1975-04-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an urgent matter, namely the production lost to Canada due to strikes and work stoppages.
The Prime Minister himself stated at the first ministers conference this morning that Canada has the second worst record in the world for production days lost due to work stoppages and strikes.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the Minister of Labour be instructed to report back to the House within a week what steps his department is taking to rectify this serious situation which is crippling the economy, especially at a time when the country is plagued with rising unemployment and low economic production.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion which is self-explanatory. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo:
That this House direct the various House leaders to proceed immediately to establish procedures which will introduce an adequate form of parliamentary scrutiny and control of government expenditures on security programs conducted by Canada or to which Canada is a party in this country or abroad.


Mr. Baldwin:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is presented under the terms of Standing Order 43; there must be unanimous consent before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 arising from the recent circulation of a four-page appeal for funds in the Portuguese language on behalf of a presumably reputable charitable organization in envelopes of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Canada and requesting a reply in similar envelopes furnished to the recipients. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka;
That the House request the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make a statement outlining whether the government is prepared to extend such benevolent assistance to other ethnic groups and whether this indicates a new government venture in the field of multiculturalism.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is presented under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent to its being put?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the difficulties now being inflicted upon Quebec producers by the protracted strike, especially in the ports of Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us what measures the government intends to take to restore normal traffic in those ports so that the producers can get the feed they need for their cattle?

April 9, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: This matter is under very active consideration by the government. There was a meeting this morning directed particularly to this very serious issue. At the present time, however, the government thinks it would be inadvisable to take immediate action though I can assure the hon. member that we understand the seriousness of the problem.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I should also like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he intends to comply with the recommendation made by the producers to the effect that, costs having increased considerably, the government should grant a subsidy to compensate them for the increase in costs they will have to assume under the circumstances?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not quite sure of the relationship between this supplementary and the original question. If it relates to the possibility that there may be extra costs arising out of interference with the movement of the commodity, that is one question, but if its scope is of a more general nature I should like to have it amplified so that I could give a more satisfactory answer.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have another
supplementary.
Because of the importance of the matter, can the minister assure the House that, at the latest tomorrow, he will be able to make a statement which, I trust, will bring a solution to Quebec producers' problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot give that undertaking, though I can give an assurance that the matter is under the most active consideration.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO IMPROVE SHIPPING CONDITIONS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact there is a desperate shortage of feed grain on Quebec farms and that approximately only one third of the crop year remains while some areas in Western Canada are still on a three-bushel quota, and the Minister of Agriculture failed to answer my question yesterday-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Thomas Gordon Towers: -concerning mismanagement of grain shipments to Bangla Desh, would the government instruct the Standing Committee on Agriculture to make recommendations to parliament to resolve the continuing disastrous dilemma relating to the movement of grain?
[Mr. La Salle.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The government does not seem to realize the dilemma in which the farmers find themselves. In view of the fact that the western grain producers have lost $50 million this crop year owing to the inaction of this government, what proposal does the government intend to make if they are not going to accept the proposal that I have made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the government has something to announce in this regard it will do so. I do not think it would be appropriate or would help very much to follow the suggestion of the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the effects of a budget that is brought in some time during the month of May- which means it will probably be nearer to June than April-will take some time to work their way through the economy, particularly in terms of job creation, could the minister inform the House whether the government has any intention of taking action in the budget that is brought in with regard to any of the four programs that I will specifically name to the Acting Prime Minister, namely the summer student employment program, the winter capital projects fund, the federal-provincial employment loans program and the railway relocation program, all of which could be implemented before the budget in May? Does the government plan to take any kind of action in these areas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these questions should be directed to the respective ministers. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may want to deal with the first of these questions. The Minister of Transport is not here today, but perhaps the question could be taken as notice.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the question, a decision has been taken to augment the student summer employment funding for this year to the extent of $13.4 million. The details of the allocation of this $13.4 million within the various programs will be very shortly announced to all members of the House and will include a substantial amount for the Opportunities for Youth program.
April 9, 1975


CONTINGENCY PLANS TO INCREASE HOUSING STARTS-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for housing may I put this question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that just before Christmas the director of CMHC, Mr. Teron, said that there were certain contingency plans that the government would implement should housing starts fall below the anticipated rate of
200.000	a year, and in view of the fact that the current rate, according to figures released yesterday, stands at only
138.000	units, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the government intends to put forward these contingency plans that Mr. Teron referred to?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of this question and give an adequate answer.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the minister has decided that advisory committees in the various sectors of work have been instructed to give priority to projects submitted by youths within the Opportunity for Youth Program, and since it is impossible to get from the officials of the minister's office the names of those committee members, can I ask him whether he is prepared to authorize his employees to provide the list of the members of a committee for a given region, upon request from an MP?


Robert Knight Andras: Very definitely, Mr. Speaker; I see no reason at all. In fact, I think each member of the House should have a list of the members of management area advisory committees, which are appointed in the main by the members themselves. If there is any question about this I will issue instructions forthwith to make the information available.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In view of the favourable attitude and the positive answer of the minister, can I ask him to give immediate instruction to the employees of his office so that they effectively respond along the lines of the answer he has just given?


Robert Knight Andras: I think that is exactly what I have just said, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions HOUSING


POSSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVE FOR STARTS-SUGGESTED DEDUCTIBILITY OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS AND PROPERTY TAXES FROM INCOME TAX
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer again to the drastic decline in housing starts in the first quarter of 1975, down 54 per cent for the month of March alone. Will the Acting Prime Minister say if the government is still confident it can reach its minimum target of 210,000 starts, and will that objective be maintained in the preparation of the new budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House will have noticed that yesterday when the Minister of Finance announced he was bringing in a budget this was one of the problems to which he referred, and which seemed to make it necessary to take additional measures.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance has recognized the severity of the economic situation with his promise to bring in a budget, is the government actively considering a budgetary measure that would make a proportion of mortgage payments and property taxes deductible for income tax purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as a former Minister of Finance I never did forecast what would be in a budget. I always looked upon such matters as confidential, but I will pass the suggestion along to the Minister of Finance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the possibility that the 200-mile economic zone concept may not be translated into agreed treaty language at the Law of the Sea Conference, while conversely the conference cannot succeed on any basis other than a convention founded on a concept of the economic zone being managed by the coastal state, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to go to the conference along with the Minister of State for Fisheries and the Minister of the Environment, for the balance of the conference in order to strengthen the hardworking Canadian team presently negotiating there on our behalf?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member back from the Law of the Sea Conference. I propose to address that conference later on. In the meantime my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, will be present, as will the Minister of State for Fisheries at a later point, so the delegation will be supported ministerially in the way I have described.

Oral Questions


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his remarks in welcoming me back to the House from the conference. I would point out that at the conference the USSR-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question will he put it directly, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of the strength of the negotiating teams of the USSR, the United States and other world powers at the conference, will the minister consider sending the Deputy Minister of External Affairs or a Deputy Minister of Fisheries or the Environment in order to equalize in strength the debating teams which other countries have placed in charge of their affairs at the conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to consider any worthwhile suggestion, but I am sure that my hon. friend would agree that the deputy head of our delegation, Ambassador Beasley, is one of the most competent personalities in the field of the law of the sea, and probably there is no other person at that level in the federal service of Canada with the same competence and experience. I have full confidence in his ability to represent Canada at the conference, but I will take into account the views of the hon. member in respect of any steps that can be taken to support his work.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps I might address it to the acting minister who might take it as notice, if he so wishes. Is the minister in a position to state what alterations, if any, are being made to the program of support payments to potato growers in the Atlantic provinces? I am especially concerned, as are the growers, about the limitation of two carloads per grower. I am also concerned about the situation in respect of the growers, especially certified seed growers, who have sold all of their potatoes before April 1.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture today is meeting with the ministers of agriculture from all across Canada. The topic is the stabilization of agricultural prices. This meeting includes all the ministers of agriculture, with the exception of the minister from Newfoundland, who could not get here because of a snow storm. I should say it may be of interest to the hon. member to know that the Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island appointed a man by the name of Mr. Faulkner to be the co-ordinator with the federal Department of Agriculture. I shall take the member's other question as notice.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Over the past few months up to 125 servicemen have been transferred from the Canadian Forces base at Winnipeg to other bases in Canada. Is it the intention of the minister to reduce the Winnipeg base to a token force?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is four months since the minister announced the new air command would be located in western Canada. Will the minister be placing the air command in Winnipeg to partially make up for the transfer of these 125 men which has had an adverse effect on the economy of Manitoba?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the House that I will be receiving a recommendation from the chief of the defence staff and when I have that I will make an announcement.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that it will be six months tomorrow since Bill C-12, the grain handlers strike bill, was passed by this House ordering grain handlers back to work, is the minister fully aware of the imminent possibility of a further grain handlers strike because neither the union nor management have signed an agreement pursuant to that order.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, I am
not aware and I hope that can be avoided, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR EXPEDITING OF BAYDA COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before the Easter recess the minister corrected an answer he gave while I was in the House but the correction was made after I left the House. He said that the Bayda commission report would not be received until possibly this summer. In view of the unfortunate circumstances which have developed on the west coast again, will the minister and the government now take steps to give all the necessary assistance to this commission to ensure that the report and recommendation will come forward much before next summer and in fact within the next few weeks.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will appreciate that it is a very complex question Mr. Justice Bayda is looking into. This is the time frame he has set. We are giving him all the back-up he requests and are prepared to continue to do
April 9, 1975

that. However, I will be in contact with him and indicate to him that if he can shorten the time frame with additional assistance from us we will be prepared to offer it.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Justice Bayda was quoted in the press when appointed as saying that he anticipated the study would take not more than six months, possibly only three months, will the government take all the steps possible to make sure that he has all the support necessary in order to get this report and recommendation in immediately.


John Carr Munro: I think I have already indicated to the hon. member that we are giving all the support he requests and will continue to do that. We cannot do more than that. If he wants additional help he has merely to ask for it.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of his fine decision the other day-


An hon. Member:: Ho propaganda.


Mr. Caccia:: -to have Colombian textile workers presently in Canada leave the country so that they may apply for permanent residence in Canada through our immigration office in Bogota where apparently their applications would be dealt with promptly and where assisted passage loans would be provided for their return, would the minister inform the House whether workers from other countries presently in Canada under circumstances which are similar to those of the Colombian workers will be granted an equal opportunity?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I guess my answer briefly is yes, with the emphasis on the provision that the circumstances of other such workers would be in fact similar to those of the Colombians because persons in Canada with employment visas who are here as visitors have to go outside the country to apply for landed immigrant status, as the hon. member knows. Their applications would be dealt with as promptly as possible, again if the circumstances are similar to those of the Colombians.


An hon. Member:: If that is your short answer, what would be a long one?
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


INQUEST INTO CRASH OF PANARCTIC PLANE-ALLEGED INSTRUCTIONS BY COMPANY TO EMPLOYEES NOT TO TESTIFY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On Monday, April 7 I asked a question concerning the PanArctic plane crash at Rae Point, Northwest Territories, involving the loss of 32 lives, to which the minister answered that the company had at no time instructed its employees not to attend and testify at the inquest. A statement in this morning's Globe and Mail, attributed to the Minister of Transport, indicates that the company has in fact restricted its employees from appearing before the inquiry. In view of this, can the minister clarify the existing contradiction, and will his department support the Department of Transport should it decide to change the inquest into a public inquiry?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker I, too, noticed the article this morning, followed it up and made further inquiries. It is my understanding that my original statement was correct, that the management of PanArctic had not suggested or urged any employees not to appear. However, they did make available outside counsel to the employees. I gather that the employees have spoken to counsel, have taken their advice, whatever it may have been, and acted upon it. However, so far as the inquiry is concerned, that is the decision of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Certainly, I would support any action he might wish to take.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Secretary of State who answers for the CBC. In replying to all those who have written to the CBC protesting against the offensiveness of some of their drama presentations, the CBC in their "hurt" letter state that they are obliged to produce programs for all ages, all tastes and all interests. Does this obligation include dispensing material that is of interest to pornographers, the foul mouthed and other hooligans in our society?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


An hon. Member:: The answer was yes.

April 9, 1975
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES-SUGGESTED HOLDBACK OF GRANTS TO MARINE INDUSTRIES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the statement by the Minister of Justice on March 21, 1975 in the House, is the Acting Prime Minister prepared to announce to the House the government's position with respect to the holdback of grants authorized to Marine Industries Ltd. under the shipbuilding program?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make a statement at this time. The general problem remains the same, that we must get the dredging done. There is a very serious problem involved, since practically all the companies that do dredging in this country are under charge. I think the hon. member would agree with me that we should not hold up dredging for that reason. We must find a way of getting the necessary work done.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fisheries. In view of serious problems facing the east coast fishing industry, and in view of the fact that the government promised certain programs of assistance in the throne speech, would the minister tell the House when we can expect an announcement from him as to what long term and mid-term assistance would be available?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the income supplement program. I would tell him that we are still working on this. I believe we are now in a position to put firm proposals to my colleagues in the next couple of months. I would like to say, however, that the consultation meetings we have had with the ministers of fisheries of the Atlantic area, including one which took place yesterday, leads me to believe that there was wisdom in delaying until such time as we have an idea of the exact condition of the fishery in the years to come.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In light of responses to written questions dealing with the value of the dollar now being placed in the hands of his department for national defence purposes, and in light of the clear indication of the erosion of the value of

the dollars which he has available to him and the clear indication that his department is slipping very substantially behind in terms of its purchasing power in relation to past years, I would ask if he can advise the House whether he has any plans, and if so, what his plans are, to upgrade this purchasing power in order to restore his department to a level comparable with past years, and more important, what plans he specifically has to maintain the force at its present level.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will agree, the purchasing power of all departments has been reduced by the erosion in the value of the dollar, but in the case of National Defence the best answer is that this year the budget is up by more than 11 per cent and next year, 1975-76, it will be up by approximately the same amount.


J. Michael Forrestall: What the minister is indicating is, of course, a non-answer. I wonder if he would indicate to the House in some clear and precise terms whether the Department of National Defence is going behind at a rate of some 6 per cent to 8 per cent annually, and in light of that, where does he plan to take this cutback, from personnel or from capital programs?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the personnel force has been reduced to approximately 78,500, down from the
83,000	of a short time ago, and that has effected a saving which has enabled us to maintain the operational expenditures and also to maintain and to increase our expenditures for capital equipment.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Is he aware that Canadian affiliates of United States owned companies are making dramatic cutbacks in their capital spending programs for 1975 and that William Chung of the United States commerce department's international division has confirmed in a press interview that in constant dollars Canadian affiliate investment spending is on a decline, in sharp contrast to that stated in Statistics Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will check the accuracy of the report.


MANPOWER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would he indicate if he has had any indication from affiliates of American concerns in Canada that they may have to lessen their capital expenditures in the
April 9, 1975

current year in Canada due to high labour costs relative to world labour costs in this country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, no, I have not had such specific representations.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Will the amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to rape incorporate suggestions of the advisory council on the status of women about relevancy of evidence and protection for the complainant, and when can we expect these amendments which the minister promised some time last summer?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments in regard to rape, which I think are designed to accomplish a good number of things which the advisory council was asking for and was interested in will be in the Criminal Code amendments which I expect to present for first reading before the end of June.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board. Now that the conciliation board has brought down wage recommendations which appear to be a reasonable compromise in connection with the negotiations between the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada and the government, will the Acting Prime Minister give assurance that the government will indicate its approval of these terms with sufficient speed in order to avoid a crippling strike in this important area of communications?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the findings of the conciliation board were far from unanimous. In fact, there were three separate recommendations, so we do not have, in a sense, the common acceptance of the board to report. The report has been forwarded to the union and to the Treasury Board, and there is an agreement between the union and the Treasury Board that no comment will be made during the next 48 hours.


POSTAL WORKERS-DATE OF GOVERNMENT REPLY TO UNION PROPOSALS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On the same subject and in connection with the negotiations under way between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the
Oral Questions
Treasury Board, could the Acting President of the Treasury Board indicate how soon the government will be making its reply to proposals which were put forward by the union some two weeks ago?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I cannot give a definitive answer to that, but I will inquire and inform the hon. member.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, and it arises from a recently published report that the Canadian government has bugged the embassies and consulates of foreign governments in Canada, and particularly that our government has bugged the embassy of a major western European country. I ask whether this country has in recent years bugged the embassy in Canada of a western European country.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those questions which is very delicate. I would hesitate to give an answer at this time. I believe that my colleague has indicated that he would like to have some sort of procedure established whereby we could look at security matters, and I do not think it would be advisable to discuss them on the floor of the House of Commons in this way.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the refusal of the Acting Prime Minister to accept the motion of my colleague under Standing Order 43. Arising from the statement by the Prime Minister last January that, "We have never ... engaged in any espionage abroad in the sense that we have not been looking for information in an undercover way in any other country," and in light of the fact that a report in this week's "Time" magazine directly contradicts the Prime Minister's statement, I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister's statement that we do not engage in espionage activities abroad still applies and whether it is accurate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, certainly in my experience I have heard of no spying activities by Canadians abroad. We do not have any foreign espionage organization of any kind, so I would say that the statement of the Prime Minister is accurate.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Corriveau).

April 9, 1975
Oral Questions
About the strike in the ports of Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres, which seriously affects Quebec millers and producers in their supply of feed grains, could the parliamentary secretary tell the House if there are any new developments and whether, at this moment, Quebec millers and producers have any way of supplying themselves with feed grains?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are constantly keeping abreast of what is going on in the ports.
We know it is very difficult for millers to get supplies from the Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres ports. On the other hand, the port of Montreal is open to millers who can get their supplies of feed grains. Moreover, talks are now under way between millers and unions to have the ports of Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City reopen in the next few days so that millers can get their supplies.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General based on the findings of the United States Surgeon General which establishes a casual relationship between violence on television and the increase in violence in our cities. May I ask if such a study is under way in the Department of the Attorney General and if so will he release its findings to this House?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Certain studies are being undertaken by my department, Mr. Speaker. I understand that some are being undertaken as well by the CRTC.


COMMUNICATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. Does the CRTC intend to hold public hearings on the subject of violence in television and if so, when will these hearings commence?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that they intend to do so but I could not give the precise date of the proposed hearing to the hon. member. I will inquire about it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the House why the three Canadian destroyers of the Second Canadian Destroyer Squadron participating in training exercises with the navies of the United States and the Philippines in the western Pacific were withdrawn rather suddenly from the exercises and are now returning home?


An hon. Member:: They ran out of gas!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, these Canadian ships were on training exercises with the United States navy. The Americans wished to terminate the training exercises, and our ships are returning home.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand from the minister's reply that his department sent a squadron of destroyers 6,000 miles to participate in an exercise with no assurance that it would be carried out? Does he think this is the way to engender support for the increased budget he will so desperately need?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the training exercise was substantially completed by the Canadian ships.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Justice is prompted by the report yesterday that the Metro Toronto Council is seeking substantial changes in the Criminal Code with regard to firearms. Can the minister advise if there are any specific studies under way in his department with respect to such changes and if so, could he advise when he expects a report or when the House may expect to see some changes in the Criminal Code with respect to firearms?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in one sense the question of firearms and their control is under constant study, and from time to time orders in council are adopted to classify new weapons or different weapons as either restricted or prohibited. This happens at regular intervals, as these weapons come to our attention or the attention of the police. There has also been a decision to make a fairly small change in the existing provisions with regard to prohibited and restricted weapons in order to give more flexibility in classifying them in one or other categories. The government does not intend at the present time to proceed with any registration system or to control those weapons which are excepted in the Criminal Code from such systems because they are principally used for hunting.
April 9, 1975


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the House if there is a specific study group dealing with the question of firearms and whether it has made any report to him? If so, does he intend to recommend changes in the Criminal Code, to the cabinet through the Minister of Justice that would deal with firearms?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a group of officials in my department is studying the effectiveness of our present gun laws and is looking at gun laws in other countries. We have not yet had a report on that.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
A few days ago a murder was committed at the federal prison in Cowansville when a young instructor aged 34 was savagely killed with a hammer. Has the Solicitor General been advised of the circumstances surrounding this murder, and does he intend to recommend the application of the legislation as approved by Parliament?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that this was a most horrible crime and we extend our condolences to the family of the killed instructor. At the present time a suspect is under arrest by the Quebec provincial police and an investigation is being made into this matter. In addition, the regional director for the penitentiary service in Quebec is to have an administrative inquiry. With respect to the latter part of the question, I cannot make any recommendation on this case since it has not yet gone to trial.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the minister what he will do, after having offered the victim's family his condolence and received the investigation report, among hundreds of others.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In response to a question put by one of my colleagues yesterday the minister neglected to report
Oral Questions
whether or not it was possible for him to negotiate an extension to the ARDA program which has helped the native community of British Columbia and which was due to expire at the end of March. May I ask the minister also if during his deliberations in British Columbia the 15 per cent to 16 per cent unemployment rate in central and northern British Columbia, which is a result of the declining lumber market, was discussed and if the British Columbia government declared itself ready to enter into agreements with his department which serves other parts of Canada so well?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could make a slight correction in the preamble to the hon. member's question. What I was referring to yesterday was an extension of the regional development incentives program. This does not mean that ARDA will not be extended. I was making that statement yesterday because preliminary arrangements have still to be completed. On the question of the area to which the hon. member alludes where the lumber industry is in trouble, I proposed to the government of British Columbia, and I think it was accepted, that we should explore the possibility of establishing some form of incentives program which would apply to the forest industries or some aspects of them in British Columbia. I assigned officials to the negotiations when I was there two weeks ago, and I am hopeful that we will be able to sign an agreement in the feneral context I have just outlined within a few weeks at the outside.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a followup to the question that the hon. member for New Westminster put to him yesterday. In view of a statement made by General Christian, officer in charge of the French air force in Tahiti and other members of the French government that the Canadian government gave them assurances that there would not be any interference from the Canadian government when they boarded Mr. McTaggart's boat, can the minister advise the House if he has been able to confirm that story? If so, who was the minister in charge at the time who gave the assurance to the French government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the story because no such conversation took place between officials of this department and the French authorities.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS EXCHANGED BETWEEN FRANCE AND CANADA CONCERNING &quot;GREENPEACE III&quot;
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would he be prepared, on behalf of the govern-

April 9, 1975
Oral Questions
ment, to table all documents exchanged between the government and any department of the French government that had anything to do at all with the Greenpeace III?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to reaffirm what my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, that I did not nor did any of the officials at that time have any correspondence or conversations with the French government along the lines suggested.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the federal government follow the example set by the province of Ontario which makes a $1,500 grant available to first time purchasers of new or existing homes and extend their $500 grant to purchasers of existing homes as well as new dwellings?


SHORTAGE OF MASON JAR LIDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA- REQUEST FOR MONITORING OF SITUATION
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the Department of Consumer Affairs actively monitoring the supply of canning jar lids available to home canners in British Columbia? There are reports that supermarkets are already rationing the sale of lids to customers.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, following the many
representations made some time ago by members on this side of the House, we have instructed the officials of my department to follow this matter very closely. The reports I have received to date are quite favourable. Products are available in sufficient quantities and British Columbia consumers should not suffer this year the inconvenience they suffered last year.


THE ARTS
Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of our arrangement is to promote the building of new houses.


Stan Darling: Will the Acting Prime Minister make recommendations to have the Minister of Finance reconsider the funding of those housing programs already underway in the provinces and for which the federal government had earlier reduced the amount of money in which they were going to share?


CRITERIA FOR ALLOCATION OF CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Will the minister inform the House whether his department has established any criteria to define what is pornographic when allocating Canada Council grants for poetry and drama, either on stage, on film or any other kind of art form?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: course not, Mr. Speaker.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will bring these representations to the attention of my colleague.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister either instruct or request his departmental officials to investigate the situation whereby it is reported that certain feed manufacturing companies which own and operate poultry processing plants are charging premium prices, some to the extent of $20 extra per ton for their feed products sold to poultry producers?


André Ouellet: I was not aware of this, Mr. Speaker, but I will find out and report to the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I bring to the attention of the minister an article in the International Herald Tribune in Paris dated March 6, 1975, page 5. Will he look into the allegations indicated where one who offered a bribe, Cheng Hon-kuen, had charges brought against him in return for his testimony along with a full pension and leave, back pay, a gratuity and help in emigration to Canada. I do not know whether the minister knows about this. However, will he look into this matter in order to determine whether there is any truth in this peculiar way of doing business with regard to immigration?


Robert Knight Andras: I was not aware of this, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly look into it. Perhaps the hon. member can save me some time by sending over a copy of the article and I will have it investigated.
April 9, 1975


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of those circumstances and in view of the fact the judge in question expressed concern at the generosity of these amnesty deals, will the minister at the same time look at his records, which indicate he has given the stamp of approval to some 18,000, in order to determine whether in fact this particular individual is on his list. Knowing that this government can move very quickly when necessary, will he also do that when I send this article to him?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the many problems facing our livestock industry, will the minister review the increased fees to be levied this year in community pastures, some an increase of 40 per cent, with a view to returning them to the 1974 levels?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to review it. I have had a number of representations on this matter from western Canada within the past 48 hours. I have asked my officials for an assessment of it. I cannot, of course, give any commitment to change, but I will certainly look at it sympathetically.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It relates to the report of Dr. Noel Hall, the commissioner who is inquiring into all aspects of railway pensions. Can the minister say when we might expect that report?


John Carr Munro: I believe fairly soon now, Mr. Speaker. I can check with Dr. Noel Hall and be more specific for the hon. member later this week.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It arises out of the confusion that was engendered into our exchange yesterday by an apparent misunderstanding in the mind of the Prime Minister. I wish to ask for the third time a question arising out of the minister's admission that the communications branch of the National Research Council monitors Hertzian waves. Can
Oral Questions
the minister tell us if the communications branch was or is monitoring long distance telephone calls placed in Canada to points in Canada or, and I emphasize that word, points outside Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to change the answer I gave yesterday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Which one?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. member will read Hansard, he will find the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER ANY SECURITY AGENCY MONITORING LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not subject the House to the acrobatics performed by the minister yesterday. I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there is any other security agency operating under Canadian authority or under the authority of an agreement to which Canada is a party which is monitoring long distance telephone calls placed in Canada to points in Canada or abroad.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I should have retained my seat. In reply to the question that was asked, I must repeat what I said before. I do not think that the House of Commons in open session is the proper place to discuss security.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971 have precluded inmates of provincial and federal penal institutions from receiving unemployment insurance benefits upon discharge, which previously they could claim if they had two years of employment built up prior to incarceration, can the minister inform the House if he has any plans to amend the act so that such persons would again be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that particular anomaly in the act, which is associated also with people on workman's compensation, is a matter that is under serious review. I cannot indicate to the House whether a decision has or has not been made. It is an area about which I feel strongly. I think it should be looked at very carefully.

April 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, of the Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube, P.C., member for the electoral district of Restigouche, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 717, 758, 977, 978, 1,347, 1,773, 1,787, 1,793, 1,794, 1,796, 1,943, 1,961, 1,968, 1,977, 1,980, 1,986, 1,991, 2,071 and 2,126.
If questions Nos. 56 and 614 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask that questions Nos. 266, 320 and 518 be made orders for return and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,834?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of External Affairs for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of External Affairs and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned the reply is as follows: 1.

1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974 to September$	$	$	$ $(a)	77,834	88,750	79,041	42,275 ( 3,860)(b)	1,367,517	1,696,444	2,237,552	1,103,601 (173,930)(c)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a(dt	207.303	289.787	517.392	313.874 ( 14.850)
The 1974-1975 figures include the amounts shown in brackets for accountable travel advances, (a) These figures include travel expenses for the Under-Secretary, Assistant Under-Secretaries and any person who was designated to represent the Minister, (b) These figures include travel expenses for the participation of Members of both Houses of Parliament and all public servants in major international conferences for which participation is financed by this Department. Actual figures can only be obtained by performing a thorough analysis of all travel expense claims and other related accounts submitted to the Department for payment.
2. The analysis required to obtain the precise information requested and actual figures for parts 1 (i.e., note comments "a" and "b") and 2 would be prohibitive in terms of time, manpower and financial resources.
In so far as the International Joint Commission is concerned, the reply is as follows: 1. (a) To be answered elsewhere; (b) To be answered elsewhere; (c) In so far as the International Joint Commission is concerned, because of the nature of its work, no differentiation can be made between travel in Canada and travel in the United States. Cost of travel outside North America was as follows: 1971 and 1972, Nil; 1972 and 1973, $1,898.72; 1973 and 1974, Nil; (d) In so far as the International Joint Commission is concerned: 1971 and 1972, Nil; 1972 and 1973, Nil; 1973 and 1974, Nil.
2. In so far as the International Joint Commission is concerned: (a) Attendance at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment; (b) Stockholm, Sweden; (c) Mr. J. L. MacCallum, Mr. Bernard Beaupre; (d) June 3 to June 18, 1972; (e) Transportation and Expenses; (f) Two.
In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned the answer is: 1. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.
(<[DOT])
('D
Fiscal year 1971/72

* 8,674
Fiscal year 1972/73

Fiscal year 1973/74

Fiscal Year 1974/75 to September 30/74

(excludes amounts paid for teachers, trainees, and experts paid from Aid funds)
2. The analysis required to obtain the information requested and actual figures would be prohibitive in terms of time, manpower and financial resources.
April 9, 1975


LOSS OF GRAINS THROUGH PROCESS OF HANDLING
Mr. Malone: 1.	At the Port of Thunder Bay, Ontario, have boxcars of grain ever been derailed and submerged in the Port during the process of loading grain from boxcars to ships and, if so, what was the total number of bushels of grain lost (a) during the present calendar year (b) during the past five years?
2.	Are grain handlers accountable for any grains that are lost due to negligence during the process of handling?
3.	Is there any insurance policy to cover losses of grain during the process of handling and, if so (a) what is the extent of the coverage (b) who is responsible for the payment of the premiums?
4.	Is the loss of any grains that occur through the process of handling deductible from the farmers' final payment?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes. (a) In 1974, a total of 7,963 bushels were involved in three mishaps involving four cars, (b) It has not been possible to readily obtain information from sources up to five years old. There have been approximately nine or ten such occurrences in the past five years.
2.	Negligence must be established in every instance before liability is assumed. Grain losses, while in the possession of the railways, are investigated by them to establish the limits of their liability, if any.
3.	Railways are self-insured, (a) Their liability is limited by the terms and conditions of carriage, (b) Self-insurance premiums are in operating expense of the railways.
4.	Railway claims covering losses on Wheat Board grains, through the shipping companies involved, are for the full export value of the grain. Such losses do not affect the level of the Board's final payment.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATIONS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are all the reasons that conflict of interest regulations applying to the Prime Minister and to Members of the Cabinet are not also applicable to assets held by their wives or their husbands?
2.	Will the government announce a change in such regulations to make them applicable to spouses and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. The
answer to this question can be found in the House of Commons Debates for December 10, 1974, page 2111.
2.	No. See answer to part 1.


FURTHER CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATIONS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Will the government announce further conflict of interest regulations requiring all Cabinet Ministers to make public whether or not they have transferred assets of any kind to their wives since receiving appointment to the Cabinet and at the same time will they be required to make public the nature of all such assets transferred?
2.	If the government will not announce such further conflict of interest regulations, what are all the reasons that this will not be done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. No.
2.	Such additions to the guidelines applicable to the Ministers of the Crown are unnecessary.
Order Paper Questions TAX EXEMPTION TO SMALL BUSINESSES


Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the government to consider the advisability of giving a tax exemption in the first $10,000 of earned income by small business in order to give small business added incentive to retain funds in the business for expansion or increased working capital?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: It is not at
this time the intention of the government to consider the giving of a tax exemption to the first $10,000 of income earned by a small business. The small business deduction as recently amended by Bill C-49 presently allows a small Canadian-controlled corporation to pay a low rate of tax on the first $100,000 of active business income earned by it in a year. This low rate is generally available to such a corporation until it has accumulated $500,000 of active business income after 1971.


TEXTILE MARKET
Mb. Howie: What measures are being taken to protect existing markets and restore production and develop badly needed markets to counteract the loss of Canada's textile markets reflected in closed mills, 8,000 unemployed workers and underemployed Canadians?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The reports of the Textile and Clothing Board on its concurrent inquiries into the impact of imports on Canadian production of a number of textile products, conducted at the request of the Minister, were tabled on March 6, 1975. Each of the products had been identified by the Labour/Management Committee of the Canadian Textile Industry as a priority problem area. As announced when the Board reports were tabled, the Government is taking appropriate action to implement the thrust of the Board's recommendations, including the maintenance and extension of export restraints on specific products with certain countries and the placing of these and other products on the Import Control List. It is considered that these measures will assist in restoring a reasonable degree of stability in the markets involved while enabling Canada to continue to fulfill its international obligations under the G.A.A.T. The Department has been encouraging Canadian textile producers to expand their export markets by assisting them to participate in international fairs, to identify and adjust to new foreign markets, and to bring foreign buyers to Canada. A number of general industrial assistance programs of the Department are available to help the textile industry restructure its operations and to develop new products with a view to improving its competitive position in the domestic and international markets. These programs include the Program to Enhance Productivity, the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology and the General Adjustment Assistance Program.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-TENDER BF-ARO-6160-04-108-2A
Mr. Whittaker: Was Tender BF-ARO-6160-04-108-2A to supply parts and services to the Department of Supply and Services called by the government and,
4648

April 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions
if so (a) on what date was it let (b) to whom was it awarded (c) what was the amount of money that the tenderer received?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) The contract is dated June 20, 1974; (b) Domin-ion-Pegasus Helicopters Ltd., P.O. Box 340, King City, Ontario LOG 1K0; (c) Invoices to February 19, 1975, $64,211.99.


MR. PITFIELD'S TRIPS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to Attachment "B" of the answer to Question No. 447 that Mr. Michael Pitfield made certain trips at public expense "to recruit senior staff and meet with local officials", in each such case (a) what are the names and addresses of senior staff recruited or interviewed for recruitment (b) what are the names, positions and addresses of all local officials met (c) what are all the full property addresses where any recruiting interviews for recruitment or meetings with local officials took place?
2.	What was the purpose and subject discussed at each such meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. (a) It is not government policy to disclose names of people interviewed for recruitment in the Public Service of Canada, nor would it be desirable to do so since such information might jeopardize the current employment status of an individual, reflect on his competence or otherwise encroach upon his rights, (b) Local officials visited were met for the purpose of exchanging views for use in advice to be given the Government. Under long established Parliamentary practice, advice from officials to Ministers of the Crown, or the source thereof, is privileged information. (c) See (a) and (b) above.
2.	See 1(b) above.



Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to Attachment "A" of the answer to Question No. 447 to the effect that Mr. Michael Pitfield made certain trips at public expense "to meet with consultants", "to meet with officials" and "to meet with provincial officials" (a) what are the names, positions and addresses of all such persons met (b) the full property addresses where all such meetings took place?
2.	What was the purpose and subject discussed at each such meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See answers to question No. 1,793.



Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 447 that Mr. Michael Pitfield was in London, Paris, and Brussels for a period of thirty-six days from November 1 to December 6, 1968, on Privy Council office business (a) what is a full description of all such business (b) where did he spend each day and night (c) what are the names and addresses of all persons dealt with and in what locations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: (a) The
purpose of the official trip was to exchange views for use in advice to be tendered to a Minister or Ministers of the Crown, (b) Time spent on official business was spent at places mutually convenient to the respective parties. Disclosure of information of a private nature should not be

requested under the rules of Parliament, (c) See reply to question No. 1,794.


CREATION OF NEW PRISONS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the creation of new prisons in or near any municipality in Wellington, Grey or Dufferin Counties or the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and, if so, what are the localities being considered and for each location is the institution being considered a minimum, medium or maximum security institution?
2.	For each institution (a) approximatively how many inmates would be expected to be housed in it (b) on what date does the government plan to begin construction (c) on what date is construction expected to be completed?
Hort. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General): The answer is as follows: 1. The Canadian Penitentiary Service has a need for inmate accommodation and has activated investigations in a number of locations including the stated municipalities to determine whether there are suitable sites. The site required will be for a medium security institution.
2.	(a) The institution will have a capacity for 180 inmates, (b) The construction start date cannot be established until a site has been found, (c) Normally, the design of facilities and their construction would take about two years. Completion depends upon the date started.


SNOWSHOE CONTRACT
Mr. Reynolds: Was a contract awarded November 1, 1974, for 12,697 pairs of snowshoes to Magline of Canada Limited, Renfrew, Ontario and, if so, were tenders called for on the contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: A contract was awarded October 16, 1974 to Magline of Canada for 12,697 pairs of snowshoes at a cost of $711,655. The news release on this contract award was dated November 14, 1975. Tenders were called and Magline of Canada was the lowest tender received.


CONTRACT FOR BRIEFCASES
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded September 27, 1973 to Queen Leather Products Inc. for briefcases costing $27,401?
2.	For what purpose were they purchased?
3.	For what department were they to be allocated?
4.	How many briefcases were purchased?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. Yes. Contract was for briefcases and portfolios.
2.	For stocking and subsequent sale and distribution by the Department of Supply and Services Regional Supply Centres located in Halifax (Dartmouth), Montreal and Ottawa.
April 9, 1975

3.	Any federal department which requisitions the items on an as and when required basis.
4.	Four hundred sixty-eight briefcases; 1,460 portfolios.


THREE-TRAILER NURSING STATION CONTRACT
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded April 4, 1974 to Corab Services Ltd., Calgary, Alberta for the supply of one three-trailer nursing station costing $123,700?
2.	What was the cost of the supply, transportation and installation of the item?
3.	Were other tenders submitted?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: 1. Yes, however the contract was awarded March 12, 1974; the news release was dated April 4, 1974.
2.	The contract in the amount of $123,700 was on a firm lot price basis for the supply, delivery and installation. The transportation cost amounted to $15,840. The installation charge was not defined separately.
3.	Yes.


OFFICE FURNISHINGS CONTRACT
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded November 20, 1974 by the Department of Supply and Services to Standard Desk Ltd., Laval, Quebec for a quantity of office furnishings costing $897,642?
2.	Were tenders requested?
3.	What companies tendered?
4.	Did the Department contribute, financially or otherwise, to the set-up of the company in its ability to construct such furnishings?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. Yes, however, contract was awarded on October 29, 1974; press release was dated November 20, 1974.
2.	Yes.
3.	Standard Desk Limited; Louis Ethan Limited; Sunar Limited; Ebena/LaSalle Inc.; Gothic Store Fixtures.
4.	No.


OFFICE FURNISHINGS CONTRACTS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on March 12, 1974 to Vulcan Industries Ltd., Pointe aux Trembles, Quebec for a quantity of office furnishings costing $1,182,339?
2.	Were tenders requested?
3.	What companies tendered?
4.	Did the Department contribute financially or otherwise to the set up of this Company for its ability to construct such furnishings?
5.	Is there an arrangement with Vulcan Industries whereby the Department will show preference to their tenders in the future?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. Yes, however, contract was awarded on February 20, 1974; press release was dated March 12, 1974.
2. Yes.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Vulcan Industries Ltd.; Ebena/LaSalle Inc.; Standard Desk Limited; Sunar Limited; Canabureau Ltd.
4.	No, except in technical matters related to production as is the custom on most contracts for commodities manufactured to Government specifications.
5.	No.


CONTRACT FOR TOBOGGANS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded February 19, 1975 to Magline of Canada Ltd., Renfrew, Ontario for the supply of toboggans costing $215 each?
2.	Were tenders requested on this contract and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. A contract was awarded January 16, 1975; the news release was dated February 18, 1975. The price was $215.54 each delivered to Lancaster Park, Alberta, and $211.65 each delivered to Montreal, Quebec.
2. Yes.


MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded August 1973 to Batterton Mail Service Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario for mail service at a cost of $40,000?
2.	For what reason was it necessary for the government to issue a contract on external mail courier service?
3.	For what department was this service made available?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	To meet a requirement of the National Museums of Canada for a mail and parcel pick-up and delivery services from and to 12 locations in the Ottawa area.
3.	National Museums of Canada.


REASONS WHY DOCUMENTS ARE NOT MADE PUBLIC
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Parts 2 and 4 of Question No. 1,083, what are all the reasons that the government refuses to make public the entire file on the project with these words "The documents in question are internal working papers which it is not government policy to make public"?
2.	What are all the reasons that give the government the right to withhold this information from Parliament?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. See Hansard, March 15, 1973, page 2288.
2. See Beauchesne, Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, Citation 171(C), (D), (H), (I), (R), (EE) and Citation 181(3) and (4).


SELECTED PRESS CLIPPINGS
Mr. Reynolds: 1. How many people are employed by the National Research Council in putting together the monthly document called "Selected Press Clippings"?
4650

Order Paper Questions
2. What is the total cost including salaries in putting this monthly together?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. 0.09 man years.
2. $15,480.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $688,751 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Dollard, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL LIBRARIES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Symes: 1.	(a) How many federal libraries are located in Northern Ontario (b) in what places (c) what are the holdings of these libraries?
2.	As of June 1974, which daily and weekly newspapers published in Northern Ontario were being currently received by the National Library?
3.	Which back files of daily and weekly newspapers published in Northern Ontario are held by the National Library (a) in a hard copy (b) in microform?
4.	As of June 1974, how many libraries in Northern Ontario received Canadiana?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF PERSONNEL, JANUARY 1,1970 AND JANUARY 1, 1974
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each department, what was the number of persons employed on (a) term basis (b) contract basis (c) casual basis, by classification and salary range, on January 1, 1970 and January 1, 1974?
2.	What benefits were payable to term employees, casual employees and contract employees, by classification and salary level (where applicable), on each of these dates?
Return tabled.


PERSONNEL ATTACHED TO MINISTERIAL OFFICES
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What are the names of persons attached to each Minister as executive assistants, special assistants, private secretaries, special advisers, departmental assistants and secretarial or otherwise (b) what are the salaries of each of these persons?
2.	What are the names of firms or individuals, if any, employed by the offices of each of the Ministers on a contract basis?

3.	What is the nature of the work or services under each contract?
4.	What is the amount payable under each contract?
Return tabled.


LIP-ALLOCATIONS IN CONSTITUENCY OF VANCOUVER CENTRE, 1973-74
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Vancouver Centre, British Columbia (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 36 and 37?


COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SUNSET CREST LTD. AND EMPLOYEES OF AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of correspondence and agreements between Sunset Crest Ltd., now a subsidiary of the Barbados Shipping and Trading Co., and any employee of Air Canada or its subsidiaries.
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The requested documents are of a proprietary nature and Air Canada believes this information should not be made public for competitive reasons. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: We do not think this passion for secrecy should be carried so far, and we ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPIES OF DREDGING CONTRACTS, 1970-74
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Paproski:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of contracts, correspondence, agreements and papers for each year 1970 to 1974 relating to dredging contracts in (a) Toronto (b) Quebec City (c) lie d'Orleans (d) Cap-de-la-Roche (e) South Baymouth (f) Hamilton.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: The papers requested cannot be produced as they might prejudice any proceedings before a court of justice. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that a final decision not be made at this time in order that I may consult my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 9, 1975


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   LABOUR CONDITIONS REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26, I request that an emergency debate be held on the feed grain supply in eastern Canada, and more particularly in Quebec.
This matter is vital, Mr. Speaker, and this is why:
(1)	The longshoremen's labour conflict cuts off access to grain elevators. The longshoremen use this as a means to bring pressure to bear and, by doing so, they are endangering the life of the cattle because of a lack of food.
(2)	Consequently, since the millers can no longer obtain feed grain as they cannot cross the longshoremen's picket lines, they cannot meet the demands of their customers for more than 24 hours.
(3)	Yesterday, the minister stated that he knew that there was feed grain available, for instance in elevators and mills, as well as at the farmers' suppliers.
(4)	The minister is ill-informed or misleads the House. I have here a telegram which clearly contradicts the statements made today by the minister and his parliamentary secretary, even though these statements might be true as concerns the port of Montreal, but this still increases production costs. The telegram, dated April 9 and received this morning, reads as follows:
Feed grain situation now tragic. Impossible to meet cattle feeding requirements.
Cannot conceive the irresponsibility regarding this issue. Unacceptable tolerance given to union leaders who perturb the economy with such irresponsibility. Urgent need for immediate action to deliver grain today to elevators.
Signed: Montmagny Farming Cooperative, A. Lamonde, Secretary.
And another letter says:
A lack of grain can be very harmful for our cattle and we are all aware of what could follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 26, the hon. member must understand that he is simply required to give a brief explanation of the urgency of the issue. I now invite him to propose his motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to say that when similar labour troubles paralyzed the western ports in March, the Chair allowed a special debate even though that conflict was settled. Moreover, the government introduced emergency legislation for settling that conflict. I hope that the Chair will equally welcome today my motion dealing with eastern problems and urging the government to introduce a bill so as to settle this problem without delay. I therefore ask, in
Members' Salaries
accordance with the rules, that a special debate be held under Standing Order 26(10), since today is Wednesday, on the longshoremen's conflict in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under Standing Order 26, the hon. member has given to the Chair the prescribed notice. I have studied very carefully his letter as well as the telegram to which he referred a moment ago. It surely deals with a very serious and important matter. It is also impossible to ignore that situation which is quickly changing from day to day.
Of course, in answer to some questions that have been asked, today's situation is different from that of yesterday, and it is changing quickly. I recall that the last time we had an urgent debate under Standing Order 26 on account of a strike in western Canada, I accepted the motion at three o'clock in the afternoon and at eight o'clock in the evening, the strike had been settled. Given the quick changes that occur every day, I would prefer to reject the motion to have an urgent debate this evening, but that does not mean that I do not consider the situation as a serious one. I invite the hon. member, and I am quite sure he will do so, to follow the situation very closely and reserve his decision for a few more days in order to consider it very prudently. If such a situation persists, it might be possible perhaps later for the hon. member to raise this question a second time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (p. 4623).
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on Bill C-44 was adjourned at ten o'clock last evening I was pointing out that passing the bill, which grants very substantial increases to members of parliament and senators, will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the government successfully to appeal to various segments of the Canadian population to restrain their demands for increased wages and salaries.
It is true that the members of the House and of the other place have not had an increase since 1971, although my recollection is that at that time the increase was substantial on the ground that it was to cover some years into the future. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the government has had ample opportunity since 1971 to set up some type of mechanism to deal with this matter, but has

April 9, 1975
Members' Salaries
neglected to do so, with the result that we now have a piece of legislation proposing very substantial increases.
An increase of 50 per cent is a very large increase in one's income. While the government has intimated that it may reduce this amount to 33 per cent when the bill is in committee, it is also true that it intends to put in the indexing feature, on the basis of the industrial composite index, to begin in this parliament rather than the next parliament. So that by the end of the thirtieth parliament members will be getting virtually what the government suggested in the legislation that was presented last December.
The government will find it very difficult to carry on its discussions with business, professional and labour groups, asking them for restraint in the matter of wages, if the House adopts the measure that is before it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is quoted as having said the other day that he is alarmed at the very substantial increases which in recent months have been granted workers in this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is quoted as having said at the first ministers' conference this morning that Canada has one of the worst records of any country in terms of days lost because of strike action. Everyone deplores loss of time due to strike action, but the fact remains that workers in this country have found that the cost of living in many cases has risen more rapidly than the real income which they receive.
The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have been meeting, and intend to continue meeting, with various groups in the economy in order to persuade them to exercise some restraint in their wage demands. I submit it will be increasingly difficult to do that when at the same time those who are being asked to be less demanding know perfectly well that the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and members of this House, as well as members of the other place, have all voted themselves very hefty increases in their remuneration.
How do we answer the longshoremen who only a few days ago were sent back to work by order of this parliament? I voted for that legislation because I thought it was absolutely necessary to get the ports in western Canada operating and to get grain moving to world markets. But how do I explain to longshoremen in British Columbia that we sent them back to work, leaving their future income to the tender mercies of an arbitrator, while we in this parliament are so generous with regard to our own incomes?
How do I answer old age pensioners and recipients of veterans' pensions in my constituency and all across this country? These groups find themselves in very difficult circumstances. The incomes they are receiving are not adequate to meet even the barest of living requirements. The best proof of this is that several of the provincial governments have had to step in and enlarge the incomes of old age pensioners. Many provincial governments are now providing a guaranteed income up to as high as $240 a month for old age pensioners because they cannot live on the present old age security pension even though it has a cost of living bonus attached to it. The provincial governments have had to subsidize out of their meagre revenues a payment to old age pensioners, the responsibility for whom lies primarily with the federal government.

This parliament could long ago have substantially increased pensions paid to senior citizens and to veterans of this country. When we press the government with respect to this matter, the answer is always the same: the government cannot afford it. How will we explain to the old age pensioners and veterans that we cannot afford to give them more money but that we can afford to increase our own indemnities and travelling expenses?
I am afraid that as the government meets with the various segments of our economy and pleads with them to exercise restraint, the public is going to be very cynical. It is going to look upon members of parliament as taking the position: Don't do as I do, do as I tell you. It is going to remember the words of Emerson, who said, "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say".
I agree with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), when he says that we should never put members of parliament in the position where the only persons who can run for office are those with a private income. That is true. There was a time, particularly in British history, when the only persons who could sit in the House of Commons were those who were wealthy and therefore they became a special group.
It is equally true that members of parliament ought not to become, on the other hand, an elitist group forming part of the upper 5 per cent of the income earners of this country. We do not want members of parliament who have to be dependent upon private a income: we want to make it possible for any citizen of this country to run for office and, if elected, to sit in this House of Commons. But we must be careful, at the same time, that those of us who sit in this House do not get out of touch with the people whom we represent; and that is a real danger. When you remember that in 1973 the average income of a family in Canada was $6,358, you will see that the increase alone being proposed in this legislation will be more than the entire income upon which some families in this country had to live for a whole year.
I submit that the government had a real opportunity, an opportunity which it has missed, to give some leadership in this country when it started to ask people to exercise a measure of restraint. It seems to me that was a good time to have said, when requesting the people of Canada to tighten their belts, that we would begin with ourselves. We could have given leadership in this regard. But we are not giving it in the bill which is now before us-a bill which will make it virtually impossible for the government to make such a request of the people of Canada without being laughed out of court.
I sometimes wonder whether members of parliament realize the extent to which the public is becoming increasingly cynical about politics and politicians. This is particularly true of young people. I have occasion to address many groups of young people in universities and high schools, and their attitude today is that all those in politics are there for what they can get. I submit that is not true. I have said repeatedly to groups of young people that in the many years I have associated with politicians, I can honestly say that the great bulk of them are honest men and

women who are sincere and conscientious in their desire to serve the public good.
Of course, there are exceptions; but there are exceptions in any group or any profession that you care to name. I think that on the whole this country has been well served by its public men and women. The fact remains that there is public skepticism about politics and politicians and I think we ought to be concerned about it. In a free society it is only natural that some people will disagree with particular politicians and will be disillusioned about some politicians and some political parties. That is what one can expect in a democratic society. But when the public becomes disillusioned about politics and politicians generally, then the basis upon which a free society is built is in real danger. If the public loses confidence and respect for parliamentary institutions, then I submit that our democratic system will not long survive.
I suggest that this cynicism and skepticism will not be dissipated by spurious arguments. The general public will tend to think like that homespun philosopher Josh Billings, who once said that when a fellow says it is not the money but the principle of the thing, it is the money! That is how I think the public will feel about some of the arguments to which we have been listening.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan) went to great lengths yesterday to say that we need to raise members' indemnities because this would prevent conflict of interest. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous argument, namely, that if we pay people more money, they are more likely to be honest. Some of the most dishonest transactions we have seen in this country and in other countries were committed by people who had the most wealth. There is no guarantee that you make people honest by giving them more money. People are honest because they have convictions and belief in their responsibilities in the public service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was dredging hard for that one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
also hear the argument that if we raise the indemnity substantially we will get a better class of member. First of all, I do not agree with that. Over the years we have had some very good members in this House and in other elected bodies across the country. I do not agree that by raising members' indemnities you can guarantee a better class of member. Even if one accepted that thesis, raising the indemnity will not change the class of members of this parliament. If it would improve the quality of the members we get, we should raise indemnities for the next parliament and see whether we get a better group than we have now-and I doubt very much whether that would be the case.
The government would be well advised to accept the motion moved yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for a six months' hoist. I think a six months' hoist would give the government ample time to set up some mechanism similar to the Beaupre committee, or a committee headed by the Chief Justice, that is, an unbiased and unprejudiced committee to look into the matter of proper and adequate remunera-
Members' Salaries
tion for members of parliament, senators, cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister. Then the whole question of what should be paid for our services would be placed in the hands of some other body rather than being left to us. Nothing could be more embarrassing than for members to have to decide on their own what they think they are worth. No other group in the economy has that privilege: other groups have to bargain for the wage return they will get. In some cases-as in the case of the longshoremen- when they cannot agree, parliament sends them back to work and allows an arbitrator to make the decision.
It would be a good idea to have an arbitrator in this instance. There is no hurry about this matter. This parliament will probably run for another 3V4 years, so there is plenty of time to set up some mechanism for taking this whole question out of the hands of members of the House of Commons, letting somebody look into it, make recommendations and have those recommendations considered by the House as having been prepared and computed by an independent group. If the government is not going to do that and insists on proceeding with this legislation, then it seems to me that at the very least those who took on the job of being members in this thirtieth parliament ought to be prepared to work for the indemnity we knew was in effect when we were elected, and we should add to the indemnity-and to the indemnity alone-a cost of livng index computed from July 8, 1974. That would mean we would receive the the salary that we contracted to work for, plus an increase to compensate us for the rising cost of living.
I think if we did that we would be setting an example for the rest of the people of Canada. I am sure no one need tell the government there are a great many collective agreements coming up for negotiation this year. Unless there is some measure of restraint, we will have a great deal of industrial unrest in this country. I can understand the government's concern. I can understand the concern of the Minister of Finance about what will happen, not only in terms of the days lost because of strikes but also because of the effect on our economy if exorbitant demands are made and accepted. I plead with the government: if it really wants to give leadership to the people at this time and to exercise restraint with regard to wage and salary demands, it should begin here. Sacrifices, like charity, should begin at home.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at this time for two reasons: first, to clarify the government's intention in respect of amendments to the bill in committee and, second, to urge that the bill be referred to the committee without delay so that the necessary amendments may be made and the House will be in a position to consider the bill in its amended form rather than in the version that is now formally before us.
The House will recall-it is hardly necessary for me to go over the history of this legislation-that in its original form the legislation provided for a flat 50 per cent increase in indemnity and allowances, without any escalation. It was a percentage that was to be flat and not to be changed during the course of the parliament. There was, however,

April 9, 1975
Members' Salaries
some misunderstanding, perhaps accompanied by some misrepresentation, in respect of the purpose of that increase: it was equated with the kind of increases that come annually between employers and employees, as if we were to receive 50 per cent a year or something of that kind.
In order to deal with that particular kind of criticism, after discussions among the representatives of the parties, I indicated on December 19, 1974-my remarks appear at page 2385 of Hansard-that the government would be prepared to support amendments to the bill which would change the form of the increase. I proposed at that time that the increase should be 33'A per cent in respect of the indemnity and allowances, and that there should be a formula for adjustment which would come into effect on January 1, 1976, after a period of 18 months during which there would be no adjustment in either the indemnity or allowances. As from January 1, 1976, salaries and allowances would become adjustable on the basis of the increase that had taken place in the industrial composite index between the average of the two previous calendar years. In other words, on January 1, 1976, there would be an adjustment to reflect the percentage increase that had occurred in the industrial composite index between 1974 and 1975, and in each subsequent year a similar adjustment would take place.
Incidentally, I should like to comment on the statement of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who suggested that the increase that had taken place in 1971 was supposed to reflect the future as well as the past. I have very carefully examined the record and have spoken to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). He affirms what I read in Hansard, which is that the adjusted payment at that time reflected only the increase in the relevant index that had taken place in the past, and there was nothing contained in that adjustment which took into account any changes which might take place in the future. So I think we are quite justified in going back to 1970 to reflect, in the present proposals, the changes in the industrial index which have taken place in that four-year period.
The House will also recall that we did not reflect, in the adjustment proposed on December 19, the full increase that had taken place in the general level of salaries and wages during the previous four years. If, in fact, we had done that, we would have proposed an increase of 37 per cent rather than 33 VS per cent. However, as I said at that time in the course of my remarks, there seemed to be a disposition on the part of those consulted to recommend somewhat less. That was the basis for the amendments I proposed on December 19 last year. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) gave general support to the amendments although he had some reservations about the salaries of ministers and other officials of the House and of the government.
In the meantime, the government has been giving further consideration to the formula for adjustment of the indemnity and expense allowance in future years. It had been our purpose, one which was shared by the Leader of the Opposition, that the adjustment should run somewhat behind the increase in the industrial composite index. I should like to quote what the Leader of the Opposition

said at that time, because I think it reflected what we all had in mind in making those proposals. As recorded at page 2386 of Hansard for December 19, 1974, this is what he said:
I am also pleased that the escalation factor in the future is delayed by a year and will therefore run somewhat behind the general increase in the index. That provides, and I am pleased to see it, I think some general incentive to members of the House to fight inflation.
That was the view he expressed at that time and it was certainly one that we on the government side shared. On further reflection, and in light of the comments of those in favour of an increase in remuneration but who are somewhat concerned about the appearance of the adjustment formula-even though, as I have said, it is fair and defensible-the government is prepared to consider amendments which would modify the rate of escalation. In recent days discussions along these lines have taken place among representatives of the parties and I personally believe that a formula can be worked out in committee that would help to reduce the concern of some who are prepared in principle to support the legislation.
There are several ways of making the adjustment, of doing what we all have in mind. There are merits and drawbacks to all of these, as anyone who has taken the trouble to look at the problem will discover for himself. I suggest, however, that it would be extremely difficult to resolve the issue or to decide which is the preferable method during this debate on second reading. The question before us at this stage in our proceedings is one of principle, which is that the remuneration of members of parliament should be increased to bring it more into line with present circumstances, and to provide for an adjustment that would keep it in line with future circumstances, even though the bill before us requires substantial modification along the lines I indicated on December 19 and perhaps in other particulars which may be decided by the committee itself.
Therefore, I urge the House to express itself on the principle of this bill, which is to increase the indemnity and allowances of members of parliament and to provide for periodic adjustment, and to refer the bill to the standing committee where it can be examined in detail, amended and reported back for further consideration. It seems to me that in this way we can have a more meaningful and conclusive debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to respond very briefly to what has been said by the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). He indicated, on the part of the government, a willingness that this matter should go to committee where the bill can receive the kind of examination, amendments and changes that the committee might see fit to make or to propose. I begin by pointing out to the House that this, of course, is the most appropriate function of a standing committee. It does not fall within the regulations of this hallowed chamber to permit amendments to be brought forward in detail on second reading of a bill.
We are dealing with a bill concerning salaries of members of parliament and other elected officers of the government and of the House, and as such there is a question
April 9, 1975

of whether or not consideration should be given to there being such increases. We can and have considered the question of what should be the amount of the salary increases, what should be the expense allowance, what should be the position with regard to retroactivity, with regard to ministers' salaries, and so on.
We have had an excellent debate in the House: it has been a hard debate and some very firm positions have been taken. In some cases there is a great gap separating certain members of the House, but it seems to me that the substantial majority of the members who have spoken, no matter what increases they are inclined to favour, approve the principle that certain adjustments should be made. That being the case, I certainly go along with the President of the Privy Council and say: Let us dispatch this matter to the committee. Let the committee, in light of what has been said in the debate and in light of instructions which the representatives may receive from their respective parties, make such amendments and proposals as they feel they should, following which the matter should come back to the House.
I urge the House to let the matter go to committee as soon as possible so that we can get on with other business. In saying that, I would point out that we have expressed some reservations inside and outside the House regarding some of the issues involved. We want to feel free in the committee to consider changes, for example, with regard to ministerial salaries, whether or not the amount of remuneration should be brought in line with the 331/3 percent basis and similar proposals. There may well be some question as to retroactivity and other issues.
Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke for the party when he indicated outside the House that somehow there should be incorporated into the bill a measure which would constitute an incentive in parliament to reduce the rate of inflation. I say that with full knowledge of the fact that for 41/2 years this parliament has set a very good example to the rest of the country on the question of inflation by not asking for an increase in remuneration. Unfortunately, that example was not followed by other sectors of the economy, including governments federal, provincial and municipal, industry and labour-even including those guardians of public morality, the media. However, that is beside the point.
Despite the fact that the example we strove to set in the last 41/2 years has not had much success, I still think we have an obligation to try to work out a formula-even if that formula were in the form of a ceiling-so that there would be an obvious desire, as members of the House and representatives of the people of Canada, within the limits of our ability as a parliament, as contrasted with the government, to do something about inflation. Such a ceiling might well be worked out in the committee as a result of motions, amendments and discussions which will take place there.
For that reason, and to that extent, I go along with what has been said by the President of the Privy Council and hope we will dispatch the matter to the committee so that it may come to a decision, bearing in mind what has been said in the House, and bring its views back to the House. We will then examine the results and deal with the question at that time.
Members' Salaries


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the House leader for the Conservative Party with amusement when early in his comments he said this debate has been lively, interesting and informative, or words to that effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Excellent."


John Edward Broadbent: "Excellent" is one specific adjective he used. If those terms are appropriate, he must have been using them to describe the contribution made by members of other political parties, because during the course of the debate yesterday, today and before Christmas no other Conservative contributed to it. Either his kind words were intended only for other political parties or he was patting himself on the back; I am not sure which.
In more serious vein, I would like to have heard a serious contribution from the Conservative Party as to where it stands on the principle of the bill and whether it is in accord with its own approach to the problems of the national economy. That party campaigned in last year's election on fiscal responsibility, on a reasonable incomes policy and on the need for restraint in the House of Commons. I would have thought we would have heard many sophisticated arguments justifying the bill-which still amounts to granting a 50 per cent increase-in terms of that framework, but we did not. We did not hear from the Conservative Party, nor did we hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), both of whom in recent months, since the election, have sounded like Conservative Party members in their statements about the need for restraint and reasonableness in terms of incomes policy.
I would have thought the least we could have expected from the government was a major speech in terms of the kind of leadership we in the House of Commons are supposed to be showing the rest of the country in these very difficult financial times. But we did not hear that either. Instead, we witnessed the low-key performance of the government House leader, which lasted almost three minutes, in order to justify the position of the government.
I want to go back, briefly, over the three stages of this bill. The bill was brought forward before Christmas on the assumption by the government that, with members desiring a Christmas break and some increase in pay, they could slip their iniquitous 50 per cent increase bill through the House of Commons very quickly. They learned that they could not do that. Two days later, after considerable thought and concentrated effort directed toward coming up with what the government described as a compromise measure, they introduced to the House, by way of a statement on motions, the set of amendments which was just referred to.
The ultimate intent of those amendments was to substantially reduce the 50 per cent increase, it was said. We, of course-myself and other members of my party-pointed out that it did not take the most brilliant mathematical mind in the country to conclude quickly from the amendments the government was going to introduce to Bill C-44, that by 1978 the cumulative income of members of parlia-
4656

Members' Salaries
ment under the so-called compromise amendments would be greater than under the original 50 per cent increase proposal.


An hon. Member:: What is your proposal?


John Edward Broadbent: My hon. friend wants to know our proposal. If he had taken part in the debate before Christmas, he might have learned it. He might even have contributed his own thoughts on the matter. Then we had phase three of the government's handling of this measure, which we witnessed yesterday and today. Today, the government House leader discussed the third set of amendments or, if I understand him correctly, really one basic change which the government is willing to consider in addition to the amendments he himself referred to before Christmas; that is, they are going to change the basis of escalation from the original amendments based on the average industrial composite index to some part thereof.
For the reasons which were referred to by the House leader of my party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and by myself and others before Christmas, we find these proposals-there are really only two, the 50 per cent increase and the 33!/3 per cent plus escalation-unacceptable. I want to stress that we do not find them unacceptable by our criteria. I hope that the government backbenchers who were indulging in some rather irresponsible heckling yesterday will consider the arguments made, not on this bill but some four years ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) which I, on behalf of my party, when speaking on this measure before Christmas accepted. The argument the Secretary of State for External Affairs made with reference to members' salaries contained two points. First, he said that salaries for members of parliament should be sufficient to provide them with the necessary resources to discharge their task. He was talking about having enough income at our disposal to have a constituency office, to conduct mailings, and so forth.


An hon. Member:: That's not what he said.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says that is not what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said. I quoted his words. The hon. member can check Hansard and find them. The minister was talking about our capacity to discharge our responsibilities, on the one hand, and he added another important criterion-and I say in all seriousness that this is a criterion we accept-namely, that incomes must be sufficient for members to maintain a decent and reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families.
The members of my party accept that criterion without qualification. We say that a man or woman elected to the House of Commons should not be expected to suffer a significant decline in his or her standard of living. The average person coming here should be able to cope, in a society which is basically as affluent as ours, in terms of living reasonably. We take that view. We do not believe that a member of parliament should be indulging in selfdenial, just as we do not believe that any worker in a economy as affluent and productive as ours should have to experience self-denial.

We have applied this criterion to members' salaries and have said that if we consider our last increase, we have experienced a real decline in our standard of living. We acknowledge that. Many members from all sides of the House have experienced hardship. We believe the majority of members of all parties want to change that situation, as we do. That point is beyond debate as far as we are concerned. But when we look at the level of income proposed by the government, and accepted in principle by the Conservative Party, we say that in our judgment it is too high. It does not meet the criteria so ably stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was government House leader. It goes well beyond that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we object to it.
Before Christmas I tried to explain why we think it goes too far. Since 1970, members of parliament have seen a whole series of improvements in terms of facilities provided for them. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that was the first test which the minister applied when he was government House leader. Since 1970, public expense has paid for four newsletters per year, provided a constituency office and a secretary for that office, plane trip provisions have been extended and, in short, a lot of necessary-and I stress "necessary"-services have been provided to members of parliament. We support each of these. We think it is a good idea for the people of Canada to pay for services that enable members of parliament to do a good job. Anyone who quibbles with that idea has a mixed-up sense of priorities.
We say we cannot have it both ways, however. If, on the one hand, needed and improved services are provided to us, then we cannot simultaneously argue that the $8,000 expense allowance should be improved. If the people of Canada have already paid for expanding our service to the community, as they have, how can we go back to them and ask for something more? I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have it both ways. If the needed services have been provided since the last increase, then in the judgment of the New Democratic Party there can be no justification for increasing the tax exempt allowance. In the context of this debate, we in this party say there should be no increase to the $8,000 allowance because in the last four years the government has provided the facilities which many of us used to pay for out of our own pockets.
I want to make a personal reference to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) because he made a personal reference to me in the debate yesterday, saying that the argument I used before Christmas was hypocritical. He "snuck it in" at the end of his speech, saying something to the effect that one might say that kind of sophistry was a hypocritical argument. He did not want to say specifically that he thought it was hypocritical, but I must infer that is what he had in mind.
He said that in his view members of parliament had not formerly provided these services, and therefore it was hypocritical to use the argument that they were being provided. I say to him that I did provide such services. Out of my own pocket I paid for mailings to my constituents, for a constituency office and for help in that office. I do not say that in any boastful sense because I know that certain members of all parties did the same thing. I was
April 9, 1975

not being hypocritical. Many members took their obligations seriously and paid a substantial portion of their income to ensure that those facilities were made available in their constituencies.
We have said there is no justification for increasing the $8,000 portion of our income, but there is a desire and a need to meet the criteria set by the former government House leader, to provide sufficient income so that we can have a decent and reasonable standard of living for ourselves and our families. There is unquestionably a need to improve the $18,000 salary, but we say the increase should be equivalent to the increase in the cost of living since 1970. The conclusion of the vast majority of members of my caucus is that members should receive that kind of increase, which is now in the 28 per cent to 30 per cent range. What we regard as necessary expenditures for servicing our constituencies have been met by the government since 1970 so there would be no need for an increase to the $8,000. We believe that members of parliament should have basically the same standard of living as they had in 1970 or 1971, and in our view anything beyond that is unjustified.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville said yesterday that a cost of living increase alone was not sufficient because it did not take into account increased productivity. He acknowledged that it is a little difficult to assess the productivity of members of parliament.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about speeches?


John Edward Broadbent: We have had no problem with the Conservatives in that regard in this debate. There has been zero productivity-no, zero plus one.


Mr. Railton:: Do you accept the ICI?


John Edward Broadbent: No, the consumer price index is our criteria. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville said that we should receive an increase that is not only based on the cost of living but also on productivity. We reject that argument, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: You are afraid your productivity is too low.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) says our productivity is too low, but I contend it is the cabinet's productivity that is too low. We reject the argument of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville because we believe that those of us who are in the top 5 per cent-or, depending on your criteria, the top 114 per cent-of the income level of Canada should call a halt to increases in our income beyond that which is necessary to keep us at the standard of living to which we have been accustomed. We say that anything more than that is unjust until the average income earner and the poor catch up.
It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. If there is anything that I feel deeply about, that is it. In this country we do not have a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor, but a widening. Every bit of statistical evidence, whether from government or other sources, documents that fact. In this country one-quarter of the children live in poverty and one-fifth or one-sixth of the total families live in
29557 - 2014
Members' Salaries
poverty. We have the working poor and the poor who are not working. Not only members of parliament, but all Canadians whose incomes are in the top 5 per cent should not be looking for increases in their salaries. But, I say, improve their cost of living position.


An hon. Member:: Motherhood!


John Edward Broadbent: That is a typical Liberal comment. It seems to be the history of the Liberal Party in Canada; I say that seriously. The Liberal Party in Canada, particularly since Mackenzie King, has said that we need progressive income tax measures. They say: Let us have that. Let us permit trade unions to exist, and let us do a number of things along these lines; then we can really overcome inequality. However, it has not worked. It did not work in Mackenzie King's time and it has not worked since.
I repeat, we have almost one million children in this, one of the richest countries in the world, who live in poverty. Yet when we get up and talk about narrowing the gap in incomes, a Liberal sniggers and says "motherhood". That shows how seriously they take the problem of inequality. I know there are a number of Liberals who believe in the notion of equality, but I think most of them philosophically do not. We in this party do.
I say to all members who believe we have to do something about inequality in this country that the only way to move in that direction is for those with high incomes, whether they be in the top 5 per cent or the top 20 per cent, to say we must stop, we must hold the line in terms of our income position until the rest of the people in this country catch up. There is no better example members of parliament can set than holding the line with their own incomes. We believe in cost of living increases, but not one cent more until we have rid this land of poverty. We must take steps to get the average and lower income people into a more preferable position.
I want to make one last point in defence of the reasonable position we are arguing, namely, a non-inflationary kind of policy. Quite apart from the issue of equity or fairness of distribution of income in Canada, the point so forcibly made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands bears repetition by myself just by way of summary. If we want to set an example for other groups in terms of what is a fair income demand, we cannot do it by bringing in a measure to increase our own incomes by 50 per cent immediately, or by a series of amendments that would give us a minimum 3314 per cent increase but, by means of an escalator, very rapidly an effective 50 per cent increase. In my view, that would deeply undermine any serious effort by the government to get operational in Canada some kind of voluntary restraint on incomes policy. This is a very serious abdication of economic leadership on the part of the government.
For these reasons, we as a party will vote against this bill. We will try at the committee stage to have some amendments accepted. We hope by that time the voices of reason and justice in all parties will prevail and we will get the kind of changes to the bill which that kind of attitude would reflect.

April 9, 1975
Members' Salaries


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a few words about what the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has just told us. Talk about double-talk!
For the increase, against the increase: one does not know where to stand. What a series of contradictions considering the way they act with regard to other groups in our society.
Yes, the NDP are the self-appointed champions of the working class, time and time again asking that working class income be indexed. That we agree with too. But when it comes to making comparisons between the role of Parliament, that of hon. members and that of other Canadians, I feel the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby resorts strictly to demagogy.
When it is a matter of increasing the salaries of union leaders, the NDP leader tells the House: Those poor people, we must help them.
And it is so true that they are there to come to the defence of everybody and in saying that only they can play politics-


An hon. Member:: That is it.


David Réal Caouette: That is the point. They think they can draw public attention that way. It is so true, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) made a good speech on Bill C-44. I spoke also, as did others. And this morning, let us check in the newspapers, in Le Jour, Le Devoir, Le Journal de Montreal or others, all report that the member for Oshawa-Whitby promised to oppose Bill C-44.
That is the news we read this morning, that is the freedom of the press: to forget to say the truth when some members spoke in favour of Bill C-44 and to give attention to those who want to practice demagogy in Canada.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I say that there is no comparison between a representative of the people, which the member for Oshawa-Whitby is, and other people. There is no comparison because nobody, union leader, corporation manager or what have you, must face the responsibilities of a federal-or provincial for that matter-member of Parliament.
The New Democrats of the socialist provinces of Canada, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, have understood this in their assemblies, because they are in power. Here, they hanker for power and therefore they do not understand anything.


An hon. Member:: They will never understand.


David Réal Caouette: So much so, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member says he agrees with the parliamentary allowance, but is against higher non taxable expenses. By how much should the allowance proper be increased, he is not quite sure, but he agrees with that. Expenses, no, we are like all the rest of the members in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned yesterday that a member who comes from a distant riding for instance-some come from this area and have no additional expenses-but those who come from another province, those who like ourselves come from northwest or northeast Quebec and have to maintain-


An hon. Member:: Northern Ontario!


David Réal Caouette: -Northern Ontario, those who have to maintain one residence in Ottawa and another in their hometown, who have to take care of their wife and their children at home, have no family life. You will tell me that they could have refrained from being candidates, but nevertheless we felt the urge to offer people our services and I do not think the population objects to their members of parliament living decently and working freely on behalf of the people.
Mr. Speaker, renting in an apartment building here in Ottawa cost $300 or $350 a month. And you have to provide for the food expenses of your family in your riding, everybody knows that. NDP members know that too. When a wedding takes place, we are invited. When it is a wedding anniversary, we are invited again. If there is a funeral somewhere, we have to send flowers. That does not mean we have to, of course not, but if we do not want to be called tightwads, we have no choice, we feel committed toward our constituents. Mr. Speaker, there is no comparing our expenses and those of other Canadians. We are not in the same situation. Whenever there is some kind of demonstration, some collection in aid of a charity, whenever a sporting club, hockey, baseball or any other kind of club starts a fund, the first one asked to contribute is the federal or provincial member of Parliament. What do we do? A small cheque for $25, $50, $100, and so forth. Someone might say we are not forced to, and of course we are not. But if we did not do it, we would be labelled misers. So we do our large share in the community life of our constituencies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Réal Caouette: Someone just yawned. If he does not care about people, if it does not affect him-


Some hon. Members:: He is looking after publicity!


David Réal Caouette: Well, maybe, but to play politics again, as I said before.
Since the New Democrats have been in favour of the escalation clause for a number of years, and since they have been attacking inflation also for a number of years, how can they reconcile their anti-inflation stand with their opposition to indexation to the cost of living? If we were to believe them, the federal government accounts alone for increases in the cost of living, governments and members of Parliament. I believe union leaders should also be concerned with inflation. They are responsible, as everyone else is for inflation and poverty among riches. We know there are poor people. But every time we introduce bills, as we have been doing for these last 35 years, to improve the taxpayers' and consumers' purchasing power, without increasing prices, the New Democrat members are the first to vote against us. In so doing, they
April 9,1975________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________4659
take a hypocritical stand, and they do not mind it. Because they look after the poor people, inasmuch as this gets them votes. They do not have any other use for them.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) urges that we refer Bill C-44 to committee, where New Democrat members may propose in amendment everything they care for. This is not asking for the impossible. In their amendment, they propose a six-month hoist.
The funniest thing about it is that I am convinced that they are all eager to get their raise. They are reluctant to say so. They know that members of Parliament are no millionaires. There may be some millionaires in private enterprise, but one does not become a millionaire on a parliamentary salary, that's for sure.
Mr. Speaker, a Liberal candidate in my constituency- the NDP members are not the only ones to object to salary raises-said recently on television that he was dead set against a raise for MPs. He had sent a telegram to the Prime Minister, his leader-


An hon. Member:: He was defeated.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, he was defeated, and I am the one who did it. He sent a telegram to the Prime Minister who certainly received it. I think he did not act upon it, that he did not reply to his candidate. I say those things to show the inconsistency and the inconsequence of such people.
I was talking recently to a minister, the one who presides at the conventions where he is chosen as candidate. I have made him lose his deposit twice already, and he still comes back.
Recently, I spoke to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey). I told him: Your candidate in my constituency is against a salary increase. He said: "Oh, it is not serious, it is only because he was not elected. Had he been elected, he would have been for the increase, like all the others." This is the answer of the Postmaster General, who presides at the Liberal convention in his constituency.
Mr. Speaker, it all depends on whether the increase is to your advantage or not. Some are afraid to take position because they are afraid to be criticized.
Yesterday, I said that the press in general was responsible for criticism among the population because the people have not been told the truth. They have not been told in detail what the increase provided by Bill C-44 entails. Yesterday, I talked about the constituency of Vil-leneuve; in my constituency, I also made an investigation and 90 per cent of the people replied: "Of course, we do not object to paying you adequately, because you give us the services that we expect."
Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to support Bill C-44. I said yesterday and I repeat today that some people get more money than the members of Parliament and, if they do not get what they want, they even go on strike. People who earn $40,000, $35,000 or $30,000 a year go on strike to get salary increases and the New Democrats are the first to stand up and defend those people by asking the government to give in and accept the increases or indexations requested. Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to civil ser-
Members' Salaries
vants getting an adequate salary. However, I object, and my colleagues also object to people, like the New Democrats, trying to rouse the population against the members of Parliament simply to attract votes during the next election. They did the same thing before the election of July 8 and, just before the election, I had told the then leader in the House-I was sitting on the other side at the time: Because of your attitude, half of your members will be returned on July 8, and you will not be one of them. On election night, he was the one who was not returned and about half the members of the New Democratic Party were reelected. Why? Because they tried cunning tricks and told the government: You will do as we tell you or you will be defeated. When people are in a minority, when they have the balance of power, those things are possible. I told them: You now have a strength you may never have again in your life. I say it again today. If they want to play politics with that, Mr. Speaker, they are 16, after the next election, in two, three, four or five years, half of their present number of members, not more than eight, will be reelected.
Mr. Speaker, electors are fed up with being told stories by people who cannot be more serious than they have been this afternoon. We hear them talk, they sound like offended virgins. I say they are not offended virgins, but whited sepulchres, in the eyes of public opinion. If they vote against Bill C-44, that is their business, but if they do so for purely political, electoral purposes, I say they are not serious, and if they are not first honest with themselves, they are not honest with Parliament, with the people of Canada. If there are poor people in Canada, let us work to help them. It is not by begging or by being without money that we will improve the lot of the Canadian people. Hon. Members should not spend two weeks studying this bill, for they must keep on working in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) that if we oppose this bill, as the majority of the members of this party do, we are not taking that position in expectation of any political gain being made by our opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
# (1630)


David Orlikow: I have never believed that the hullabaloo about this issue created by the press reflected a tremendous interest on the part of thousands of Canadians. The number of letters I received in my office and the number of telephone calls to my home and my constituency office did not total more than two dozen altogether. I have had more letters and communications on other issues than I have on this one. Therefore, I do not believe the public is very excited about this question. I sent a questionnaire to every household in my constituency last January, and according to the replies that came back, substantially more than 50 per cent of the people receiving the questionnaire-which included a question on MPs salaries- indicated they supported an increase in the indemnities paid to members of parliament.

April 9, 1975
Members' Salaries
So if my party or I oppose this bill, it is not because a substantial number of people will take my opposition to it to be such that they are going to run to support me in the next election. I do not believe that for a moment. By the time the next election comes around, this question, in my view, will have been long forgotten. I oppose this bill not because I think members of parliament are not entitled to an increase to their indemnity, but because I think we have not really thought through what the increase should be or in what form we should receive it.
Members of parliament are faced with the same problems as every other Canadian citizen as a result of the sharp increases we have experienced in the cost of living during the last couple of years. I believe, therefore, as I have said, that some increase is justified. But we should keep in mind that members of parliament are already among the top 5 per cent income earners in this country. A look at the daily newspaper in any city of Canada very quickly reveals that all of the traditional income relationships between the various groups in Canadian society, such as the blue collar workers, the white collar workers, professional people, teachers, lawyers, doctors, are under attack. These income relationships are disappearing. We see groups in Canadian society who a few years ago would have recoiled in horror had anyone suggested that they were part of the labour force of this country.
Groups of nurses in my city two weeks ago set a deadline for a strike unless they received a pay increase of about 50 per cent. Doctors in the province of Manitoba working in psychiatric hospitals and other institutions have set a strike deadline; they may have gone on strike today. High school teachers in Ottawa have been on strike for more than four weeks. Why is all this happening, Mr. Speaker? Are these groups asking for too much? I do not know, because I have no way of judging; but I believe they are simply reacting to the free enterprise system under which we live, which teaches every one of these groups in the country: Look out for yourself because nobody else will protect you.
In the three years between 1972 and 1975 we have witnessed extraordinary increases in the profit margins of the corporations of this country. I should like to quote a few examples taken from the Globe and Mail, which nobody would accuse of being a very radical organ of public opinion. According to its issue for November 19, 1974, for the first nine months of 1974 profits of all industries increased by 36.2 per cent over the same period in 1973. Profits in 1973 were as much ahead of 1972 as the profits in 1974 were ahead of the profits of 1973. So if all companies had increased profits of 36.2 per cent, is it any wonder that teachers, postmen, letter carriers, nurses and firemen are asking for a 40 per cent increase? They are taking an example from people who have made substantially more than them.
Then on December 24, 1974, the Globe and Mail followed up its article by giving some examples of profit margins of different groups. Oil company profits for the first nine months of 1974 were up by 103 per cent over the same nine months of 1973. Chemical companies' profits were up 118 per cent in 1974 over 1973. Paper and forest companies' profits were up 78 per cent in the first nine months of 1974 over the same period of 1973. Imperial Oil, a corporation

which I assume will be getting a $2 or $3 increase this week in the price of a barrel of oil, showed a profit in the first nine months of 1974 of $252 million, almost $100 million over the profit for the first nine months of 1973 when it made only $154 million!
As I say, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that these groups are asking for increases in their wages and salaries? I am surprised they have not asked for more. Last year the cost of living rose by over 12 per cent. Thus we have a situation where we have very large wage and salary demands in both the private and public sectors of the Canadian economy, since workers are trying very hard to catch up or perhaps get a little ahead. That is a fact with which we have to live.
Let us look at what is happening to the people employed by the federal government. I am struck by the vast difference in the way in which the government deals with employees in the upper levels compared with those in the lower levels. At the top of the range, the maximum salary for a deputy minister was recently raised from $50,000 to $60,000. At the top, I find that more than 4,000 public servants receive a salary of $25,500 or more a year. There were 2,000 public servants who in 1974 earned $18,000 a year and more and were permitted to earn overtime pay, some of them as much as $5,000 in the year. The number of SX employees grew from about 350 in 1968 to almost 900 in 1973. That shows the way the government has created employees at the top-generously.
So far as lower levels of employees are concerned, the low and middle income earners, the government has been tough. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) was quoted as saying one evening on television that there would never be a Chretien formula like the St. Lawrence Seaway formula, that he was going to protect the people of Canada against excessive wage and salary settlements. He stuck to his guns, and the federal public servants who belong to the Public Service Alliance of Canada went on strike and stayed on strike for weeks. They eventually got an agreement which gave them an increase in the neighbourhood of 29 per cent over the next 26 months. This is not much more than the increase in the cost of living and is probably not much more than the increase will be next year.
I believe there is a very fundamental, completely unfair and unwarranted difference in the way the government deals with senior public servants and those at the lower levels, just as there is a vast difference in the way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) permits corporations to make excessively large profits and then appeals to the average Canadian to exercise restraint in wage and salary demands.
The proposal in reference to this increase for members of parliament is in the same vein as those that have been made for senior public servants. I agree that an increase is warranted and I say parenthetically, if we get an increase, I will spend it. However, is the size of the proposed increase warranted? I do not believe it is warranted, any more than the increases given to senior public servants and members of the private sector, senior executives and shareholders, were warranted. The proposed increase
April 9, 1975

should have been of a more modest nature. I go along with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who suggested that the increase should be calculated from the time of the last election.
It is my belief now, as it has been since I came here, that there can be no justification for any tax-free allowance for members of parliament. To my knowledge, no other citizen is permitted an allowance for which he does not have to account. This proposal is wrong for that reason, and it is wrong because it is unfair as between members of parliament. Let me explain what I mean by that. There is a vast difference in the amount of my expenses, coming from an urban riding, and the expenses of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), for example, whose constituency encompasses more than 50 per cent of the province of Manitoba. The expense of a chartered aircraft, which is the only way he can get into isolated communities, is prohibitive. His expenses are probably small when compared to the expenses of my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth).
I have always believed that the tax-free allowance ought to be wiped out and that members of parliament should perhaps have an allowance for which they must account through vouchers, or they should be permitted to deduct legitimate expenses in calculating their income tax, just as in the case of self-employed persons.
I am opposed to percentage increases across the board, and I know in that regard I am in disagreement with friends and colleagues in the labour movement with whom I have worked for many years. A percentage increase across the board works simply to widen the gap between citizens in this country. As an illustration of what I mean, I refer to the circular which members of parliament received some weeks ago outlining increases in the wages and salaries of people working for the House of Commons. I do not have the document before me, but I remember the broad outline. As I remember it, all members of the House of Commons staff received an increase of between 10 per cent and 11 per cent. That means that the people who work in the cafeteria or the restaurant received an increase of probably $500 or $600 a year, whereas some of the senior people got an increase of between $3,000 and $4,000, or perhaps even higher.
It is this kind of proposal which I believe is fundamentally wrong, in that all it does is widen the income gap between people at the lower levels and those at the top. For the same reason, I do not believe that members of parliament, who are in fact among the top 3 per cent or 4 per cent of income earners in this country, should get a full cost of living increase. If we are seriously trying to respond to the inflationary spiral in which we find ourselves, surely we should be worrying about the people at the lower end of the income scale. If anybody should get a full cost of living increase, they should. If people at the upper levels of the income scale get a cost of living increase, it should not be the full increase in the cost of living. The people of Canada want this country to move toward greater equity than we have seen in recent years, and what we are doing with this increase for members of parliament, as well as increases for people in the public and private sectors, is widening the income gap.
Members' Salaries
I should like to make one more point before sitting down. It seems to me ridiculous, to say the least, to be discussing the proposal before us today at a time when the Minister of Finance tells us, as members of the radio, television and news media have told us, he is meeting with leaders in industry and agriculture as well as provincial premiers and labour leaders in an attempt to obtain a consensus in respect of a policy of restraint to deal with inflation. I have never believed that a voluntary or a legislated policy of wage and price controls could work. You cannot deal with inflation, which is a worldwide phenomenon, through a system of wage and price controls. That is what the official opposition advocated during the last election campaign, and apparently that is the line the Minister of Finance is trying to adopt today.
It is ridiculous for the Minister of Finance to be preaching a policy of restraint and urging labour leaders to convince their members to show restraint, when at the same time members of parliament are engaged in a debate regarding an increase in their indemnity far higher than the increase any group of workers has been abie to get through negotiation or strike. This is particularly ridiculous at a time when our labour leaders have been having a difficult time getting their rank and file members to ratify some of the best offers or agreements they have ever been able to negotiate, because they felt they were not enough and they have been on the short end of the stick for too long.
I do not believe the consensus the minister is looking for can be achieved. I do not believe he can obtain that consensus from labour, from industry, from the agricultural community and from the provincial governments. In other words, I do not believe that consensus can be fully implemented. Having said that, it seems to me that for parliament to agree to such a large increase as that proposed would make a mockery of the whole appeal for restraint. I believe we ought to be looking toward greater, rather than less, equity. Therefore, I simply cannot vote for the proposal before us.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, when I talk to people about parliament and its function, one of the things that immediately comes up in the conversation is the matter of governing the country. Inherent in this is the provision of some kind of leadership. We hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that inflation is getting out of hand and he is attempting to arrive at a consensus between workers, business and other groups in order to restrain the runaway demands which various sectors of the economy are making. At the same time the minister is doing this, the 264 members of this House, who are supposed to be governing and providing some kind of leadership, are asking for a wage increase that can only be interpreted by the people as highly inflationary.
I fear that the result of the passage of this bill,-and it will pass because of the Liberal majority-will be that the workers, unionized and non-unionized, will say that if members of parliament can do it, so can they. In other words, if those who are supposed to provide some kind of leadership in this country originally asked for 50 per cent and settled for a compromise of 33Mi per cent and the

Members' Salaries
yearly escalation, which by the end of this parliament will give us more than the original 50 per cent, how can we expect, in all honesty, that the workers of this country will accept any kind of consensus proposal by the Minister of Finance?
I think that this bill and the response of the Liberal, and indeed the Conservative, members is an indication that there is a belief on their part that there is no chance of beating inflation in this country; that things are out of hand and it is a case of every man and woman for himself or herself. It would seem that the idea is to make as high a demand as possible, stick to it and gain a salary or wage increase that will insulate one from a worsening inflationary situation because this government has abdicated its responsibility to halt inflation.
Having in mind the debate on the legislation to send the railway workers back to work during the twenty-ninth parliament, and also having in mind some of the comments one hears from members of parliament in this House during the question period and other debates, it would seem that some members are outraged by the demands the working people make and point the finger at them as contributing to inflation. I find that on the whole, up until now the workers primarily are asking for one of two things, either a catch-up settlement because they are behind other workers in society, or a cost of living increase to make up for the loss in real wages because of inflation, as well as an insulator for projected inflation; because we hear projections that even though the cost of living went up 12 per cent last year, there will still be two-digit inflation in the year ahead. So it is logical, if the buying power of wages declined 12 per cent last year and there is a prediction of another 12 per cent this year, that the workers should ask for a cost of living increase.
When I ask my constituents what they think about a wage increase for members of parliament and mention that the last increase was in 1970, they agree that we should not have to fall behind. That is why the New Democratic Party has put forward a proposal that we should receive a salary increase based on the increase in the cost of living since our last wage adjustment in 1970. It is also the reason that back in December we so vigorously opposed the government's attempt to bring in a 50 per cent wage increase. Our opposition in the House, plus general public outrage, forced the government to back down.
Now, however, when we look at the so-called compromise, or backing down, we find that the 33'A per cent will be on the full amount of $26,000 which represents the basic wage of $18,000 plus another $8,000 for expenses. We also hear that the government will propose amendments to cover a yearly increase in our salaries based on the industrial composite wage index. As I said earlier in my remarks, we will in the long run receive more under that formula than under the original formula. The position of the New Democratic Party is that just as workers should legitimately demand a cost of living increase, so should members of parliament. That is why we propose a salary adjustment from 1970 based on the cost of living increase, which is somewhat less than 30 per cent; but we say the increase should be on the basic salary of $18,000 and not on the amount of $26,000 as proposed by the government.

One might ask why there should not be an increase in the $8,000 expense allowance. Other members of my party outlined this very clearly, but I wish to mention briefly that so many of the services we previously paid for are now provided by the government while at the same time we still have the tax-free amount of $8,000. We now have a constituency office which is paid for. We have a constituency secretary whose wages are paid by the government. We also have free newsletter mailing four times a year. This is a privilege we did not have in earlier parliaments. Also, our plane fare once a week to our riding is paid by the government. So we say the tax-free $8,000 is sufficient to take care of the legitimate expenses of a member of parliament in serving his constituents.
The point that the government makes is-and I listened to the arguments put forward by government members- that our expenses have gone up and therefore the expense allowance should increase. The point is also made that we need higher salaries in order to attract well qualified people to political office. I find that a rather condescending attitude. The suggestion would seem to be that the best kind of people for the Parliament of Canada, representing 22 million Canadians, are those in the upper-income professions such as businessmen, lawyers, doctors, and so on.
It is suggested that these people sometimes have better political know-how and common sense than ordinary working people who may be making a wage of $10,000 or less. I have listened to debates in the House in which professionals such as lawyers, doctors, businessmen and academics have taken part, and I have often concluded that if we had more ordinary working people in the House, we would have more common sense in our debates than we have had so far this session.
So I reject totally the argument that we must have high salaries to attract a certain kind of person to run for political office. By running for office, we as members of parliament accept, I should hope, the principle of sacrifice for public office from the point of view of the demand that is made on our time, the demand that is made on our family life and the demand on our income. I think we must realize that this is a service and is not something that should have attached to it the remuneration for some other type of work. How can you measure what an MP should be worth compared with members of other professions? I think we would be remiss if we forgot the idea of dedication to public life and what that entails.
I think that this bill also points out a larger issue, that is, the issue that concerns members of my party; it is not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said, that we expect any political advantage, come election time, from our stand; it will be forgotten by the electorate by 1978. But the fact is that there is an important principle at stake in this whole issue of salary increases for members of parliament. We in this party believe that it is the responsibility of a democratically elected government, a government representing the rich, the middle-income people and the poor in this country, to try to narrow the gap, to reduce the inequality between the wealthy and the poor, and to try to provide a better life for those less
April 9, 1975

fortunate who are in this situation often through no fault of their own.
The average worker in 1974 was making only $8,677 a year, yet I hear my colleagues saying that they need an increase which will bring their salary to $39,000 a year. Many of the arguments are legitimate because our lifestyles are different, but I still think that we are failing if we concentrate on the income of members of parliament and ignore narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. Our tax system has not narrowed the gap; and despite all the claims of the Liberal government that they are bringing in tax relief, it has not happened. We have five million Canadians living below the poverty line, and I think we have a responsibility to them as well as to ourselves to set some kind of example and to institute some kind of reform in our tax system. In 1970, 46 per cent of Canadian families earned less than $8,000 a year, 61 per cent of Canadian families earned less than $10,000 a year, and 86 per cent earned less than $15,000 a year. I think we have a responsibility to them and not just to ourselves with regard to our salaries.
The failure of the government to redistribute wealth through our tax system places an additional burden on people in low income groups, as does the failure of this government to control inflation. Here we are saying, well, we are suffering from inflation but the difference is that we can do something about it for ourselves. We could do something about it for these people as well if the government had the courage to reform our tax system and the way in which wealth is distributed in this country. It does not do that, but it says that members of parliament must be protected. This is really following the philosophy of the capitalist system, that everybody is out for himself and the strong survive; the strong make claims, but the weak perish; that once in a while a token gesture can be made to keep the poor and disadvantaged quiet, and that is all that is necessary.
Corporations in this country can raise prices without justification. Don't tell me that there is a free market economy and competition to keep prices down, when we are into the stage of monopoly control. So corporations can increase prices without justification; but workers, when they want increased wages, have to justify it and bargain for it, both union and non-union workers-especially nonunion workers, who are in a very weak position. Yet members of parliament who want a salary increase are not like the majority of Canadians. With whom do we bargain? We bargain with ourselves. Like the professional groups of doctors, lawyers and businessmen, we set our own prices, our own salaries, our own fees.
I say that is wrong, that no one should have that kind of unlimited power. That is why, if we are following the principle of bargaining which most people have to accept, one of the functions of the opposition is to stand up and make members justify a wage increase. We in the opposition are asking the government to bargain, to make their point as to why members need the kind of increase that the government is proposing. When we examine their arguments, we find them inadequate.
My parliamentary leader and other speakers from our caucus have outlined why we think it is unreasonable and inappropriate at this time to have a 50 per cent increase or
Members' Salaries
a 33 lA per cent increase based on $26,000. We have asked the government to justify this increase. Their arguments fall far short. We are in a period of almost runaway inflation; the government has failed to control it. We are at a time in our history when we have to show some leadership, some restraint so that we can expect others in our society to co-operate and restrain what I think are legitimate demands because of the failure of this government to control inflation.
I say that we are setting a very bad example and a dangerous one. More contracts are coming up for renegotiation in this year than in many previous years, and every worker in this country will say, "Members of parliament received a large increase. What makes them so much better than me? I will demand it as well". I predict that we will have a problem in the House a few months hence, and that we will be in the odious position of limiting the legitimate demands of workers while at the same time accepting this outrageous proposal by the government. A cost of living increase is justified, but we cannot accept or justify the proposal in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Is it agreed that we proceed directly to the taking of the vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Before Your Honour sees the clock approaching six, I should like to ask the government House leader what he proposes to put before us tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put as the first order of business tomorrow the amendments to the Farm Credit Act, Bill C-34. If we dispose of that we might get back to Bill C-13.
At 5.54 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 10, 1975