Edward Broadbent: No manners!

December 19, 1974


An hon. Member:: A bunch of hungry hogs.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether members of the government party want to howl down people who have a contribution to make to this debate, or not. I suggest to them it would be more dignified and in keeping with their position as members of parliament if they allowed other members of parliament to present their arguments, whether they agree with them or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: There can be no doubt whatever that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was absolutely right, as were other members of the government, and indeed as was the Official Opposition when they called for restraint in respect to income, whether that restraint be voluntary or imposed. But I ask: how on earth can members of parliament, or the government expect restraint on the part of others-particularly those on the other end of the income scale-when they themselves, acting on their own behalf, call for increases well above the increased cost of living?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I want to make it clear that the effect of this increase, if we pass this bill, will be drastically to increase inflation. That is what we are being asked to vote for here. Does anybody doubt that if we take 50 per cent, or the equivalent under some revised formula, that the effect all over the country will be higher demands justified by the argument that parliament did it?
Although there are others in this House who sincerely differ from me, it seems to me that we in parliament will forfeit our position of leadership if we are to accept this legislation. As far as I am concerned the credibility of parliament, respect for parliament among the people, is a primary objective I have as a member of this House and I would hate to do anything which, in my opinion, brought parliament into contempt. I must say an unjustified increase such as is proposed here would do precisely that. I am prepared that there should be some increase, tied to the cost of living.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: How much? Put a figure!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not in the government. I am not going to lay down an exact figure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: As far as I am concerned, what my parliamentary leader sought to do was an eminently reasonable proposition, and I accept it.
I should like to see the whole question of allowances for expenses reviewed. While there should be some relatively small fixed allowance for the hidden extra cost involved in being a member of parliament, generally speaking, expenses should be strictly accountable. This seems to me to be only just. It is obvious that some members have far greater expenses than others and therefore, in effect, there are serious inequities as between members under the present system. Some, because of the higher expenses they
Members' Salaries
must incur, are penalized in terms of real income. This is unjust, and I think this should be changed.
There is another basic reason why I oppose this legislation. It is that I believe we should be working toward a more equitable distribution of wealth and income. Every time we increase on a percentage basis the salaries of people at the upper levels, we exaggerate the gap between the rich and the poor. It is my philosophy, and I believe it is the philosophy of my party, to reduce, not to increase, these gaps. One of the propositions in the bill I find least satisfactory is the proposal to increase substantially the salaries of cabinet ministers and other members of the government.
The next point I wish to make relates to the amendment on which we shall have a ruling shortly. We should not be the judges of our own case.


Mitchell William Sharp: Who else could be? Who is superior to us?


Francis Andrew Brewin: We should never act on these matters except on the basis of recommendations of an independent commission truly representative of the people of Canada when it comes to determining our own salaries.


Mr. Olivier:: What about the Beaupre Commission?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should not act-


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? The question I would ask him in the light of his comments is this: why, then, did he oppose the Beaupre Commission?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I frankly do not recall it. I do not recall that the Beaupre Commission report was ever brought before this House. I do not know why he says I opposed it. The government itself didn't have the guts to bring that report to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood has the floor and the House should permit him to make his remarks without these interruptions.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I find it difficult to believe that of all the groups in this country the only people to set their own salaries without any interference from anyone else should be the particular group in this House. I say it would be more sane and more helpful to parliament itself if we were to refer this matter to a commission representative of the people, rather than go through this hassle year after year.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: On a point of order, might I put a question to the hon. member? Does he still practise law in Toronto and receive another revenue from doing so?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I doubt very much whether an hon. member should rise on a point of order for the purpose of addressing a question to a member who has been recognized.

December 19, 1974
Members' Salaries


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I may say to the hon. member there is no secret about it. I do not practise law, and have not since I have been a member of this House.


Mr. Nystrom:: Not like Liberal hypocrites.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am even having difficulty quelling the members of my own party, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, I have only a couple more points to make.
Another reason I am opposed to this legislation is that while I firmly believe in my right as an individual member to form conscientious conclusions which may not be shared by my constituents, I am persuaded that the overwhelming majority of my constituents, do oppose, and would oppose this increase and I think they would be absolutely right in doing so, for the reasons I have given. But I am strengthened in my resolve to fight this legislation by the fact that I believe the almost unanimous opinion in my own riding, and perhaps across Canada, is that we should not pass this legislation.
I have one last remark to make, Mr. Speaker. I know there are members in the House who probably have serious financial problems. I find it painful to vote and express myself in a way that some might feel unjust to them. But after all, Mr. Speaker, in the ultimate analysis we are here as members of parliament to do what we believe to be right, and not what we believe to be popular with our colleagues and even convenient to ourselves.
On the basis of my firm convictions I would urge any member of the House who is open to reason-I suspect there may not be too many in that category-to vote against this legislation and to reassert the responsibility of parliament, which is to look after the affairs of this country in a way that will diminish inflation, give leadership to the country and help the people of this country, not ourselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated earlier, I have had a moment to reflect on the very interesting arguments and precedents which were quoted to me about the orderliness of the amendment put forward to the second reading motion of this bill. Examination of the precedents only requires a cursory study to realize that it is most difficult to draft a procedurally acceptable amendment to a second reading motion. The reason, of course, is simply that the motion is that the bill progress one step, and the opportunity to resist that step is given to hon. members simply by the casting of a negative vote against that motion.
In addition, I repeat an earlier remark that the opportunity not only to resist that step but to comment on the reasons for resisting that step or suggestions that might come forward with respect to the subject matter under consideration, occurs during debate.
I have examined the precedents quoted to me and a good many others, and I cannot overlook the most basic of all principles that seems to recur in all the comments on second reading amendments, and that is that a second
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner). j
reading amendment must not introduce a new proposition or new principle to the bill under study.
I do not know of any variants to some of the views expressed by many learned participants on procedure in previous parliaments, but I feel most strongly that the concept of retarding the progress of a bill in what has been referred to frankly by those who have supported the argument and the amendment as "this most sovereign body"- the idea of retarding the progress of a bill in this parliament until such time as some outsidd body has examined the subject matter, or examined some of the elements of the subject matter and dealt with them is, to me, the most fundamental expression of a new concept in relation to the bill that this parliament seeks to deal with in this proceeding.
However, I must recognize that against that background certain forms of second reading amendments have become accepted-for example that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter-and those words are words of careful preparation-be referred to some existing body.
It is not for me to speculate on why the amendment put before us does not use the words "the subject matter of the bill" but, rather, chooses to use some other language-a point which the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said was a picayune objection to it. However, it is more than simply the language that is involved. In order to broaden the acceptability of a second reading amendment by permitting the mover of a second reading amendment to use his or her description or impression of what is the subject matter of a bill, rather than to use the specific term "the subject matter of the bill", can only open the question of what is in fact the subject matter of the bill to interpretation, discussion, and in fact disagreement.
I would have to hold that the term "the subject matter of the bill" is a very important term indeed. Secondly, precedents have been discussed in the recent past, as referred to by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), with reference to the subject matter of a bill being not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to some existing committee. The fact that the commission which is described in the motion is not in existence may not, to me, be as important as the fact that the words "independent commission" raise again a question of interpretation. For indeed, when is it possible to satisfy members of the House that the commission, if it were to be appointed in the future, is in fact really an independent commission? It may be capable of definition; on the other hand it may not. What might in the opinion of one member of the House be a totally independent commission might not be satisfactory in the mind of another member. Both the term "subject matter of the bill" and the words substituted therefor, "independent commission", raise questions which would have to be agreed upon and decided.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made reference to one precedent where the second reading amendment was accepted when the resolution contained in it was that a referendum on the principle of the bill be held. I would refer him to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the eighteenth edition, page 510, subparagraph (10). While he may be able to point to
December 19, 1974

occasions on which that kind of second reading amendment has been accepted, this paragraph points to occasions on which the very identical amendment to which he has referred has been rejected.
Therefore, I would hold that the notion of a new description of what is the subject matter of a bill and the notion of an independent commission, which would be the subject, I would think, of discussion and perhaps disagreement as to composition, both introduce, in my opinion, a new concept to the bill which did not previously exist.
I will not go on to deal with the other very interesting point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), namely, that the establishment of an independent commission might indeed call for additional financing-and I can hardly think of anyone who would be more sensitive to that problem than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who I am sure would conclude, on the basis of that very possibility, that the recommendation contained in the bill would have to be altered for that very purpose alone.


William Arnold Peters: That is debate.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Therefore, for at least three reasons-
Mb'. Peters: Ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For at least three reasons-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Therefore, for those reasons I have to hold that the amendment that has been put forward introduces on at least three grounds a totally new proposition, and the amendment offends all the precedents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder for the edification of the House if the government House leader could indicate the business for tomorrow. Is it the intention of the government to proceed as suggested earlier, with the adjournment motion? If we knew that, members could perhaps indicate their disposition accordingly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow it would be my plan to call the adjournment motion, and to call as business Bill C-9, the report stage, and then with unanimous consent we could deal with Bill C-38. There are also four bills from the Senate in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), which I would like to bring forward for consideration with the hope of getting them through all stages. I think they are non-controversial, and they have been approved by the Senate.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, on December 4, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) if he would reconsider-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. If hon. members wish to carry on conversations, please do so behind the curtains.


William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, on December 4 I asked the Minister of Finance if he would reconsider his budgetary proposal to impose an additional 10 per cent federal sales tax on pleasure boats that use motors of 20-horsepower or over. The minister said he could not give that assurance, but that it would obviously be a topic of conversation before the committee of the whole house.
Since that time the tax has become a topic of conversation and of controversy all across the country. I am sure the minister must be aware of that, because there is not a member of this House who has not had some representations from constituents on this matter, especially from ridings where tourism is a major factor in the local economy, as it is in my own constituency of Victoria-Haliburton.
On the face of it a 10 per cent sales tax does not sound like much, and I feel certain that the Minister of Finance did not have all the information at his disposal on the probable effects of such a tax, otherwise he would have reconsidered even before tabling the budget.
At first glance it would appear that the only people who might be affected by this tax would be those who can afford to buy a large pleasure boat, along with all the necessary equipment such as a motor. The average person might suggest that it is perfectly all right to slap an additional tax on the wealthy boat owner, especially if the object is to cut down on the use of gasoline and other petroleum products.
However, the problem of this tax goes much deeper than the question of taxing the rich, or of saving on fuel consumption. This tax strikes at the very heart of the tourist industry in Canada. I do not have to remind my hon. colleagues in this House of the millions of dollars we spend each year promoting tourism in Canada, or of the hundreds of millions of dollars we get back each year from the great tourist industry. Perhaps I should remind some hon. members, though, that there are some ridings in Canada that depend so much on tourism that it might be called the cornerstone of their local economies.
It might surprise some hon. members to learn that a reduction in such things as boat building in other ridings could have a major impact on employment in their own ridings. This tax cuts right across the marine industry, not just the marina operator in a tourist centre. The boat and

December 19, 1974
Adjournment Debate
motor purchased by a marina operator in a tourist area are manufactured from parts and materials produced in cities and towns all across the country, many of them far removed from the lakes and rivers where the boats are used. The woodworking industries, paint and varnish industries, and industries that produce parts from metals, plastics, rubber and other materials are involved in building boats and motors. You will find leather, fabric, formica and dozens of other products in a finished boat, Madam Speaker, and the production and fabrication of these materials and components employs tens or even hundreds of thousands of people.
Already I have been told by businessmen in my riding that they have had cancellations of orders for boats since the budget was tabled in November, and I have been told that the 10 per cent tax will result in cut-backs instead of expansion in the tourist industry in my riding. I know that the minister will insist that people are overreacting to the tax, but I can assure him that these business people know what they are doing and what they are saying. They tell me, for instance, that a boat that cost $6,995 last year will cost $10,000 in the coming year, taking into account the effect of inflation and the new 10 per cent sales tax. This is something I can understand.
I would like to remind the minister that we are actually talking about a 22 per cent tax on boats and motors, as the new tax of 10 per cent is in addition to the federal sales tax of 12 per cent. The minister implied in his budget speech that this tax would have the effect of conserving fuel. I simply cannot accept this argument as a good enough reason to impose a crippling tax on a Canadian industry that is trying just to hold its own.
Fuel consumption by pleasure boaters represents only a small fraction of total consumption in Canada today, an yet pleasure boating is a very large factor in attracting Canadians and Americans to our vacation and recreation areas. In fact both federal and provincial tourist agencies encourage people to bring their boats to our vacation areas.
One other effect of the added tax is to place importers of American-built boats in a position of competitive advantage over distributors of Canadian-built boats. The effect of this will be felt throughout the industry, in manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing of boats and motors. While the minister might suggest increasing taxes on imported boats, that is not the answer, Madam Speaker. Our people in the tourist industry do not want retaliation against outsiders, they want help for their own industry. On page eight of his budget speech the Minister of Finance Turner said, and I quote:
The fiscal stimulus should come primarily from a further cut in taxes.
And in the same paragraph he said:
I believe that tax cuts can help to reduce prices directly or indirectly and thus slow down the upward momentum of inflation.
The minister did not say exactly what tax cuts he was referring to, but I say that a reduction in the sales tax on boats and motors would have made a lot of sense. Instead of that, though, we find that the minister increased the tax on boats and motors. When we add the increase in inflation over the past year of 13 per cent, and the additional 10 per cent sales tax, we see that the boat builders and marina operators are faced with a cost increase in the

coming year of at least 23 per cent. This is shocking, Madam Speaker, especially when the boat and motorbuilding industries were expecting a reduction in taxes, along the lines of the 7 per cent reduction in taxes on building materials.
What is most surprising is that the minister included boats and motors in a paragraph dealing with high energy consuming vehicles, such as large, luxury mot.or cars and motorcycles. This is like comparing apples with oranges, and ignores the special nature of the situation in the tourist industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first of all may I compliment the hon. member on the splendid research he has obviously done on this matter. The proposed special excise taxes on energy consuming vehicles constitute one of several programs the government has introduced to deal with the critical question of conserving Canada's declining energy resources.


Mr. Nowlan:: You are reading.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Other measures include the government's recent announcement-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Stop reading.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If the hon. member wants to speak he can go outside, but right now I have the floor.
Other measures include the government's recent announcement to reduce dramatically exports of Canadian oil and petroleum products. In addition the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has stated that he will shortly be bringing forward energy conservation proposals.
The government is, of course, aware that the special excise taxes will have some impact on the industries involved. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) must appreciate, however, that energy conservation cannot be effected without some forms of consumption being curtailed. It is the government's view that measures are necessary now in order to minimize the disruptive impact of the future dislocations which will occur as world energy reserves continue to decline.
When the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton first raised this question, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated that it would receive further consideration during the committee stage of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. The hon. member may wish to pursue the matter further with the minister at that time, and I would suggest that he do that. As I have indicated earlier, he researched his question. I was trying to tell him that it will be considered in committee, but it is tough to speak over the hon. member opposite whom I will not identify but who is rather loud here this evening.
December 19, 1974	COMMONS DEBATES	2423


LABOUR CONDITIONS-POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION TO PROTECT UNION MEMBERS FROM DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT BY UNIONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, twice recently I have raised the question relating to hiring hall practices with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) suggesting, on December 16, that the minister consider amending the Canada Shipping Act which deals with this subject, and also suggesting that the minister take a look at Part V of the Canada Labour Code with regard to making it easier for union members to seek redress for any abuses which they may incur within their own unions. I refer the minister to the editorial in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen in support of this contention, and I would also like to point out that the recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris about the same hiring hall practices have still not been acted upon even after ten years.
All this is in the general context of the practices of the Seafarers' International Union, and I do not wish to go .into detail at this time about the various sections that are involved in the Canada Shipping Act and the Canada Labour Code. They are, or should be, well known to the minister, as Mr. Speaker properly pointed out on another occasion. But in view of the need for an improved procedure to safeguard union members and to encourage them to come forward to speak out against improper labour practices, I want to put on record some observations related to this topic and to the SIU.
The Hon. George Kerr, solicitor general of Ontario, said in a recent news release that police so far have conducted over 225 interviews with members of the SIU. Most of those interviews indicated that assaults and beatings were taking place within the union. The minister went on to say further that his department had encountered great reluctance on the part of union members to come forward to give evidence relating to acts of violence or other wrongdoing, because of a general atmosphere of intimidation and reprisal within the organization.
It seems incredible to me that the federal government, particularly with some of its key ministers having some connection with the SIU, either past or present, does not welcome the opportunity to have a full and open inquiry so that the situation may be fully dealt with and any necessary reforms instituted.
I want to put on the record that on November 14, 1973, an illegal picket line was put up around the motor vessel Ontario owned by Bomar Navigation, and when a solicitor, accompanied by a photographer and a shipping executive, went to the scene to see the reason for the illegal picketing, a gang led by Roy Willis, who is well known within SIU circles as a strong man in the Toronto area, assaulted the solicitor and shipping executive, and only the intervention of the harbour police saved them from serious harm.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour, and through him his fellow cabinet members, why they are taking so casually the observations of Mr. Justice Norris that the present president of the SIU is not his own man and is being controlled by outside interests. I presume that by "outside interests" we are talking about the American arm of the union, and its head office based in New York under Mr. Paul Hall.
Adjournment Debate
I should also like to ask the minister when he intends to inform the House and the public why the union finds it necessary to have individuals in its employ and prominent in its Montreal operations, like Ken McGuire, George Baldo and Ron Diamond, who are well known to the police over a long period of time? And why is it so difficult for anyone investigating to find out the exact nature of their difficulties with the law and the disposition of the various charges?
I have some information that I will give to the minister. I am curious to see how far he will go on his own to show that he and his colleagues are really interested in checking into what makes the SIU tick, and why it is such a controversial union.
Let me say this to him, that Mr. McGuire is well known to be from the McGuire-Point St. Charles gang. These men are well known underground figures. They have had encounters with the police over the last 15 years, and are known to the police as union strong arm men. Mr. Rod Diamond has a record. I am only dealing with people who have records. I am not going to bring up SIU people who have only been charged. His record shows breaking entering and theft, possession of stolen goods, and keeping a bawdy house. Mr. George Baldo's accomplishments include breaking and entering with intent, possession of burglary tools, found in a gaming house, assault occasioning bodily harm, damage to property, and dangerous driving.
Surely with this prompting the minister will show a little initiative and check into these names which I have provided to him. Perhaps he would also be good enough to check into the incident I mentioned earlier about the illegal picket line. If I understand the minister's position, and the government's position, they are asking members of the opposition to give them facts. I am now giving them a few facts, and I would be interested in how they act on those before I divulge any more.
I would also be interested in whether the minister will give us some firm assurance that, in view of the apparent abuses existing within the SIU, he is serious about taking his responsibilities in hand to protect hardworking individual members of the SIU rather than treating their complaints in what I consider may well be a casual manner, or referring them to the Canada Labour Relations Board which cannot hear complaints unless several prerequisites are observed. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know if the minister proposes to fill a vacancy which I understand exists on this Canada Labour Relations Board at this particularly critical time and in regard to which the Solicitor General of Ontario has stated:
The allegations which have attracted public attention are concerned not solely with individual criminal occurrences, but relate to the general conduct of the union and its effect upon the civil rights, freedom of choice and working conditions of the members.
This is the point that concerns me, and I certainly hope that the Minister of Labour will look into all the various responsibilities and duties that he has to control. This is an international union, but it should be his aim to make working conditions better and easier for members of the rank and file who, I believe, may be suffering abuse because of the conditions which exist within the union. I believe this should be looked into immediately.

December 19, 1974
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, my minister indicated in a response to a question on December 16 by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) that he was prepared to consider amendments to the Labour Code with respect to any matters that are prejudicial to union members which can give the men protection.
It should be remembered that following Mr. Justice Norris' report and recommendations, the union was placed under a trusteeship pursuant to an act of parliament. It is reasonable to assume that the hiring hall arrangements provided for in the collective agreement between the SIU and the various shipping firms would have been a matter that would have been examined very closely by them. While the trustees expressed the desire that the parties examine joint administration of hiring halls, they made no recommendations with respect to legislative amendments in this area. It is interesting to note that in their final report, submitted over the signature of the chairman, His Honour Judge Rene Lippe, in December, 1967, the trustees made the following observation:
The undemocratic union practices of the past no longer prevail and the individual rights of seamen are sufficiently well protected both in law and in practice.
During the examination of industrial relations which was conducted by the Woods task force, the report of which led to the present Canada Labour Code, Part V, the subject matter of union hiring halls was considered. The Department of Labour, after studying the report of the task force and the representations made by representatives of labour and management, concluded that it would be a mistake to attempt statutory regulation of the relationship between the individual and the union to the extent recommended by the task force. This conclusion was based on grounds of both principle and anticipated difficulties in connection with enforcement of such statutory regulation. Further, it became apparent that unless there was demonstrable need, statutory regulation would be strenuously opposed as being undue interference in the internal affairs of the labour movement.
However, the Canada Labour Code was amended to provide for prohibitions relating to trade unions under Section 185 of the Code. While it is true that there is no reference to hiring hall practices in the present code, trade unions are prohibited from discriminating against a person in regard to employment, a term or condition of employment, or membership in a trade union. Further, a union is prohibited from taking disciplinary action against or imposing any form of penalty on an employee by applying to him in a discriminatory manner the standards of discipline of the trade union. A trade union is also prohibited from expelling or suspending an employee from membership in a trade union, or denying membership in the trade union to an employee by applying to him in a discriminatory manner the membership rules of the trade union.
It was obviously the will of parliament at that time that such provisions were sufficient to protect an individual union member from discriminatory treatment by a union.
I can only repeat what my minister said on December 16, that the department is prepared to consider amendments to the code with respect to any matters that are prejudicial to union members and which can give the men protection. However, apart from the evidence presented by the hon. member for Central Nova, there did not appear to be sufficient evidence to support at this time further statutory regulation of the relationship between individuals and unions. This new evidence will be carefully scrutinized.
I can assure the House that, if he had to consider only his personal preferences, the minister would welcome indeed the opportunity for a full public inquiry at the earliest possible time, but it is necessary for the minister and the government to consider the effect of such an action on the future of labour relations. Therefore, there has to be sufficient evidence to justify such a course of action, and the government cannot lightly embark upon investigations.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:23 p.m.

Friday, December 20, 1974