1975-04-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion regarding North Viet Nam's active participation in the brutal assaults now taking place on life and on property in South Viet Nam.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to instruct Canada's diplomatic representative in North Viet Nam, John Small, to lodge a formal protest with the North Vietnamese government against its active aggression in South Viet Nam and its failure to respect the cease-fire and other agreements aimed at reconciling the differences in Southeast Asia.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the consent of the House to move the following motion:
In view of the recent government announcement to establish a scale of fees for admission to national historic sites and to establish a scale of tolls for canals, in line with apparent government policy that those who use the facility should pay for such use, the House requests the Prime Minister to make a statement as to whether operating costs will be defrayed by charging an entrance fee to users of the lavish, luxurious and opulent $200,000 swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive.


Mr. Speaker:: Fortunately, I have the gravest reservations as to the urgency and pressing necessity of that motion.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an urgent matter.
Because work stoppages in the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres are placing Quebec producers in an unacceptable situation, and because grain stocks will be used up within 48 hours, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That this House invite unanimously the responsible minister to present to the House a solution, if need be a legislative measure, within 24 hours, to bring the situation back to normal in that field.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who said in the House on February 11 that his forecasts for growth for the year 1975 have been shaded down. Can the minister now tell us how much the rate of growth for the gross national product of 4 per cent, given in the November 1974 budget, has been shaded down?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be able to give that to the House on an appropriate occasion, but not at the moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Minister of Finance indicate what he might consider to be an appropriate occasion to give this House the information which he thought it was important for the House to have last November?
4592

Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think an appropriate time will be when I bring down a budget, which I intend to bring down as early as I can, hopefully before the end of May. Before I can come to a final decision on the nature of the budget, I will have to weigh certain key factors which it has not yet been possible to assess with the precision I would like. It is easy to outline the factors to the House. In brief order, they are as follows: First, the continuing character and extent of the mix of American tax and energy policy; second, the developments as they may be agreed upon in some form or another by the Prime Minister and first ministers at this week's conference relating to pricing for oil and gas; third, the effect we may be able to have on prices and incomes in Canada by working together in a common effort to moderate the claims of the various groups in the economy.
I might say as well that I will be making a further assessment of the international situation as it relates to the oil exporting countries. On my trip to the Middle East I shall be calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Minister of Finance of France. With this information, and with these assessments, I hope to be back before the House with a precise estimate, as we have it at that time in forecasting terms, of the growth-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: Don't forget Celsius!


INFLATION-DATE WHEN PRECISE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON NATURE OF CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to the consensus. Since the minister is bringing out a budget before the end of May, and since the consensus will be one of the factors involved, will he undertake to give us precise information as to the nature of this consensus when he brings down a budget or will this continue to be a secret even after the budget secrets have all been disclosed?


John Napier Turner: I will have to deal with that consensus in one form or another in the budget statement, as the hon. gentleman has surmised, but I hope to be able, through my parliamentary secretary, to table in the House a statement or progress report to the country, to the first ministers and to the Prime Minister during the forthcoming conference.


INQUIRY WHETHER BUDGET WILL BE DESIGNED TO COUNTERACT INFLATION OR DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the hon. gentleman will now be introducing a budget before the end of May, and in view of the fact that seasonally adjusted employment is down by 19,000 since November and there has been virtually no increase in employment since August, while unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -seasonally adjusted has jumped 190,000 since August, will the minister indicate whether his budget will be designed to stimulate the economy so as to arrest this unsatisfactory unemployment situation or will it be more designed to counteract the inflation which is still prevalent?


John Napier Turner: Obviously the budget will have to deal with both those problems. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is showing disarming perception.


An hon. Member:: Unusual!


John Napier Turner: I might say in response to the preamble to the question asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe that the year over year increase in employment in March in Canada was up by 2.5 per cent and that the year over year increase in the labour force in March on an unadjusted basis of 4.9 per cent was 450,000. So his figures are completely off the mark.


REASON FOR DELAY IN SETTING WAGE GUIDELINES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Further to my original question I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Finance. With time lost due to work stoppages in January up 64 per cent as compared with January of last year when Canada had one of the worst strike records in the industrialized world, would the minister tell us why it is only after May that he seriously intends to set guidelines for future wage settlements, bearing in mind that 1975 is a very heavy bargaining year during which just under three-quarters of all employees covered by major union contracts will be negotiating?


John Napier Turner: I will deal with that statement at the appropriate time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary. Surely, we get a little tired of always this evasion that statements will be made at an appropriate time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TO CREATE MORE JOBS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I should like to address a further question to the highly disarming Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that unemployment in percentage terms now exceeds even the high level of unemployment which was achieved during the application of the government's deflationary program between 1969 and 1971, can the minister inform the House whether, between now and the date upon which he proposes to bring in a budget, the government has any plans to initiate action which will lead to more jobs in the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the budget being the relevant parliamentary response in fiscal and monetary terms to the problems of
April 8, 1975

the country, I would think that the response will be given on budget night.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question just to be perfectly clear on what the minister is saying. Is it the government's intention to do nothing to create jobs, in addition to whatever programs they may now have, before the minister brings in a budget some time in the month of May?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would have to wait for the budget. In the meantime, he ought to review the stimulus already in the economy as a result of the November 18 budget.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


POSSIBLE MEASURES TO INCREASE SUPPLY OF HOUSING PRIOR TO BUDGET-SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the one sector of the economy that does create a lot of jobs and meets a human need is housing but there has been a decline in starts of some 49 per cent in January, a decline of 44 per cent in February and when the figures are available for March I am sure there will be an equivalent decline. May I ask the minister if the government intends to do anything about increasing the supply of housing prior to introduction of the budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, obviously a budget will have to bear in mind the priority that the hon. gentleman suggests, both in economic and social terms. He should not overlook the fact, however, that pursuant to recent amendments in the National Housing Act passed by this parliament new measures are already contemporaneously being introduced by my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary for the Minister of Finance. In view of the changes that have just been made in NHA regulations which will now permit Canadians to borrow up to $50,000 if they are buying a house, which with existing interest rates will put people in debt perhaps to the tune of over $100,000 over a period of time, does the minister have any plans to take action on mortgage rates so that the cost of living on a monthly basis for those who will be buying houses will be substantially reduced?


John Napier Turner: In general terms, no, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. gentleman again ought not to overlook the Assisted Home Ownership Program which in effect subsidizes interest rates on lower priced houses.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since Quebec millers no longer have access to port facilities to get some feed grain and as they continue to send us telegrams of distress, being unable to provide feed grain to their customers, as is the case for example of the Meunerie cooperative of Parisville, I would like to ask the minister whether he will make a statement in the House this afternoon to announce what contingency measures he intends to take to provide feed grain to Quebec mills, in accordance with the assurance he gave in the House yesterday?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, according to information I have received today most people still have some stocks of grain and there is no real loss of feed stocks. That is, no livestock or poultry are going without feed. We are watching the situation very closely and moving as much as we possibly can by all means, as I have said. I will not be making a statement later today.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
By his reply, does the Minister of Agriculture suggest that he will wait to act till some livestock losses are incurred as a result of shortage of feed grain in eastern Canada, since stocks are now barely sufficient for three days in the Quebec City area?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there will be no loss if we can make sure deliveries are made. We have stocks for several days-in some cases for three or four days and in some cases much longer-so we are watching the situation very closely to make sure there is no loss of livestock or poultry.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a last supplementary.
I understand the Minister of Agriculture means that there is enough feed grain in the Quebec area. I agree with him. This grain must be forwarded to mills. What measures does the minister intend to take to ensure the grain will reach mills, then producers?
[DOT] (M20)


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the grains that are available in the elevators, in the feed mills, and at the sources which are supplying feeds to the farmers. As I said, we are watching the situation and keeping on top of it as well as we can.
29 5 57 - \6Vi

April 8, 1975
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that this morning we heard from very reliabe sources that producers are already shipping their animals for slaughter, considering the lack of grain and the fact that producers anxious to get grains cannot obtain them because of protests that are now paralyzing the system, can the minister assure the House that he will check this information or at least make a statement and, finally, whether he will find solutions to answer the claims of producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, making statements will not help in finding solutions to the situation. We had a meeting earlier in the day just before coming into the House concerning this particular problem. We are aware of the conditions that exist, but we have no control over those people who want to ship their livestock. As far as I know there has been no evidence presented as yet that anyone is actually without feed.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada's current deficit on the international account is running at the rate of $4 billion to $5 billion a year, and the Canadian dollar seems to be maintaining relative parity with United States and other currencies, will the Minister of Finance advise the House on the extent to which the Bank of Canada has entered the international market in order to maintain that relative parity, and what has caused the government to abandon what the minister euphemistically called a relatively clean float? Will the minister also give us those reasons, and indicate when the economic review of his department, the publication of which is overdue now, will be brought down?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the hon. gentleman that the float remains clean and free, as evidenced by the fact that the reserves in the exchange account have varied very little over the past two or three months. As to the value of the dollar throughout the year, of course this will depend on the effect of two conflicting forces; first, the factor the hon. member has mentioned, the large current account deficit we anticipate for the year, and secondly, the attractiveness of the Canadian economy to investment from abroad. As to the economic review, I apologize to the House that it is not quite ready. I went over it finally this weekend and we expect to have it published and tabled very shortly.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious unemployment problems continuing to plague Atlantic Canada, is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion taking advantage of the presence of the premiers in Ottawa this week to discuss new initiative and thrust for DREE in addition to the selective aid for the Halifax-Dartmouth and Strait of Canso areas of Nova Scotia, which, while very welcome, is obviously inadequate to help the general economic picture in eastern Canada at a time of very high unemployment?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course I will be talking to the premiers while they are here. As the hon. member knows, I was speaking with Premier Regan at length yesterday in Halifax, and also ministers of the government of Newfoundland. I think the fact that we signed this agreement yesterday is indicative of the fact that we are anxious to do whatever we can to alleviate unemployment in Nova Scotia and in other Atlantic provinces.


POSSIBILITY OF NEW DREE PROGRAMS TO COUNTERACT UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is prompted by the very serious and alarming rate of unemployment in Newfoundland, which now stands at 18.8 per cent. What new federal initiatives does the minister intend to take in view of this alarming and frightening rate of unemployment in the province of Newfoundland?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can give all the details in the time permitted in the question period. We have a number of supplementary agreements already in operation. I mentioned, in answer to the previous question, that there were consultations with the Government of Newfoundland yesterday which will lead to at least three others, one having to do with the fishing industry. There will also be considerable work undertaken in and around the city of St. John's, which I know will be of special interest to the hon. member. I might say that the figures for last month,-I have not had an opportunity to examine them in detail-while recognizing that they are annually high at this time of the year, probably were to some extent affected by the fisheries strike which now happily is over.


REASON FOR ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THE FURTHER STUDY OF CONTAINER FACILITIES AT HALIFAX
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. I wonder whether the minister could explain to the House the reasoning or the thought behind the inclusion of an item of $1 million in the agreement entered into yesterday with the province of
April 8, 1975

Nova Scotia with regard to further studies surrounding the expansion of the container facility at Halifax as opposed to some more concrete action which might have produced jobs for the hard pressed Atlantic region. Could he explain the purpose of this further research?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I think so, Mr. Speaker. The position is that the additional money was provided for studies because these studies were determined to be necessary on a precise basis. There had been quite a bit of feasibility work, and I think there is general acceptance of the necesssity to have an expansion or if you want a second terminal for containers in the Halifax-Dartmouth area.
There are still questions to be settled concerning the site, the design and things of this nature. That is the purpose for which the money was provided. The premier of Nova Scotia yesterday indicated that he hoped the work which will be financed by this $1 million will be completed in short order.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


WILLINGNESS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO AID EXPANSION OF CONTAINER FACILITIES AT HALIFAX
J. Michael Forrestall: wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister could then indicate to us whether or not it is the position of the government at the present time that it is not prepared to enter into a financial arrangement with the province of Nova Scotia or Haltern or any other interested and capable groups to expand the present container facilities at this point in time and whether, as would be the common assumption today, if the province of Nova Scotia indeed wants the expansion of that facility so as to broaden work concepts and protect jobs it will have to go at it alone financially at least at the outset.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the specifics of the last part of the question the answer is no. As I indicated yesterday, and have indicated on previous occasions, we would be quite prepared to enter into a special supplementary agreement with a view to expanding the facilities along the lines mentioned by the hon. member. Whether or not it would be an expansion of what exists at present or whether it would be in a different location are issues which still must be resolved among the parties of which DREE is really not a direct member. But when the project has been firmed up in respect of the ideas and concepts of those who are promoting it at the present time, then as I have said we are prepared to make a DREE contribution.


SUGGESTED PRIORITY FOR FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the total amount of DREE grants since the inception of the program do not look too impressive when
Oral Questions
compared to the costs of massive projects such as the Mirabel airport or Syncrude, is the minister prepared to press for a greater priority for Fundy tidal power development?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think I answered the hon. member in the committee on this matter. Again in principle the answer is yes. I had discussion on this yesterday again with Premier Regan. I do not believe I am disclosing anything he would not say personally when I say he mentioned the necessity for the construction of the Atlantic grid, the electricity grid, and this work has the full support of myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I believe it is Mr. Regan's view as well as that of certain other authorities on the subject that the grid is a key element in the development of tidal power.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has he received a telegram from Pacific coast fishermen about the recent losses in lives and fishing vessels which so tragically afflict this industry and the families in this area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations following the shipwrecks of a number of small vessels, which have also resulted in fatalities. I am waiting for the report from the investigators we have dispatched to the Pacific coast. We shall certainly do the utmost to find out the cause of this tragedy which appears to me to be quite abnormal.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In light of these tragic circumstances and with the summer boating and fishing seasons approaching, is the minister still satisfied that the resources at the disposal of the rescue and search centre on the west coast are sufficient to meet all the needs, both commercial and sporting?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

April 8, 1975
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Yves Caron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture another question concerning the feed grain supply problems resulting from the longshoremen's strikes in the Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City harbours.
A while ago, a number of questions were asked. Following inquiry, there is no more feed grain in the Quebec City harbour. Can the minister advise the House of any new developments, so that farm producers in the Quebec area may not be victimized by this situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the situation is not any different. As I said before, I am waiting for an up to date report from my officials and officials of the feed board. As soon as I have that, I shall let hon. members interested know.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A report this morning indicated that the French admiral in charge of the operations of a nuclear test in the Pacific was given the assurance that in the event of the boarding of the Canadian vessel Greenpeace III there would be no retaliation by Canadian authorities. Would the minister advise the House whether he is conducting an inquiry into this very serious allegation of connivance?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the same report and I have asked for information on this point.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Is the minister in a position, as a result of this inquiry, to advise this House that Canadian authorities have not in any way conspired or connived in this act of piracy by the French government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be happy to give the hon. member the information once I receive it and will make any statements that are justified in the circumstances.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: My question is for the Minister of Public Works and it is one of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact on July

13, 1973, the Department of Public Works awarded to Pluritec, consulting engineers, a contract to evaluate the costs of enhancing pleasure craft navigation on the Ottawa river west of Ottawa, can the minister now report whether or not that report has been completed, whether he can table it, and whether the government has made any decisions based on that report?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report, and not having seen the report, I do not yet know whether or not it would be customary to table it. I will be glad to look into it and advise the hon. gentleman.



THE PERFORMING ARTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the announcement last week in Vancouver by the minister and the other member of the cabinet from British Columbia of a federal government grant of one third of a million dollars to the community music school in Vancouver, and in view of the announcement two months ago by the Secretary of State that the school did not fit the criteria for grants, in spite of efforts to assist by members on both sides of the House, can the minister tell the House what special influence the two cabinet ministers from British Columbia were able to exert in order to reverse the cabinet decision-


John Napier Turner: Beautiful!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -announced by the Secretary of State, and why he and his cabinet colleague from British Columbia did not display their influence
sooner?



MANPOWER


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and it is really supplementary to a number of questions which were asked earlier. In light of the fact that unemployment in March of this year among Canadians under 25 is already 4 per cent higher than that at this time last year and promises to worsen before the summer, does the government intend to reconsider its decision to freeze its budget for student summer employment and decrease the money allocated for this year's Opportunity for Youth Program?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration):	Mr. Speaker, I expect to make an
announcement very shortly.
April 8, 1975



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Douglas Reynolds: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the House whether his government advised the Canadian diplomatic representative in North Viet Nam, John Small, to launch a formal protest with the North Vietnamese government against its active aggression in South Viet Nam and its failure to respect the cease-fire?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Douglas Reynolds: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he advise the House whether this is under consideration by the cabinet or if this has not been done under direct instructions from the Prime Minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all such questions are under continuing review. The general attitude of the government toward this particular situation was made clear yesterday in a series of questions asked in the House.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the pleasure at the extension of DREE grants in Kootenay West until the end of this year, and in view of the fact that there is a continuing expression of concern about the DREE programs in B.C., can the minister advise if any sub-agreements have now been signed or are proposed with the province of British Columbia with reference to the DREE program?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I was very happy to be able to extend the designation in the area to which the hon. member refers. At the same time I held discussions with the appropriate minister in the government of British Columbia. There are three and perhaps four sub-agreements which are now being negotiated, but they have not yet been signed. I can tell the hon. member in a general way that one of them has to do with forestry development and another has to do with a number of activities in northwestern B.C. and in the whole general northern area of that province.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION CONDEMNING AGGRESSION BY NORTH VIET NAM-POSSIBILITY OF PROTEST THROUGH UNITED NATIONS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of his answers today and in particular his answers on January 4 and 5, 1973 at the opening of parliament when parliament approved a government resolution condemning the U.S. bombing in North Viet Nam, can the minister say-in view of the killing of women and children and the great inhumanity being perpetrated at present-if he would reconsider his position and put forward a government resolution condemning the Communist aggression that is going on now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I recall the resolution to which the hon. member refers. It consisted of a series of propositions, including the wish of the House to deplore the bombing of Hanoi by the United States. It seems to me that no analogy exists in this particular situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member has in mind the attempt to draw a strict analogy between the two situations, let me tell him that they are not precisely the same. I say to the hon. member that I have already deplored the major offensive which is taking place in South Viet Nam, and particularly the effect that it is having on innocent civilians in that country. If the hon. member would look at that resolution he would find that my words with respect to this offensive are precisely the words that were used in the resolution to which he refers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would ask the minister now to reconsider what he has just said regarding the conditions being different. There are women and children being killed by bombs and Communist aggression. The minister has said that he deplores the situation. Is he prepared to formally protest, through the proper channels of the United Nations or to the Communist countries which are backing the North Vietnamese, this military aggression which is going on and which is causing this inhumanity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in deciding what one ought to do in a situation of this kind, one ought to understand clearly the purpose, the effect and the worthwhileness of any particular action. I am quite satisfied that outright denunciation such as is suggested by my hon. friend would do nothing to relieve the human suffering which is at the present time the main Canadian concern. We have moved very quickly to alleviate that human suffering in South Viet Nam.
I would make this second comment to the hon. member, that another obligation which must be discharged by the Canadian government concerns the welfare of Canadian citizens now in territories controlled by the PRG, and that

April 8, 1975
Oral Questions
is a real obligation which we hope to discharge in time and which would not be helped by the kind of inflammatory approach the hon. member is suggesting.



ESTABLISHMENT OF ABORTION COMMITTEES BY HOSPITALS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very important medical, social and moral facts put forward by members of the Canadian Physicians for Life in their open letter of April 4, for the sake of the women and unborn children of Canada, for the sake of the doctors and other concerned medical personnel of Canada, will the minister please withdraw his proposal that the hospitals of Canada be forced to establish abortion committees?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that hospitals should be forced to establish abortion committees. This is certainly not a matter which I can force upon the provinces. But I still believe that the hospitals are semi-public institutions and should provide those services needed by the people of this country.



SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS-REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN PROGRAM

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration is now publishing advertisements in newspapers inviting young people to register with Manpower Centres, if they want to find jobs during the summer months. Now, these young people, when they go to the centres, are being answered: "We do not have jobs at the present time." Why are these young people invited to ask for employment when the department is unable to provide it?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we abandon all efforts to place young people. This program is part of that operation. If there is a specific instance in a local manpower centre where such an answer was given which was not to his satisfaction, I would be prepared to look into it.



PROPOSAL TO ASSIST IN PROVISION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
* *


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question.
Given the very recent figures on unemployment which were just published and which show once more that Quebec ranks second when it comes to the unemployed in Canada, could the minister responsible for LIP and Opportunities for Youth tell the House what is his department's intention with regard jo the extension of local initiative projects and, second, has the minister considered the possibility of increasing the Opportunities for Youth budget to help us especially in Quebec to check the startling unemployment rate among young workers?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I answered an earlier question by saying that I would be making announcements with regard to summer employment for students. In connection with the Local Initiatives Program I would not make any comment now. My colleague the Minister of Finance has indicated that we are constantly reviewing the situation with regard to unemployment, the effect of the budget of last November, and any other measures which he deems are necessary within the framework of economic policy. We are discussing these matters and at the appropriate time announcements will be made.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that several of the provinces in one way or another now assist certain sections of the population with respect to the cost of prescription drugs, is the government giving consideration to a national pharmacare program, going along with the provinces, so that Canadians from coast to coast can be assisted in connection with the high cost of prescription drugs?


Marc Lalonde: Not now, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government is not prepared to consider that at the present time, is it prepared to consider the first steps toward such a program by providing for the coverage of prescription drugs for all persons in Canada who are in receipt of old age security?


Marc Lalonde: Not now, Mr. Speaker.



OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FLOOR PRICE

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I
April 8, 1975

Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE
would like to ask the minister if at the conference which is taking place this week he will discuss with the ministers from the provinces the question of a floor price for oil as has been proposed by various countries in the International Energy Association.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it may well arise, although it is not specifically the purpose for which we are meeting. It has been discussed in general terms with the provincial officials at the time federal officials briefed them on the
I.E.A. discussions.


James McPhail Gillies: Has the government put forth any specific proposal as to what the floor price ought to be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On December 20 at page 2438 of Hansard I asked the minister certain questions with respect to a $250,000 advertising contract awarded to Price, Rubin and Partners. The minister stated on that day that the advertising agency was paid 17 per cent by the media, in this case ethnic newspapers. Since giving his answer on that date has the minister looked into this matter more closely, and if so can he confirm that this company, Price, Rubin and Partners, received payment limited to 17 per cent of the $250,000 advertising contract?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I advise the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that when I said 17 per cent I was not specifically referring to this particular company. It was my understanding that advertising contracts-government placements with advertising agencies-meet the long term understanding with the franchise advertising agencies. The media pay the commission, if you like, and this is along the line of professional services. This is the understanding between all advertising agencies and the media. I can check that figure of 17 per cent which applies generally, and whatever it is, I am sure it applies to Price, Rubin and Partners.


Walter David Baker: I thank the minister, and I look forward to an answer to that question. I wonder if the minister could at the same time inform himself, and perhaps advise the House whether there was Treasury Board approval for this contract in the terms and conditions on which it was let.


John Carr Munro: I believe the hon. member will recall that when he asked the question, the President of the Treasury Board did answer.


Walter David Baker: No, he did not. You can check it, John.


John Carr Munro: I will check it.



STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES TO THOSE ADVISED TO RESPECT PICKET LINE TO AVOID VIOLENCE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting President of the Treasury Board and or for the Minister of National Defence. It arises from the recent bluecollar strike. Would the government reconsider its decision not to pay certain non-striking bluecollar employees of the same union at Willow Park, Halifax, where the armed forces supply base is located, because they were advised by their superiors not to challenge picket lines and so avoid violence? Some lost up to four days pay though they were willing to work.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that representation on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board.

# (1450)



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the United States bond market has suffered heavily in recent days, making it necessary for several Canadian municipalities to postpone issues, did the minister receive any indication from Mr. Simon during his recent visit that Canadian borrowings would be curtailed and restricted on the U.S. market in the coming year?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INVESTMENT OF PETRO-DOLLARS IN CANADA

J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister encouraging or discouraging the investment of petro-dol-lars in debt securities in Canada, particularly in household or real estate mortgages.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the money comes, the money comes.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE OF LARGE VESSEL FOR SHIPPING GRAIN TO BANGLADESH

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and arises because of his presence at the Rome food conference. As it takes about one month to load grain for Bangladesh on the cargo carrier Amoco Cairo, one of the largest vessels ever to enter the port of Vancouver, because it is necessary to tow the

April 8, 1975
Oral Questions
ship into ocean waters several times during loading and turn it around in order to keep the cargo balanced, and as this ship must drop anchor 65 miles from the port of destination because of shallow waters, it is obvious somebody boobed. Can the minister advise the House who is responsible?


Walter David Baker: You can't go on the trip, Eugene.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the appreciated help accorded to the potato producers of eastern Canada, as announced last week, I wonder if the minister has now obtained some assurance or indication from eastern producing provinces that they are now more willing than ever to co-operate and bring some order to the production and marketing of potatoes.


Eugene Whelan: 

NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed either to the Minister of Communications or to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, concerns an answer given by the Prime Minister last March 26 to a question I had asked, and also the statement in committee made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology, to the effect that the communications branch of NRC, as it was then, "do monitor Hertzian wave emanations." Since that phrase could include microwave emanations, including long distance telephone calls, will the minister, or whichever minister can answer, tell the House whether that agency was or is monitoring long distance telephone calls placed in Canada to points in Canada or elsewhere.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that my statement that Hertzian waves were alone being monitored covers the case of most telephone calls and excludes them by definition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I think I will have to tap that answer to understand it. I should like to know from the

minister whether it has been the practice of the communications branch of NRC, and now of DND, to monitor in any way whatsoever long distance telephone calls placed in Canada to points in Canada or abroad. A simple yes or no would be fine, and I would prefer not to have both.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would make that, on choice, a simple no.



REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS ANSWER BY PRIME MINISTER ON MONITORING LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS

[Stage Direction]
Mb. Erik Nielsen (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
An hon. Member:: Wait until after the question period.


Mr. Nielsen:: May I ask a supplementary question, in that case, and direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer given just now by his colleague, is he now prepared to expand on his answer given to me in the last parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How long have you been here?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have been asking similar questions in several of the nine parliaments in which I have served. I have asked precisely the sort of question put by my hon. friend from Rocky Mountain. As the Prime Minister answered, when I asked my question, that it was not in the national interest to answer such a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: -is the Prime Minister prepared now to answer the question more fully and more accurately than he did last year.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look up the record, for the exact question. According to my recollection, it was not in as precise a form as the question asked by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. He asked a precise question about calls within Canada.
MIr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): No. You were not listening.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who seems to be most forthcoming today. When he prepared his forecast of growth for 1975 in November, he must have foreseen the termination of the one-price agreement on oil applying across Canada. I want to ask him what new price he used in November, which would be
April 8, 1975

effective following the termination of his old agreement when he prepared his forecast?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman puts that question to me with a smile and I know why. It is a purely academic question, in view of the decision which must be taken by the Prime Minister and premiers this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning conflicting answers given by two ministers on the treasury benches. A question directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) was similar to a series of 29 questions I have placed on the order paper. Actually, the one just asked by my hon. friend was included among them. When I asked my question on this subject, namely, as to whether the monitoring of telephone calls was being contemplated-I believe that was my question at the time-by government facilities, the Prime Minister's answer, in effect, was that it was not in the national interest to answer the question. The Prime Minister's colleague on the treasury benches has Answered an emphatic "No" to my hon. friend from Rocky Mountain House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Where did you get the "House"?


John Napier Turner: I thought that place had closed down.


Erik Nielsen: I think this place should close down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member well knows that whether the conflict be real or imaginary, it does not constitute a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I must insist-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, if I must.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raised a question of privilege which has been dealt with. I believe the hon. member for Rocky Mountain also wishes to raise a question of privilege which has at least equal standing. He now has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege-
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I think my question should be completed before the Chair rules on it. The question of privilege that
I raise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: I have a question of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon raised a question of privilege which has been dealt with. I have recognized the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. If the hon. member for Yukon has a second question of privilege he will be recognized in due course.


Erik Nielsen: My question of personal privilege is that I was not allowed to complete my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Despite its simplicity, it is important. In replying to the question asked by my friend from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) a moment ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that in the Minister's earlier reply to my question he had dealt exclusively with the question of monitoring telephone calls placed in Canada to points in Canada. That was not my question. My question had to do with monitoring, by any means, long-distance calls placed in Canada to points in Canada or abroad. It is important that the record shows whether the answer of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) was to the question I asked or to the question the Prime Minister wished I had asked. I would like an answer from the Minister of State for Science and Technology.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
["Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?"]
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,226, 1,248, 1,359, 1,517, 1,725 and 1,860.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that questions Nos. 48 and 152 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.

April 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary be deemed to have been made orders for return and that the returns be tabled in the manner described by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mb. Reid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
{Text]



Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What government aircraft transported the Prime Minister and his family at taxpayers' expense to and from Jamaica for the recent
December and January vacation (b) what is the cost per hour of keeping such aircraft in the air including fuel, crew, etc. (c) how many flying hours were involved (d) on what date and time did the aircraft (i) leave Canada and arrive in Jamaica (ii) leave Jamaica and arrive in Canada (e) how many gallons of fuel were consumed in the entire operation and what was the cost per gallon of such fuel (f) what were the names, job designations and salaries in dollars of all crew members involved (g) what was the complete passenger list for any flights made?
2.	Were any expenses whatsoever, other than transportation, paid for by the taxpayers and, if so, what is a complete itemized list with the amount of expense in each case?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Ministry of Transport and the Prime Minister's Office as follows: 1. (a) Ministry of Transport JetStar CF-ETN. (b) $550 per hour, (c) Nine hours 45 minutes (9:45)-excluding fuel stops.
(d) (i) December 29, 1974	-
(ii) January 12, 1975	-
Depart Ottawa - 11:15 Arrive Jamaica - 18:15 Depart Jamaica - 12:25 Arrive Ottawa - 17:30
-	fuel stop Nassau
-	stop Kingston
-	fuel stop Freeport
(e)	5,000 gal. of fuel at $.58 per gal.
(f)	Name
G. McAninch P. Laliberte A. Hodgins D. Fraser
Job Designation
Executive Pilot Executive Pilot Flight Engineer Flight Steward
Salary
$26,274 to $28,185 $17,617 to $20,384 $6.31 per hour $6.16 per hour
(g)	Passenger List:
Ottawa-J amaica
Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau Mrs. P. E. Trudeau Master Justin Trudeau Master Sacha Trudeau Miss D. Lavergne Inspector B. Moss
Jamaica-Ottawa
Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau Mrs. P. E. Trudeau Master Justin Trudeau Master Sacha Trudeau Miss D. Lavergne Inspector B. Moss Miss T. Virgo Hon. J. Turner Mrs. J. Turner


INCREASE IN LAND RENTAL FEES TO COTTAGE OWNERS ALONG RIDEAU CANAL
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are all the reasons the government has commenced the increased land rental fees to owners of cottages on government property along the Rideau Canal by as much as 800 per cent?
2.	What is the name and job designation of the highest official taking part in such a decision?
3.	Taking as an example rental license number 60048 where an 800 per cent increase has been requested in return for a five year rental (a) what are the name or names, qualifications and addresses of appraisors who assessed the situation resulting (i) in such an increase (ii) in the rental established five years ago (b) what are all the factors uncovered that could possibly justify the government to contend that land value has increased 800 per cent in this area since 1969 to 1970?
4.	How are gigantic rental increases by the government consistent with the fight against inflation?
|Mr. Reid.)
5.	Will the Minister personally review this matter with a view to seeing that only reasonable and sensible rental increases along the Rideau Canal are charged?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	For many years, the rentals set for Canal lands did not reflect the land's true market value, and therefore many people had the use, benefit and enjoyment of this land but paid only a nominal rent. Following the Glassco Report, the government instituted a program of rental review to establish more realistic rates. While the percentage increases may seem substantial in comparison to the token amounts paid in the past, the rents being charged today are still reasonable compared to the prevailing rates in the

j


April 8, 1975

private sector or those charged by other levels of government.
2.	The Prime Minister and members of the government in Parliament.
3.	(a) (i) The appraisal was carried out by qualified, certified appraisors of the Department of Public Works, (ii) The previous rents were nominal and were set by the Real Estate Branch of the Ministry of Transport. They were not set on the basis of land value, (b) The land value has not increased by 800 per cent. Previous rentals were nominal and bore no relationship whatsoever to land values. The present rates represent 8 per cent of the appraised value of the land.
4.	The government believes that inflation must be fought on all fronts. One way is by ensuring that, through sound management principles, the public receives fair return on its holdings. This reduces the amount of money necessary for public programs which must be collected through direct taxation. There is no justification for some people to enjoy a substantial economic advantage over their neighbours because they are occupying public land.
5.	No. Reasonable and sensible rental increases are presently being charged along the Rideau Canal. A return to the unrealistic rental rates that were formerly applied cannot be justified. It is intended to continue the policy of periodic rental review to ensure that rentals of public lands reflect the realistic value of that land as determined by today's market.


RADIO ADVERTISING
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the estimated percentage of listeners at peak radio listening time to those CBC radio stations in Montreal and Toronto that will soon be prevented by regulation from accepting advertising?
2.	Have any soundings been taken to ascertain whether the advertisers on CBC Radio will continue to spend their radio budgets in the same media for the benefit of the privately-owned stations?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Were any representations made to CRTC by the private sector of the broadcasting system alleging that CBC was engaging in unfair competition?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. At peak listening time in Toronto (7:30-8:15 a.m. on weekdays) station CBL has an approximate 7 per cent share of the total listening audience. In Montreal, the corresponding figure for station CBM is approximately 2 per cent and for station CBF approximately 8 per cent. (In both cities, the 100 per cent base includes all listeners, whatever their linguistic abilities.)
2.	The CRTC advises that no soundings as such have been taken concerning the likelihood of advertisers on CBC radio continuing to use the radio medium through private stations. It is considered that, in those areas affected by the removal of advertising on CBC radio, there will be opportunity for interested advertisers to use private stations. It might be pointed out that potential benefit to private stations was not a consideration in reaching the decision that CBC radio should withdraw from advertising.
3.	No representations were made to the CRTC by the private sector of the broadcasting system alleging that CBC was engaging in unfair competition in the case of radio.


FLOOD PROTECTION
Mr. Johnston: 1.	By province, what has the government spent in each year since 1971 on shared programmes for building approved permanent works for flood protection?
2.	What specific projects have been undertaken in British Columbia since 1971 and at what cost per project?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: 1.
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75 *
Manitoba	British Columbia	Ontario$58,910.00	$1,066,750.14	$ 80,057.531,294,598.51	1,038,656.292,183,692.75	755,408.13230,194.81Project	Total Commitment of funds1. District of Kent	$ 2,680,349.002. District of Matsqui	2,283,600.003. Township of Chilliwack	5,847,435.003. Corporation of Delta	12,102,255.005. District of Surrey	1,259,250.006. Sumas Dyking District	99,864.007. Seabird Island Indian Reserve	85,521.028. City of Kamloops	1,283,400.009. Township of Richmond	12,983,500.0010. Nicomen Island	100,000.00Total	$38,725,174.02Federal Share	$19,362,587.01
*These projects are still under construction Other projects are virtually completed

Order Paper Questions
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. None. However, the Department of Public Works shares with the Province of British Columbia on a 50/50 cost sharing basis the operations and maintenance of the Okanagan Flood Control Project. Expenditures: 1971-72, $46,828; 1972-73, $61,505; 1973-74, $43,830; 1974-75, Estimated $65,000.
2.	None.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL REGULATIONS-INSPECTION OF LICENSEES
Mr. Francis: How many licences issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board were reviewed for breaches of the regulations in that particular licence and what action, if any, was taken as the result of such a review?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: There are currently approximately 3000 Atomic Energy Control Board licensees of which total 2900 are for radioisotope users and the remainder for other prescribed substances users and nuclear facility operators. The regulatory compliance performance of each of these licensees is reviewed continuously through a system which includes some or all of the following elements, depending upon the nature of the licensed use or operation. 1. Inspections. AECB-appointed inspectors make periodic and unannounced inspections of the premises of all licensed users and operators to determine that the terms and conditions of the licence and the requirements of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations are being complied with. In the case of nuclear power plants being constructed, tested, commissioned and in the early stages of operation, resident AECB inspectors are stationed at the plant.
2.	Film Badge Monitoring. Licensees are normally required, as a condition of licence, to use a film badge service to provide a record of individual radiation exposures. Film badge results are reviewed and overexposure and chronically-high exposure cases are monitored.
3.	Mandatory Reporting by Licensee. All licensees are required by the Atomic Energy Control Regulations to report unusual occurrences which did or could have resulted in a breach of regulatory requirements. These reports are investigated by AECB staff and/or advisers. Prescribed substance supplier and user licensees are required to submit periodic material inventory reports for review. Nuclear facility licensees are required to submit periodic safety performance reports for review.
4.	Licence Renewal Reviews. All licences are issued for a limited term after a full review and evaluation of the detailed information submitted in support of a licence application. Similarly all applications for licence renewals are reviewed with particular attention being given to the past safety compliance performance of the licensee.

5.	Monitoring and Review of Radioactive Effluents. All licensees are required to monitor and report releases of radioactive effluents. In some cases, these reports are audited by an independent survey conducted co-operatively by the federal and provincial departments of environment and health. In all cases, reports are made to the AECB for appropriate follow-up action. Actions taken as a result of such review procedures may take a number of different forms depending on the nature of the licensed use or operation and the nature of the regulatory breach. Such actions may include one or more of: (a) determination and ordering of corrective action (b) removal of over-exposed person from work areas involving significant exposure risk (c) amendment, suspension or revocation of licence.


BRANKO MILOSIC
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Branko Milosic enter Canada during 1962 and, if not, on what date did he enter Canada?
2.	Has the RCMP ever conducted an investigation in regard to this person and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what reasons (c) what were the details of the investigation?
3.	What are the names of all persons who at any time made representations to the government on behalf of this person for purposes of his admission to Canada or for any other purpose and, in each case, what are the details of such representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) as follows: 1. Branko Milosic arrived in Canada on August 30, 1962.
2.	No.
3.	In accordance with the schedule for the destruction of files, the file concerning Branko Milosic has been destroyed. It is therefore not possible to respond to this part of the question.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many firms or individuals have contracts or agreements with the Public Service Commission, Crown corporations or federal boards, that require those firms or individuals to provide language training to
their employees?
2.	(a) What are the names of the firms or individuals (b) for what period of time does the contract or agreement run (c) what is the total amount of each contract (d) for what period of time has each firm or individual held such a contract or agreement with the government?
3.	What has been the total number of government employees receiving language training from each of the firms and what has been the success and failure rate in each case?
April 8, 1975

4.	Are any of the firms in question operating outside Canada and, if so, which firm and how many government employees were trained by such firms outside Canada?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING BUDGET
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1 In each year 1956, 1960, 1964, 1967, 1970 and 1973, what proportion of the total advertising budget of the government was directed to paid advertising in (a) member papers of the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association or the Canadian Community Newspapers Association (b) Canadian daily newspapers (c) Canadian "ethnic" newspapers (d) Canadian magazines, excluding Time Magazine or Reader's Digest (e) Canadian radio (f) Canadian television (g) United States publications, excluding Time Magazine or Reader's Digest (h) Time Magazine (i) Reader's Digest (j) other foreign publications (k) United States television (1) United States radio (m) other Canadian media (n) other foreign media?
2. In each year 1956, 1960, 1964, 1967, 1970 and 1973, what was the total government expenditure on government information services and government publications?
Return tabled.
.	GOVERNMENT ORDERS


PETRO-CANADA ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH CROWN CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made yesterday, the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT, THE SALARIES ACT AND THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 19, 1974, 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 a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44 was the subject of numerous comments in the newspapers and other media throughout the country. It is unfortunate to find that in 1975 we are still obliged to introduce a bill forcing us to vote ourselves a raise in members' salaries.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that future increments for members of the Commons and the Senate be decided by an independent board. I said earlier that the bill raised many comments, rebukes and criticisms. However, reasonable people supported the raise in principle, since members of Parliament are going through an inflation period just as are all other Canadian taxpayers.
When this bill was first introduced in 1974, my colleague for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) said to the House, in a masterful speech, why he supported an increase in parliamentary salaries. On December 19, he reminded the press, the journalists who are here in the press gallery, what ridiculous concept they have of the serious role of federal members in this House.
Mr. Speaker, that is so true that I have never seen the press protest so vehemently and scathingly against an increase in the MPs' salaries, while they agree with salary increases right and left to just about anybody. But an increase to the MPs, that makes no sense!
For instance, one evening, I heard my friend Jean-Marc Poliquin tell us over the French CBC television network and in all seriousness: "The members of parliament gave (se taper) themselves a raise here, gave themselves another raise there, then gave themselves something extra for expenses." According to Jean-Marc Poliquin, of the CBC's French network, we were a gang of "tapes".


An hon. Member:: "Tapettes" (gays)?


David Réal Caouette: Not "tapettes". I do not think he said "tapettes" but "tapes". The following evening, it was Mr. Larin's turn, again on CBC!


An hon. Member:: He is being paid by the government!


David Réal Caouette: He is of course a state employee. Well, these people earn as much as any federal MP-


An hon. Member:: More!


David Réal Caouette: Out of public funds! We are those who vote their pay increases in the budget

and permit them to get adequate pay cheques. That is quite normal in their cases, but in the cases of hon. members, it is a shame!
Mr. Speaker, we can establish well-founded parallels. When CBC employees go on strike at the expense of Canadian taxpayers to obtain pay raises, do we hear them say anything against strikes? Of course not! The poor chaps need more to make ends meet and live a decent living. However, they do not find anything vile enough to say against hon. members, they ridicule them as much as they possibly can, as my colleague from Lotbiniere was saying on December 19, 1974.
The day after the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, no one reported one word of what that member had said in the House.
I personally made a survey in my riding, as some of my colleagues did in their own, asking flatly to the electors what they thought about it. For instance, in the riding of Villeneuve, 571 of the 600 survey-letters received favoured a rise in members' salaries, while only 20 were opposed to it. Those are on the side of the press, the others on the side of common sense.
Mr. Speaker, the union leaders, Pepin, Laberge, Char-bonneau and-


An hon. Member:: $50,000 a year!


David Réal Caouette: -the others, the thieves of the James Bay, who earn salaries higher than any member's salary.
Do you hear the reports on television or do you read them in the newspapers? Do they object against Pepin, Laberge, Charbonneau, Chartrand and all their confederates, Mr. Speaker, do they denounce them? Such individuals as Pepin, Laberge, Charbonneau and Chartrand are better paid than the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau)!
The Quebec provincial members also granted themselves a raise. They were criticized a day or two, but you no longer hear about it today. Those people are better paid than any federal member! The Quebec premier draws a higher salary than the Prime Minister of Canada yet with fewer responsibilities. What are the responsibilities of the union leaders? Pepin and Laberge say: We represent 300,000 workers! It is incredible how those individuals entirely devote themselves to the working class. We, the federal members, are responsible for 22 million Canadians and not merely 300,000! So it is scandalous for members of Parliament to be paid! That there are members who do not deserve an increase, I agree, just like there are journalists who would not deserve to be journalists. Yet they still are. Mr. Speaker, let us compare other people with responsibilities. I read recently in the airline companies' expenditure budgets that B-747, DC-9 or DC-8 pilots are being paid $50,000 to $75,000 a year, and we agree that those people deserve their salaries.
Mr. Speaker, why do we accept to pay those people such large, substantial salaries? Because we recognize that they are responsible for 300 or 200 passengers behind them, that they pilot aircraft all across the world. Mr. Speaker, we
April 8, 1975

have no objection to those people being well paid but we, federal members of parliament, the government, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), pilot 22 million people, and because we talk of a salary increase, it is scandalous! It is scandalous that we should give ourselves increases!
Mr. Speaker, I wonder here where is that famous mental, professional or intellectual honesty in those people? And they are the ones who never stop crying in the name of freedom of the press. We allow them to say anything against us but the moment we answer back we are attacking the freedom of the press. They have the right to come down on us as much as they can. If we told them anything or tried to stop them from talking, then they would be crying murder.
That is why I said to the Prime Minister yesterday: "Why don't you send them on a trip to Europe!" Some do go. Recently, I saw on television my friend Larin who was in Viet Nam or some southern or eastern country. Paid by whom? By CBC. Financed by whom? By the federal government. Larin did not seem to find that ridiculous. It was not scandalous. He was basking in the sun, and that was normal. Another day, Jean-Marc was in Paris. Mr. Speaker, that does not mean that I have anything against Jean-Marc. No. He is a sympathetic fellow, but he should get off our backs.
I have just talked about airline pilots and the freedom of the press. During the Easter break, I had the opportunity to make a trip around the Mediterranean, not at the expense of the CBC or the government, but at my own expense. I visited eight countries around the Mediterranean including Israel, Egypt, Greece, Lebanon and Turkey. I looked at the behaviour of people, politicians and the press. And, as the right hon. Prime Minister said yesterday, and I agree with him completely on this point, I have not yet seen anywhere in the whole world a country where the people of the press, the reporters, have as much freedom as here, in Canada.
I would advise them to visit Cuba, for instance; it is not far and their expenses would be paid by the CBC. They would see what would happen if they wrote against that regime, like they write against our system. How long would this be tolerated? Let them go and do the same thing in France! Let them go and speak against the French president or write against him and they will see what happens! Let them go in Russia to try and fight against the regime, or in Czechoslovakia! No. Here in Canada, we smile when they attack us, but there is a difference between that and tolerating the ridicule which they try to put on the federal members of parliament who have to assume responsibilities much greater than those of reporters. I am only asking them to be honest. I do not beg them to give us their blessing. No. They should bring us to order if we deserve it. But if we work honestly, sincerely, they should recognize it and stop laughing at the ideal democratic institution. The hon. member for Lotbiniere was solid on December 19, but the press lacked the courage to mention this.
A while ago, I spoke about airline pilots. I would now like to talk about Crown corporations, the CN for instance. The chairman of this corporation earns about twice as much as the Prime Minister of Canada. The
Members Salaries
chairman and vice-chairman of Air Canada both earn more money than the Prime Minister. Several deputy ministers are better paid than their minister. In all Crown corporations, the situation is the same.
Mr. Speaker, we do not object to the deputy ministers and secretaries being paid decently. I endorse the claims of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he contends that the Public Service employees should be well treated. Would the hon. member object to the members' salaries being increased? Mr. Speaker, let us be logical and stop acting like hypocrites!
I have been told that the New Democratic Party would oppose the legislation raising members' salaries. If the New Democrats are logical here, they were not in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. The first thing the socialist government of British Columbia did was to increase the members' salaries, and with Mr. Barrett, I think the salaries were raised a hundred per cent. In Saskatchewan, when my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was head of a New Democratic government, salaries were increased. Maybe not while my hon. friend was premier, but after he had left, they were pretty quick in passing their salary increase. Our friend, Mr. Schreyer, sat next to me in this House when he was a New Democratic federal member. The first thing he did after being elected premier in Manitoba was to increase the provincial members' salaries.


An hon. Member:: For each session!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, for each session, on top of that. Why should we then in Ottawa, under pretence of pleasing part of the electorate, why should we oppose the increase in members' salaries for purely political reasons? Mr. Speaker, I believe this would be fraught with inconsistency and, frankly, hypocrisy!
Mr. Speaker, Crown corporations and provincial legislatures managed to get reasonable salaries. I suggest responsible members doing an honest job should have adequate salary. We owe it to them, and to this country's future. This morning I heard over the radio that young people show a total lack of interest in politics, in the wake of the hearings of the Cliche enquiry in Quebec and the Hamilton and Quebec harbours scandals.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the young were interested in playing a role as members of parliament, in representing the people-and this will not happen if the members' role is defiled, diminished or decried as is now done in the press-if the function was enhanced to its fullest value and earnestness, there would now be a greater number of young people interested in public affairs, and the basic political matters in Canada-not partisan politics but the real political problems in the deepest sense of the term, this could be conducive to pursuit by the young a public career of some form or other. But it would require that the press discharge their responsibilities, that they promote interest in politics among the young people, that they induce a greater number of serious people to take an active part in all levels of Canadian political life.
Mr. Speaker, I have here other comparisons. In the field of sports for example, we have today players receiving $200,000 a year for a six or seven months' season. One baseball player, a Mr. Hunter, recently signed a $3,700,000

Members Salaries
contract to play baseball, to throw a ball at somebody holding a bat! That is baseball. In football, players are well paid, and I do not object to that-


An hon. Member:: They kick off-[DOT]


David Réal Caouette: The Prime Minister knows that well, because he was asked to kick off three of four times in the'last four or five years. Football players are well paid, I do not object to that. As I said a moment ago, reporters do not object either. It is a sign of great quality, of sanctifying grace when a hockey, football or baseball player gets a big salary. Reporters say: "What a good player, he earns that much!" Why do they not say the same for members of parliament who, I repeat, do not spend their time entertaining only three or four hundred thousand people, but are responsible before 22 million Canadians! That is a real responsibility! Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I said we had to attract young people. I am making comparisons. I do not want to compare members of parliament to sports players, but if we accept to see sports players get such salaries, why do we not accept that members of parliament, who have duties, also have rights? Once duties are duly accepted and understood, they deserve adequate payment. Which does not mean they should roll in money. Besides, newspapermen convey the impression in their articles that when we get a higher pension or allowance the money gets directly into our pockets, and we do not have to pay anything out of it. Mr. Speaker, why do those journalists up in the gallery not say that most members of parliament have to maintain two residences, one in Ottawa and one in their own riding, and incur twice the expenses while they pay income tax like anybody else?
Last year my pension plan cost me $3,000 or more and I paid about $7,000 in taxes; in other words I had to pay close to $11,000 out of my $24,000. How much is left? $13,000. That is less than any journalist sitting in the gallery earns! But that does not count. We get everything free. People tell us: "You'll get a large pension". But we pay accordingly. Tell me of any industry or business whose employees have to pay $3,000 a year for their pension plan! That is what we in this House have to pay for our "big" pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You pay only $1,440 a year.


David Réal Caouette: I have some back tax to pay, and you know that. I am rich; I can pay. Perhaps you are too poor to have the big plan so you have the smaller one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the hon. member think that it is fair arithmetic to count what he pays for back years against income in the current year?


David Réal Caouette: I do not know, but I have to pay for it anyway. Whether it is for 1946, 1967 or 1976,1 do not care; but I know I pay for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not $3,000 a
year.


David Réal Caouette: Not far from it. And the income tax we pay, do you agree with that? The difference that is left to us is less than the amount left to the newspapermen in the press gallery.


An hon. Member:: They pay the same income tax.


David Réal Caouette: We pay as much as
they do.


An hon. Member:: We make more money.


David Réal Caouette: And we pay for it; that is the point. They think that members of parliament do not pay a dime out of their income. The reporters present the whole thing as if we were paid 100 per cent and we did not have to disburse anything.


An hon. Member:: When did you start listening to
reporters?


David Réal Caouette: I am starting now.

Mr. Speaker, other Canadian citizens have huge revenues, but newspapermen have no objection to that. I spoke of union leaders earlier. Let us now turn to doctors and lawyers. Some doctors in Ontario earn $200,000 a year, according to data compiled and published by the provincial NDP member in Toronto, himself a doctor. Mr. Speaker, journalists do not object to that. Neither do we. But when it comes to members of parliament, people say: members of parliament do not deserve that much, they are not responsible people.
I maintain that we are responsible for a whole nation. Whether we belong to the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic or Social Credit party, we have a number of rights and duties with respect to Canada as a whole. We work to preserve the rights of our fellow citizens and we remind them of their duties as Canadian citizens. And I will say to journalists that they too have rights and duties with respect to their fellow citizens. Let them respect their duties and we shall respect their rights.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose no member of parliament is likely to earn the undying favour of the public by speaking in favour of this bill, but the fact is that the bill as it is now before us, and with possible future modifications, is not only one which would provide justice to hon. members of this House and the other place but it is also a bill which would safeguard the public interest. I do not even need to speak about the public interest in ensuring that those who serve the public on a full-time basis in parliament are paid justly, the same as everyone else in society should be, but I speak primarily of the fact that there is a public interest in helping hon. members to resolve the conflict of interest situation with respect to their own remuneration in which they have found themselves since the beginning of our country. This
April 8, 1975

conflict of interest situation is not one which is easily eliminated, but it is one which I believe would be eliminated by the proposals which are before the House.
Before I get into that question, I think I should very briefly review the events leading up to this bill. The bill before us is a government bill like all other government bills, but it is worth noting that there were consultations among backbench members of the various parties which prodded the government into bringing forth such legislation. These were not official consultations with any party; indeed, they cannot really even be dignified by the title of an ad hoc commission or committee. They were general consultations with members of all parties, consultations which proceeded normally on a bilateral basis, that is, between two members at a time, one member of one party and one of another party, backbench members of all the parties being involved. On one occasion there was a slightly more formal meeting at which members of all parties but one, the NDP were represented, but the NDP backbenchers with whom consultation was taking place were informed of the results of the meeting and gave it their blessing.
So there is considerable support by members of all parties in this House for a proposal with terms very similar to those in the bill before us today. The result was, as I have said, a measure for which the government and hon. members on this side must take the responsibility, but which I am confident will also find support from members of all parties in the House.
I have spoken about the question of conflict of interest. This is a very serious problem and one which has greatly exercised members of parliament, especially in the last year, perhaps because of events in other countries where we saw the dire consequences which can result from lack of sufficient concern in public life about this matter. We have passed new election expenses legislation which we believe goes a long way toward solving the problems in that area, and we have before a parliamentary committee a government paper with respect to other forms of conflict of interest in respect of members of parliament.
The question of the proper remuneration for members of parliament is perhaps the most subtle of all the forms of conflict of interest which could be before us, because essentially in a parliamentary democracy there is no one else who can ultimately deal with this problem. For instance, it is often said that members of parliament are elected on the understanding that they will not increase their salaries during their term of office. However, the fact is that from the very beginning of our country members of parliament have always exercised that right. It has therefore come to be assumed that members of parliament are elected with the knowledge that they can at any time increase their remuneration, yet they have exercised this power with some restraint in the past and I have no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
I and most hon. members of this House think it is important that we arrive at some formula which will enable us to establish a method which puts this decision at arm's length from us. One possibility would be to link increases in salary and expenses for members of parliament to those of members of the public service or members of some groups in the private sector. It has been suggested,
Members Salaries
for instance, that we should be linked to annual increases for people in professional occupations, to people in executive posts or simply to people in higher posts in the public service. But quite apart from the difficulty of deciding which group members of parliament are like-and I think we all feel that we in this House have a unique occupation which is not easily categorized with any other-it seems to me that there are very fundamental difficulties in making this kind of correlation, difficulties which I think we would not find very satisfactorily resolved in the long run.
In their ad hoc consultations, most members of parliament tended not to look on this option with very great favour even though it would have brought them undoubtedly-as any comparison with the public service would indicate-both a higher salary now and a higher salary in the future. In other words, I" think that the principal aim of members of parliament in supporting a bill such as this is not simply to increase their own remuneration: it is also to establish an objective reference for the kind of remuneration which will be as fair to the public as it is to themselves.
Another possibility is to have an outside commission make recommendations. This possibility is one which obviously has to be considered very seriously. We have already had the Beaupre commission. The front bench of the NDP is recommending that we should again have an outside commission which would make recommendations to parliament as to what is an adequate scale of salary. But we had an outside commission; we had the Beaupre commission which recommended that the salary level should be $25,000 in the twenty-ninth parliament. Applying the industrial composite index to that would have brought us a salary in the present parliament of $29,115. That would be the result of the recommendations of one commission which was, I think, a commission as objective as any which could be found.
The objection which members of parliament have to referring this matter to an outside commission is not that we would be afraid that it would not make a recommendation which would do us justice. Indeed, the commission I have referred to made a recommendation of $29,000 for the present parliament, which is larger than the amount the government has come forward with in this bill or which the members of parliament who consulted each other recommended to the government. Rather, the objection lies in fact that there is, then, the added difficulty that we are still in the embarrassing position of having to vote the increase ourselves. We would still have to exercise our own judgment in a matter of self-interest. This is precisely the position from which we set out to remove ourselves.
I believe that if we were to refer the question to an outside commission, it would have to be a kind of arbitration commission. It would have to be a commission from whom we would accept, without question and without the need for further legislation, the proposals it would make. It is possible that this question will receive further consideration by hon. members. However, as they proceeded last fall, the people who consulted informally on this question felt that the question should be phrased in terms of an outside standard and the two outside standards to which they made reference were the consumer price index (CPI) and the industrial composite index (IPI). I want to

Members Salaries
discuss those two together because I think much of the argument about which outside reference we should use has been centred around the difference between these two indices.
The frontbench members of the NDP have said that we should simply use the consumer price index, and that the increase we should have, should only be on the salary portion and not on the expense portion of our remuneration. It is rather strange to me that the front bench of the NDP has failed to appreciate the symbolism of such a limitation on the part of members of parliament. After all, things which we do here have some significance elsewhere in the country. In fact, much of the discussion of this bill has been based on that very fact.
Not long ago the Ontario government made a proposal for a 5 per cent cut in salary. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the comment which Mr. Stephen Lewis, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, made regarding that proposal: he referred to it as a crock of hypocritical nonsense. He saw the implications of the argument; it meant that labour should cut its wages.


John Edward Broadbent: Who is talking about a cut here?


Mark R. MacGuigan: No one is talking about a cut here. We are talking about the connection between what happens inside and what happens outside this House. The front benches of the NDP refuse to recognize that connection. If we should accept only the cost of living increase, it would mean that is all the workers of ths country should get and that no productivity increases should be paid to our labour force. That would be the meaning of such action. It is nice to know that some New Democrats who hold office in the provinces appreciate the distinction; it is also nice to know that some who are out of office in the provinces appreciate it. It is a shame that the same cannot be said of the front benches of the NDP in this House.
It would be difficult to tie our increases solely to the CPI. Let me say, frankly, that sometimes the consumer price index is higher than the industrial composite index and there are times when the ICI is above the CPI. If we tied our increases directly to the CPI we would be tying ourselves directly to the inflation factor, and that would not do. Nothing else would need to be considered; we would be effectively insulated against inflation. Many of us do not think that members of parliament should put themselves in the position in which they have such a direct interest in inflation. Many do not think that as inflation increases as measured by Statistics Canada, members should be given a similar kind of increase.
Moreover, to be fair to members of parliament, there would then be no explicit allowance for the productivity increase which all members of the labour force receive each year. Obviously, this is a disadvantage which would apply to members. Of course, one newspaper has suggested that increases should be limited to productivity increases.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is their productivity increase?


Mr. Fairweather:: The Globe and Mail just put its price up by 66 per cent.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The newspaper which made that proposal for members of parliament did not follow it either with respect to the wages it pays its reporters or the price it charges for its product.
The industrial composite index is perhaps the broadest base to consider. The records kept by Statistics Canada in this field are the best available indication of the trend of weekly Canadian wages and salaries. If we tied ourselves to this index we should say that we are prepared to abide by the results of negotiations which take place across the country, no matter on what basis they are negotiated. We would say that we are prepared to take only the kind of increase which the average constituent receives. It is clear, if one examines the period 1970 to 1974, that we have proposed receiving considerably less than our constituents received in that period.
I shall now refer to the appropriate figures and show how the industrial composite index applies to the indemnity of members of parliament and to allowances of members of parliament. The increase in the ICI between 1963 and July last year was 114.52 per cent. Let us apply that percentage to the 1963 figures. In 1963 members received $12,000 indemnity and $6,000 allowance. Applying the stated figures, in July, 1974, members would have received an indemnity of $25,742.40 and an allowance of $12,871.20, making a total of $38,613.60. This is almost exactly the figure suggested initially.
If one considers only the increased percentage from the period of the last increase in October, 1970, to July last year it is 37.17 per cent. Applying that figure would lead to an indemnity in July, 1974, of $24,690.60 and an allowance of $11,065.60, making a total of $35,756.20. This, again, is considerably more than was proposed in the second instance by the House leader, and accepted by Her Majesty's Official Opposition when we discussed the previous bill in December.
Some may feel that applying these formulas too rigidly in future might be unfair either to members of parliament or to the public; that is to say, it might not be possible to increase members' salaries and allowances at an adequate pace or, putting it the other way, the formula might lead to increases which are too large. I do not think anyone on this side is unreasonable. I do not think it would be impossible to review this procedure and possibly change the application of these formulas in future. But it seems to me that this is the best standard on which one can begin. It is the most objective standard to adopt at present. I suggest that modifications can be introduced to this basic system if they then appear necessary.
I spoke first about the general formulas to be used because I think these influences present levels of remuneration and allowance. I now want to turn to that subject and consider what could be fair to members, acceptable to the public and in the public interest. The proposals which have been made-especially the most recent proposal-are considerably below what would be derived from the application of the formulas referred to. For example, the proposal for a 33VS>
per cent increase is some 4 per cent below the 37-odd per cent which would accrue to members of parliament if the ICI had been strictly applied since the last increase. I think this shows the public that members of parliament are taking their responsibilities seriously,
April 8, 1975

that their attitude is not one of wringing the last cent out of the public treasury but one of trying to arrive at a solution which is fair to everyone concerned, both members of parliament and the public.
In this context I think it is important for us to discuss expenses. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) made some unfortunate references to expenses, which I believe should be discussed in this House. His argument in objecting to any increase at all in the expense allowance is based on the fact that certain improvements have accrued to members of parliament since the last increase in 1970. He said, as recorded at page 2338 of Hansard for December 17, 1974:
First, there are the constituency newsletters; second, there are the constituency offices; third, the constituency secretaries; fourth, the weekly flight and/or car expenses; fifth, the caucus research staffs; sixth, expanded office facilities in Ottawa-
He spoke of expenses under those headings as being justifiable expenses, but then suggested that the very fact these items had been introduced had relieved members of parliament of the burden of expenses which they had previously incurred. I did not know that many members of parliament in 1970 were supporting a caucus research staff, had expanded their office facilities here in Ottawa or had rented extra rooms here, and so on. It is true that in Britain, labour unions provide these facilities for certain members of the British House. Perhaps this is also done here, but I do not know of many members who on their own supported such outside offices.
The weekly flight provisions and the expansion of members' rights to fly back and forth give members the right to fly to other parts of the country. However, the fact is that most members of parliament simply did not accept invitations which require them to travel at their own expense to Vancouver, or to some other place which is expensive by reason of its distance from Ottawa, in order to perform public functions. Therefore, there would be very few cases in which this provision would result in a saving for the individual member.
It is true that some members sent out constituency newsletters. I did not at that time; I could not afford it. I know most members of this House did not, but there may have been some who did. Perhaps they will be somewhat in pocket in this regard. There may have been some who operated constituency offices. I did for approximately a year before this privilege was granted by the House. The total cost was not very great when you were merely renting small premises. I am not aware of any body of members of parliament who supported constituency secretaries on their own allowances. Some received support from the riding associations to do something of that kind on a part-time basis. I am not personally aware of any members who did this out of their own expense allowance.
This tends to be a rather fraudulent argument against an increase in the remuneration which members of parliament would receive on the expense side. In fact, I wonder if we might even apply to it the description "a crock of hypocritical nonsense".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Members Salaries


Mark R. MacGuigan: On what does the member of parliament spend his expense money? I would like to give a list of the kind of expenses I have personally. I believe they are fairly typical of the type of expenses a member of parliament has. The largest of these expenses is that of housing in Ottawa. This varies greatly, depending on how much of the time the member lives in Ottawa and whether his principal residence and his family are here. I think this fact indicates how difficult it would be to submit stubs with a voucher system.
This is one of the basic decisions a member of parliament has to make. He has to decide how he can best serve his constituents. Could we possibly have a public servant who would decide that a member of parliament has no right to move his family and make his principal residence in Ottawa, as opposed to the constituency? Could we possibly subject this matter to some kind of judgment by someone outside the political process entirely? This is the kind of decision a member has to make and for which he is fundamentally responsible to his constituents on election day.
In addition to housing expenses in Ottawa there are the additional expenses of living. There is the cost of buying meals out if, as mine is, his family is in a different city. The cost of entertainment for constituents who come to Ottawa is one of the expenses of a member. How much this amounts to depends on the distance of the member's constituency from Ottawa. The closer it is, the more visitors he will have in a year. Even with the modest subsidy given in the parliamentary restaurant this can be a very considerable expense for members of parliament.
I find it necessary to have a car in Ottawa and a car in my constituency. Other members may prefer to use taxis. If they feel they can get taxis in Ottawa when they need them: they may be able to rely on that source of locomotion. Whether it is the expense of operating two cars or the cost of hiring taxis, it is very considerable, running into several thousand dollars. Unless a member literally carries everything back and forth every week, there is the necessity for a double wardrobe. There is also the net cost of making contributions to causes and events which one would not make if he were not a member of parliament. That is difficult to measure; it has to be left to the member's discretion. It could not validly be judged by a public servant, but it is still a genuine cost of this kind of life. There is also the cost of additional publications, newspapers, magazines and extra copies of official documents, sometimes for constituents who impose on you in this respect and sometimes for yourself.
The extra cost of the constituency office is one which I hope may be remedied in the not too distant future. The fact is this is also at present an expense for most members of parliament. There is the cost of telegrams and extra telephone calls. There is the additional expense of childsitting and the additional expense of household operation in one's constituency by reason of our job, which we would not have otherwise. There is also the cost, for many members, of Christmas cards which they send to their constituents. This is a list of the kind of expenses which I have. Last year, by the best estimate that I can make, they came to more than $12,000-considerably more than the allowance provided by parliament for these purposes.

April 8, 1975
Members Salaries
I suppose the answer really depends on the individual member, but one can ask whether there is a certain degree of hidden income in the member's allowance. Obviously, this is an impossible question to answer. All the data that was submitted to the Beaupre commission and which has been presented to the public press by members would suggest not; in any event, it is surely unconscionable for members of the front bench of the New Democratic Party to so distort parliamentary life as to suggest that all this expense money is hidden income, added to a member's salary over and above the normal salary, which he does not spend on expenses. Yet that is the effect of the kind of arguments they make. For example, on December 19, 1974, as recorded at page 2398 of Hansard, the NDP House leader said:
In 1972, members of parliament were in the top 1.5 per cent of all income tax payers. Stated differently, this means that 98.5 per cent of all the working people in Canada who pay taxes and who have living expenses as well, earn less than members of parliament...
It want to stress, for the benefit of all members, that it seems to me we must keep in mind that we are among the very affluent in our country. As I have said, if this bill should pass, that position vis-a-vis the rest of society will be heightened for members of parliament. We will move from being among the top 1.5 per cent to being among the top .5 per cent.
That, Mr. Speaker, is totally false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The latest figures that I have are for the tax year 1973. If you take this in terms of families- and, of course, this was at a lower income level than we now have, which means the percentage would now be higher-and bear in mind that our annual salary is $18,000, 12.7 per cent of Canadian families had incomes of more than $20,000. The figure is not given for $18,000; obviously, it would be something like 15 per cent. At present-day figures it would probably be more like 20 per cent. Therefore, we are far from being in the top income bracket. We do well to be in the top 15 or 20 per cent. Taking individuals and families combined, the percentage is slightly less; the figure at that point was 9.6 per cent. Again, that percentage applied to $20,000 incomes. It is hard to compute what the percentage would be for the breaking point of $18,000, but it would be between 12 and 15 per cent.
Those are more exact statements of the position in which members of parliament find themselves in terms of the income earners of this country: it is not in the top 1.5 per cent or .5 per cent, but in the top 15 or 20 per cent.
A newspaper story that appeared in the December 20 edition of the Montreal Gazette written by Mr. Radwanski, makes the point that 7,500 federal civil servants then earned more than $20,000 a year. Undoubtedly, if you applied the figure of $18,000 it would be more like 10,000 civil servants who earned more than $18,000 a year, and these are people whom we employ.
We do not necessarily have to be at the top of the pinnacle in the public service to the extent that we can be assimilated to the public service-but whether or not we are at the very top we can hardly continue to be in the position where some 10,000 of the people we employ and

who often are co-operatively working with us should be paid at a higher rate than we are.


An hon. Member:: With their 37 hours a week.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, with their 37-hour week, as contrasted with the 90-hour to 100-hour week that a member of parliament puts in, including his travelling time. As I have mentioned, a commission was set up to look into this question. The Beaupre commission recommended that members of parliament should receive $25,000 in the twenty-ninth parliament. This would put us in the $29,000 bracket now. We have not asked for that amount. Our demands have been more modest because we have been concerned not only that our demands should be just but that they should be seen to be just, so that Canadians would realize that we were not out for the last dollar but for a kind of minimal justice for ourselves and that we are attempting to protect the public interest by removing this conflict of interest.
It seems to me that what we face in this bill is a question of fundamental honesty for members of parliament. It may be that some members would be content with a crock of hypocritical nonsense. But I believe that if most members speak and vote as they really think about this bill, there is no doubt that they will support this very enlightened, very moderate legislation which is not only just to members in a rather minimal sense but is also highly protective of the public interest.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, nothing more demonstrates the nature of this debate than the speech we have just heard. What are the issues here? The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was saying to us: My own government has been unable to control inflation in the economy. My own government has been unable to control all kinds of unfairness which has taken place in the economy. Therefore, we have to get on the bandwagon and grab everything we can.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Max Saltsman: That is exactly what he said. We are considering a statement by a member of a government which has abdicated every kind of leadership in this nation. That, more than the money itself, is what is at issue. What is at issue is that the so-called free market economy is just riddled with all kinds of people grabbing things for themselves, and the hon. member is suggesting to us that we should not be left out of the race. There is no leadership from that side of the House as far as controlling inflation is concerned, and he is therefore saying: Let's go with it.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville should be very careful before lecturing this House and my leader, in particular, on honesty. That was one of the most dishonest speeches I have heard for a long time. It was comparing apples with oranges. It is quite clear, even from the section of Hansard from which he read, that my hon. friend for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was referring to individual incomes. And what did we hear as a comparison? Family incomes, which obviously are much higher and entirely different. If you want to compare family incomes, then compare them. But it was grossly wrong to
April 8, 1975

inject figures of that kind into a speech in which the hon. member lectured the House about honesty.


Mark R. MacGuigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if it is true, as the hon. member has said, that his leader's comparison was restricted to individual incomes, I do not have the exact figures in front of me because I have just given them to the Hansard reporter, but the same point has to be made: the difference between what the New Democratic Party House leader said and the facts are remains as wide.


Max Saltsman: I do not see that that really changes the situation much. The figure we were referring to was the total amount with both salary and expenses included. We are not the only people in the world who have expenses. I get a little tired of hearing people sounding off around here about how badly treated MPs are. We are not the richest people in the world, but neither are we the most oppressed section of our society.
I see that on this auspicious occasion members of the official opposition are coming to the defence of the government. It is a nice change. Usually, during the question period, we hear them asking the government what it intends to do about the terrible inflation which is taking place in Canada, what it intends to do about the various increases that are taking place, what it intends to do about this, that and the other. But when it comes to the salaries of MPs, the question of inflation doesn't seem to arise. I wonder what the members of the official opposition would say if people in some other segment of our economy gave themselves a 50 per cent increase. Would they refrain from asking about the matter during the question period?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: After nine years, come on!


Max Saltsman: It depends on the kind of case you are trying to make. When we received the last increase it was broadly understood that it was not only for that time; it was for catch-up and it was for the years ahead.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense. It was only your own leader who made that suggestion in argument.


Max Saltsman: This is a difficult debate for all hon. members. It is as difficult for me as it is for members who are taking a different position. I want to make it clear that it is not a question of having a superior morality; it is not a question of being holier than thou.


Mr. Cafik:: Would the hon. member permit "a question?


Max Saltsman: I would be glad to entertain any questions at the end of my speech. I am sorry that what I am saying is causing this kind of reaction. I see the hon. member appears to be very anxious to ask his question, so I will accept it now.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I appreciate that a great deal. I am certainly not trying to have a run at any member of this House. I understand the concern of the hon. member. He expresses a difficulty he shares with others in dealing with this subject. I wonder whether he would find any difficulty about supporting the amendment which I am putting for-
Members Salaries
ward, an amendment which would make this permissive legislation-members who do not want an increase would not have to take it. Would the hon. member be agreeable to supporting an approach of that kind?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like an excellent suggestion and I am really glad it is being put forward, because we should be extending a principle of the Liberals and Conservatives on that basis. Members of the Liberal Party voted against the old age pension for years, and are still voting against any amendments we bring in for an increase in those pensions so they themselves will not get increased old age pensions. The Conservative Party, which took such a vicious stand against it, would be deprived of the Canada Pension Plan; and those who do not like the family allowance program could, on a conscience basis, refuse that allowance.
Mr. Speaker, all this is nonsense and the hon. member knows it. I am just sorry that I gave him the chance to come in with that ridiculous kind of statement. Over and over again we have voted against things that we know we cannot even refuse. We know that, but are we going to curtail a very important debate in this House because of that kind of spurious suggestion? I think the debate deserves better than that.
Let me get back to the subject of this debate and its significance for members of this House. Despite the fact that the NDP appear to be on the side of the angels, what is significant is that no member of this House will come out of the debate covered with glory. All of us will suffer, Mr. Speaker. Every party in this House, every member of this House, and in the long run this parliament, will be discredited. It is important to remember that. At a time when most of us are going around talking about the evils of inflation and the need for restraint, and denouncing various greedy elements in our society, we ourselves set an example of greed. That is what is wrong with the whole thing. This party has taken a position and it looks as though we are on the side of the angels in this debate. Just look at the Gallup polls. We have not received any credit for the position we have taken. Parliament is being run down in this country.
It is all very well to take the position that the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) took, and to receive laughter and applause. I wish we could train other people as well as he has trained his members. He took off on the press, Mr. Speaker. Just this morning an editorial suggested that we should get absolutely nothing until we lick the problem of inflation. Obviously, we are not going to solve the total problem of inflation in this or any other parliament. Obviously, members of parliament are entitled to some increase. That is not what we are debating. But to take off on the press and say it has no right to criticize us is not realistic. Other countries have been known to step on the press when they get out of line, but that is not our way. While I may not like what the press has to say about us, I must confess that it is not entirely undeserved.
Had it not been for the NDP digging in its heels at Christmas time and perhaps being a little outrageous, the increase would have gone through in a snap. That is what the government was hoping for. By taking the stand we

April 8, 1975
Members Salaries
have, that the increase is too much and something different and better should be worked out, I think we have done a service to this country. It is not that the press alone did it, or that the press picked it up and inflamed the country with editorials: press editorials tried to inflame the country to vote Conservative in the last election, and look what happened! The public is angry, and whatever influence the press may have on public opinion is beside the point. It would be a mistake to think this is a fight between parliament and the press because it is more than that; it has become a fight between parliament and the people of this country for credibility.
As the leader of this party has said, and indeed all members of this party say, some kind of increase for MPs is necessary. What sort of increase should it be, and how should it be arrived at? It is not important whether it is tied to the industrial index, to the cost of living index or the consumer price index. What is important is the indexing itself and the basic unfairness of it. If you add 10 per cent to an old age pension, it represents something worth while to the pensioner although it may be only a dollar and some change. Add 10 per cent to an MPs salary and the increase represents more than the entire old age pension.
That is what is wrong with indexing, Mr. Speaker. It is regressive, whether it be the industrial index or the cost of living index, because it either maintains the gap between those who are well off and those who are not, or enlarges it. It makes the inequality of the situation worse than it was. If this parliament were concerned about removing the distance between those who have and those who do not have in this society, the award would have to be substantially less than the industrial index or the cost of living index.
That is the kind of decision this parliament should be taking, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the Conservative Party missed the opportunity of saying, "Now is the time to look at an incomes policy. Let us start with the incomes of members of parliament and establish some kind of guideline for our society about how incomes should be arranged". You remove the gap between the rich and the poor by giving more to those at the bottom and less to those at the top. For all the Conservative Party's talk about an incomes policy, there is not a word about it when it comes to their own salaries. If you are going to bring in an incomes policy-and I think sooner or later this country will come to that-whether it is a guidelines policy or a direct control policy, surely the place to start is with MPs salaries. It is not done by saying that everybody is getting outrageous salaries in our society, or some people are, and that MPs salaries have to match. That is not showing any kind of leadership.
While we concede that there is some substantial ground for increasing the present salary of MPs, what ground is there for increasing the expense allowance? The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville criticized the statement made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby at considerable length, saying that the benefits we now receive really should not be included. I will speak for myself on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think I am too different from many other members. Until a few years ago I paid for my own newsletters; admittedly not the full price, but I

paid for them. I also paid for printing questionnaires, for extra help, for a telephone in my riding. The riding association paid the bulk of the constituency office expenses. I know many other members paid the same type of expenses from their salaries before we were given the expense allowance. But we did it because we thought it was an important way to serve our constituents.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville also overlooked the fact that most of the contributions we make to a political party are now deductible for income tax purposes. In our party, that amounts to a substantial part of our income, Mr. Speaker. Personally, it saves me about $1,000 a year and that is a substantial benefit. It may be that Liberals and Conservatives do not give anything to their parties or riding associations: perhaps they are paid. Members of the New Democratic Party, however, have always made contributions toward the work of the riding associations because it is of benefit to us. There are other benefits which I could indicate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated he has a method of saving $1,000 a year through income tax credits. I would love to know about this before he goes any further.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate the suggested correction, Mr. Speaker. It is not $1,000; it is $500 odd. It is, nevertheless, a very substantial saving.


Mr. Gilbert:: It is $500 for himself and $500 for his wife.


Max Saltsman: There is one other matter I should like to deal with in the few minutes at my disposal, and that is the suggestion that if we do not pay large sums of money we will not get good men and women running for parliament. Surely that is a most self-evident piece of nonsense. This parliament is composed of many good men and women, but I do not think they are any better than those we had before when the salary was $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year. I am sure that if any of us wished to abdicate, or felt we could not possibly stand the onerous responsibility of continuing to be a member of parliament and retired from this place, there would be a great rush for our jobs even at the present salary. I am sure you could get somebody with my qualities, or someone perhaps better or worse, but the point is that there are many good men and women in the Parliament of Canada.
This job cannot be equated with other types of occupations. It is a very specialized kind of job and it must be obvious that in a nation of 22 million people, the 264 men and women are here to legislate on behalf of the people of this country. If any one of us wanted to get rich, there are many better ways than by becoming a member of parliament. If we wanted to live longer or have a better family life, there are much better ways than by being a member of parliament. When we accept the responsibility of a member of parliament, we know there will be certain associated problems. For example, we know we will not get rich; but we are entitled to a decent salary enabling us to live in a responsible sort of way.
I think we should get a little more than we are getting now, but we are not entitled to the moon and we should
April 8, 1975

not make outrageous demands on society, using all kinds of padding from time to time to support our suggestions. That is what I am saying to members of this House: we should look at the situation realistically. I know that members will say I am being hypocritical and that I will take the money. I do not want to get back into the argument that took place before about conscience clauses, and that sort of thing, but I would ask hon. members to really look at what has been happening. The proposal put forward by the government will not be as beneficial to hon. members as the one initially suggested and all of us in this House, over the next couple of years, will be receiving less. There is some argument that over the entire period it will amount to the same thing, but from what I can understand we will be getting substantially less in the next couple of years than we would have received under the proposal originally brought forward by the government.
Let us not talk about hypocrisy. The stand and the fight we are conducting in this party will in fact reduce our opportunity of getting that increase in income. It will cost us money to put up this fight; I think that must be clear. If you want a test of sincerity, surely that is the test. We are going to continue this fight, and if it costs us money to do so in the sense that we get something less than the proposed salary increase, we will just have to live with the responsibility of taking that position. We will also have to learn to live with the catcalls from both sides of this House.
Let me conclude by saying that this House has a tremendous responsibility. I can appreciate how hon. members feel when they look around and see that people with perhaps less skill, who do not work as hard and make fewer sacrifices, are receiving more money. Surely that is not a good argument for us to follow but is, rather, a good argument for us to do something about what is wrong in our society in that some are getting more than their fair share. That is really the point of the whole debate.
If we continue to be seen as we are, unfortunately, seen by the people of this country, being no different and having no more conscience than anyone else-and everybody else is demanding more-it will be a sad time for this country.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)- Energy-Oil-Request for investigation of possible fraudulent increase in import prices; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Transport- Crash of DC3 at Rimouski-Report alleging non-compli-
Adjournment Motion
ance with regulations; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Airports-Request for decision to construct.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some agreement to proceed with Order No. 34, Bill C-234, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to question the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary regarding the agreement, but I have some reservation about the bill that is proposed for study by the House this afternoon.
Let me refer hon. members to a statement by Mr. Speaker on October 13, 1974, regarding the presentation of a mass of private members' bills. At that time he suggested it was impossible for the Chair to review the contents of each of these bills, and suggested that the bills be read the first time and leave it for the Chair to make a later decision regarding the procedural acceptability of individual proposals.
At the same time I feel it is unfair to come in on a day like this when there has been some general agreement as to the debate on a particular bill, and taking most of the time on a debate on the procedural acceptability of the proposal. I would be tempted to suggest to the House that there might be an agreement to debate the subject matter of the bill, but to go that far would not be following our normal procedures. I would enter a caveat in respect of our proceeding with an examination of the bill proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
This is a caveat which would at least provide for the regularization of the bill in respect of its present weaknesses concerning the lack of a royal recommendation which would be necessary in order for it to comply with the procedures of this House. I must refer hon. members generally, although I am sure I do not have to bring it to the attention of the hon. member who is proposing the bill, or of the parliamentary secretary, to Standing Order 62(1), which is quite clear. It provides:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
So, because of the provisions of the standing order, and also because of the fact that another such bill was proposed in the previous parliament, Bill C-ll, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, which was meant to achieve about the same purpose, which was proposed by the government, and to which was attached a royal recommendation which complied with Standing Order 62(1), I would not want the House to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-234 without giving a warning to hon. members or without suggesting to the House that, over and above the unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-234 at this time, although it is not first in the list on
4616

Adjournment Motion
the order paper, there should be an understanding that if it should come to a vote the Chair would reserve and delay such vote until there was a royal recommendation which would meet the obligations and requests of Standing Order 62, or make a definite decision at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if you are asking for agreement on two counts I should like to say a word first concerning the request that Bill C-234 be considered in this hour despite the fact that that would mean jumping it over several others. We certainly are prepared to go along with that.
On the question of whether or not the bill is in order, I do not know whether I am about to refer to something to which Your Honour referred a moment ago when 1 was looking up something else, but I should like to point out that there is on the order paper, in the name of the government, Bill C-3 which would do the same thing that is proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Of course Bill C-3, in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), does have attached to it the royal recommendation.
It would seem to me that, if the royal recommendation is required for the government to propose senators for the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the same obligation should rest on a private member. However, although I am opposed to senators I am not opposed to the House spending the hour debating this bill if that should be the wish, but it would be on the understanding that if the debate were to end, and a vote called, at that point there would have to be a ruling from the Chair as to whether or not the bill is in order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to speak on the procedural point raised by the Chair at this time. I believe we are prepared to go along with the suggestion that the debate proceed and, should the debate come to an end, that sufficient opportunity be given to members at that time to make their submissions on the procedural point raised by the Chair before any ruling is made concerning the bill. In this way we could save time by not becoming involved in the procedural matter.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements are satisfactory to us. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, there is on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council Bill C-3 which deals effectively with the same thing. I believe it would be the will of the government, if the House should show a disposition to come to a decision in respect of Bill C-234, to provide the royal recommendation if it should be necessary, in order to allow it to come to a decision. From the point of view of the government I should point out that it really does not matter whether this end is accomplished by way of a private member's bill or by way of a government bill. It is the end that the government devoutly desires.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As there seems to be complete understanding and agreement, the Chair will call the order and we will proceed with the debate. Perhaps I should say this is the second time the present occupant of the Chair has been faced with the same situation where there has been agreement to debate a bill in respect of

which there was some procedural reservation. Again today, the Chair felt that it was unfair to take away from the time provided for such an important debate. It might be that the Chair and its advisers should look at the problem of making decisions upon the procedural acceptability of bills a longer time in advance, so that we do not lose time in reaching procedural decisions on bills on which there has already been agreement for debate. Is it agreed that we proceed to the consideration of Bill C-234?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Erik Nielsen: that Bill C-234, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Yukon and Northwest Territories Senate Representation), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in view of the position taken by the government. I might, on behalf not only of the people of the Yukon Territory but of the Northwest Territories as well, express my gratitude to the government, a thing I very seldom do, for its farsightedness in this case. I would hope I could do the same thing in respect to the party to my left which is represented in this House by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) concerning matters in the north.
This is a bicameral system we have in our country. Whether or not my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) agrees that there should be Senators, and we all know his position in that regard, surely it is unfair that all parts of Canada except the two northern territories should be fully represented in the bicameral parliament of this country. It is unfair to leave out the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, and by opposing this bill that is precisely what we would be doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps that would be the fairest thing we could do for the north.


Erik Nielsen: No, it is not. We want full representation. The Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories want Senate representation. It may well be that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) brings forward his bill to abolish the Senate he may find me on his side, because I share a great many of his views in respect of the other place. However, while we have this system we, as Canadian citizens in the north, are just as entitled to be represented in parliament as is any other province. That is all this bill seeks to do, and it is all that Bill C-3, the government bill, seeks to do.
April 8, 1975

I have had this private member's bill on the order paper for many years now, and I am thankful that the government is prepared to go to the extent of providing the royal recommendation-which I do not think is necessary and which I will argue if the need arises. However, the government is prepared to provide that, so that the last possible objection of any member, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), should be disposed of by it. I hope, Madam Speaker, that we can give second reading to the bill and move it to the committee. In the meantime the government could provide the royal recommendation that may or may not be essential, and then the bill would be acceptable even despite that possible procedural objection.
Having said that, I urge the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not to stand in the way of Canadian citizens in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories being represented as fully as any other Canadian citizens in parliament by permitting representation in the Senate.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Speaker, it is a rare occasion when I can rise to commend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), as many in this chamber are aware from previous debates, especially for his presentation of his Bill, C-234. It is a unique opportunity for the voice of the north to be heard, and as a northerner myself I have noted the very dense concentration of Senate representation from the heavily populated south. We on this side of the House have no objection to this bill proceeding.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, we do have a procedural problem at this point. I understand that the debate is coming to a close, and I really do not know how to resolve the problem in the sense that we have to find some way of getting a royal recommendation to apply to a bill not presented by the cabinet, although the cabinet has presented Bill C-3 to the House for which it has obtained a royal recommendation.
I wonder if we could agree to suspend proceedings at this point, if no one else wishes to speak, and once we have had an opportunity to resolve the dilemma perhaps an order could be made so that we could have a vote on it, if necessary, when we have solved the procedural problem of a royal recommendation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) has raised an interesting point which obviously may take some time to resolve, that is, just how the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who is not a member of the Privy Council, can obtain a royal recommendation from the Governor General for his bill.


Erik Nielsen: Pull, drag.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pull? I have not yet found the word pull or the word drag in the British North America Act or in the Standing Orders. But no
Senate Representation
doubt that matter will be resolved if that is the will of the House.
However, I wish to state my opposition to the bill, and let not the hon. member for Yukon or the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) suggest that this is a case of speaking against the north. I am opposed to this bill precisely because I do not want to insult the north. I do not want to insult the people of the Yukon or the people of the Northwest Territories by proposing to them that somehow they will be brought into the mainstream of Canadian life because a couple of Liberals are appointed to sit in the Senate on their behalf.
I think that this House did the right thing not many weeks ago when it made provision to increase the representation of the north in this House of Commons so that we will have, in the next parliament, one member for Yukon and two members for the Northwest Territories. This is where representation really counts, this is where the action is. I do not think it is worth anything to the Yukon or to the Northwest Territories to have representation in the other place.
With regard to the argument of the hon. member for Yukon that he might support my proposal to abolish the Senate but in the meantime let us have someone in it from the north, there are lots of thing to which I might be opposed in society, but that does not give me the moral right to patronize them while they exist, does it? You can fill in the blank, if you want.
I suggest that the arguments in favour of this bill add up to zero. If it is the will of the House that it be approved either in the name of the hon. member for Yukon or in the name of a cabinet minister, that is the will of the House. But in defense of the dignity and the real rights of the people of the north I say that it is an insult to try to fob off on them the idea that they are brought into the mainstream of Canadian life if they have a couple of Liberals sitting in their name in the other place.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the bill stand until further consultation?


Erik Nielsen: It is agreed, provided that if the royal recommendation is not obtained we will have the opportunity to submit arguments on the procedural point involved.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the bill will hold its order of precedence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.20 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
29557-171/2
[Stage Direction]
Members' Salaries

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there was not time for research into how, during the past 100 years or so, salary increases for members of parliament were brought about, but I would not be surprised to learn that there have been in the past instances similar to ours when uproars on the part of an alienated public were heard to reach as far as Parliament Hill.
In 1971 at least some of us here went through a similar experience, and at that time I made a mental note asking myself whether there was not a better way to provide elected representatives with salary increases when needed, which would be more adequate and more acceptable than the way we have proceeded so far in recent years.
It will take me only a few minutes to explain why I will be voting against this all-party bill. I disagree with the present bill on two counts-the approach, and the timing. Let me explain the problem of the approach. This bill was produced here internally with very little if any consultation with the outside world, and it was brought out into the open rather suddenly. It is no surprise that the public was rather dismayed and that a certain degree of resentment developed, but that does not mean that there are not many Canadians across the country who want to see their elected representatives well remunerated in order to enable them to do an adequate job.
As a result of that one wonders whether there is not a way to develop a bill with the support and understanding of Canadians. The obvious solution is the formation of a commission, and this is not a novel idea. It was a good idea when it was tried in 1970-71. Perhaps a larger and more representative group would be needed. This commission would serve at least two purposes. It would prepare public opinion because of its work, and it would provide a number of recommendations which it would be up to parliament to adopt subsequently in the form of a bill if they were acceptable. It may produce, for instance, one measure which I would very much welcome, namely, the removal of the tax exempt portion of elected representatives' salaries as a step which would be quite consistent with the measures introduced in 1972 by the then minister of finance through tax reform. The Beaupre Commission was a good idea, and it is one on which we could improve in the years to come.
The other reason for my voting against the bill is in relation to timing. It seems to me that any bill like this, or bills in future years for future parliaments, would be acceptable if it or they were to come into effect as of the date of the following election. It is true that in this case three years is a long time to wait, and it is true that it would mean a tightening of belts, but it would be an approach which would indicate our intentions, prepare the
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
public, and develop greater public support for a measure of this kind.
If we consider this evening not only this bill but subsequent bills for, say, the next 50 years, if we were to have these two basic elements-the commission first to supply the data and the recommendations, and a bill which would come into effect as of the date of the following election- then it seems to me that we will have done a good job in considerably improving our present method.
I hope that hon. members will consider these two steps for this parliament and for future parliaments. I do not know whether I have convinced many or only a few-


An hon. Member:: None.


Charles L. Caccia: -that by adopting the procedure I have described tonight, we will have saved ourselves and the public much unnecessary grief. I have tried hard, Mr. Speaker, both in caucus and here, to convince hon. members, and there is at least full agreement on one point-our job is a rather unique job. We are legislators. At the same time we are the link between the people and the government, and we are those in whom the public has confidence and high respect. There are great satisfactions which can be derived from this kind of work and by playing these different roles.
I do not think we need to go through such experiences as we have between December and now if we were to adopt a procedure which will make the public part of the process rather than partially alienating the very same people who, in the end, would want to see members of parliament well remunerated.
Perhaps hon. members may see merits in these ideas. They are not really original. They are based on just plain common sense and motivated by the desire for searching for an approach which will spare elected representatives something which they do not deserve, namely, the criticism of the people they endeavour to represent in this House every day.


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


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the previous speaker would be willing to answer a few questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It could be done with the consent of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Would the hon. member accept a question?


Charles L. Caccia: Certainly.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he will be doing with the raise. Does he intend to give it to charitable institutions in his constituency. I would like him to tell us.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I tried hard in this House and in caucus to put forward an alternative
April 8, 1975

approach; but I suggest that with this measure, as with any other, the will of the majority of the House will prevail.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: You have not answered my question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising. Is he rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in a technical difficulty inasmuch as I am under the impression the hon. member has already spoken. Perhaps I am mistaken. If so, perhaps the hon. member can confirm my mistake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think Your Honour will find that I spoke on a point of order. I know that my name appears in the index of Hansard for the Thursday of the week before Christmas. I myself wondered why my name appeared, but I assure Your Honour that I spoke only to a point of order and that I have not spoken on the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House will accept the word of the hon. member. I thought the hon. member spoke when his leader had moved an amendment. In any event, I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like in my opening words to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the brief but constructive speech he just made. It was obvious that, sitting where he does in this House, it was not easy for him to speak against this bill. I think all of us should pay him our respect for the stand he took.
The hon. member referred to his having been through this experience in 1971 and, since he is being obliged to go through it again, he feels strongly that a better way should be found to deal with this matter. I can say to the hon. member that this is the fifth time I have been through this experience and I thoroughly agree that we should find a better way-


An hon. Member:: You have been here a long time; why couldn't you suggest something better?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: But you guys are the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have tried, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say that I approve of the two main points that I gather the hon. member for Davenport was trying to make. They were, one, that there should be some kind of outside body which should make the judgment as to what the remuneration of members of parliament ought to be; two, that any decision made by a parliament regarding the remuneration of members of parliament should come into effect at the beginning of the next ensuing parliament.
Members' Salaries
I congratulate the hon. member on the statement he made. I was glad to hear him say that he fought for his view in the caucus of which he is a member. I wish that his fellow members had listened to him more intently.


An hon. Member:: But he is not the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is evident from the interruptions and the catcalls coming from across the way that feelings tend to run high in this kind of debate.


An hon. Member:: That's right. This is unpleasant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It can become quite an unpleasant experience. Some of us may feel that we are on the right side of the issue and that outside this House there is support for our position; nevertheless, it is not pleasant to stand in this House and feel that most members are critical of what one is saying.
Perhaps I might be allowed to lighten the atmosphere of this House a bit by recounting an incident which took place in January on a bus, south of London, England. The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, of which I have the honour to be a member, spent about ten days in London, in the middle of January, studying the procedures at Westminster and giving thought to our own. When we finished our deliberations we were driven one dark Sunday night from London by bus down to a town near Gatwick Airport, where we were to spend the night so that we could get our aircraft from Gatwick the next morning.
We had a fine driver, but he had never been to the hotel where we were to spend the night. After he drove around for some time in different directions it became obvious we were lost. Actually he stopped a couple of times and went into one place or another to find out where we were and how to get to the hotel. Our only concern was that it was getting late. But the concern we felt as we sat in that bus gave way to a sensation of delightful relief when, out of the silence, came the poetic voice of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), who said something like this, "Well, there is one thing that is good. If we are lost, it means that Stanley won't get back to Ottawa in time to stop the pay bill."


An hon. Member:: But here you are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I made some remark to the effect that I would get here somehow; and here I am. And, if possible, I should like to see Bill C-44 stopped. I say that categorically.


An hon. Member:: Because that is in your interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to my
hon. friends opposite that I do not have many notes in front of me and if they interrupt me, they will help me. I will be able to speak for the full 40 minutes.
I say to this House candidly that I wish, with all my heart, that this parliament had what it takes to say no to this bill. If this House could send this bill back to where it came from it could well be one of our finest hours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Members' Salaries


An hon. Member:: Don't be absurd.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to hon. members opposite that by their childish interruptions they are only underlining the indecent attitude they are taking on this question. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, and this goes also for some members on the other side and some members of the Conservative party, this is a very serious issue.
My reason for saying that this House's opposition to this bill could be a high point in the life of this institution must surely be clear. Sir, Canada's economy is in trouble. Inflation may not yet be of the runaway variety, but it is awfully close to it. On every hand it is being said that we need restraint. We get it every day from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). We get it frequently from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). In one of his memorable contributions during the question period one day just before the Easter recess he was pleading for action from the government following the recess. He said quite clearly, "We, the Conservative party, are prepared to go along with restraint."
Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would apply that restraint to this question of the pay and allowances of members of parliament. However, I suggest it is true that what this country needs at the present time is the practice of some restraint. The place for that practice to begin is with ourselves.
I believe quite firmly that even the announcement in December that parliament was going to increase its pay and allowances by 50 per cent did damage to the economy of the country. That damage has already been done. Since then, there have been many instances of demands for higher wages that are in percentage brackets much higher than they were in 1974. The reason groups of all kinds feel free to make very high demands is because they feel they were given a lead in that direction by the parliament of Canada through the announcement in December that this place was going for a 50 per cent increase.
Precisely because of the damage that was done by that announcement, I suggest we now have to lean over backwards. We have to go for even less now than might have been reasonable then, as a means of giving a lead to the people of the country. There are talks going on between the government and various economic sectors of the country in an effort to reach some kind of consensus. When workers are out on strike, we say they are asking for too much. In some cases we even legislate them back to work at lower rates than they want. If it is the general view that there should be some restraint, we are the ones who ought to be practising it right here.
I go along with the views that have been expressed in other parts of the House, and with a view that is held by my own party, that there may be a case for some increase in the remuneration of members of parliament. I think there was a better case before December than there is now. However, the fact that we have asked for such an outlandish increase has done the kind of damage to our economy that I think we ought now to repair.

I plead with this House, even if there are only a few of our voices that are doing it, that we not rush headlong into approving this bill. I have to say that I am disturbed by what is happening today. I thought this debate was starting afresh and we were going to hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, yesterday I was told that was going to happen, but I was told today they were not going to speak. Today all we get from the government side of the House in support of the bill is one speech by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). We have heard no comment not a word, from the official opposition. There was one speech by the leader of the Social Credit party.
It is obvious from the calls for "question" that members are hoping this can be got out of the way before the country realizes what is happening. I do not think that is a responsible way for this parliament to act.


An hon. Member:: It has been in the papers for months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says it has been in the papers for months. A lot of things have been in the papers for months. There have been a lot of letters from people across Canada for months expressing concern about what this place is doing.
I make my appeal even to those who can make a case on the basis of expenses, family costs, and the increased workload. I appeal to those who think an increase is justified to face the fact that our primary responsibility in this place, in this House of Commons, in this parliament of Canada, is to give leadership to this country.
What this country needs now in terms of economic leadership is some voice that will say restraint is necessary, and that we are prepared to practice it ourselves. Maybe it is a voice crying in the wilderness of this place. There is at least one ear across the way that I take it is sympathetic.
I would regard it as the height of irresponsibility and a cynical approach to our responsibilities if members, simply by sitting quiet and trying to howl down some of the rest of us, allowed this bill in just one day to get second reading and go to committee.
What is at stake in this bill is not just the alleged financial difficulties of members of parliament, the desire to have a little more, or the differences between us. What is at stake is the question of whether we, the members of the House of Commons of Canada, are prepared to give leadership to a country which is in trouble.
I deplore as strongly as I can the silence from the government side. I deplore equally the silence from the official opposition. I point out, however, that the Conservative party as a party is not silent on the question. There came into my hands a short while ago a copy of a document which is headed "National President's Newsletter". It is on the letterhead of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada. It is from Michael A. Meighen, the national president, and is dated March, 1975. The first two or three paragraphs give a general rundown on the sins and omissions of the Liberal government. Then he says, and I quote:
Despite the doubletalk, total government spending has increased by 33 per cent or over $8 billion. In addition, a government which is in the
April 8, 1975

middle of a business-labour wage war created in part by its non-existent anti-inflation policy, has the audacity to propose 50 per cent salary increases which have made a farce of its voluntary restraint program and public service negotiations. This government seems unable to comprehend its responsibility as the ultimate arbitrator and pace-setter in fighting inflation.
If that is the position of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada, as stated by its national president, Mr. Michael Meighen, I suggest that position ought to be stated in this House by the Leader of the Opposition, by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and others who purport to speak for the Progressive Conservatives of this country with regard to economic matters. I agree with Mr. Meighen that it is an audacious act for the government, in this time of economic trouble and crisis, to come in with this kind of proposal.
I deplore the fact we are not hearing from the Prime Minister. I am equally disturbed that we are not hearing from the Leader of the Opposition or other spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative party. It is not only the Progressive Conservative party that has taken this view through its national president. The Minister of Finance is running around the country preaching restraint. The government is constantly telling labour groups that they are asking for too much. Only a few days ago we put one group back to work by legislation.
There may be a good case for all of this, but the case would be a lot stronger if we showed we were paying some attention to the preachments that are uttered in this House of Commons. Therefore I urge that any thought of this bill being put through tonight be forgotten. Surely that is the least I can urge.


An hon. Member:: Okay, baby!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member over there would like to make a speech I hope he will do so. This is an important debate. The least the House should do is allow this issue to be under debate for a few days, not just for one day so that it slips out of the news before the people have heard about it. Debate should continue until the people of the country are persuaded that the House of Commons is treating this issue as the serious one some of us believe it to be.
Having said these things about the general nature of the proposition before us I want to express misgivings about some of the details in the bill as it is now presented. Incidentally, the general impression, as a result of what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said on the Wednesday of the week before Christmas, is that when the bill gets to committee certain amendments will be made to it. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, although he is not in a position to speak for the government, confirmed that understanding this afternoon. Nevertheless, what is before us as far as any vote is concerned is not an amended bill-it is the bill which was introduced last December, one which provides for a 50 per cent increase in both the indemnity and the expense allowance, and declares that such an increase is to be retroactive to July 8, 1974. This leads me to say immediately that I do not think there is
Members' Salaries
any justification for making whatever increase parliament decides on to be retroactive to the date of the last election.
The hon. member for Davenport has just argued that any increase voted by parliament should not come into effect until after the next election. Yet here we are being asked to make it law that we should get a substantial increase retroactive to the date of the 1974 election.
There is a point concerning which feelings are so strong and arguments are so sharp that maybe we will never be able to settle it. That is the question as to how long a period the increase voted in 1971 was intended to cover. I know there is nothing in Hansard about what was understood at that time. However, I have been here for five of these battles and it was certainly my understanding, my grasp of the situation, that the reason the boost was so high in 1971 was that it would be several years before there would be another. Some hon. members do not accept that argument, but as far as I am concerned, it is a valid point. Even if hon. members do not accept it I still do not see how anyone can justify asking for an increase to be retroactive to the day on which members of this House were elected.
When we ran in the election which culminated on July 8, 1974, we knew what the pay and allowances attached to this job would be. We knew that if we were fortunate enough to get here it would be $18,000 taxable plus $8,000 by way of a tax-free allowance. I submit that if there is a case for an increase now because of the higher cost of living since July 8, 1974, any such increase should come into effect only now, and not be made retroactive to July 8, 1974. A retroactive payment of the kind suggested would mean we would each get a cheque for a retroactive amount which would be greater than the amount most people make in an entire year. I submit this is not justified in all conscience, and I urge that, if this bill does get second reading and move into committee, the effective date be changed.
Another point which bothers me has to do with the indexing which is now proposed. I said a few moments ago that all we are voting upon is Bill C-44 in the form in which it is before us. But we do know, from what was said by the President of the Privy Council on the Wednesday before Christmas, and from what the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville said this afternoon, that there are proposals to provide for an escalation of the salary and allowance, starting in 1976, which would be based on the industrial composite index or, as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville called it, the ICI, as opposed to the CPI, or the consumer price index. I find this proposal as offensive as any I have seen brought before the House of Commons.
Some of us have for years fought hard for the principle that pensions should be escalated not just by the rise in the cost of living, which only keeps people where they were upon retirement, but that they should be indexed in accordance with the rise in the standard of living. We have suggested that the gross national product should be used as a base; we have suggested that the wage index be used as a base. We have never been able to get the government to accept this principle. This point was made very clearly in a report issued a few months ago by the National Council on Welfare, a body which operates under the aegis

April 8, 1975
Members' Salaries
of the government and which produces some very good reports-hon. members will recollect its recent report, "Poor Kids."
I am now referring to the report issued in 1974 entitled "Prices and the Poor." In that report a plea was made that pensions across the board should be indexed, not with reference to the cost of living, which always leaves pensioners behind and gives them no share in rising living standards, but according to wage index or the gross national product. However, even though this recommendation came from the National Council on Welfare, we got nowhere with it.
I cite another example. Some time ago we won an amendment to the Pension Act, the legislation under which war disability pensions are paid. It was a victory which took 40 or 50 years to win. What we achieved was a requirement that war disability pensions would be related to the wage levels of five groups in the public service. The recommendation was made that the 100 per cent disability pension be the average income of five such groups. This was put into legislation because a very high level committee had worked on the matter-a tri-partite committee consisting of representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission, and the veterans organizations of Canada. Please note that two of these three elements were under the government-the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission.
When that committee recommended the rate of a 100 per cent disability pension be related to the wage levels of the public service, it recommended as strongly as it could that any future indexing of that basic pension should be geared to the wage increases of those same five groups. Despite the fact that it had the support of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the government refused to do it.
There is the picture, Mr. Speaker. That is why I find this proposal so offensive, why I find it so indecent. We cannot get the pensions of senior citizens geared to the industrial composite index, and we cannot get the disability pensions of our war veterans geared to the industrial composite index-they must settle for the consumer price index which, over the long run, is behind the other. They must settle for the lesser formula, but when it comes to our pay and allowances we demand the best formula there is, the industrial composite.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is offensive and indecent and I hope, if there is to be in this bill any provision for escalation, we will not ask for ourselves something that we have been unwilling to give to the public generally, and in particular that the government has been unwilling to give to the veterans of this country.
This afternoon the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville made some remarks about productivity. He thought we should get not only the increase equal to the cost of living but we should get some increase for productivity. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you would measure the productivity of this place. I was interested when the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) talked this afternoon about the high salaries that certain athletes get because they amuse a few thousand people. One of my

friends to the right said, "But in this place we amuse 20 million people." Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that productivity is something that one has the right to look at and claim some benefit for, but it really depends on where you start.
We had some trouble today about figures as between the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I have some figures too, Mr. Speaker. I find on the basis of 1961 being 100-and that is the formula being used today under CPI-that the CPI for 1953 was 89.4. I mention that year because it is one of the years in which the pay and allowances of members of parliament were increased. In 1953 we were brought up to $8,000 salary and $2,000 expense allowance. Today the CPI is crowding 180-it has gone up 100 per cent since 1953. Un that basis, Mr. Speaker, we should be getting $16,000 salary and $4,000 for expense allowance. We are already getting $18,000 plus $8,000, so I suggest that there has already been an allowance for productivity; yet the bill before us asks for $26,000 and $13,000, or a total of $39,000. Even the amendments that have been proposed, while they would provide for less at the beginning would, by the end of this parliament, provide just as much.
I suggest that all of these arguments about figures can be used in any direction, Mr. Speaker, but surely there is no case on any basis of statistics for the amounts that are being asked for in this bill.
Another point was brought out this afternoon where there seems to be some difference between the views of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I think they were not speaking about the same thing, but let me get into that same area with a different document. I have in my hand a copy of the excellent address entitled "Income Distribution: A Question of Community Ethics", which was delivered in Toronto on Thursday, October 31, 1974, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). In this speech he condemned our society for the inequality of income that exists, and called for a serious effort to overcome these inequalities. He gave some statistics, and pointed out that according to the latest figures he had there were five million families in Canada and that, of those five million families, 190,000, or 3.8 per cent, were receiving incomes of more than $25,000 a year. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that as members of Parliament we and our families are in that category. Some will argue that we are getting $18,000 a year salary and $8,000 a year expense allowance. That is $26,000 before you figure any tax. Mr. Speaker, we are in that 190,000.
If my friend across the way does not like the percentage that my leader gave the other day, even that figure of
190,000	is 3.8 per cent of the five million families in Canada. Raise that 3.8 per cent to 5 per cent, or even more if you want, in terms of what we are now receiving, and if you add to that the proposed increase in this bill, we certainly will be in the top 5 per cent so far as family income in this country is concerned.
I do not think we can give proper representation to the people of this country if everyone of us in this place has income greater than 95 per cent of the people we represent. I call upon members not just to talk about our needs, our costs and expenses, but to face the responsibility of leader-
April 8, 1975

ship. You do not give leadership by having people who are in the elite position of having more income than 95 per cent of the people we are supposed to represent.
One of the reasons why some of us have come to this place is precisely because of the gross inequalities of income in Canada. It is not the first time I have referred to the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It was a good speech, and the points he made about the need to ameliorate these inequalities are exceedingly well taken. Maybe it takes time. I do not like saying that, because I do not think it should take the decades it does to make changes. Surely until we have brought some of these others up, we who are already in the top 5 per cent of families in Canada should not, by this bill, be putting ourselves in a still smaller group, up into 3 per cent or 2 per cent category.
In my book an egalitarian society is a goal to aim at- and not just a goal for the year 2000 or 2100, but is a goal to aim at now. One of the troubles, and it is well pointed out in the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is that even though there have been increases for those at the bottom as well as those at the top, the differences still persist. I insist that a society that has inequalities of that sort will not survive as a strong, healthy society worth the effort that it takes to maintain.
I plead, Mr. Speaker, that we not waste our time talking about how much it costs us to maintain two homes or put children through school, or the cost of sending out Christmas cards. Let us not have anyone else raise the argument that we need an increase in pay so that we can send out Christmas cards. A person cannot get much smaller than that. I say let us not worry about our position as individuals, let us get our eye on the ball and think of the thing that is important, namely, that we in this place are here to give leadership to the country. We will not be giving leadership by taking steps to increase that inequality by putting ourselves in a still higher bracket so far as the incomes of the families of Canada are concerned.
We had this bill before the House before Christmas and the government wanted to get it through at that time, but it did not succeed. Now that it has been brought back again I suppose the government has a stake in the matter and it has to get it through to save its face. Surely debates in this place are not in vain, and surely if some of us, like the hon. member for Davenport, have points that we feel are valid, they should be listened to and considered. If some of us, even though we are only 16 down in this corner, feel that this matter is so serious it should be looked at more thoroughly, we should take the time to do so.
I referred to us in this corner as being 16. I am aware of the fact, and not ashamed at all of it, that two or three of my colleagues may not be with the rest of us in voting against the bill when the vote comes. I am aware that even those who may accept the bill are very much opposed to some features of it. Even if it is only a handful of us who feel as strongly as we do about the ethics and morality of this question, and as strongly as we do about our responsibility in providing leadership, we urge that some attention be paid to the remarks we are trying to make.
Members' Salaries
One of the other arguments that continues to be advanced around here is that we need higher pay in order to attract better people to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe there was an interjection which I did not catch. I imagine it was delightful, but I will not worry about it. I have heard that argument certainly during every one of the five pay battles I have been through, and I do not see that the members of the House of Commons today are that much better than King, Ralston, Ilsley, Woodsworth, Bennett, Gray-don, Coldwell and others who were here when the pay was $4,000 a year for members, with no expense allowances! I do not see that much of a difference, and I think we would actually be better members if we had a little more awareness of the economic problems facing the people of this country. We certainly will not have that awareness if we give ourselves the massive increase suggested in this bill.
I see you are about to get to the edge of your chair, Mr. Speaker, and I know what that means. I shall not force you to get up, but rather I shall sit down in less than a minute. I would plead with this House that it give more thought to this measure, and that it give the leadership the country wants at this time but which it is not getting from this place if parliament rushes through this bill.
To give the House a little more time to think the matter over, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That Bill C-44 be not now read the second time but that it be read the second time this day six months hence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-44.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I hope that the amended form is that version set forth by the parliamentary secretary and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).
I think the people of Canada should be very proud of the NDP. On December 10 when this bill was introduced there were certain unfavourable feelings regarding its contents. Many felt that its terms were unconscionable. The NDP has made us look at the bill a second time, and this has given the public an opportunity to scrutinize it, analyze it, and comment on it.
Out of the clash of ideas comes a certain wisdom, and what has come forward in the spirit of compromise is a fair and reasonable increase, with an escalation clause that should effectively stop pay bills from coming into the House on a regular basis.
The NDP, as a socialist party, is not confined to a welfare party. Its members believe in individual dignity and justice, and that every person in Canada is entitled to a decent living, which includes the right of employment at a fair and reasonable salary or wage, the right to housing, the right to medicare, the right to education, and the right to a clean environment.
4624

April 8, 1975
Members' Salaries
What are the parameters of a reasonable salary for a member of parliament? I thought the Beaupre committee set forth these parameters very well. I should like to read them to hon. members as I think we should all be familiar with them. This is a summary of what the Beaupre committee said in respect of six basic principles.


An hon. Member:: What year?


John Gilbert: This was in 1970, and it sets forth the basic guides or principles we should follow in respect of any pay increase. They are as follows:
(1)	The future of Canada depends largely upon the ability of the public to secure the services of the best possible people as parliamentarians.
(2)	Salaries should be high enough to attract persons of proven ability at a time when their earning potential may be at its highest.
(3)	The position of the parliamentarian is essentially a full-time occupation; his working day in the House of Commons is usually much longer than the industrial average.
(4)	The tenure of office of a member of the House of Commons is uncertain; 292 members have been defeated in the past 12 years.
(5)	The nature of the position is becoming increasingly more time consuming, more complicated, more sensitive and requiring considerable moral courage.
(6)	A member of parliament must meet many expenses that are not common to other salary earners and that are not deductible for income tax purposes as is the practice in many other countries.
I agree completely with those basic principles set forth by the Beaupre committee. We must have the best possible people as parliamentarians in this country, and they must be men of proven ability.


Iona Campagnolo: Men?


John Gilbert: Men and women of proven ability. They have to consider this as a full-time job. There certainly is an uncertainty of tenure, and the job at times requires the moral courage to speak out in respect of certain problems. There is no doubt in my mind that there are certain extra expenditures involved in the job. After 10 years as a member of parliament in this House I have found this to be a very tough job, but a very exciting, satisfactory and worth-while job. I have found that it takes my full time, my full talent, my full dedication, and my full sacrifice. If I had known when I was first elected what I know now, I would have demanded a higher salary to cover my job, my work, my hours, and my family separation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: What worries me as a Canadian is the cookie jar mentality of so many groups in our society. I refer to the doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, businessmen, trade unionists and parliamentarians. These appear to be groups in our society which have their hands in the cookie jar trying to take out as much as possible. The result is that we do not have the type of economy of which we could be proud. This situation has created an inflationary condition which is hitting the fixed and low income groups. It reflects itself in unemployment, lack of housing, and an improper distribution of income.
Gone are the days when a man dedicated his talents and his time to serving his fellowmen. When I think of the

school teachers, the social workers, the lawyers who have developed a cookie jar mentality in an attempt to protect themselves to the limit, I realize we are not heading in the right direction. I should like to see a redistribution of income which would be fair and reasonable in respect of all Canadians, and a deep sense of concern for our fellow Canadians.
Specifically in respect of the salary increase I feel it is fair and reasonable when compared with the incomes of business officers, professional people, and trade unionists. I asked in 1971 why it should be morally acceptable for people in business and the professions to obtain increases, yet be morally reprehensible for parliamentarians to demand the same treatment. I feel the same way today. I believe it is morally acceptable for parliamentarians to demand a fair and reasonable wage for the work they are doing. What I would demand myself, and what I would prefer, is a salary of about $30,000 adjusted to the cost of living. I would want my expenses to be on a voucher basis for rent, meals, reasonable entertainment of constituents, and donations to worthy causes. The voucher system in respect of expenses was recommended by the Beaupre commission. I think we have made a serious mistake in not accepting that recommendation.
I think that because of our present expense account system we find ourselves in very difficult situations. If we had a decent salary of about $30,000, as I mentioned earlier, I think we should be in the same position as salesmen and professional people who are held accountable for their expenses whether it be in respect of rent here in Ottawa, meals, entertainment, donations to worthy causes, or travel. I think this would eliminate a great deal of the criticism we receive.
I have set forth my ideas in respect of this bill. I said I would support it. I hope the bill will pass quickly so that we might direct our attention and our time to problems such as unemployment, inflation, housing, and a fair tax system, as well as a fair and reasonable distribution of income. If we were to do so I do not think the Canadian people would object for one moment to a generous salary being paid parliamentarians.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Madam Speaker, I know that at this point most hon. members would like to end the debate. However, I feel it quite in order for me to express my views on the present situation. We have long since noticed the results of the methods used to steer those negotiations, and that in various fields, with the generally recognized objective of improving the living conditions of those who are concerned in the negotiations. Everyone will admit that there are failures and even strikes.
By observing the situation seriously, it is easy to realize that most negotiators insist on obtaining increases in salaries from those who pay rather than exerting the required pressures on those who deprive them.
One readily recognizes amongst those, the people who control money and credit, who at will create upheavals in the whole economy of the country, forcing most of our political puppets to flounder about in both inflation and
April 8, 1975

April 8, 1975
Members' Salaries
not however come to rash conclusions, because a good number of editorials and other interesting newspaper items are written by people with a sense of duty and responsibility. It is unfortunate that there are not more of them.
I have here an article published in the newspaper Montreal Matin of October 4, 1974, under the very topical heading "Big Salaries".
I feel I should quote from it:
We often hear complaints about high salaries paid to company executives, judges and public figures. People are amazed at salaries paid company presidents, premiers, members of Parliament, but they accept quite naturally that huge amounts are paid to sports figures or performers.
Also union leaders are paid on a different scale than union members. We find that in some unions, the president earns $75,000 a year, the secretary-treasurer $55,000, and directors $35,000. I am thinking of the Steel Workers of America.
It is often seen that a good number of people are not always consistent in their ideas. They criticize salary increases for members of parliament, but they accept that millions of dollars go to the world of sports, such as hockey, boxing and wrestling. In some instances, people pay from $10 to $100 for a reserved seat.
A well-written article in the Vancouver Sun of January 18, 1975 summarized the situation with valid comparisons between salaries paid newspapermen, plumbers, teachers, including pay increases given members of the British Columbia legislature under an NDP administration. Our hon. friends from the New Democratic Party could no doubt take heed. The author concludes as follows, and I quote:
I have never read in an editorial "We newspapermen received a salary increase. What we got for ourselves we want for the others, and we urge the government to recommend to Parliament similar increases for our elected representatives".
Looking at doctors' and lawyers' incomes, we find variations pointing to strong tendencies to higher incomes. In our present society, too many people seem to be striving for the highest possible return for a minimum of effort, with the result that contestation creeps in.
I had the advantage to read in Le Droit of August 20, 1974 an interesting article concerning members' salaries by Mr. Normand Messier. After pointing out that many men of merit refuse to accept all the annoyances which more often than not members of parliament are facing daily for $26,000 a year, when they can get much more in another area, safe from any popular criticism, he continues and I quote these two paragraphs of his article as they contain very practical suggestions:
Members of Parliament should not vote themselves a salary increase just for the sake of it. They should be consistent with themselves and adopt inflexible guidelines concerning for instance conflicts of interest, abuse of power and any other tampering. Of course, not everyone does such things, but everyone can be occasionally tempted by d'herbe tendre", as La Fontaine put it in his fable.
The best would be that members of parliament get salaries high enough so that they would be absolutely forbidden to have any other paid activities during their office. Offenders should be should be automatically dismissed.
I found these suggestions very practical. I already voted twice here in this House in 1963 and 1971 against salary

increases for ministers, members, senators and judges. I recognize that there were few of us against it, but I was not the only one. You just have to check the official report of July 29, 1963, the result of the vote was 200 yeas and 10 nays.
In 1971 we got the report of the Beaupre Commission that seemed to be based on six basic principles: the representation, the qualification and the aleatory nature of the office due to the risk of lost elections. I noted particularly the fifth point as it pointed out that the office of a member of parliament was becoming more and more an all absorbing, difficult and ticklish occupation and it is true in some cases. It was also mentioned that it required tremendous moral strength and it is also true. Obviously, a member conscious of his responsibility is likely to exhaust his moral strength in trying to make Canadians accept the inflationary system we now have. The Canadian people are noting the various reactions of their representatives and we should not be surprised if some who used to be moderates begin to protest after losing patience.
At the present time, I realize that we have been through the conciliation stage, we are now discussing the reduction of the raise in terms of percentages. I hope that the best decision will be taken. Some Canadians already know that several hundred dollars will be distributed as gifts to athletic or philantropic organizations and some pitiful poverty cases. The surplus could always be used to advantage.
For example, I have in hand an article published in a Montreal paper some ten years ago. It deals with an important issue, since it shows how salary increases for policians are justified. It is quite pertinent. At that time, the author of that article was a reporter who wrote freely. A few will undoubtedly recognize him. I acknowledge his ability since he was a gifted writer. It is especially appropriate under the circumstances to quote a few excerpts of his article entitled: The cost of political life.
After having referred to the causes of ageing, according to the general belief, such as obesity, baldness, rhumatism, the condition of arteries, he concludes that a quadragenarian becomes conscious of his age when he reflects on the cost of living and I quote the following excerpt of his article:
Today, boys, it is fantastic how everything is going up.
Just imagine, this was written 10 years ago!
In some departments, it is quite understandable. The price increase is often justified by a better quality or by some degree of improvement in the item provided. Today's provincial minister, for instance, shows a real improvement over the comparable item in use around 1936. A Carrier Fortin clearly out-classes a William Tremblay.
Further on the author, after rferring to the changes that have taken place since then, mentioned:
In days of old, when a buyer was handing out a large sum of money (which would seem ludicrously low today) to purchase a Taschereau or a Duplessis, he was almost exclusively concerned with getting two qualities: colour and ability to withstand wear and tear. The colour was blue or red, according to individual taste, but the product had to last at least fifteen or twenty years. You see how things are changing. In recent years, we have not been so keen anymore about colour or even stalwartness. Provided the article is in good shape it does not matter whether you have to change it within two or five years;

Here, the author deals with something up-to-date honourable senators! And here is what he writes:
"However, there is a point on which I completely disagree, and it is when people insist on maintaining on the market products which are completely outmoded, which I suspect have never been useful, which, in any case, is not in the least justified, and which still benefits from the general increase: for example, the senator has just experienced a raise, is it not extraordinary? How possibly can such a measure be justified? Do they want us to believe that in 1963 the "do nothing" is worth more than the uselessness of 1935 and that idleness must cost more for the only reason that political life in general is on the increase? It is hard to believe.
"All the more that the purchase of senators is forced upon us. If we were still free to acquire them, if they were put on sale as remnants, as discount items, the senator might become fashionable as any old piece of Canadian furniture. The increasing price could then be justified. The decorative or antique aspect of things is well paid for.
It is a well known fact that nobody would consider spending a whole evening in an old chair of the French regime. It is too uncomfortable. But it is kept as an object of art, or for a sentimental reason. Likewise, the presence of the senator in politics has become out-of-date.
This is an article from a minister now sitting in the House of Commons. I thought he was staying longer in his seat because at that time he could write freely. Mr. Gerard Pelletier has signed the article I just quoted.
This is why I consider that circumstances lent themselves well to quote this article written many years ago but which fit in nicely tonight.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to say what I thought of the situation.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I had really no intention of participating in the debate on second reading of Bill C-44. However, after listening carefully to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had to say, I feel I must. Tomorrow, we shall read what he said. He tried to cast the blame on hon. members of this House who are in favour of an increase in their salaries by odiously pitting them against the poor.
Madam Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was hypocritical and unfair to other hon. members in his approach. The increase in salaries we are fighting for now, that we are claiming now, he will take it like every other member. He has just confessed to having already accepted five increases in salary since becoming a member of this House. Is that not hypocrisy? I wonder.
Madam Speaker, it is easy to play politics by hacking at the members of the House of Commons. It is much more difficult to speak in favour of the pay increase. It is easy to go back to one's riding and say: "I was against the salary increase". It is easy to say so, but members will go and cash their cheques notwithstanding. If instead of putting forward a motion to defer that increase by six months, the member had moved that those who do not want it should not be compelled to take it, I would have respected him. But he did not-
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Madam Speaker, has not told us what his revenues are. He has not made us aware of his apprehensions when the increase in Old Age Security Pensions was forthcoming. He does not talk about such things of course. I believe somebody who has been a member of the House of Commons for 30 years is not honest in trying to depict
Members' Salaries
other members of parliament, whether they are progressive conservatives, creditists or liberal members as twits.
Madam Speaker, I believe we are here to uphold the interests of 22 million Canadians. We are not here to indulge in partisanship. That member wants to show that we are trying to get richer at the expense of poor people. That is untrue, Madam Speaker. Let that member no longer be considered as a lamb. He will be the first to pocket the money.
Once that increase has been passed, I ask journalists to follow him and see if he will refuse it. He will not. He will be the first one to cash the check at his bank. Let us not worry about that. I think an end should be put to that hypocrisy. If we want to deal in politics, let us do so, but not at the expense of poor people, people who live on a pension, people who have to eke out a living. He does not know what poverty is.
If that man has ever represented unions, he did not represent them well, Madam Speaker, for when he says that at the outset the allowance was known, I can tell him that when I represented union members, whenever they were hired by a company, they accepted the salary which was paid to them, but six months later, if they were union members, they came to see us in order that we have an increase negotiated. If he did not do so, he was dishonest with the unions and the union members. He was dishonest with the workers if he did that, Madam Speaker.
I believe there are limits to picking on people, trying to influence the people's minds to please the press. Those people are playing politics at the expense of ordinary Canadians when they criticize salary increases. If he wants to be respected, let him introduce a motion to the effect that the increase will be paid on request only. If he turns it down, he will deserve respect. This is what I have to say.
In conclusion, in order that the problem be solved once and for all, I move, under Standing Order 6(5) (a) and (b), that the debate on second reading be concluded this evening beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Chair wishes to advise the hon. member that any motion must be in writing. If therefore the hon. member will put his motion in writing, the Chair will consider it.
I recognize the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I had put the question to the previous person in the Chair whether the motion had to be in writing. The answer, I do not question it, was no, since Standing Orders are involved. But I will comply with your requirements and put it in writing in a few moments.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has already said most of the things I have to
say.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.

April 8, 1975
Members' Salaries

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) that, pursuant to Standing Order 45, all motions shall be in writing.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, my position on significant pay increases for members of parliament, a position which I have put forward on previous occasions, in the present parliament, both inside and outside this House, is that a significant increase in the salary and allowance paid to members of parliament is long overdue and well justified. In saying that, however, I disagree most vigorously with the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) who challenged the honesty of a certain member of this chamber. Let me say that no member of this chamber is more honest and sincere than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: His views, which do not correspond to mine on this issue, are sincerely and honestly held, and the suggestion, in any way, shape or form, that his position is hypocritical, is most improper. His position is not hypocritical. I happen to disagree with him, but on good socialist grounds. Nevertheless, his opinions are honestly held.
Paying the members of this chamber properly and adequately is the government's responsibility. It has failed to discharge it. It is not good enough to say that we can resolve this question with ad hoc consultations carried on behind curtains, and then make this decision. The responsibility lies with the treasury benches of this House, and that responsibility has never been properly shouldered in terms of providing proper and adequate pay for the members of this House.
There is always a wrong time to bring this question forward; God knows, the government could not have picked a worse time than Christmas for bringing forward the initial bill. Its actions almost defy belief. Nevertheless, this debate has been useful and my party's position has been useful, because it has allowed us to explore the subject and debate the issue in this House. I think that is good. I repeat the position I have made known inside and outside the House. The significant pay increase is well merited and long overdue. I understand that my party will propose amendments in committee which will suggest appropriate levels of remuneration, considering our present inflation.
I object to being told that the salary of a member of this House is $18,000, plus $8,000, or a total of $26,000. That is nonsense. I receive a salary of $18,000, period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Let us be perfectly clear. If a member does not spend his tax-free allowance for purposes for which it is intended, he should refund it to the treasury. If we had heeded the Beaupre commission's recommendations on providing vouchers for our expenses and on how our salaries should be determined, we should not now need to go through the present unnecessary and abrasive debate.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
You know, one cannot include a member's tax-free allowance as part of one's income. A member is not like a commission salesman, who can add his tax-free allowance to his other pay and classify it all as income. We make $18,000 per year, and raising our pay to $24,000 is long overdue. There is nothing improper in paying a member of parliament of this country $24,000 a year. Such a salary is appropriate, even in socialist terms. The socialist democratic parties of Europe were the first to provide substantial pay increases for members of parliament, so that being a member would no longer be a silver spoon job. It would no longer be a job for those with an independent income who could come to parliament when it suited them, and at other times play the part of the squire of the village. Such people held their seat in parliament with little effort. That sort of system is not democratic, and is not consistent with socialism.
We want a system in which all kinds of men can become members of parliament. It is the member's job to provide leadership, and his salary should be commensurate with his responsibilities. Unless we pay members adequately, we shall not evolve an egalitarian system. It has been said that members should not be the highest paid people in this country. I agree. Surely the figures which have been quoted show that the proposed increase for members is reasonable. We are not trying to make great jumps in the amount of salary we receive. And we do not support the philosophy of silver spoon members of parliament. For that reason we want members of parliament to be paid properly and adequately.
There is no point in comparing members' incomes with the incomes of members of professions, or of members of trade unions. The fact is that everybody else's grass always looks greener. It is natural for members of the public to think that members' salaries are being increased to high levels. It is natural for people to say, "That sounds like a lot of money." But consider the member's responsibilities and the time he spends on the job. If we convert to an hourly rate, at $24,000 we are probably being underpaid. However, by accepting $24,000, I think we do display leadership to the community in terms of the inflationary problems that we now face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I think the position taken by the NDP has been useful. It has kept a full debate going in terms of this most important issue. We have seen changes up to this point from the original proposal of 50 per cent, the same 50 per cent that was recommended in 1971.
People sometimes forget that in 1971 this parliament voted for a 50 per cent increase, raising the previous allowance by 50 per cent. The proposal that again came forward at 50 per cent had a pretty good precedent. That is exactly what was voted for and passed by parliament in 1971. Nevertheless it is important that we have a full debate now.
I am hopeful that in committee there will be useful amendments. Frankly, I cannot quite understand why we should tie the allowance, if we are going to get it, to the industrial composite. Surely it should be a cost of living
April 8, 1975

relationship and not an industrial wage relationship. However, those are details.
The fact is that the principle behind the bill, even without the suggested amendments, is for a substantial increase in the allowances for members of parliament not out of line with the industrial composite or the cost of living. Therefore the principle of the bill respecting a significant increase for members of parliament is proper. It is on the principle of the bill that we vote on second reading. I must say that, on principle, I intend to support this bill on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, may I ask whether you have received the written version of my motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has put a motion under Standing Order 6(5)(a). All those opposed to the motion will please rise.


An hon. Member:: What is the motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is in French.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: , pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 6(5) (a):
That the House continue sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment in order to complete the second reading stage of Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion withdrawn.
Motion (Mr. Olivier) withdrawn.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I make no apology for rising at this late hour because I do not think this legislation should be hurried through with indecent haste. As a matter of fact I am surprised that a matter of such widespread importance should heve been dealt with in such a hurried manner today. The government has put up only one speaker in support of the measure, the Social Credit party two, and the Conservative party none at all.
The desire seems to be to hurry this legislation through as quickly as possible. If this were a bill to increase the salaries of postal workers by 50 per cent, there would be no end of speakers hurrying to get on the list to take part in the debate. Here we are trying to hurry through in one day a bill which, if not changed, will increase the salaries and expense allowances of members of parliament by some 50 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Members' Salaries


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest to those members who are anxious to express their views by frequent interruptions that the best way to do that would be to get into the debate. I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who said a while ago that this is a matter which ought to be debated. It affects every member of parliament and all of our constituents who have to pay the shot. There ought to be a widespread discussion.
We are not going to agree. We do not agree in every party. There will be differences of opinion within every party. However, we ought to be able to discuss this in a mature and grown-up manner without hurling back and forth the rather childish accusations such as were made by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) just a few minutes ago.
Every one of us who has sat in this parliament or any other elected body has had to go through this periodic ritual dance of deciding what we are going to do about our own salaries. This is a very embarrassing position to be in, and I think all of us feel that it is a very sensitive question.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan) quite correctly said this afternoon that this matter has to be dealt with by members of parliament because there is no one else who has the power to deal with it. However, I suggest we must find some better way to deal with this matter of how much we are going to be paid out of the public treasury.
I have watched this same situation arise periodically. You can almost write the senario. Those who are in favour of increasing members' salaries point out the large amount of work they have to do, the long hours they put in, and the interference with their family life, all of which is quite true. They point out that many professional people earn much higher salaries than do members of parliament.
On the other hand, those who question the advisability of raising the indemnities of elected members call attention to the fact that there are many groups in our society which are not as favourably placed as those of us who sit in the House of Commons. And there is always a tendency for this debate to end up in recriminations-those who support the measure to increase the indemnities are accused of having a hand in the cookie jar, of thinking only of themselves, and those who question the advisability of raising members' salaries are told they are being self-righteous, that they are really going to take the money but just want to make political hay by opposing a measure which may be politically unpopular. I think that is descending to a pretty low scale of debate.
I am prepared to recognize that members of parliament are sincere in the positions they take. I think there is a great deal of logic on both sides. One of the things we ought to have done long ago was to find some better way of deciding what should be the remuneration of elected members. Every time this debate comes up we say we shall find some better way next time. Of course we never do, and periodically another bill comes in raising members' salaries and we go through the same ritual dance again. We now have an opportunity to settle this question. I was

Members' Salaries
hoping the government would address itself to the matter. After all, in all probability it will be three and a half years before another parliament takes over and this is a suitable time at which to set up alternative machinery.
A number of provinces have set up committees headed by their Chief Justices and these committees have brought back recommendations to the legislatures concerned, recommendations which have been adopted. We made a start in this House when the government appointed the Beaupre commission. That commission made some useful recommendations. The government disregarded some of the best of them, though, and so we are back to the old system with members finding themselves in the embarrassing and humiliating position of having to decide how much they are worth-having to set their own salaries and expense allowances.
I submit we ought now to address ourselves to the question of finding a better way. This is why I believe the NDP served a useful purpose in December by asking that this matter be held over, and why I believe we are serving a useful purpose now in not allowing this legislation to be hurried through today. I do not believe the government has addressed itself to the primary problem, namely, what type of mechanism can be established so that in the future we shall not have this task of deciding what remuneration members should get.
The proposals in this bill are far in excess of what we have a right to vote ourselves at this time.


An hon. Member:: You are not worth any more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member across the way says I am not worth any more. I would say this to him: he could not live on what he is worth if that is all they paid him!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When we ran for office on July 8 last, every candidate who offered herself or himself for election knew exactly what the remuneration was, and none of us was forced to run. All of us were anxious to enter this chamber as members of parliament. We undertook to do this job, and we knew what we were to be paid for doing it. It is surely unbecoming that one of the first things we do when we get to the House is to boost our own salaries.
It is true that what we did not know on July 8, 1974, was what the cost of living was going to be during the thirtieth parliament. I think members would be perfectly justified in attaching a cost of living index to the indemnity which is paid to them. But I do not think it has to be attached to the expense allowances. As has been pointed out, our expenses have in some respects gone down because the government has assumed responsibility for many of the expenditures which formerly had to be met out of our own pockets. Our constituency offices, telephone privileges, extended travel benefits, have all helped to ease the burden of meeting the expenses of being a member of parliament. Nevertheless, I think members are justified in saying that with the cost of living rising year after year, as a result of the government's failure to cope with inflation,

we are entitled to some increase each year to compensate for the rise in the cost of living.
The measure before us goes much farther. As it stands now, it proposes to raise the indemnity to some $27,000 a year, and to raise the expense allowance to some $12,000, making a total of $39,000. The statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) before Christmas indicated that the government would in all probability, when the bill was in committee, recommend changes which would cut the increased salary to $24,000 with $10,600 for expenses. Attached to this would be an escalator clause which would carry on from there.
I submit it is going to be very difficult, not only for the government but for members of parliament to go up and down this country asking people to restrain their demands for increased salaries to keep pace with the rising cost of living when we ourselves have given ourselves an increase of 33-1/3 per cent and tied that income to the industrial composite index. It will be extremely difficult for the government to explain to old age pensioners, veterans allowance recipients, retired civil servants, and those who have retired from the armed forces or the RCMP how we can afford to be so generous with ourselves and why we are so niggardly with those for whom we are responsible.
I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 19,1 asked the following question: Because of recent reports that authorities in the United States are investigating what may have been widespread actions by certain companies there to improperly and fraudulently increase the prices at which they imported oil into that country, will the minister cause investigations to be carried out here, to see whether there may have been similar improper schemes carried out in connection with the importation of oil into Canada?
In his reply the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) made reference to an examination of the books of the importing companies by departmental auditors, outside auditing firms and the Auditor General. In view of what press reports suggest was the scope of alleged improper pricing schemes for importing oil into the United States which are being investigated in that country, I thought the Canadian public would want to have more complete information than this from the government about what it has done, and is doing, to ensure that similar schemes have not been in existence here.
The federal government established a policy that there would be a single national price, one lower than the world
April 8, 1975

price, for petroleum products everywhere in Canada. This included the eastern part of the country which is still dependent on imported oil. To do this the government has been paying hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to the oil importing companies to compensate them, in effect, for the difference between the price they say they are paying to the oil importing countries and the lower national price they are allowed to charge here.
Madam Speaker, the oil industry all over the world is organized on a multinational basis. Those multinational companies that dominate the oil industry in the United States are the same ones that dominate the industry here, or at least they control the firms that dominate our oil industry.
In light of these two factors, whatever auditing program the government had been carrying out prior to the disclosure of the American investigations, once their existence had become public one would have thought that the government would have wanted to contact the American authorities to see if any information they had obtained so far might be of significance in Canada. One would have thought the government would have taken a close look at its own auditing program to make certain it was adequate in light of the American investigations. Has the government done this? Has it been in touch with the American authorities to see if any information they have obtained might be relevant to the Canadian situation? The press reports of the American investigation indicate hundreds of customs inspectors are checking over customs invoices in dozens of American ports. How many personnel in comparison have been carrying out a Canadian program? I understand the numbers involved here are relatively few.
How complete, how thorough, how frequent has this Canadian government audit been? Have government auditors looked only at a small sample of the customs invoices of importing companies and their other books and records, or has it been a very complete and thorough investigation similar to that now apparently being carried out in the United States?
The press recently reported that because of a loophole in the legislation authorizing our oil compensation program, companies importing oil from the Middle East are entitled to compensation which is not only higher than that paid for imports from Venezuela but is even higher than the difference in price between Venezuelan and Middle Eastern oil. In other words, even though Middle Eastern oil costs only 35 cents per barrel more to import to Montreal than Venezuelan oil, the government pays importers of Middle Eastern crude $1.35 per barrel more than importers of Venezuelan crude.
According to a report in the Globe and Mail, during the past year the proportion of oil reported as being imported from Venezuela has dropped from 60 per cent to 40 per cent and the proportion reported as being imported from the Middle East has risen from 40 per cent to 60 per cent. Is all this oil supposedly imported from the Middle East actually from there? What assurance can the government give that there are no unscrupulous importers bringing in oil which is actually from Venezuela but who are claiming the higher $1.35 per barrel compensation on the basis that the oil is from the Middle East?
Adjournment Debate
I raised my question during the question period and I am raising it again during this adjournment debate so the government will have the opportunity to give the Canadian people the full assurances I think they want, that their interests are being fully protected and that there are no unscrupulous elements in the oil industry, and in particular, in the oil importing community who are unjustly profiting at their expense in this matter through being in receipt of public funds to which they are not properly entitled.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In replying to the question by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), Madam Speaker, I want to assure him that the government has a very extensive system of auditing the records of companies receiving funds under the compensation program which provides a one-price system for crude oil in this country. This system of auditing the books, records and invoices of the companies has been approved by the Auditor General.
Each Canadian claimant of compensation has to declare that his books are subject to examination and that he will repay any amount to which he is not entitled. The auditing program involves an examination of the documentation which includes customs B-3 and M-l invoices, ships manifests, bills of lading and suppliers' invoices. There is also a check of voyage times, comparative quality of loading and discharged crude, the amounts requested and discharged. All of these examinations are performed first by the shareholders' auditors, by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board which now operates the compensation program, by the Audit Services Bureau, and by the Auditor General's office.
This procedure, as I mentioned earlier, was approved by the Auditor General in his 1974 report at pages 71 and 72. I believe we do have an effective system for auditing and checking the records of those receiving compensation under this program.


AIR TRANSPORT-CRASH OF DC3 AT RIMOUSKI-REPORT ALLEGING NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the MOT Report on an aircraft accident involving a DC3 at Rimouski, Quebec, on May 24, 1973, the MOT just recently released this document covering the fatal crash which took four lives. This report is a matter of grave concern and is certainly very damaging in so far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned. In its findings it is stated:
The pilot-in-command did not follow the approved company procedures during the operation.
The pilot-in-command descended below the authorized instrument approach minimum altitude at Rimouski.
The supernumerary pilot (third pilot, occupying the copilot's seat), was not qualified on the aircraft type.
The carrier did not comply with the Ministry of Transport standards in pilot training, dispatch, flight watch, and operational control as specified in Air Navigation Order VII, No. 2.

Adjournment Debate
It goes on to state:
The Ministry of Transport had been aware of the carrier's non-compliance for some time but had not effectively enforced the provisions of ANO VII, No. 2.
I wonder how many other carriers in Canada are being allowed to operate in this manner? I hope the parliamentary secretary can inform the House what corrective measures the Ministry of Transport has taken since this report was released. The document goes on to state:
The carrier's main base is at Gaspe, Quebec, where it has facilities for dispatch and flight watch. These facilities include weather teletype, telex, telephone and a company radio communications system. The company has an operations manual which had recently been updated and met most of the requirements listed in ANO VII, No. 2. The company procedures in the manual are in French only, and not all company employees, including the pilot of the accident flight, were conversant with that language.
I am sure this aircraft did not come from the Douglas Aircraft Company with technical documents in the French language. The universal language for control towers and so on is the English language. The document states further that in areas of crew training, checking and flight dispatch, the carrier did not operate in accordance with MOT standards. It goes on to state:
Ministry of Transport air carrier base inspection reports, in June 1972 and October 1972, revealed similar operational deficiencies. Flight crew training was irregular and records were scattered, contradictory or non-existent.
In respect of the crew it states that the pilot had not received proper training and checking, before he was assigned as captain, in the following: ground training on the aircraft and on company procedures; flight training on the DC aircraft, and proficiency check. The report then states that the pilot had received his last medical on April 27, 1973, and had failed the colour plate test. It was shown that he was unfit for a commercial licence. I do not understand how this man was able to retain his licence. I hope the parliamentary secretary can explain that this evening. From my preliminary studies I find that MOT inspectors had no authority in the field and that Ottawa must make decisions. This causes long delays. Perhaps this is part of the trouble in respect of this accident.
I also raised the matter of the operation of the control tower and other difficulties before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 18. At that time Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Lieutenant General W. K. Carr, informed me that there are many pilots in northern Quebec who are unilingual French. I find this somewhat amazing. If such a pilot had to make an emergency landing in the United States or in Ontario, where there are no bilingual control tower operators, I do not know what would happen to that plane or that pilot if trouble arose.
Recently Bill C-226 presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) passed second reading in the House and is to be referred to the committee. This bill should be brought up in the committee as soon as possible. The purpose of the bill is to establish a permanent and impartial commission of inquiry to investigate transport accidents within federal jurisdiction. It is suggested that many of these transport accidents which perhaps result in loss of life are investigated by the federal

body. In other words MOT investigates itself, and this is not proper. In other words the accident is investigated by those responsible for making and enforcing the rules under which the transport operated when the accident occurred. There is an obvious conflict of interest in each case. Therefore it is important that this bill be discussed in the committee as soon as possible and that an independent commission be instituted. I believe it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of parliament that such a group would be formed.
A different angle to this matter is brought up in the "Guidelines for Implementation of Air Canada's Corporate Policy on Bilingualism". We find the following statement in this document:
Except in operating and technical communication areas, such as air/ground communications, maintenance flight operations, interline reservations, and other areas where use of languages other than English is prohibited by regulatory authority, the languages of work within the company to be English and French.
So what they are saying here is that for pilots the main language should be English, and that in the control towers only English should be spoken. Here we have a situation where pilots speaking only one language, namely, French, are obtaining licences. There is a great area of conflict here and I hope the parliamentary secretary can give us some explanation of the situation and can tell us what corrective measures will be taken.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) recognizes full well that the Department of Transport considers investigations of air accidents to be a very serious matter and it has a very competent group of experts working in that general area. I think that the report we are debating here now is a pretty good indication of that fact.
The report of the crash referred to by the hon. member did state that the ministry had not effectively enforced the regulations, and in essence this is an accurate statement. However, by the same token, it does not really indicate the extent to which the ministry had gone in attempting to have the operator comply with the regulations.
In the fall of 1972 our Quebec regional office became aware of irregularities in the operating procedures of Air Gaspe and, as a result, arranged a series of on-site inspections by inspectors from that office. Subsequently it was determined that there had been numerous changes of key operating personnel without notification to the ministry, which was in contravention of the company's operating certificates. As well as frequent inspections of Air Gaspe's operations by the ministry, there were numerous exchanges of correspondence in an attempt to improve what was considered to be a borderline operation.
Improvements were made and operations did improve. However, at the same time unfortunately there was also considerable back-sliding. An alternative to the action taken by the Quebec regional office would have been to suspend operations. Unfortunately, events overtook the efforts of the Quebec inspection staff in that respect, and Air Gaspe was involved in a fatal accident with their DC3 aircraft on May 24, 1974.
April 8, 1975

Following the accident, through stronger intervention in the affairs of Air Gaspe, as the hon. member is probably aware, the company was sold and taken over by Quebec Air. There were problems initially in the takeover and following it, but they were eventually resolved.
With respect to the technical documents on board this aircraft, the hon. member said they were all in French and the crew could only speak English. The actual fact is that flight operation documents were in English and the crew, of course, was also English speaking. The documents referred to are documents not related to flying.
In closing I should like to speak briefly on another comment made by the hon. member. I do not think he meant to leave the wrong impression, but he stated on March 17, and again today, that the report had just been released. It is my understanding from facts given to me by the staff of the MOT that the accident report was released at the end of July, 1974, which is some months ago.


AIRPORTS-REQUEST FOR DECISION TO CONSTRUCT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, on the day I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) my question regarding the long delayed up-grading of the Charlottetown airport, the House had heard expressions of disapproval with regard to proceeding with the controversial Pickering airport. I then asked the minister if he would turn his attention to Prince Edward Island where a new airport is both required and desired. This is by no means the first time that I have raised with the present minister, and indeed with his predecessors, the urgency of the situation in Charlottetown, the cradle of confederation.
On April 28 Air Canada will inaugurate the service between Charlottetown and Ottawa and next to Toronto, and I trust that my fellow islander will be on that inaugural flight, just as I am looking forward to being on it.
For a good many years we have had Eastern Provincial Airways giving us a fast direct service to Montreal, and of course to cities in Atlantic Canada. EPA, of course, is very highly regarded in PEI for its leadership in this field.
The airlines are doing their part, and EPA especially deserves commendation for its leadership in bringing us into the jet age. But the facilities at the airport are not keeping abreast of advances made by the airlines and are not keeping pace with increases in the numbers of people travelling to Prince Edward Island. Indeed the number of tourists coming to Prince Edward Island is far in excess of the total population of the province, and in the summertime about ten to one. Needless to say, we welcome these tourists and congratulate them for their perception in choosing our province as a place for recreation and vacation.
But where I depart from this feeling of content and satisfaction, and where I feel grave concern, is in reference to the continuing inadequacy of the airport facilities, especially the passenger terminal building. We do not have sufficient seating space for passengers, and it is quite deplorable to have people forced to stand in cramped
Adjournment Debate
quarters at the arrival and departure of our crowded jet aircraft from various parts of the nation, and indeed from the United States. One does not have to be an engineer, an architect or an expert to know that any terminal which has fewer seats than any one of the aircraft servicing that terminal is obviously inadequate, and because tourism is a major interest and economic factor in Prince Edward Island it is of great importance to have people enter and depart from our province in reasonable comfort.
What is needed is a swift upgrading of the plans and priorities for the Charlottetown airport. I have learned that yet another temporary addition is to be erected for this summer. What we need is not another little leanto but a permanent structure of ample size, and with facilities and furnishings to keep abreast of our growing travel flow. We need more runway space and upgraded equipment in other ways so that the whole of the airport will be brought into the jet age.
The minister's colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), is seeking to inaugurate and strengthen policies to aid the Atlantic region. Here is an opportunity to help the Atlantic provinces to help themselves. To buttress our island tourist industry and to provide our island people with decent transportation services is a proper leadership role for the Dominion government, and I invite the government, through the minister, to take on such a role. I look forward with the greatest pleasure to hearing the parliamentary secretary announce in glowing terms what we are going to get in the weeks and months ahead.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is always a very eloquent spokesman on behalf of the needs of his province, and certainly tonight is no exception. I think the hon. member will be pleased to hear what I have to say although he may not be pleased with the rate at which some of these things will take place.
I think he will certainly admit that the Ministry of Transport officials and the federal government have been as interested as he is in providing the best possible airport facilities for all airports across the country, and certainly Charlottetown is one of those centres. As the hon. member points out, there have undoubtedly been very increased demands made on the airport space in Prince Edward Island with the growth and development of the tourist trade. The tourist season particularly creates real pressure on those facilities. For this very reason consultations with provincial authorities, air carriers and other users of the Charlottetown airport have been going on for several years with a view to improving as quickly as possible the air entrance into Prince Edward Island. I think a good and a very close relationship and exchange of information have gone on in that respect and have resulted in the decision to improve or replace the present facilities rather than relocate the airport at another site.
Our Atlantic regional officials at Moncton established a master planning project team which was charged with developing immediate and long-term-future requirements to meet aircraft movement and passenger traffic forecasts. The project team was to identify requirements for air

April 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate
terminal facilities, cargo facilities, aprons, runways, taxi-ways, maintenance facilities, and so on.
The completed master plan was recently reviewed at the headquarters level and the technical recommendations arising from this plan have been generally agreed. It is expected that an announcement of a detailed development plan will be possible in the very near future. Until such a detailed announcement is made I can only state that our present intentions are for the resurfacing of the existing runway, the erection of a new terminal building at a new location on the present airport grounds, the replacement of
the present temporary air traffic control tower, and the eventual construction of a cross-wind runway. Perhaps the improvement or replacement of other related facilities, the nature of which I do not know, will follow in time. In essence the hon. member will be pleased to know of the planned developments under way for Charlottetown airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, April 9, 1975