1974-12-17

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

['Order, please. If there are no other hon. members who want to make a contribution at this time, I would first of all like to examine the precedents that have been presented to me and to give the matter some serious consideration. I would propose to review the matter, perhaps for one day, and make a decision tomorrow.\nI would say immediately that there are two points I can dispose of quickly, the first being the question of notice. It is true that one of the frequent grounds for disqualifying a question of privilege has been that it has not been raised at the first opportunity. I have indicated in some areas of the application of the rules of the House that I propose to take a very stern and strict stand. However, I must say that this is one area in which I do not propose to take that stand because I think an effort has been made in this case to bring to light at the first available opportunity the question of privilege and this has been done in earlier examples when members indicated there was something which came forward during debate which might give rise to a question of privilege but they wanted the opportunity to examine the exact comments. These facts have held that technicality in abeyance in order to leave them free at a later time to raise the question for further discussion.\nIn addition, in this particular case the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is accurate when he says that when the matter was raised it was inopportune to proceed with it at that time. That aspect has been resolved, after further delays until today, by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) indicating he was prepared to proceed on behalf of his party leader today. It was partially because of the inability of the hon. member for Temiscamingue to be here to participate in these discussions that it was deferred. I think it would be most unjust to hold that deferral against the person moving the motion. I am not questioning the technical element of notice because I believe the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) raised the question at the first time he had an opportunity which was at the beginning of proceedings on the day next following the speech complained of, which was made last Thursday evening.\nTributes to Mackenzie King\nThe second point is the question raised by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas) about the seriousness of his application under Standing Order 43.1 want to make it absolutely clear that simply because I held, as I have on many other occasions and will continue to hold if it is necessary to do so, a strict rule on motions proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 that not only must they be important but must be matters of urgent and pressing necessity. In this case the fact that I held this was not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and therefore could not be moved under Standing Order 43, in no way diminishes the importance of it. There have been measures proposed pursuant to that rule which I will repeat, are always extremely important and serious measures but that does not necessarily mean that they require urgent and pressing consideration by this chamber. This is one of them. It is a very important question but it would not necessitate the standing aside of the business of the day for the House to give immediate consideration to it. I think it falls into the general area of privilege and one which is giving the Chair some concern. For that reason I propose to reserve to see whether there is a prima facie question of privilege and whether the matter ought to be resolved by referring it to a standing committee.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-15, an act to amend the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege being assured that you know the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is ready to answer that question.
In this House, last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) stated the following:
Mr. Speaker, I would like one thing to be clear, following the question of privilege of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) yesterday to the effect that the hon. member for Temiscamingue had made accusations against all hon. members in this House: that was simply not the case. I wish to say that after two or three days, and after having seen the photograph of the hon. member for Joliette in the newspapers, I asked myself whether perhaps he himself had not helped to pay for the cost of his personal publicity in some of the newspapers of the province, whether it be French or English newspapers.
Later on, the hon. member for Temiscamingue referred to a member of the press who had been offered a bribe, and went on to state:
She did not tear up the $10, 1 am sure of that. Let her name the member, that does not bother me because there are Liberals and Progressive Conservatives who offer them the same thing, or do not, but who give them $10 or $20. They keep their mouths shut.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the aspect of that question that reflects on my conduct and that of my colleagues.
Citation 110 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, reads:
.. . But to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a member must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member and the conduct or language on which the libel is based must be actions performed or words uttered in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Bad faith must be imputed and the charge cannot be indefinite. A libel on a member's extra-parliamentary conduct may however constitute a breach of privilege if it is designed to influence the proceedings of the House.
A little further, paragraph (h) of Citation 111 states that a breach of privilege is:
(h) Imputations against members of corruption in the execution of their duties.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe I as well as other members were slanderously accused of bad faith and corruption in the execution of our duties and that such charges are a breach of a privilege and if you believe that it is a prima facie question of privilege, I move, 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.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with you and with my other colleagues to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this question of privilege is out of order and that, for several reasons.
On page 2227 of Hansard for Friday December 13, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas) presented a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. His motion was that the question and others be referred to the appropriate committee. Other members rose to speak. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that he had not been able to catch the motion and asked that it be repeated and finally, the Speaker gave a ruling on the motion. I quote the Speaker's words:
Since the matter casts reflections on the practices of some members of the House ...
Therefore the Speaker gave a ruling on his own authority while the motion was never considered and presented otherwise than under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and I quote again:
... Because it is a recent allegation and was raised again last night on a question of privilege ...
-we will start talking about it later-
... it does have some immediacy.
Then Mr. Speaker proceeded and concluded as reported on page 2228:
... in order to be consistent with other rulings I have made, I must say I have doubts that the motion is of pressing necessity.
The motion was put forward pursuant to Standing Order 43. It was the first and only motion proposed until a few moments earlier, it was the only one, and it was put forward pursuant to Standing Order 43.
When the Speaker refuses to ask for unanimous consent, as required by rules and practise, this puts an end to the matter at least as far as procedure is concerned.
Immediately after, the hon. member for Joliette rose and said:

December 17, 1974
Privilege-Mr. La Salle
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to point out that I will readily support the motion ...
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Joliette is confused, he cannot support a motion that was not proposed to the House, that has just been declared out of order by the Speaker. I refer to the House of Commons debates of December 13 and more precisely to page 2228.
Mr. Speaker, his question of privilege was not followed by a motion. And this is my point. All he said was this:
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that his insinuation is unacceptable in my case. I trust the House will ask the hon. member to be more specific and make his accusations in the public forum and not take shelter behind parliamentary immunity.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette is not interested to see the matter dealt with in this House, but he would like the hon. member for Temiscamingue to repeat the same remarks outside this House.
He resumes his seat, he does not have any question nor does he move any motion. The hon. member for Peace River, who is a tricky man as we all know, noticed the mistake of his colleague from Joliette. He lost no time in standing up and saying this:
I would just point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) having risen now, it might be presumed that he has reserved the right to bring up the matter and move a motion, perhaps on Monday or Tuesday. In that case, he would have to send Your Honour notice. By rising as he has now in respect of the allegation which he has charged appear to have been made against him, he has, I believe taken the proper course, and has reserved his right to make a motion later.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 17, as amended October 14, 1971, it is stated and I quote:
17. (1) Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
However, when that happened in the House yesterday, neither the member for Peace River nor the member for Joliette were moving a motion. Both were making allegations and the member for Peace River gave a hand to the member for Joliette when he said that perhaps or probably he would move a motion later.
And at that time, Mr. Speaker completed what he had said initially on a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 and stated:
Order, please. As I have endeavoured to indicate to the hon. member, I take it he has raised a question of privilege at this time personally. I would prefer to reserve on it. This is a matter of some importance and I could perhaps make a decision on Monday.
Mr. Speaker, this is why the question arises again today. I would like to know why the Chair can reserve until Monday a question or a motion of which it has not been advised in the House to begin with.
Mr. Speaker, if that becomes a practice, that would mean that any hon. member could stand up without giving notice to the Chair, as provided under Standing Order 17(2), and orally advise the Speaker in the House and not in his office, that he will rise a question of privilege followed later by a motion. And the Chair agrees with that.
When the Chair agrees with such a procedure, with the help of that cunning fox the hon. member for Peace River, we are left to assume that the Chair agrees with the content of the question, whereas legally or in procedural

terms the Chair has never been precisely asked to deal with the heart of the matter on procedural grounds.
I am therefore, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that the drafting of the motion is faulty.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, the House is in no way entitled to oblige an hon. member to bring a charge against somebody else when that member has accused himself. The hon. member for Temiscamingue laid no definite accusation against anybody in the House. And as reported on page 2217 of Hansard, he himself said, I quote:
... to the effect that the hon. member for Temiscamingue has made accusations against all hon. members in this House...
The hon. member for Temiscamingue said:
. .. that was simply not the case.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not accusing anybody. He is accusing himself, which is quite different, for that is what the matter is about. I therefore believe there is no question of privilege for that second reason, since the committee to which that question will eventually be referred will have no alternative but to repeat to the hon. member for Temiscamingue the very same accusations he laid against himself.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, no one or nothing will be much better off for it, since on the other hand the hon. member for Temiscamingue said on page 2217-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having considerable difficulty hearing the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). The question of privilege to which the hon. member is addressing himself concerns alleged accusations made against other hon. members and members of the press. I think it is a matter of considerable importance to all hon. members particularly and to the electorate since it touches relations between the electorate and the press and the press and the electorate. I am most anxious to hear the hon. member if he will continue his remarks.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that the House cannot compel a member to accuse himself before a committee, when this member did so in the House. For that second reason, I believe that this is not a question of privilege since, as I just said, the committee might only have the member for Temiscamingue repeat the same accusations he raised against himself, by showing that the article had really been written.
Mr. Speaker, I connect this question to the fact that for more than five sittings, day after day, the Progressive Conservative party has made malicious and serious insinuations against Crown ministers in the House. Never have the Progressive Conservatives dared lay definite charges against any of the ministers. They only made insinuations. And now, Mr. Speaker, those same members would like the hon. member of Temiscamingue to accept being questioned by a committee, while he accused himself and Progressive Conservatives never had the guts to accuse the ministers on alleged insinuations.
In the case of the Crown ministers, Mr. Speaker, I will humbly point out to you that it took time for the House to
December 17, 1974

do so, that we had to support inconveniences during the question period, no charge has been laid, no full enquiry has been requested and, finally, the House had no authority to allow or order the Crown to hold one. The Crown may sometimes take it upon itself not to order an inquiry, that becomes a ministerial decision. I cannot see how, Mr. Speaker, while this is not a question of privilege-since the member accused himself-the House could now have the right which it did not have in the case of ministers.
At that time, the Progressive Conservatives merely tarnished reputations, made hints. As I see it, the Speaker could not then, of his own free will, compel the Progressive Conservatives to lay charges. The Chair always considered the questions put at that time by members as consistent with the Standing Orders. That is what the hon. member of Temiscamingue did. But instead of tarnishing the reputation of others, he committed himself. For this reason I do not see how the Progressive Conservatives could blame the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada. Quite the opposite, they should show the same courage and withdraw their insinuations against Liberal ministers, apologize to this House and to the people of Canada for the time that was lost by the House through their own fault, because they, or at least some of them did indeed receive monies, as is evidenced in Hansard.. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, our proceedings are a farce.
In closing, I would repeat my first argument, that the Chair, assuming it accepted the motion by the hon. member for Joliette, would in effect recognize that a notice has been served orally by the House on a matter that was never submitted to it, and it would thereby make a precedent. In those circumstances and assuming the Speaker accepted that, I would then intend, using the same methods used by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to verbally inform you that I shall introduce a motion to the effect that all members who might have received monies from these unions be called to give evidence.
So, Mr. Speaker, such a precedent would open a never ending process of mud throwing. I cannot see what pleasure the Progressive Conservatives would derive from that. As far as the member for Temiscamingue is concerned, he has a reputation of an honest citizen across the country, and I have no intention of letting it be tarnished if members will absolutely make accusations, when he accused himself.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statements made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), for whose capacity for flexibility I have the greatest admiration, there is this comparison between the charges alleged by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and statements that members of this party have made with respect to the operations of the SIU. In both cases we are seeking, have sought and will continue to seek, a public inquiry not only into the charges made by the hon. member for Joliette, but to the extent it has been compared with the other situation we seek to procure from a reluctant and stubborn government a full inquiry into the other matter as well. I do not think the hon. member can make that kind of comparison.
Privilege-Mr. La Salle
In so far as concerns the allegation made about notice given to Your Honour, Your Honour will be aware that yesterday, pursuant to what was discussed in the House on Friday, the Chair was given notice of the intent to deal with this matter. As I rose to speak I saw that the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) was not in the House and realized, as Your Honour quite properly said, that we should wait until today to give him an opportunity to be here. I am glad the hon. member for Lotbiniere has answered for him. He did indicate to me that he was prepared to answer for the hon. member, and said he would even be willing to suffer any penalty that might be levied against the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
These are very serious accusations and I think this question of privilege should be discussed. I admit that all too often in this House there are cases of abuse in respect of questions of privilege. I am frank to admit that I have witnessed a number of these incidents. I am sure Your Honour, sitting where you now do, has had occasion in the last few months to observe from that elevated position much more than you did when sitting at our level. Perhaps there have been more instances of abuse of alleged privileges than was the case in the past.
Years ago, when the issue of privilege first arose, the circumstances were quite different from those that obtain today. Today, the press gallery, its members and members of the radio and television media are the window through which the world looks in on the workings, deliberations and statements of this House. I think it is imperative-I say this as the foundation of my argument-that people outside this chamber be entitled to expect that what is said in this House is, in fact, reasonably and impartially reported.
It may well be that there are issues of bias and prejudice, and members of this House may feel they are not being reported as adequately or as often as they would like. But if it becomes evident that what is being reported as having been said in this House by members is a distortion, an exaggeration or an improper interpretation because members are paying for the privilege, then obviously the public, whom members of the press gallery and ourselves serve, will become more cynical than they have been in the past in respect of what are the true statements emanating from this House. That is why I and members of my party attach a very considerable degree of importance to what is said here.
I am not going to retrace the ground covered by the hon. member for Joliette. His statements are on the record and I am sure Your Honour has considered them. However, there are a few arguments I would like to make, as we are not without precedent as to what should and what should not constitute a privilege. I quote from an article appearing in The Parliamentarian of July, 1973, written by a distinguished member of the table of this House. It is said at page 150 of this book:
For instance, scandalous or libellous reflections on the proceedings of the House and upon members individually have been considered as breaches of privilege.
In addition, a very excellent document on parliamentary privilege was prepared by the research branch of the Library of Parliament, dated May 28, 1969, which presents good study of this issue. At page 3 we find the following:

December 17, 1974
Privilege-Mr. La Salle
The privileges of the House are part of the law of the land; they were given to the Houses of Parliament for the sake of the subject, and not for the convenience of the member.
I stress that statement because it confirms what I said earlier, that the relationship between this House, members of the press gallery and the public lying beyond is of the utmost importance to the proceedings of this House and the extent to which its proceedings are deemed to be fairly, accurately and properly reported. I should now like to read the following which appears on page 6 of this document:
As recently as 1955 a case arose in Australia which resulted in the proprietor of a newspaper and the writer of an article which appeared in it being sentenced to three months, imprisonment by the House of Representatives for publishing defamatory allegations against a member.
I emphasize the words, "defamatory allegations against a member". The quotation continues:
Another serious case occurred in Great Britain in 1947 which resulted in a member being expelled from the House and the editor of the newspaper for which the member wrote an offending article being severely censured. These were cases in which a gross contempt of the House was clearly established.
Then on page 7 we find these words:
In the session of 1963-64, for example, a complaint was raised against Mr. Quintin Hogg concerning a public speech he made in the course of which he alleged that the then government's "elbows had been jarred in almost every part of the world by individual Labour members' partisanship of subversive activities."
Later in the same article we find this:
The case arose from a press article containing scurrilous allegations against unnamed members of parliament to the effect that they had leaked inside information to the press in exchange for money or drink.
That is terrible, Mr. Speaker. The article continues:
The relevant paragraphs of the committee's report reads as follows: "In modern times the practice of holding private meetings in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster of different parties has become well established and, in the view of your committee, it must now be taken to form a normal and everyday incident of parliamentary procedure...
Then we find the following conclusion:
It follows that an unfounded imputation in regard to such meetings involves an affront to the House as such. Your committee consider that an unjustified allegation that members regularly betray the confidence of private party meetings either for payment or whilst their discretion has been undermined by drink is a serious contempt.
There are similar statements in May's which are well known and to which I shall not refer Your Honour. Some years ago this House and the House in Westminster gave up the right to forbid the publication of speeches made in the House. At one time to publish what was said in the House of Commons was considered contempt and such an act was punishable. That right was given up, but it was made subject to the condition that the debates be correctly and faithfully recorded. That is important, because the public is entitled to expect that the speeches will be faithfully and accurately reported. If that judgment is challenged by statements which appear to have been made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, obviously the public will not have the degree of confidence in the reporting of what is said in this House to which it is entitled.

I shall conclude in this light. 1 realize that if Your Honour holds that there is a prima facie case, and the motion is put and accepted, we will, of course, be constrained to the narrow limits of the motion; but I should like to think that in the not too distant future this matter will be considered by the House since we are talking about a move in the area of televising our proceedings. I shall not say whether I will be for or against such a move. However, since we are facing very obvious problems, I would hope an appropriate committee would make a complete study of questions of privilege.
It seems to me that somehow there must derive, from the allegations contained in the printed record of Hansard, the material for determining whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. Either the hon. member for Temiscamingue is correct, and members of this House have paid money to gain some degree of prominence or to have their articles or statements printed or distorted, or the hon. member for Temiscamingue is wrong, in which case he is immediately in contempt of this House for having made such a charge without any proof as to its correctness.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, certainly in no way shall I be as eloquent as the preceding hon. gentlemen, because they have much more experience in addressing this House than I have. Since my motion under Standing Order 43 was mentioned in the discussion of the question of privilege, I would simply point out that the question I posed in presenting it last Friday, although it was not taken too seriously, was given my serious consideration because, as backbenchers, many of us who have arrived here for the first time will be looking to the words of Hansard and those that appear in the press as sources on which we must rely.
When an allegation is made such as this, that money has been paid for particular favours, then I think there is certainly a question of privilege, not only in respect of those who are in the front benches but, most definitely, in respect of those of us who are in the back benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: We should be able to look with respect upon this place. I feel that alone is enough to make it most definitely a question of privilege for hon. members. To my way of thinking, the members of the parliamentary press gallery should have an opportunity to answer these charges without having to resort to the last means they have, which is making statements in the press against these allegations. I have spent a good number of years as a member of the press, and these allegations came to me as a complete surprise. Although I was not of the stature of some of the members of our parliamentary press gallery, I can say that no one ever offered me money and I never asked for any.
More importantly, I found that colleagues with whom I dealt in my close to 20 years in the press media were most meticulous in governing themselves. They check each other: at least, where I was we certainly checked each other to see that the reporting was without bias and that there was an honest attempt to report the facts as they were presented to us. Certainly, I think members of the
December 17, 1974

parliamentary press gallery would like to know, in respect of the allegations made by the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette), the names of other hon. members who paid money and members of the parliamentary press gallery who received such money. I think they would like to know who these people are, and would come down just as hard on them as we would in respect of allegations found to be true.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very brief. After all, you have been given plenty of words of wisdom to ponder with respect to this point. I hesitate to join in anything that might sound like an attempt to pillory the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), but it does seem that the statements he has made regarding some other members of the House of Commons are such that he ought to be given the opportunity either to confirm those statements or to withdraw them. It would seem to me that reference of the matter to a committee might be the best way to resolve it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other hon. members who want to make a contribution at this time, I would first of all like to examine the precedents that have been presented to me and to give the matter some serious consideration. I would propose to review the matter, perhaps for one day, and make a decision tomorrow.
I would say immediately that there are two points I can dispose of quickly, the first being the question of notice. It is true that one of the frequent grounds for disqualifying a question of privilege has been that it has not been raised at the first opportunity. I have indicated in some areas of the application of the rules of the House that I propose to take a very stern and strict stand. However, I must say that this is one area in which I do not propose to take that stand because I think an effort has been made in this case to bring to light at the first available opportunity the question of privilege and this has been done in earlier examples when members indicated there was something which came forward during debate which might give rise to a question of privilege but they wanted the opportunity to examine the exact comments. These facts have held that technicality in abeyance in order to leave them free at a later time to raise the question for further discussion.
In addition, in this particular case the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is accurate when he says that when the matter was raised it was inopportune to proceed with it at that time. That aspect has been resolved, after further delays until today, by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) indicating he was prepared to proceed on behalf of his party leader today. It was partially because of the inability of the hon. member for Temiscamingue to be here to participate in these discussions that it was deferred. I think it would be most unjust to hold that deferral against the person moving the motion. I am not questioning the technical element of notice because I believe the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) raised the question at the first time he had an opportunity which was at the beginning of proceedings on the day next following the speech complained of, which was made last Thursday evening.
Tributes to Mackenzie King
The second point is the question raised by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas) about the seriousness of his application under Standing Order 43.1 want to make it absolutely clear that simply because I held, as I have on many other occasions and will continue to hold if it is necessary to do so, a strict rule on motions proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 that not only must they be important but must be matters of urgent and pressing necessity. In this case the fact that I held this was not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and therefore could not be moved under Standing Order 43, in no way diminishes the importance of it. There have been measures proposed pursuant to that rule which I will repeat, are always extremely important and serious measures but that does not necessarily mean that they require urgent and pressing consideration by this chamber. This is one of them. It is a very important question but it would not necessitate the standing aside of the business of the day for the House to give immediate consideration to it. I think it falls into the general area of privilege and one which is giving the Chair some concern. For that reason I propose to reserve to see whether there is a prima facie question of privilege and whether the matter ought to be resolved by referring it to a standing committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a few minutes about the centennial of the birth of one of the greatest politicians of this century, William Lyon Mackenzie King.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Did you talk with him today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we can say about this man that not only does he deserve the title of great Canadian, but also that the period during which he lived and gave his services to Canada, including 22 years as Prime Minister, is itself incredible. If we go back to the year when Mr. King was born it seems unavoidable that he should have been drawn by the excitement of a political career which more than any other occupation allowed him to contribute as he wished to the growth of his country.

In a sense, Mr. King grew up with the Canadian confederation. His youth paralleled the imagination, the controversy and the faith that pushed a railroad across this country, uniting it in a physical way.
His young manhood, during which his political awareness was shaped for the future, was set against a background of war in far off lands which finally erupted on the European continent drawing Canadians into battle and death.

Tributes to Mackenzie King
During and after World War I, Mr. King was at the centre of the turmoil and anxiety which stretched the cohesion of the nation and its political parties almost to the breaking point. He devoted his energies toward easing those tensions.
He was plunged into the realities of international negotiation where he developed a determination that Canada must be allowed to deal with her fellow nations on her own terms, with independence. This determination remained throughout his career.
He watched Canada suffer the despair and hardship of the great depression, and another tragic and costly world war. When he died in 1950, the nation was moving forward into an era of prosperity and, barring further madness, an era of peace.
These were great events requiring brilliance in politics, imagination in outlook and a strength of national purpose that would persistently prevent traditional cultural and regional divisions from pulling Canada apart.
Take a look at the stature of some of the political leaders in Mr. King's lifetime-Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, J. S. Woodsworth, Arthur Meighen and Louis St. Laurent. These men were giants in Canadian history at a time when such qualities were imperative.
Mr. Speaker, in countless ways, recognized or subtle, Mr. King for 40 years placed his stamp on Canadian political life, parliament and the public service. His tenure as Prime Minister was longer than that of any other Prime Minister before him in the English speaking world.
Today I simply want to pay tribute to a Canadian statesman and politician who carries so many conflicting descriptions it is almost impossible to sort out the real Mackenzie King-which perhaps was a key to his great success.
Mr. Speaker, I feel partial to the particularly appropriate words of Bruce Hutchison who said:
His works proclaim themselves, but quietly. He wrought them so gradually, he who could move so fast and take so many desperate chances while appearing to stand still, and he could produce such drastic changes with a changeless look, that his revolutionary effect on the nation's life was dimly surmised when his own ended. But now we can see that he was our greatest revolutionary ...


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in commemorating the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, a man who was in the forefront of politics and public life in this country in the first half of the present century. I think of Mr. King particularly in terms of his working toward the achievement of Canadian autonomy. As a student I recall studying international relations following the first World War, particularly those involving the United Kingdom, and becoming aware of his preoccupation with the achievement of full Canadian autonomy. This followed the movement forward achieved by Sir Robert Borden during and following the first World War. Mr. King, of course, was interested not only in Canadian autonomy, but in Canadian unity as well. It might not be an exaggeration to suggest that his work

toward maintenance of Canadian unity was perhaps the dominating aspect of his political or public life.
As a young man I remember feeling desperately impatient about any move that Mr. King might be inclined to make, and feeling, particularly, that in many areas he lagged behind public opinion. Perhaps now I should not be inclined to make some of those criticisms. Perhaps now I should be prepared to admit that he was wiser than I thought at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know he was intensely concerned with social reform. But it is not in that connection that I think of Mr. King. I think, rather, of the contribution he made to the achievement of full Canadian autonomy and the emphasis that he placed during his life on national unity. Frequently, he accepted a good deal of criticism in order to achieve what he considered to be his main goal.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset on this auspicious occasion let me make it perfectly clear, to echo something the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) frequently says, that I have not recently been in touch with the former prime minister whom we are discussing this afternoon. In all seriousness I wish, on behalf of my party, to pay tribute to William Lyon Mackenzie King for what he has contributed to the history of Canada. He played a crucial role during the years, momentous both in world history and Canadian history, 1939-45. I do not know of many other Canadians who could have done what he did in that period in holding this great and diverse country together. When the history of the time when he was Prime Minister of Canada is written, it will be seen that from 1939 to 1945 he made a very great contribution to our country. On that basis may I, on behalf of my colleagues, join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the late William Lyon Mackenzie King.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, today is the day of the great Canadian politicians in the House of Commons.
Shortly before the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), another member has brought to the fore another great Canadian, the Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Caouette).
Mr. Speaker, as a very young man, I have had the privilege to see and hear Mr. King, then Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Instinctively, I understood that there was a prominent political leader who could express his thoughts very easily and who knew how to communicate the essential of his thoughts to the people he was addressing.
I instantly felt a great admiration for this political leader. I said to myself: One day, perhaps, God permitting, I shall have the opportunity to know others and to take part in the parliamentary business with all the other members.
Providence managed very well. We have the advantage to know today political men of great stature. One may not always agree with their views, their thoughts, but one
December 17, 1974

must admit that Providence is generous towards Canadians by giving us most devoted men.
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, I recall that in the 1935 electoral campaign-I was already looking closely into what was going on in politics-Mr. King had stated in Saskatoon on September 23, 1935, that should his party be voted into office the Canadian people would witness the greatest battle ever between government and financiers. He had added that if a government failed to control its credit it was futile to talk about democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say also that Mr. King has governed the country in extremely difficult years. It is appropriate to remind the young of that because if those years were difficult there were better ones after. Many young people have had it easy and cannot conceive that there were excessively difficult times. From 1930 to 1945, Mr. King was in power as prime minister. It was during the economic crisis and war followed. God knows how excessively difficult it was to govern Canada in wartime. It must be recognized in all fairness that Mr. King did manage then to govern the country with the greatest conscientiousness possible and as soundly as he could. I am glad to say it because if we look back upon that time and reflect on the behaviour of the men in power we see not only bad but also good deeds which should inspire us today.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 wish to propose a motion on a subject of urgent and pressing necessity.
On May 23, 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the DND Boeing 707 aircraft would be overhauled at CAE in Winnipeg and, "In addition there will be vigorous attempts to attract other work from other sources" for CAE. Speaking of Dorval and Winnipeg, he stated, "Our intention is to increase jobs in every region" and "we're making sure both places will grow."
At the same time, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) stated unequivocally that the Boeing 707 overhauls would mean "the addition of 800 new jobs within the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre."
Last week in Winnipeg the Prime Minister claimed the aerospace industry in Manitoba is growing faster than any other place in Canada. A new twist has made this a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last Friday, December 13, 24 employees at CAE received lay-off notices because of lack of work. The majority of these men has successfully completed a course in Seattle, or at CAE, on overhauling Boeing aircraft. They are highly skilled aerospace workers.
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that specific government promises and commitments have been broken and no action is being taken to remedy the situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to take immediate personal action to stop these and future lay-offs, and take immediate steps to ensure that his government's promises for aerospace jobs are realized.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. 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 not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Now that the minister has been advised by the government of Ontario it is not possible for provincial police authorities to act effectively in the matter of the SIU, is the minister or the government now giving serious consideration to holding a federal inquiry into the SIU, as requested by the Ontario solicitor general? If so, when will the Minister of Justice be making a statement?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, naturally when a provincial minister asks us to give serious consideration to any matter, we tend to do so. We will be examining the issues in this case. It is, of course, prima facie not obvious why, in this particular case, the matters involved cannot be dealt with effectively by the provincial authorities. We will want to look into that. We will, of course, be waiting for further results of investigations which are under way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Minister of Justice not accept the position of the solicitor general of Ontario that the situation is not ordinary in that it involves the management of SIU affairs which is beyond the purview of the Criminal Code as such and because of the feeling that is alleged to exist, mainly a general atmosphere of intimidation and reprisal within the organization. It is alleged this has made it extremely difficult to deal with the allegations by way of laying charges under the Criminal Code. This is the general atmosphere that exists.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, to some extent that may raise questions of the effectiveness of police work and police enforcement. It is not at all unusual for criminal matters

December 17, 1974
Oral Questions
to involve several provinces and activities of persons in a number of provinces. In the ordinary course, the provincial attorneys general have been insisting that they are able to deal with these matters. This, of course, raises very important questions throughout the country if the suggestion is that when interprovincial activities are involved, the ordinary criminal administration of justice by the provincial attorney general is not possible. I also want to know from Ontario why it is that matters of intimidation, matters of alleged criminal activity, cannot be dealt with in the ordinary way with such improvements in police activity as may be required. Those are substantial questions we have to deal with in this area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the Minister of Justice a number of days ago, if I understood him, was that if those responsible for the administration of justice in the province felt they were unable to discharge their responsibilities effectively in a particular case, that would be reason for the federal government to intervene. Now that the provincial solicitor general has indicated to the Minister of Justice inability to do a satisfactory job for the reasons given, what is it the Minister of Justice requires to persuade him to move?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think more accurately I indicated that if the provincial attorney general in carrying out his obligations to enforce the criminal law was not able to do so without our assistance, I would want to consider what assistance we could offer. At the present time he has not made any specific request for assistance in carrying out his responsibilities in relation to the Criminal Code. He has indicated that the activity involves a union which has a federal charter. However, that does not change the fact that the ordinary criminal activities involved are really within the responsibilities of the provincial attorney general. As far as any request of his is concerned, it is only that we give serious consideration to having an inquiry. Of course, the simple request for serious consideration to have an inquiry does not automatically mean there will be an inquiry.


REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER OF CRITERIA FOR HOLDING INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by my leader. It appears that the government is now becoming prosecutor, judge and jury. My question is directed to the Prime Minister who, I wish to remind, stated on December 9 with regard to the Ontario government:
It is only if they report failure, that they are unable to do anything and feel very strongly that the only way to get at the facts would be by a public inquiry held by the federal government rather than them, that I would consider this matter.
In light of the circumstances presented to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, does the Prime Minister not believe it is high time that he respects the criteria which he pointed out in this House on December 9 and called for an inquiry into this entire matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman quoted me rightly that I said
(Mr. Lang.]
I would consider this matter. That is exactly what the Minister of Justice just said we would do at the request of the minister of the Ontario government. We will consider this matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the government is reluctant to move in light of the fact that the provincial government through its authorities, have consistently stated they cannot apply the facts. With all due respect, the government has been playing footsy with this matter for the past two weeks. Is there not a responsibility on the part of the government to now give us the answer rather than continuing to wait until we in this House relieve ourselves of responsibility and the government thinks the matter will die down? Why can we not have an answer now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he cannot understand our reluctance to move. I must remind him and the House that a commission of inquiry is a departure from our normal process of criminal justice. Under our system of criminal justice there is, as every member of the House knows, a presumption of innocence. That is the way in which our law operates. In very exceptional circumstances one can, and should, resort to an inquisitorial form of justice. This is not a course we would embark upon lightly and this is a position which we hope the hon. member will understand, and, perhaps, show some reluctance himself before calling for it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We want the facts.
+ * *


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his attempts to build a consensus of various groups and governments in Canada to deal with the pressing issue of inflation, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is the intention of the federal government to take the initiative, particularly in its discussions with private business, in attempting to obtain commitments from that source to provide increases in wages for the working poor in Canada in the months ahead which are at least equivalent to the average increase in the wages of industrial workers as a whole?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take that question by way of a representation which will be considered in due course. I must remind the hon. member that the Minister of Finance and myself have both stated that at this stage we are not enjoining or ordering parties to do anything. It is an exploratory phase.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the government has taken certain initiatives with regard to the salaries of members of parliament-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Will you accept it?


John Edward Broadbent: If the hon. member in the back will kindly be quiet for a few moments, I will start again. In view of the fact that the government has taken certain initiatives in proposing salary increases for members of parliament which, to quote the government House leader, take into account future increases-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to repeat this too often, but this concerns a matter which was introduced by way of legislation yesterday and the indication was given that it would be before the House at an early time. One of our items of business is the calling, today, of that very bill and it will be the subject matter of debate. The first question asked today by the hon. member dealt with the wages of the working poor which has nothing to do with the particular matter to which I have just referred. If the hon. member has a line of questioning pursuing his original subject he ought not to be interfered with. However, if he wishes to make representations about members' salaries he should do that during the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Edward Broadbent: I will deal with that matter later this afternoon, then. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this: in the government's attitude toward incomes of those for whom it is directly responsible, for example, civil servants, will it, in its proposals to its employees, take into account future increases in the cost of living in terms of the wage proposals made to its own employees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would think these are matters for negotiation which the government will take into account when representations are made to it. I do not know of any circumstances in which employees have asked the government to give them an increase which would cover a period of eight years and which would not be adjusted between the beginning and the end of that period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Prime Minister informing the House that the government would provide such guarantees for future increases in the cost of living should such a hypothetical proposal be made?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I think there is no great difference of principle between the position taken by the hon. member and that taken by the majority of hon. members in this House. As I surmise, he is in favour of a 30 per cent increase rather than a 50 per cent increase over eight years. I suggest to him it would have been more constructive and perhaps a little more courageous if he had taken that position at the negotiating stage, when members were-
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when members of all parties were discussing this matter. But he preferred to hold back so that he could criticize freely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has just referred to something he described as a negotiating stage for a bill which the government has introduced. I say to the Prime Minister that at no time was this party approached by his office or officially by his party to take part in any negotiations. I say also that if such a behind-the-scenes approach had been made to try to get the kind of secret consensus that many politicians wanted, he would have received a firm rejection on behalf of this party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm what the hon. member has said. At no time was he or his party approached by my office. Indeed, at no time was anyone approached by my office. My office was not involved in this at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is another example of what happens if we move away from the general orbit of the question period and get into the orbit of debate. This bill will be before the House either this week or some time later-


An hon. Member:: Next week.


Mr. Speaker:: -and when that happens there will be a committee stage during which questions and answers can be exchanged across the floor in proper debating form. Surely, that is the way to handle this matter, not during the question period.


Mr. Leggatt:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am rising at the earliest opportunity to correct the misinformation which the Prime Minister has given the House. The person referred to was myself in relation to the indication that supposedly there were negotiations. My position on the bill, I might say, has not changed but the suggestion by any person in this House that there were negotiations with this party is entirely and completely incorrect. At no time did I negotiate on behalf of this party and at no time was I a member of a formal parliamentary committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was listening carefully to all the questions and answers up to this point, and I am not aware of any such allegation having been made.

December 17, 1974
Oral Questions



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Since sordid crimes are increasing at an alarming rate in Canada, and I am thinking, for example, about the two policemen killed in an horrible way recently in New Brunswick, may I ask the minister whether he is considering the introduction of a bill reinstating capital punishment, or other measures aimed at the reduction of those crimes, in order to provide greater protection for Canadians?


Otto Emil Lang: It is not my intention to introduce a bill. However, I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that capital punishment does in fact exist in Canada for that specific offence.


An hon. Member:: How can you tell?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I am fully aware of the answer the minister has just given. But since that punishment has been reserved to particular cases, could he tell the House how many notorious criminals, who were fairly judged by the courts on well founded evidence, have been put to death since the experiment made by the government in recent years?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would either be for the Solicitor General or the order paper.



PROPOSED LEVY ON CANADIAN CEREALS BY EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVOID

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the new European Economic Community tariff system, which is due to come into effect on December 31 and will seriously hinder sales of Canadian cereals to member countries of the EEC, including Great Britain which, of course, is one of our most important cereals markets, would the minister advise the House what success, if any, the government is having in persuading officials of the EEC not to impose the proposed levy against Canadian cereals?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, although considerable progress has been made in negotiations with the EEC, we have not yet reached a satisfactory settlement. The concessions which have been offered by the EEC do not, in our view, fully compensate Canada; in our view there is still a substantial debt owing. The main outstanding question has to deal with a satisfactory accommodation on

wheat and barley as a result of the enlargement of the community by Britain and Denmark. We are also hoping to negotiate special arrangements with respect to aged cheddar cheese.
We do not agree with the community's claim that the concessions are adequate. The deadline is approaching, that is to say December 31, and we are seeking a special panel of GATT nations to examine the case for Canada. If we are not successful, and if we do not get an extension of that deadline, then we will be faced with withdrawing concessions ourselves from the EEC.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive any assurances from the officials of the EEC when he visited Brussels earlier this fall that the levy against cereals would not be applied against Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course, they were arguing the contrary case. That is why, as the minister has said, we are before GATT now.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. About a week ago Monday I was going to welcome him back from his European trek and African safari, and now I have been recognized I wish him a Merry Christmas. Following upon his journeys, may I ask the minister whether we are any closer to a communications conference, which many provinces would like to hold?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions with the provincial departments of communications are still going on and we have yet to set the date of a further conference; but it seems that we are nearer to a consensus than the last time you recognized the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that at the present time there are four law suits in the various courts of Canada challenging the federal authority in communications, and in view of the interesting comment made by Premier Bourassa on the eve of his official visit to France that communications was the major delicate issue between the federal government and the provincial government and was non-negotiable, does the minister feel that there should be urgency to this question, or has he retracted and is no longer making the question of jurisdiction a condition precedent to the conference?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the policy concerning the discussion on constitutional jurisdiction. I still believe, and I repeat it to
December 17, 1974

the provinces when they raise the subject, that this matter does not come under the jurisdiction of the provincial ministers of communications but is under the jurisdiction of a constitutional conference or the courts.
The hon. member is right when he says that the number of court proceedings is increasing. At the first federal provincial conference, we informed all the provincial ministers that even if there were negotiations between the federal government and the provincial ministers of communications, it was understood that the federal government would prosecute every time existing laws would be broken either by individuals or by provincial governments or agencies.
 * *



INDUSTRY


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the hundreds of layoffs in the textile industry and since the decision of the department has still not been taken on this matter, could the minister tell the House if he intends to lay an embargo on textile products imported from certain Asiatic countries which compete with our Canadian industry and bring about massive layoffs?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on an earlier occasion I told the House that I had asked the Textile and Clothing Board to re-examine on an urgent basis the case for man-made woven fabrics. I would expect to receive that report today or tomorrow and to be able to make a fuller statement to the House later this week.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and arises out of his statement of December 13 pertaining to assistance to beef producers. I have read his statement with interest and with continued hope that it will be of benefit, but the inflated price of cattle feed still confronts the beef producer. Arising from complaints by stock feeders in my area protesting the inflated price of hay and fodder, which has now reached $50 to $60 per ton, in many cases for last year's hay, how can the beef producers pay such prices for feed and remain in business?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. gentleman is that in Ontario and eastern Canada at the present time farmers can raise steers on a feed contract for 40 cents a pound. Our support price is 45 cents, and over 45 cents a pound for
Oral Questions
top quality animals. Top quality animals are selling for 14 to 17 cents a pound higher than in the United States. So our beef producers may not be receiving as much as they might for every grade of animal, but they are receiving more than is the case to the south.
* * [DOT]



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question in light of the answer given by the Minister of Justice that we have a law that calls for a certain degree of capital punishment. Last week I put on the order paper a question in which I asked the number of police officers who had been murdered and also the number of people who had been convicted for those murders, which amounted to nine since 1968. In light of the fact that two people have now been found guilty of killing a member of the RCMP in British Columbia, and in view of other violence concerning police officers, a matter now before the media- because charges are pending I do not want to raise the matter-is it the policy of his department-I am not saying it is the policy of the government-that as far as capital punishment is concerned it has been abolished de facto, if not de jure?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. The Minister of Justice said that the law provides for capital punishment in certain cases. I must say I agree with the hon. member that it was indeed a very horrible crime which took place in New Brunswick, and the compassion of the federal government goes out to the families and friends of the victims. But my department has no jurisdiction in these cases until all trials and appeals have been dealt with.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the law in that regard. Since the government has shown that it has refused to implement the law on capital punishment since 1968 to any degree, will the Solicitor General make certain that any person convicted of the murder of police officers, a crime calling for capital punishment, who are imprisoned for life by commutation will not be paroled until there is an executive decision, so that the government takes the responsibility of protecting society?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the law now provides that no person who commits either capital or non-capital murder can be paroled without cabinet authority.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


André-Gilles Fortin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere is rising on a point of order.

December 17, 1974
Oral Questions


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the answer which has just been given by the Solicitor General. A while ago, my colleague from Belle-chasse asked the same question to the Minister of Justice who answered it was under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. Now the latter answers that it does not come under his department.
Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of the crimes perpetrated in New Brunswick as in other provinces, I feel that the government instead of merely extending its sympathy to the family should see to the full administration of justice in Canada for the protection of those people instead of returning the ball to one another.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Solicitor General is informed about experiments identified as "aversion therapy" being practised on inmates of Kingston Penitentiary and, if so, during these experiments how are the fundamental rights of inmates protected?


William Warren Allmand: I would have to check into that, Mr. Speaker. I was informed at one time about this project but I do not at the moment have the details at hand.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture pertaining to his statement on Friday, December 13. Will the cattle producers have to make application before they receive the support price, or will it be automatic in cases where the prices were lower than those in respect of which he announced would be the support level?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they will have to make application and it will apply to all cattle sold before the date given, November 16 through to April 30. The herd size will be related to that date in December, and no less than 2 per cent with a maximum of 5 per cent of the herds will be allowed to be delivered.
Mb. Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should direct my supplementary question to the same minister or the Minister of Justice. I should like to know what method the minister will use to determine the 2 per cent or 5 per cent of the total herds. Will it be on the honour system or will there be some inspection?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are asking for provincial co-operation and I understand that all the provinces so far that have reported fully intend to offer their assistance, through their Ag-Reps, and will have affidavits made out by the people as to the size of the herds on the date they make application.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Allan Lambert, president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, is chairing an advisory group on compensation in the public service for top level executives, I would ask the President of the Privy Council whether that group has presented its recommendations to the government and, if so, was it before the drafting of Bill C-44?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether the report has been presented, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that for that very reason it had no influence.
Mb. Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I believe the President of the Treasury Board was prepared to answer my question. Perhaps I might direct it to him. Has the report been presented to his office and, if so, what are its recommendations?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I will check.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just to clarify the point with the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether he said he is not aware of any recommendations or he is not aware that the report has been completed and presented to his office?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the report has been presented but I will check.



POSSIBILITY OF UNION SIGNING CONTRACT FOR EIGHT YEARS

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put to me by the leader of the NDP yesterday. If we were to have any union in Canada that wanted a contract for eight years with an increase of 50 per cent I think we would sign at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 17, 1974



BEQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY ON MOVEMENT OF GRAIN AND BRANCH LINE ABANDONMENT

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport is not here I will direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since there is an urgent need to clarify government policy in respect of the rate structure, the degree of subsidization of grain movements and the levels of service railways will be required to provide in the future, is the government prepared at this time to make some statement before the end of the year as to its intention regarding the grain movement picture so far as western Canada is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of the requirements of the railways and their obligations in respect of the movement of grain is spelled out in the law as it now stands. There is no intention to propose any immediate changes in those major areas. We have some need to take some action in respect of the question of rail lines within the prairie provinces which were subject to specific action some years ago, in maintaining them free from any application for abandonment. I would anticipate an announcement in that regard within the next several weeks.


Jack Burnett Murta: Having regard to the last part of the minister's answer about requests for abandonment of various lines, does the minister foresee an announcement in the near future, possibly sometime in January, and is the government giving any consideration to an interim phasing out, or a slowdown in an interim period during which the whole branch line picture as far as the phasing out aspect in concerned will be looked at more closely than at the present time, having regard to the kind of situation that could develop in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we want to re-emphasize our basic position that no change to any significant degree in respect of rail services to an area should take place without a full opportunity for the interests of the area and of the people involved to be canvassed and examined. It is important for us to know what are the plans of the various elevator companies in respect of the maintenance of their facilities, and the plans of the farmers and their wishes to deliver to those facilities. We want to see that all of those matters are examined before any significant steps are taken in relation to a change in the railway set up in the west.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence, but first may I say I was disappointed and surprised that on his return from the NATO defence ministers' conference he did not make a statement on motions. During the recent
Oral Questions
meeting the Netherlands' minister suggested a reduction in tactical nuclear weapons, opposed by Canada. Let me quote from the Gazette under the headline "Canada supports NATO A-weapons" as follows:
Canada lined up with a majority against the suggestion ...
Apparently Canada was against the suggestion that we reduce nuclear weapons in Europe. This is clearly a change in policy. Mr. Cadieux said, as reported in Hansard of December 8, 1969:
Speaking for Canada, I supported the adoption of those papers which further define and restrict the circumstances under which nuclear weapons might be used.
Would the minister confirm and explain this change in policy?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not involved in the discussions with European allies about the use of nuclear weapons. We do not use nuclear weapons ourselves in Europe. The hon. member has quoted another country's policy, not Canada's policy.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, Mr. Schlesinger stated at the same conference that NATO can no longer count on the United- States umbrella to protect it. Did the minister consider this to be a reference to a growing United States reluctance to use nuclear weapons in a ground defence role in western Europe?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it was made very clear that if necessary or required the United States was prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Since, in an interview he was giving last weekend, the vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the Quebec area stated with supporting evidence that some 40 per cent of inmates in the penitentiaries of Quebec, including so-called maximum security institutions, take drugs at least once a week thus endangering the guards' lives, is the minister prepared to take immediate action and once and for all have stricter control over all visitors since it is among them, it seems, that we find the hashish, LSD and marihuana smugglers?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I must point out immediately that I think the figures quoted in respect of drugs in penitentiaries is high. Although it is true we have had a problem, especially in medium and minimum institutions, we have introduced in the last few years important measures to prevent the
2330

December 17, 1974
Oral Questions
introduction of drugs into these institutions. We are continually examining these measures. This matter is always under review and we will do our best to keep them out as much as possible.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Has the minister received and looked into all the reports on the murders, suicides or suspicious deaths which have taken place in penitentiaries since last April, and is it not true that drugs account for most of them, particularly since three of these fatalities in the Leclerc institution alone are due to the easy and abusive use of drugs?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the reports on the question of suicides and so on in the institutions but none of those I have seen have indicated to my recollection that they were due to drugs. However, I will look at those reports once again.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the urgent need that the government have access to railway cost data information on freight charges in order to formulate policies for implementation in the wake of the freeze on freight rates which is shortly to be lifted, could the minister now tell the House when legislation to expedite full disclosure will be introduced keeping in mind the unease of boards of trade, business and consumers in various parts of Canada who are seeking reassurance that their position will not be seriously eroded shortly when this freight rate freeze is lifted.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I am not sure at what stage that legislation is. Perhaps the question would be better answered by the House Leader, but as near as I know from the department's point of view it should be ready for introduction later this week.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the upcoming Christmas season I gave him notice of this question. Can he advise the House when the $38,000 in overtime pay will be paid to the RCMP drug squad in British Columbia?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, under the new overtime system which was introduced for the RCMP in recent months the obligation is to give the officers who have worked overtime "lieu-time off" in the two months following the overtime work. If it is impossible to give them that "lieu-time off" then they are paid overtime in the form of monetary compensation at the end of the two-month period. The RCMP is doing its best to send out those payments on time following the period of time I indicated.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister have a copy of the September report of the International Joint Commission which shows that potential cancer-causing asbestos fibres are contaminating the water supplies of Great Lakes cities, and if so why has this report not been made public?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the report is now being prepared and we expect it will be issued sometime during the month of February. However, because of reports in the newspapers of the discovery of this potential danger in the water we are now looking very closely at it. I might take this opportunity to point out to hon. members that our institute in Burlington had identified the problem and has developed a filter for the filtering of asbestos in the water and this filter is available to municipalities who would like to use it.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that the CRTC commenced hearings on September 17, 1973 into applications for cable television licences for the Ottawa Valley towns of Pembroke, Renfrew, Arnprior, Almonte, Carleton Place and Perth, and following those hearings said that an announcement concerning the decision would be made in a few weeks, indicating the middle of November 1973, and in view of the fact that almost a year and a half has gone by I am wondering whether the minister could please inform the House and the people of the Ottawa Valley towns when they might hear a definitive decision on when the cablevi-sion licences will be granted? Could the minister explain the reasons for the delay to date and if a further delay is anticipated what the reason is for that?

December 17, 1974


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to the hon. member the reply which the Chairman of the CRTC made to him on December 16. The problem with which the Ottawa area is faced stems from a long delayed decision, the reasons for which would be too long to explain here, which applied to Northern Ontario. This decision having now been finalized for Northern Ontario, the Chairman of the CRTC has given the hon. member and myself every assurance that the CRTC is looking into this matter very attentively and that a decision should be rendered within the next few weeks.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say I promoted those hearings and have been on top of them pushing ever since.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that he has been informed by concerned Canadians of the prosecution of Christians of all denominations in the Republic of Chad would the minister indicate what action has been taken by the government to inform the officials of the Republic of Chad that these acts are reprehensible and are a violation of the UN Charter of Human Rights.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check further but my recollection is that we did have an investigation into this allegation and that there was no evidence certainly that Canadian residents in Chad were in any way prevented from practising their religion anyway they wished. That is my recollection of the situation. In light of my hon. friend's question I will re-check and if I have a different report I will advise him.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any guarantee or what measures he has taken to ensure that the CAE employees who have just received training at the Boeing plant in Seattle and have now been laid off will remain in Winnipeg to overhaul the Boeing 707's when they come to Winnipeg.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the government's plan to have the National Defence Boeing
Members' Salaries
707 major repair and overhaul in Winnipeg. It is clear that when that work is done all personnel with experience will have an opportunity to work on those aircraft.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie when he referred to farmers submitting claims I may have misinformed him. Where there is any claim the claimant must provide a statement certifying the size of the cow herd as of December 13, 1974. This statement must be signed by the owner and certified by either a provincial or federal Department of Agriculture officer. Payment will be made at the end of April only if payments are to be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one of the most distasteful tasks for any minister is to take the lead in proposing a bill which, among other things, increases his own salary as a member of parliament and as a minister. Similarly, I can understand the feelings of my colleagues in the House from all sides, and from the government, who have to take a position on the bill now before us. There is no way, however, in which we can escape the responsibility. All legislative bodies are in the same position, and when I look at the action taken by some provincial legislatures and some municipal councils to increase their rates of compensation it reinforces my view that we, here, would be derelict in our duty if we did not face up to the necessity of bringing our remuneration into line with the levels that prevail elsewhere in private and public life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: In saying this, I speak as a member of parliament and not as a member of the government. The initiative for an increase in members' indemnities and allowances has come from private members. Members of all parties in this House and on all sides of this House have urged upon the government the necessity for an increase. Private members cannot, of course, take action which imposes any charge on the revenues; only the government can do that.
On this particular occasion, Madam Speaker, the government has received from an ad hoc group of members some definite recommendations which have been useful to
28626- 1314

December 17, 1974
Members' Salaries
us in reaching a decision as to what to place before the House, although, as the House will see, we have not accepted them in full. I thank the members of the ad hoc committee for their advice and I should like to make it clear, in light of the interjections we had earlier in today's session, that the ad hoc group of members which made the recommendations did not purport to speak on behalf of the parties to which the members of the group belonged: they spoke only as individual members reflecting the views of private members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is as it should be and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wanted it; that is why he did not in any way intervene at any time nor suggest that there had been any party commitment on any side of this particular bill. This is a matter affecting members of parliament as a whole regardless of the party to which they adhere. The members of the government and their supporters do not have a special interest in this bill. It is my hope and expectation that the bill now before us will be considered in the same spirit, as an issue for parliament and not for party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) permit a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister refers to an ad hoc committee, may I ask whether any member of this party was a member of that committee or attended any meeting of such an ad hoc committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, since I was not, of course, involved-we took no initiative as a government in this matter-I was informed it was a group of members who represented all points of view in the House and that they spoke for a very large majority of all members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) by this indirect answer to the question is conveying the impression that there was an ad hoc committee and that members of all parties were on that committee. My information is that no member of this party was a member of that ad hoc committee. My information is that there was a meeting of that ad hoc committee but that no member of this party was at the meeting.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely right.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, on this particular occasion we have in the House members who were helping the government by giving advice: they can speak on their own behalf. This is not a question of privilege. I am not alleging this; I have simply had advice-


An hon. Member:: You are spreading it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was advised that there were members of all parties present. If that is not so, I can at least say, because I know it from personal knowledge, that a very large proportion of the members of the House agree with the recommendations made to me on behalf-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacGuigan:: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) on the question of privilege.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I regret very much having to interrupt the House leader, but I feel that since the NDP member has raised this as a question of privilege it ought to be answered on the same question of privilege. There was no committee as such, but there was ad hoc consultation among backbench members of all parties. NDP members participated in the backbench consultation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Almost all the negotiations, Madam Speaker, were conducted on a bilateral basis, occasionally with three parties present. The NDP members were consulted on that basis and we were assured at that time that there was very considerable support in that party for the initiative which we were taking. It is true that there was one meeting held more formally by some members who were involved in the consultation, and at that meeting no member of the NDP was present; but that was only one of the forms of consultation. In general, I would say that members of the NDP were as fully consulted as members of all other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, hon. members will recall that in February, 1970, the government of that day asked for independent recommendations from a commission headed by the late T. N. Beaupre and including Mr. Arthur Maloney, a former member of parliament from the Progressive Conservative Party, and Mr. Marc Lapointe who had been active on behalf of organized labour in industrial relations.
The commission was asked to recommend the level of remuneration for members of parliament, the Speakers, ministers, the leader of the opposition and other members who perform additional duties, such as parliamentary secretaries. It reported in November, 1970, more than four years ago. The government of that day decided to go only part way in implementing the Beaupre commission recommendations. For example, it raised indemnities from $12,000 to $18,000 and not to $25,000 as recommended by the commission. It did not accept any of the recommendations for increases in salaries of ministers, the Speakers, parliamentary secretaries or any of the other office-holders in parliament. And it did not accept the recommenda-
December 17, 1974

tion to change from a flat expense allowance to an accountable expense allowance.
There may have been reasons for hesitating at the time to accept in full the recommended increases in the levels of remuneration proposed by the Beaupre commission. Four years later, after a further very substantial increase in the cost of living and in other expenses and-what I think is more significant, Madam Speaker-in the level of remuneration prevailing in private life and in public life, the reasons for hesitation surely disappear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Indeed, I believe that we would be justified in going well beyond those four year-old recommendations. At what level, then, should remuneration be fixed now? This, obviously, is a question of judgment. The most acceptable test seems to be the one proposed by the Beaupre commission. Let me refresh the memories of hon. members as to what the Beaupre commission said. I quote from page 39 of the report made to the government of the day in November, 1970:
Salaries should be high enough to attract to parliament on a full-time basis people of proven ability, regardless of their chosen field of endeavour, at a time when their earning potential may be at its highest, and, having attained legislative office, grant a measure of dignity and financial security for themselves and their families. An equitable representation of all segments of our society is an essential ingredient of a good parliament.
The position of the parliamentarian is essentially a full-time occupation. This has been recognized to the extent that members are now paid on an annual rather than a sessional basis. It underlines the fact that the member of parliament has duties not only in the chamber, but also in committee meetings, as a member of parliamentary delegations, in consultation with officials, in private research, and in contacts with the public either through correspondence or personal visits. A member of the House of Commons, in particular, normally has a heavy work load in his constituency and his working day in the House of Commons is usually much longer than the industrial average.
That was the test laid down by those three men. One of them was an industrialist, one of them a former member of parliament and one of them had had great experience in labour negotiations. Obviously, the present level of remuneration does not meet that test. By and large, members of parliament are still being paid as if being in parliament were a part-time occupation. Many MPs with dependent families are being severely pinched financially and are going into debt or using up their savings.
More important, perhaps, people who should be considering running for parliament are deterred by the insecurity coupled with the low prevailing rates of remuneration. May I cite an example in my own city. One sometimes wonders why, in the circumstances, people prefer to run for the federal parliament rather than for city council. In my own city of Toronto, a senior alderman who is on the executive committee and on metro receives $36,500 of which $12,000 is tax free. Moreover, he is assigned an automobile and driver.


An hon. Member:: And he lives in that city.


Mitchell William Sharp: And he lives in that city. One does not enter politics for financial gain. If any do, they become disillusioned quickly and they will be disillusioned in the future
Members' Salaries
even if we accept this bill. At least a candidate for parliament should not be required to sacrifice the education of his children in order to serve the public. There should be some compensation for the insecurity, the interruption of his or her career and the special working conditions applying in this particular occupation. Other legislative bodies are having to face up to the same facts and they are reacting similarly by increasing or proposing to increase substantially indemnities and allowances.
In determining upon $27,000 for indemnities and $12,000 for allowances, the government was influenced by the recommendations of the ad hoc group of private members to which I have already referred and which has been referred to by one of the members of the group during this debate. Moreover, it is the private members who will have to defend this legislation before their constituents. In that sense this is not a government bill. The government is acting in this case on behalf of what we have reason to believe is the bulk of members of parliament and not only those on the government side of the House. Of course, I want it to be quite clear that we accept our share of responsibility as members of parliament. Moreover, we have satisfied ourselves, of course, that the proposals in this bill are not inconsistent with public policy. In doing this we have carried out our responsibilities as members of the government, responsibilities which we share with members of parliament although ours is perhaps the greater burden because we must also take responsibility for the government of the country.
The recommendations we received from the ad hoc committee of private members included an annual adjustment, beginning next year, based upon changes in the industrial composite prepared by Statistics Canada which is the broadest available indicator of average weekly wages and salaries. We did not accept this particular recommendation. We believe that the level of their remuneration should be fixed for the duration of this parliament. We do not believe that as members of this parliament we should protect ourselves in a special way against all possible future increases in prices and costs. The proposals in the bill represent an effort to bring the level of MPs' remuneration roughly into line with what has been happening elsewhere in the country. It does not protect us in this parliament from what may happen in the next four years or so, if that should be the duration of this parliament.
The government does agree, however, that there is a good case for bringing indemnities into line with prevailing community standards at each parliament, so that we do not have to repeat this present performance and so that prospective candidates will have a better idea of the level of remuneration for the parliament they seek to enter. The bill, therefore, does propose that an adjustment, either upward or downward, should be made at each parliament to reflect changing levels of remuneration in the country at large, and it is therefore proposing that at the beginning of each parliament, beginning with the next, the level of indemnities-but not the allowances-should be adjusted in accordance with the change that had taken place during the previous parliament in the industrial composite figure. This seemed to the government to be the most acceptable statistic on which to make adjustments, although it is by no means free from defects. We definitely rejected adjustments based upon the salaries of civil servants since some

December 17, 1974
Members' Salaries
conflict of interest might seem to be present when the government was negotiating the level of salaries for its own employees.
There can be differences of opinion on the relative merits of flat expense allowances and accountable expenses. The government has not been able to satisfy itself that a system of accountable expenses would be preferable on grounds of principle, or that it would make any significant difference to the cost to the taxpayer. When my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) introduced a measure some years ago to make a partial adjustment in conformity with the Beaupre commission recommendations, he dealt extensively with this particular problem. Hon. members who are interested in the discussion of principle may wish to look at what he said on that occasion. I recommend this course to hon. members.
It is significant that all provincial legislatures, and at least all municipal councils which I know, have flat allowances for their members which are also tax free. I think this fact illustrates the problem. It is difficult for those who are responsible to electors to be at the same time responsible to some civil servant by giving him some chit on which the expenses are indicated. Moreover, it is difficult, as anyone who has studied the problem will concede, to define what are the expenses involved when a member serves a constituency.
As to the level of allowances, this also is a matter of judgment and the government has accepted the recommendations of the group of private members for inclusion in the bill as being not unreasonable even after taking into account the services now supplied at public expense in the form, for example, of transportation and constituency offices. Should parliament approve the proposed increases in allowances-and I speak as a member of the Internal Economy Commission-it follows naturally that there would be less justification for improvements in the services otherwise provided to members of parliament at public expense.
I come next to the proposals for salaries of ministers and other members of parliament holding public office of one kind and another. Here the government has followed almost exactly the recommendations made four years ago by the Beaupre commission. The slight divergences from the Beaupre commission will be explained when the bill is in committee. I would remind the House that salaries of the prime minister and ministers have not been changed since 1954-20 years ago. The tax-free automobile allowance of $2,000 per year now being paid to ministers and certain others is being withdrawn. It was, in fact, just part of the total remuneration and its withdrawal is therefore a significant offset to the increase in taxable salary of ministers.
Looking back, it is a pity that successive parliaments have been so reluctant to face up to the consequences of the growing demands placed upon members of parliament whether backbenchers, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, House leaders or opposition party leaders. We are still being paid as if being a member of parliament was a part-time occupation and did not interrupt the serious
(Mr. Sharp.]
business of making a living. As a result, the bill now before us comes as somewhat of a shock to the public and even to ourselves. It looks, superficially, as if we were giving ourselves big pay increases in excess of those taking place in other occupations.
I conclude by giving the House a couple of calculations. Let us assume that this parliament lasts four years. On that basis, the increase in remuneration for members of parliament between 1970 and 1978 would work out to an annual percentage increase of less than 6 per cent. Perhaps I might ask this question: What other bargaining group which has not had a pay increase for four years would accept the kind of increase we are proposing to be fixed for another four years?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I will be speaking at this time on behalf of our party in general and individual members of the party. I will make some comments on a variety of matters which have been raised by the government House leader. Let me say at once-this is something I have made quite clear to the government House leader-that officially our party does not oppose this bill, and I will be voting for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: However, I must say that some members of our party are most concerned about parts of the bill. During the course of my remarks I will give some of the arguments both pro and con I have no hesitation in saying that people are genuinely concerned about this issue and it is always an emotional and difficult issue for members of parliament to express or to have someone express their points of view. Therefore, I admire them even though their points of view may not correspond with mine. However, I take very great exception to those who oppose for purposes of political motivation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not levelling that charge at anyone. Let each person as he speaks, discusses and votes on this matter examine his own conscience. The reason for anyone voting for or against this bill is a matter between the member and his conscience, it is up to them why they do it. With regard to the issue which has been raised about this so-called committee, I do not think it is of any real importance. I preface my remarks by saying that as far as the House leaders are concerned, we were not involved. We knew from the very beginning the government was contemplating bringing in a measure to deal with salaries. But until I saw the bill, I did not know what amounts were involved. That is perfectly proper. I would not have sought that information nor would I have expected it to be brought to me. This government has a responsibility, as does every member of the House. The government must retain this information within the confines of cabinet until first reading of the bill in this House. No one should know-and I hope no one did know-the contents of the bill.
As I understand it, there were discussions from time to time. They were not official discussions. I say categorical-
December 17, 1974

ly that this was not a matter for official party caucus consideration. It was considered, but as far as caucus was concerned no decision was made. However, there was a pipeline. The hon. member from our party who was involved from time to time brought various proposals which had been made to individual members of the caucus. I understand that several varieties of proposals were made. According to the information he received, he conveyed his impressions to members on the government side as to what would be the reaction of individual members of our caucus. That is the way it developed. It probably developed that way in all parties.


An hon. Member:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not suggesting there was an all-party committee; however, I am suggesting that a variety of proposals were brought to individual members of our party from time to time. Our reactions to those were conveyed to the other side. I must say that I do not think anyone knew, nor could they know, until this bill received first reading what the government's decision would be. That is the way this matter developed. That had to be the way. It would be improper and incorrect, in a parliamentary sense as well as politically wrong, for any other course to have been followed. Certainly, the final decision must have been the decision of the government, just as the final decision with regard to the bill must be the decision of parliament. I will come to that later, but I think that point has to be made.
When I consider the pros and cons of this issue some propositions come to mind. I did not know until a short time ago that I would be the member singled out for the honour of making this presentation. The thought occurred to me that I was probably in the position of a trial judge sitting on a criminal case without a jury. As the trial judge, I would direct the jury as to the law but the jury would be the sole judges of the facts. The trial judge who is both judge and jury has to direct himself. My approach has been to direct myself as objectively as I can to a pros and cons study of the facts.
There are one or two members of our party who feel there should be no increase at all at this time because of economic constraints, the rate of inflation, unemployment and the need to show restraint, both present and potential, with regard to government expenditures. There are one or two members of my party who feel that very strongly. Against this, I think we should point out that in the kind of world in which we live-and this is the fourth debate of this kind in which I have been involved-there has never been any time really that was right; there was always an opportunity for someone to say the time was wrong.


An hon. Member:: The whole thing is wrong, too.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the last 20 years there have been periods of unemployment, periods of inflation, periods when it was necessary for restraint to be shown; there was always an opportunity for anyone with sufficient ingenuity or sufficient lack of political morality to say the time was not appropriate for an increase. If this parliament lasts for another one hundred years or two hundred years, as well it may, no doubt this kind of statement will be made by
Members' Salaries
some people, that the time is inappropriate for members of parliament to be given an increase. I must say I do not accept that argument.
We have embraced a form of welfare state whether we wanted it or not. It slipped in by the side door and it does provide measures for easing the burdens of those who are less fortunate. Nevertheless, as in other parts of the world, it has done nothing and it will do nothing to reduce the disparities between the respective levels at which people live in a society, and human nature being what it is, I do not believe it will be easy to bring about a change in this respect.
It is true there are those in our country whose standard of living-the rate at which they are providing for themselves economically-is far below average. But this does not constitute, in my judgment, a valid argument for opposing the suggested increase in members' salaries. If it is accepted as a valid argument, it becomes a valid argument against any raise for any segment in society whether it be business, labour or government. It would apply to all segments of society. I reject that argument out of hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: There has been a suggestion that the timing is wrong; that an effort is being made to slip the bill through at a particular time as part of a devious move. I understood the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to say the other day that it was not his intention to seek to speed up the passage of this measure. In any case, I gather that if he did ask for its speedy passage, consent would not be given. I understood that the bill would be processed in the normal manner and that no attempt would be made to inhibit speakers at various stages as far as the government was concerned. So I suggest there is no validity attached to that statement about timing.
The President of the Privy Council said he hopes the House will recess on December 20. I do not know what the final decision will be. It is for the government to propose a date for the recess and bring a motion before the House accordingly. But the final decision lies with hon. members themselves. I am not suggesting the House should sit beyond a particular date.
Then it has been argued that the bill should not have been extended beyond members of parliament as such; that it should not have covered members of the cabinet, the leader of the opposition or even the House leader of the official opposition. The government House leader said, quite properly-as I would have said-that the last raise for hon. members who hold certain positions took place in 1954.
In those circumstances, I do not think the two parts of the bill can be separated. If there is a good reason to raise the salaries of members of parliament, then obviously those members who have been given special responsibilities ought to be entitled to a corresponding share. I say with regard to my own particular case, as I think I must, that I held the position of Conservative House leader for some years and enjoyed it; it was a thoroughly worthwhile exercise in the workings of parliament. I stepped down voluntarily, but I have since resumed these duties on a temporary basis. So as far as I am concerned, I do not think this raise will be of much benefit to me.

December 17, 1974
Members' Salaries
I must add, though-and I say these words with respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been an ornament of the House and in his own way has made a special contribution to our proceedings in this chamber-that the time spent, in terms of hours, not only officially but unofficially on these duties is very substantial indeed, and I would like to see some recognition given to the House leaders of the other parties; it may come at a later date.
I realize there are as many problems as there are members of parliament. Each of us comes to this position from another walk of life and there are always difficulties of one kind or another. I can recall that when I was first elected in 1958, I did not know until three weeks after I had been elected what the pay would be. I must say it was quite a shock to me. After all, I had a fair law practice and a farm. Then I came down here and stayed for 314 weeks with my family at the Chateau Laurier Hotel until I could find another place in which to live. But that was my problem. After all, none of us is conscripted; we are all here of our own volition. As I say, there are as many difficulties as there are individual members of the House.
Again, there has been a suggestion that the amount of the increase is too large. Here I wish to go into a little detail. I turned to the debates of 1971 when a bill was brought in relating back to October of 1970, and I noted that on page 5353, in the left-hand column of Hansard for the third session of the twenty-eighth parliament, the government House leader at that time, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), had this to say when introducing a similar motion:
I might mention, since it is of interest, that the total increase over the 7*/a-year period (between 1963 and 1970), because it is effective October last year, is 44 per cent or, if taken on an annual basis, a little better than 6 per cent. It may not be conclusive to any person who is opposed to this measure, but it is of interest and it is helpful when making comparisons, to note that between 1963 and 1970 average weekly salaries and wages for all wage-earners and salaried employees in the industrial composite rose 52.2 per cent. The salary of economists, for example, rose between 45 per cent and 50 per cent.
Incidentally, there are those who would suggest that the salaries of economists have risen by far too much and that we have too many of them.
The salaries of engineers increased by about 50 per cent and the salaries of university professors increased from between 63 per cent and 68 per cent. It would seem that if the increases proposed here had been undertaken on an annual basis they would not be out of line with those experienced in other comparable occupations. For example, the average annual increase for managerial personnel between 1967 and 1969 has been between 7 per cent and 9 per cent.
I take it from those remarks, made at that time by the then President of the Privy Council who introduced the measure-I have not had time to reread the debate but I do not think that particular comment was successfully contradicted-that they were looking at percentage increases of little better than 6 per cent. I have had some information prepared for me, which I will give the House, regarding the present increase. I am not going to accept complete responsibility for it because I have not had time to check it, but it has been compiled by people whose judgment I trust and it is along the following lines.

Members are now operating on a salary of $18,000 a year, plus a tax-free expense allowance of $8,000. Since the October, 1970, dollar is worth less than 75 cents at the present time, that $18,000 would purchase only $13,472 worth of goods and services in November of 1974. If members obtain a salary increase to $27,000, in October, 1970, terms that $27,000 is worth only $20,207. If the consumer price index increases a further 10 per cent over the next 12 months-and I must give this government credit for doing its best to make sure that it does increase by that amount or more-the proposed salary of $27,000 will be worth only $18,257 in November, 1975. In other words, one year from now members will have little more purchasing power than they had in October, 1970, if current inflation rates persist.
It should be remembered that the increase to $27,000 will have to last until 1978. As the last increase was granted in October, 1970, the present proposed salary increase covers a period of eight years. At an annual compound rate of increase over eight years, the increase in salary from the present $18,000 to the proposed $27,000 calculates to a 5.199 per cent increase per annum. I put those figures before the House as an indication of the situation regarding the increases proposed in this bill.
I should point out, Madam Speaker, that we are in no way compelled to follow precedents set by other legislatures, but in the province of British Columbia I understand the government not long ago made, not a 50 per cent but a 100 per cent increase in indemnities-from $12,000 to $24,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I had occasion to disagree with Mr. Barrett from time to time, but I give him credit for recognizing the necessity of finding for his legislature people of the calibre needed to deal with current problems. What Mr. Barrett does, of course, is not binding upon the members of this House, including the members of the NDP who share the same philosophy as he. I am not certain whether the national assembly in Quebec recently proposed substantial increases. I see members on the other side nodding. I understand their salary has been increased more than the increases proposed here. If I am wrong, someone will correct me. It does not mean, of course, that because the provinces increase the salaries of their members, we have to do it here; but it indicates the judgment of those who are entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with the affairs in those provinces and the requirements of members of legislatures, the national assembly in particular.
It has also been suggested-I do not think there is any real dissent from this view-that it would have been far better if in 1971 the House, at the instance of the government, had tied any further increases in parliamentary indemnities and expense allowances to a vehicle other than the parliamentary vehicle. As the situation is now, we are apparently faced with having to explain to the public that we are increasing our salaries by 50 per cent, when in fact the figures I have referred to demonstrate that the increase is nothing like that. I say that it would have been better to make this increase on a year by year basis, or even every two years. However, I commend the government for a long last tying further increases to an
December 17, 1974

escalator; whether it is a proper one or not will be for the committee to decide when the bill goes to committee.
Having said that, I come back to the proposition that I first made. Although we should seek guidance from some committee not constituted by members of parliament, and also have reference to some indices or escalators, we cannot dissociate ourselves from the ultimate responsibility vis-a-vis any salary increase. In the final analysis, the government must introduce a bill and it cannot avoid responsibility for bringing forward a bill. As the government House leader said, it does so on the basis of recommendations made to the government. The government is always getting recommendations made to it and it legislates upon the basis of its appreciation of those recommendations. Sometimes these recommendations are changed to reflect the government's view of what it feels is the proper course to take.
As the government cannot escape its responsibility, so cannot we. No matter what outside advice we receive, ultimately a bill must come before this parliament and this parliament must approve it, reject it or amend it. I fervently hope that whatever bill is finally passed will have attached to it some sensible, realistic method for the making of salary recommendations by a body outside the House.
I have really concluded what I wanted to say, Madam Speaker, except for this. We are faced here with a vexing, difficult and contentious problem, that of how to persuade people to come to this House or to become members of legislatures and do the job that they should do. All over the world the light of freedom is flickering in face of the strong winds of violence and intimidation, of attempts to secure a government of the people by other than democratic means. Let us not delude ourselves. We are not necessarily free from that possibility. Governments become stronger, more powerful, more capable of shaping the lives and fortunes and the social mores of the people they govern.
Through you, Madam Speaker, I say to the members of the House and to the people of Canada that it is imperative that we have in this House a continuing inflow of people-hopefully, young people. I am not necessarily a worshipper at the altar of youth, but I have discovered that you have to be here a number of years to find out the difference between a messenger and a member of the other place, as the case may be; and I do not say that disrespectfully. But we cannot hope to retain the virtues of freedom that we have unless we interpose between the people and the government of this country a strong, resolute and determined body, whether in the legislature of a province or in the Parliament of Canada.
We must say to young people of knowledge and competence, men and women from all classes of society, "Come to us; we need you. We need your help to retain the virtues that we have developed in Canada over a great many years". It is all very well to talk about being patriotic and about putting aside the question of money, but this is a materialistic world and people must have the freedom of independence to stand up for the things in which they believe and, I would hope, to stand up to the government. I hope this measure will provide the incentive to govern-
Members' Salaries
ment members to stand up to the government from time to time.
I repeat what I said the other day, that I see at long last some indication that this government is finally moving toward some recognition of the fact that private members in this House should have opportunities to ascertain the views of the people and bring forward intelligent and rational ideas, and that all the wisdom of humanity does not lie within the four corners of the cabinet and the top members of the civil service. I would suggest that if and when this measure is completed and the process initiated by the government continues, as we will press for it, this will mean the House will have some opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Canada, and more frequently against the government if need be. For these reasons, I intend to vote for the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate this afternoon I want to make a number of serious and, I think, reasonable points on the issues involved. Following my comments I intend, on behalf of my party, to move an amendment to the motion before us. Before doing so I should like to clarify once and for all the issue raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), government spokesmen and the government House leader more than once and referred to just a few minutes ago by the House leader of the Conservative Party, namely, the consultation process that presumably has gone on in order to get to the point we are at this afternoon in the House-debate on this bill brought in by the government.
Had the government been serious about all-party consultations, this proposal should have been presented during the regular meetings of the party House leaders. If the government House leader had wanted a serious response from this and other parties, he should have brought this proposal before the regular meetings of the House leaders of all parties. Then in due course the proposal would have been put to the NDP caucus and, presumably, before the other parties' caucuses. Had that been done, the same kind of agreement might have been reached that is often reached on other matters.
I suggest that process was not followed, because if it had been the government would have to accept a more clear line of responsibility for what it has presented to the House. The government, the Prime Minister and the cabinet then could not fob off on the members of the House and, more particularly, on the people of Canada the argument that it is really responding to pressures put on it by the poor, lowly MPs and it cannot really be held responsible for what it is doing. I say that the government has erred in a serious way in not following through with its responsibilities, if it wanted to do something like this, by bringing it to the House leaders and the various party caucuses for serious discussion. The government knows very well, I would suggest, that what it really wanted to do was sneak this measure in by the back door as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
2338

December 17, 1974
Members' Salaries


John Edward Broadbent: Indeed, if the behind the scenes consensus is accepted, it will have the effect of muffling everyone and shortening the debate. We will see, in terms of the response of other parties in the House to this issue, if that is the case.
In terms of the substance of the matter, I would first like to deal with the question of the necessity for an increase in the salaries of members of parliament. I, personally, will not be dealing with increases for cabinet ministers, the prime minister and members of the Senate. That issue will be dealt with by other people. I think the crucial matter here is the salary level of MPs, as that is what affects the vast majority of the people in this chamber. In doing, that, I want to draw to the attention of the House the shift in the line of reasoning we have seen on the part of the government House leader in justifying the new proposal, as compared to the presentation of the former government House leader, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), when he introduced the wage increase in 1971 and 1972.
Let me note that the present House leader has put it on the line, in most bold and categorical terms, that the government uses as its standard just what the market will bear. The government House leader said, if I understood his argument correctly, that we must have wages at a sufficient level to induce persons-presumably at any level, in terms of the economy-to run and become members of parliament. The rates must, by implication, not be such that would turn off, from an income point of view, those who are in the top 1 Vi per cent of the hierarchy in this country.
This is an entirely different argument from the one presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was government House leader in 1971. Let me say at the outset that my colleagues and I accept as totally reasonable the twofold proposition presented to the House in April, 1971, by the then government House leader. At that time he said the government ought to ensure that members of parliament were provided for in two ways. He said they must have the necessary resources to discharge their tasks. By that he meant very important facilities like constituency offices, and a real capacity to fly back to their constituencies at regular intervals without assuming an undue personal burden; the right to communicate directly, through newsletters, with their constituents; the right to have research staffs and ample telephone privileges in order to communicate with the country. All of these the NDP endorses 100 per cent.
I give credit to the Liberal government for the things it has done in this regard in the past few years. In my judgment, every cent spent in that direction is a cent from which the taxpayer benefits substantially. Anything that improves the performance of members of parliament is something this party will support. There is no question but that the spending in recent years in this area has been good.
That was the first task referred to by the government House leader in 1971. He then said that the salary level must be sufficient for MPs to maintain a decent and reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families. That is to be found in Hansard for April 29, 1971, at page 5352. I hope hon. members will note the distinction

between what was said at that time and what the present government House leader said when presenting the bill for second reading this afternoon. As I said a moment ago, my colleagues and I agree completely with this twofold requirement.
I might say that he added a rather negative consideration which should be kept in mind by all legislative bodies in a democracy. I could not put it more eloquently than he did, and I could not agree with him more substantially on any matter than I do on this. He said that the level of remuneration must draw a line between what is necessary and adequate compensation for those without private income, while at the same time rejecting the principle that parliament should be made attractive purely as a source of income. I could not agree with him more. But let us apply these tests or criteria in the present circumstances.
We have these two positive points; then we have the negative. The first point to be made is that if we look at the facilities required by a member of parliament to fulfil the joint obligations to his constituents on the one hand, and to the people of Canada on the other, the situation has improved immensely; it has improved, at public expense, since 1971. First of all, what was always provided out of a member of parliament's salary, if he was doing his job, up to and including 1971 is now being paid through the government by the people of Canada.
We might look at the facilities that I will list, most of which have been introduced or substantially improved since 1971. First, there are the constituency newsletters; second, there are the constituency offices; third, the constituency secretaries; fourth, the weekly flight and/or car expenses; fifth, the caucus research staffs; sixth, expanded office facilities in Ottawa. I repeat that each and every one of these is a justifiable government expenditure; there is no argument about that.


Mr. Lalonde:: Then why did you vote against it?


John Edward Broadbent: past was provided by MPs, and then say on the other hand that these facilities should be provided at public expense.
I believe there has been a great departure in almost all of these expenditures being taken over by the government, leaving a member of parliament a much higher degree of control over his personal income for his personal life. That makes very good sense to me. But let us consider the present salary position of members of parliament in this context. We all know we are now being paid $18,000 a year, plus a tax-exempt allowance of $8,000, bringing the total to $26,000. At the very least, I would argue that for the government's salary proposal to be considered acceptable even to members of the cabinet or to members of the Liberal Party in general, based on the criteria laid down by the former House leader when he introduced pay increases in 1971 the government must show that the cost of living increases which have occurred since 1971 have more than offset the indirect benefits provided members of parliament since then, at public expense, which presumably they were paying for out of their own salaries until they were introduced. I realize that in an attempt to reach a decision on this question there is no point at which perfect agreement could be reached by honest, decent men and women who consider it. This is a very important matter of serious judgment.
My personal view, and I believe that of my colleagues, is that there have been substantial increases in the expenses of members of parliament since 1971, particularly-but not exclusively-in respect of housing for members who must maintain two residences. These increases in the expenses of members of parliament, in my view, and in the view of my colleagues, warrant some increase in the pay that we must receive. It seems to me that such an increase is necessary if, according to the former House leader when he spoke in 1971, we are to have a decent, reasonable standard of living for members of parliament and their families.
However, I stress that I can find nothing to warrant a 50 per cent increase in the salaries of members of parliament. Using the government's approach of 1971-that of providing a reasonable standard of living for members and their families, together with facilities-if we consider the increase in the cost of living since then, and the increases at public expense in the services provided for members of parliament, not one cent beyond the amount of the increase in the cost of living could be justified by this government in terms of any pay proposal it places before the House.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
Crown Corporations
are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Finance-Request for reconsideration of tax on pleasure boats; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Industry-Steel-Reason for restrictive terms of reference for Judge Estey's inquiry into prices and profits; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacK-ay)-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 the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
Order, please. It is my understanding that there has been agreement among leaders that the House will proceed directly to Bill C-216 and stand all those appearing on the order paper ahead of Bill C-216.

It is agreed that we proceed to Bill C-216 and stand the other bills appearing on the order paper ahead of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
André-Gilles Fortin: that Bill C-216, respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to launch a vote-catching or puritanical war, but I shall go straight to the point.
Mr. Speaker, I introduce Bill C-216 entitled "An Act respecting Crown corporations" which are described as not being agents of Her Majesty.
The purpose of this bill is really very simple, although it is far-reaching. It is first of all a matter of fair treatment, a matter of fair recognition before the law, before the statutes, either private or public law. In order to make my colleagues on both sides of the House aware of the importance of the matter, I will give a summary of the purpose of this bill; it is to put public corporations and Crown corporations like the CBC or Polymer of Canada Limited or any other Crown corporation on the same level as private companies.
Mr. Speaker, when a member addresses the Secretary of State, asks for some information on a Crown corporation, complains about the doings of a CBC newsman, for example, or about the expenses made by the CBC, the minister
28626-141/2

December 17, 1974
Crown Corporations
answers: This Crown corporation is not an agent of Her Majesty. So, Parliament is only empowered to allocate the taxpayers' money for financing that corporation, very often for financing losses. On the other hand, the minister hides behind the law and states he cannot answer. This same Crown corporation, protected by rules relating to Parliament, has special status as far as competition is concerned, in other words, CBC is not treated in the same way under the regulatory or civil laws as Telemedia or any other broadcasting corporation in the private sector. So the law is not the same to every corporation.
This bill therefore, most specifically, is intended to have the Crown corporations pay municipal taxes just like other companies. Our politicians, as others were before them are prone to announce, with a lot of promotional effort, that they are going to locate such and such a department in some municipality. That it will be a huge project, a large investment. But what they do not say, Mr. Speaker, is that the investment will bring next to nothing in municipal taxes to the municipality concerned. Why? The reason is it enjoys special treatment.
The bill is also intended so that in cases of bankruptcy, Crown corporations be paid on the same footing as other firms, without any special priority. I find it unfair that an individual lose in a bankruptcy, after a public creditor of the bankrupt company has been repaid by the receiver. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, this is discriminatory; Crown corporations have much more financial strength to defend their interests and retain lawyers than the individual.
Third, this bill is intended so that Crown corporations have no special priority in the field of patents. I will here refer to the case Formea Chemicals Limited vs Polymer Corporation Limited.
Here also, there is special treatment to the Crown corporation. This is tantamount to saying that the government, through its embodiments the Crown corporations, is above the laws of Parliament.
Fourth, if this bill is passed it would allow mandamus proceedings to be taken against a Crown corporation as if it were a private company, which is not yet the case today.
The CBC people who were teased by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) reproached him his parliamentary immunity. The Crown company, to whom they belong, Mr. Speaker also enjoys a special status in that connection. It is precisely that status which I would like to abolish in the case of Crown corporations. There is no reason whatever for which these people should not be treated on an equal footing with any other citizen.
Fifth, this bill proposes that criminal laws apply to government enterprises as well as to private companies. Mr. Speaker, one thing is obvious: it is imperative that we stop once for all in every sector referred to in the bill to grant privileged status to Crown corporations.
In other words, this bill aims at subjecting public corporations to private law and at withdrawing the privileges they now enjoy under public law. All this follows from the five points that I mentioned earlier.
The principle I am concerned with is this one: When the state has business dealings, it must be submitted to the same statutes as businessmen, otherwise, Mr. Speaker, it will compete dishonestly with the other private businesses

of Canada. When the government protects Crown corporations and puts them in a kind of ivory tower while allowing them to compete against private enterprise, from that moment on, Mr. Speaker, there no longer is legal or honest competition. This is why I very sincerely hope that this bill, that I submit with good intentions, without any political partisanship and in the interest of Canadians, will be passed by the House of Commons and not be buried at the first reading stage like bills of this type usually are. I hope very sincerely that the House will agree to submit the bill to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill at the stage of second reading, we could go on to another issue and at the same time show that we are interested in studying matters in depth, by allowing the committee to examine this bill. However, if we apply the rules of procedure and go on talking to bury this bill on first reading, consideration of this bill will be postponed indefinitely. This will happen simply because the bill was introduced by a member of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I believe that members on this side of the House can have ideas as valuable as those on the other side and that the committee should have at least the opportunity to study this bill without necessarily committing itself to accept it.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in itself the Crown corporation is a bit of an orphan in the strictly technical sense that it is half government and half private enterprise. We seem to be perpetually baffled by this hybrid, and we are not sure about the extent to which it should be politically accountable. We all tend, I suspect, to say that it should be accountable when it is doing something we dislike, and to say that it should be independent when it is doing something we like. For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation decides to switch one of its two Toronto radio stations from English-language to French-language programming. Toronto MPs, for whom French-Canadians represent a tiny minority, are furious. One of them says the CBC should be under our thumb. They want the government to order the decision reversed.
Let me give another example. Air Canada decides to buy an American aircraft, parts of which will be built near Toronto, and not to buy a French aircraft, parts of which would have been built in Montreal. Montreal MPs demand that the government reverse Air Canada's decision. Toronto MPs think Air Canada should make independent decisions. So, whom are you to please?
I have no simple formula to suggest by way of a Christmas present for Canada's Crown corporations. Certainly we cannot turn the country over to the technocrats and let them run it as they see fit. But neither should we force these companies to make their decisions in response to the wayward gusts of political pressure.
It seems to me that everyone, and especially members of parliament, ought to recognize a few ground rules. Purely technical decisions should be left to the technical experts employed for that purpose. Technical decisions with political implications should normally be made on the
December 17, 1974

basis of the experts' recommendations. Political decisions, even with a technical background, should be made by the cabinet, subject to parliamentary approval. If the manager of a Crown corporation is making a mess of things, he can be fired or discreetly eased out. But if he is doing a good job why should the people of Canada not profit from his expertise?
During wartime government Crown corporations were given unlimited use of patents. I am referring to the days of Clarence Howe, who was as rugged an individualist as ever lived. The government of which he was a member established, at his instigation, a stateowned airline which has since become one of the world's major carriers and a profit-earner for the Canadian taxpayer. During the harsh years of World War II, when the Japanese rush through the Pacific cut off the Allies' supply of natural rubber, the same C. D. Howe put together a huge organization to produce the synthetic material. Its name is Polymer Corporation. It continues to flourish and earn profits for the taxpayers, earning them outside Canada as well as inside the country.
This same giant of the war years, Howe, was also the man who stepped in an expropriated, in the country's name, the one source we then had of the raw material for atomic fission, the Eldorado mine at Great Bear Lake. Under rigid government rules and prospecting controls a second source was discovered on the north shore of Lake Athabaska. Not for several years after the war was even the search for uranium released from complete federal control, and the government remains to this day the controller of all uranium sales. Through Atomic Energy of Canada, a Crown company, it is in the isotopes business, has to do with cobalt bombs, operates the reactors at Chalk River and is, in short, still very much in the nuclear energy business.
Ottawa is in a lot of other businesses as well, such as marketing the wheat crop, overseas telecommunications, mortgage and house financing, the Canadian National Railways, the production of documentary movies by the National Film Board and, of course, the CBC, at which everybody in the country has taken a swing at one time or another. The question before the House is: should the Canadian government be in any of these businesses? A corollary would be: should it sell out those which make profits, on the ground that Ottawa has invaded fields which properly belong to the entrepreneural class? A personal answer to both these questions is a vehement no, to which let me add that I am not a socialist. But that is not the question before the House.
Taking that outworn argument to one side, this country lives and moves through the machinery of what may be called a mixed economy, necessitated by its tremendous distances, its vast area of four million square miles and its small population. Things are going to be that way for a considerable time to come. The problems the condition creates actually are much more serious in the pragmatic sense than the almost purely emotional content of such things as something called co-operative federalism, ethnic arguments, and the prejudices of regionalism.
Why should anyone in his right mind ask the general public which has taken all the original risk, which nobody else was prepared to take to provide a necessary service in
Crown Corporations
what is called "growth" industry, to dispose of it when the enterprise becomes successful and profitable? Possibly I am not particularly bright, but this looks to me like one of the most stupid notions every encountered.
I was, in fact, flabbergasted when I read some months ago that when the federal government set up its Canada Development Corporation it proposed to dump Polymer and possibly Air Canada into it as sweeteners, leaving the government itself, which is nothing but agent for the sum total of the taxpayers, holding only 10 per cent of the capital stock of each of these wholly-owned revenue producing operations. Such a procedure would deprive you and me personally of 90 per cent of our interest in the operation and profits of both. Diluting the general public's ownership by nine-tenths would be a stockbroker's word for it. That, in my opinion, would be as immoral and corrupt an act as anything ever dug up previously.
The critics of government-operated corporations delight in making statements to the effect that these places are nothing but rest homes for the kind of people who think of a government job as the softest touch a man can find. They offer no proof, but simply pronounce what they regard as an axiom. They talk as if such institutions are run and managed by people incapable of competing in what is called the open market and are, in fact, not much higher mentally than the kind of person usually described as a slob.
Given sound management that is incorruptible and has the free hand to manage which any capable citizen insists upon as a right and a necessity before he accepts a management job, there is not a reason on earth why a Crown corporation should have less efficiency than the same kind of outfit that is privately owned. When management becomes either inefficient or corrupt, then you sack it and get somebody else-the rule which operates in either the private or the public sector.
Is it fair to ask the privately-owned Canadian Pacific to compete with a publicly-owned concern? This has always been one of the loud war cries of the "dump-the-CNR" crowd. Probably from time to time government competition has caused concern over on Windsor Street. But this, if true, does not eradicate two simple facts. The first is that an essential service had to be maintained. The second is that there has never been a buyer in sight who was prepared to acquire the Canadian National with hard money at anything like its face value, or who believed he could buy it at a fair price and make money with it- which seems to me to knock down another argument.
It will not take more than a couple of sentences to make the point that the National Film Board has done more to create a good image of Canada abroad than any other agency we have. It is a Crown corporation, and some think we should turn it over quickly to private industry. In addition it has rendered signal service in showing Canada and the infinite variety of Canadian ways of life to Canadians. That is worth money. Until recent years nobody else wanted to tackle this particular task, using his own money to do it, in the hope of making profit.
Is this a good reason for killing off the pioneer? Not in my book. Finally the CBC-it has been and still is the

December 17, 1974
Crown Corporations
only outfit in the country capable of providing Canada with a complete, coast-to-coast broadcasting network.
It has made many mistakes, and will make more. At present it acts as if it were having trouble cultivating original Canadian tastes, hobbling some of its brighter and more creative minds, to the point that a number of them have moved on elsewhere. Nevertheless, it remains to this day our one source of all-Canadian communication.
I wish to make one more point. It is for the people of Canada to have priority in considerations of bankruptcy. If Crown corporations were indeed put in the hands of private industry, the people of Canada would not be able to recoup any losses therein in the order of priority which now exists in the Crown Corporations Act of our country.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has brought forward a bill of some interest and some importance. It is a very short bill with only one clause. The clause is terribly deceiving. It says, and I quote:
Notwithstanding any other Act, the Crown corporations specified in Schedule D of the Financial Administration Act are not agents of Her Majesty.
Certainly nothing could be more straightforward or unsuspicious. However, in the tradition of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who is also a House leader, has brought back one of those tortuous constructions with tremendous implications in the way in which Crown corporations would be treated in the House of Commons by the Canadian people.
That one little clause, according to the explanatory notes, would have a number of effects. It would put Crown corporations on the same level as private companies. First, it would make public enterprises liable to municipal taxation in the same manner as private companies. Second, in any bankruptcy, public enterprises would be paid as other companies are, without any preferential rights being given to them. Third, public enterprises would not enjoy any preferential rights in respect of patents. Fourth, mandamus proceedings might be taken against a Crown corporation as if it were a private company. Lastly, criminal laws would apply to government enterprises as they do to private companies.
In his explanatory notes the hon. member goes on to make the point that the purpose of the bill is to render Crown corporations subject to private law and to take away their privileges under public law. He says that when the state carries on business, it must consent to be governed by business laws.
I am not going to deal with the legal and technical details. My colleague from Vancouver has kindly consented to do that. He is a lawyer and I am not. I think it appropriate that a lawyer provide the necessary detailed legal information. I want to concern myself with a number of other aspects of Crown corporations.
I remind the House that back in the good old days, on January 29, 1973, the hon. member for Lotbiniere brought forward a motion which also dealt with Crown corporations. At that time he wanted to have a special committee of inquiry on Crown corporations exercising financial,

commercial or industrial activities. This committee would study the various acts establishing Crown corporations. It would deal with the Crown Corporations Act, the Financial Administration Act and all other laws concerning Crown corporations. It would recommend to the House the adoption of a law regarding federal public enterprises. In addition, if that was not sufficient the committee would also study the following subjects without restrictions, and I quote:
(a) the legal rules pertaining to the employees of such corporations (b) their financial structure (c) the way in which they are financed (d) government control over said corporations ...


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I will help my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), to kill my bill by using some of his time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order because the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is now referring to another motion under my name on the order paper and not to Bill C-216 now before us. It does not really bother me to have my bill killed, because everybody knows it is usual in this House, but not this way at least.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to your attention that there is no quorum and to move adjournment of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I will ask the clerk at the Table to count the House.
And there being only nineteen members present, including the Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: There being 18 members in the House, the House is adjourned. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Until two o'clock tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: This is private members' hour and there is some question about the adjournment. If the House will be patient, Mr. Speaker will be consulted and a decision rendered.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I too know all about the standing order, but because of that move on the part of the NDP I am beginning to worry about the bill I just supported. I should like to ask the Chair for an assurance of being able to reintroduce my bill at the first opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. member for that point of order. That will, of course, be considered in due course.


John Mercer Reid: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the hon. member. I think it unfair for reasons outside the purposes of private members' hour, namely, the bill we were considering in normal House time-
December 17, 1974


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I object to the inference being drawn by the parliamentary secretary. Even if it is true, he cannot say it.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has made sufficient comment on my statement. I assure the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that we are prepared to accommodate him. Unfortunately, we have made commitments to other members for the rest of this week. Presumably the House of Commons will adjourn as of the end of this week. However, if it does not, I will be prepared to give the hon. member priority come the following week, should the House of Commons be sitting. In addition, I am also prepared to give him priority, if it is not possible that week, in the first week when the House of Commons resumes. I regret the embarrassment that has been caused to the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I must inform the House that the proceedings are suspended temporarily. Mr. Speaker is on his way to make a ruling on the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he hear representations with regard to the point of order?


An hon. Member:: There is no quorum.
Crown Corporations


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Since the Speaker will be making the ruling, any representations ought to be made when he is in the chair.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the count is already made or is the Speaker going to make it as soon as he arrives?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Francis Fox: It seems that members are leaving the House right now, which reduces the possibility for us of having a quorum.


André-Gilles Fortin: That is not the point at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank hon. members for the patience displayed in this instance. I am advised that it is my duty to inform hon. members that the House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. I am further requested to advise hon. members that the 19 members, including myself, who were present when the count was taken should present themselves to the Table in order that their names may be recorded.
I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 5.35 p.m. the House adjourned for want of a quorum.

Wednesday, December 18, 1974