1975-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As the postal conflict is very detrimental to our society owing to the delays in the delivery of old age security pension cheques, and as rotating strikes or others cause serious harm to the Canadian economy generally, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the government take immediate steps to settle this conflict which seems to drag on interminably.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under 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.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 arising from the anti-American activities of an organization calling itself the Canadian Liberation Movement, and from the considerable publicity of an unfortunate and questionable nature given this movement by the CBC last night on the program "As It Happens". I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that:
In consideration of the fact that Canada enjoys excellent and friendly relations with the United States, and in view of the anti-American activities of an organization known as the Canadian Liberation Movement operating in various Canadian cities, including Ottawa, and with headquarters in Toronto, the House deplores the placing of printed
stickers by this organization on cars bearing the United States licence plates reading "Yankee Go Home" and the House requests the Secretary of State responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make a statement on motions as to why the facilities of CBC radio yesterday permitted this organization to outline its disgraceful plans for harassment of American visitors to this country and for defacement of their property while on Canadian soil.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, and therefore cannot be presented to the House without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals said no.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I call attention to the fact that the government is again in a state of disarray with only about nine ministers here to answer a number of questions. What we see is an example of "ministers, stay away from home".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice, who told the House yesterday that his department was investigating whether the legislation affecting longshoremen in St. Lawrence river ports has been disobeyed. Has the minister now determined if there has in fact been disobedience, and can he inform the House what course of action the government is following?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to proceed as quickly as possible to take whatever steps are available to ensure that the legislation is obeyed, and that the work of longshoring is undertaken again in these three ports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the position of the minister, as was indicated yesterday, that investigations are continuing, and is it the intention of the government that if it is found on the evidence that the law has been disobeyed, the government will proceed on the basis of such disobedi-

April 29, 1975
Oral Questions
ence, or is there some other course of action the government intends to follow?


Otto Emil Lang: It would be our intention to obtain the necessary information and to proceed to make the law as effective as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish the minister would give a straightforward answer to a very simple question. Is it the intention of the minister to proceed on the basis of what has taken place? In other words, if there have been breaches of the law, is it the intention of the minister to prosecute, or is the government seeking some other way of securing compliance with the law?


Otto Emil Lang: I could almost have answered the first part of the previous question with a simple yes, but it was because the Leader of the Opposition went on to add a contradictory portion, which I could scarcely handle in one answer, that I had to choose my own answer. It is, of course, our intention to see that the law is made effective. It may well be that injunctions are the logical method at this stage. Questions will arise as to whether there is enough material for other proceedings, and our general policy is to proceed in whatever way the evidence available suggests is permitted.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice. In view of the uncertain response from the minister yesterday, can he advise today whether Quebec farm producers are obtaining sufficient feed grain and for how much longer supplies of feed grain will be available?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have, they are getting grain from Montreal and from Quebec City.


John Allen Fraser: I have a further supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour. In the event that longshoremen continue to defy the back to work legislation, what plans does the government have to ensure necessary feed grain deliveries?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we said that we would do our utmost in the last instance, and we did that. As far as I know, no livestock or poultry went without food during that trying time.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the question is, what plans has the minister got in the event that the longshoremen do not do back to work?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if we announced our plans now they would not be much good when they were needed.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Since the minister was described on CBC radio this morning as being in a state of anger when he heard that another lending company in Toronto increased its mortgage rate by a percentage point, and since the minister says he has been in that state about mortgage rates since last August when he became minister, can he tell the House when the government will be announcing concrete legislation or a course of action to lead to an early reduction in mortgage rates?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that there are a number of pieces of legislation already in effect which are helping people, especially low income groups, cope with the housing problem to the extent that AHOP is again at unprecedented levels of success. This helps lower income people reduce their interest payments. I do not set interest rates, Mr. Speaker, but we respond to them in the form of low, direct interest payments or subsidies and we are continuing to do this.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Subsidies leave the vast majority of Canadians out of the picture, and I would ask the minister to keep that in mind when he answers this question. He said in the House yesterday that when he had new programs to announce he would do so in the House. While he was speaking, however, his parliamentary secretary was making a speech in British Columbia during which he announced that some new programs would be forthcoming. My question to the minister is, what are those new programs and when can we expect the details to be announced in the House?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I will make announcements as soon as I possibly can. I still have some consultations with my provincial counterparts. We are examining; not new programs specifically, but the reinforcement of those which are already showing a high degree of success.


John Edward Broadbent: That should not involve many programs, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary relates to the level of unemployment in the construction industry in Canada. Since 25 per cent of those normally employed in the construction industry are currently unemployed, would the minister ensure that these new programs will have as their ultimate objective double the proposed number of units he originally planned for 1975 and set a minimum objective of 400,000 housing units rather than the 210,000 housing units?


Barnett Jerome Danson: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on the government side of the House we deal in the realm of reality. Our wishes would not be confined to the 400,000 the hon. member mentioned yesterday. The ability of the economy and the industry to deliver is the governing factor. If we went to the numbers the hon. member suggested there would be an uncontainable inflationary spiral. Nevertheless, I fully appreciate the employment
April 29, 1975

consequences on the construction industry which are probably higher than any other segment of the economy, with a job spinoff of at least three to one from on site to off site, plus those which are created in other sectors of the economy. That is part of my thinking and, I am sure, that of the Minister of Finance.


SUGGESTION LOANS BE GRANTED AT REDUCED INTEREST RATE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can the minister explain to the House why the government cannot extend loans to Canadian taxpayers at the same rate as to foreign countries, including Cuba which has been granted a $10 million loan at 3 per cent interest over a 30-year period?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think the two problems are unrelated. I appreciate that we have an obligation to countries less fortunate than we are; while our problems are great, they do not compare with those of other countries. I think we approach each in a different way.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering that these loans are for extended terms nearly 40 years and that when this period is over, most of the houses are mortgaged to the hilt, to the extent that their owners are even unable to repair them, does the minister find it normal that in addition to that, homeowners must pay in interests as much as three times the value of their houses, not to mention maintenance expenses?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the interesting point about the amortization length of mortgages. That is something we are examining. In addition, I believe he mentioned repair provisions within our rehabilitation programs. Those are receiving very high priority as well.


INCREASE IN DEFICIT-SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF PRODUCTION INCENTIVES TO INCREASE EXPORT SALES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but, in view of his continued absence, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. As Canada has just experienced its largest quarterly trade deficit in history, and the trade deficit on manufactured products, which are the ones that produce the jobs, having
Oral Questions
increased from $6 billion in 1973 to nearly $10 billion last year, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has finally come to the conclusion that the introduction of incentives to induce greater productivity is long overdue, as is more research and development to lower costs and selling prices, and thus make Canadian products sell more readily on export markets and in Canada.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the hon. member that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is today meeting with his business advisory committee and, I am sure, pursuing the sort of discussions the hon. member would want him to pursue. On the question in general, as the minister said and as I have said, one of the reasons for our growing deficit is the fact that we are relatively more prosperous than our customers and suppliers and our imports tend to go up more quickly than our exports.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let's not have any commercials.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister has been giving the House the same story for the past year to try to explain his pathetic performance, while our trade went from bad to disastrous-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will ask his question.


George Harris Hees: I ask the Acting Prime Minister, who is a former minister of trade and commerce, to point out to his colleague that the motto of his once great department used to be: When the going gets tough, the tough get going!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On Tuesday of last week I asked the Minister of National Defence what security measures are taken by his department or by the Department of Transport when transfers of explosives are being carried out. In view of the reply given and as ten hand grenades were stolen, eight of which were found in a sand box in a school playground in Chilliwack, I ask the minister to describe to the House the precautions that are taken by the Departments of National Defence or of Transport in connection with shipments of this type.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure, despite the very important and urgent nature of the question, the question period is not really the time for the minister to outline that kind of information.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the minister. I wonder if the minister would agree to carry out a thorough investigation into the circumstances

April 29, 1975
Oral Questions
surrounding this particular incident which caused much concern in the city of Chilliwack, in my constituency.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yes, part of the responsibility is that of the military, and the other part is that of CN. In the meantime they still do not have these things under lock. There is something here which is nonsense. I am trying to understand how these things happen.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports that the PLO intends to send official representatives to the United Nations meeting in Toronto, this year, on criminology, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell the House whether it is the policy of this government to admit or not to admit such official representatives.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the conference to which the hon. member refers is, of course, under sponsorship of the United Nations. When Canada undertook to host this particular conference, it also assumed an obligation to receive those members invited by the United Nations. That is the present situation. Each person coming into Canada will be expected to meet normal admission requirements. That system will be in vogue in this particular situation.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Bearing in mind that there are other international terrorist organizations in the world today, will the minister advise, for example, if the IRA wanted to come over whether it would be given official representation also.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that would be entirely up to the invitation list of the United Nations. To my knowledge, the IRA has no such standing in the United Nations.



VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT WILL PERMIT CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTINUE HELPING ORPHANS

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canadians supported Viet Nam orphans through various organizations prior to the communist takeover, has the government been assured of their wellbeing, both under present circumstances and in the future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I understand the question. Does it refer to orphans of Vietnamese origin now resident in Canada?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to those orphans being sustained by various organizations such as the Foster Parents plan. To enlarge on this, I would ask the following question: If Canadian contributions continue to be forwarded to Viet Nam for orphan maintenance, is there any guarantee that these funds will be used for the purpose intended or would Canadians be well advised to cease making these contributions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the aid which we have made available has been channelled or directed through international organizations such as the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. I am satisfied that these organizations will ensure that the funds reach their proper destination.

EXPULSION OF PRESS ATTACHE: FROM REPUBLIC OF CHINA EMBASSY-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he confirm to the House the expulsion by the Canadian government of a press attache at the embassy of the People's Republic of China for security reasons and could he specify what are those security reasons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government did ask that a member of the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa be withdrawn from service in Canada. The reason was that in our view his activities were incompatible with his status as a diplomat in Canada.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Subject to more explicit details from the minister, does he not agree with a statement by former RCMP commissioner W. L. Higgit, according to whom the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China would likely increase subversive activities within our country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State (Fisheries), I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the seal hunt is now concluded, and by an act of God the ice did not come in so less seals were taken and we were spared that brutality, has the fisheries department any plans for the future to prevent this kind of slaughter re-occurring?
April 29, 1975


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Fisheries) has examined this question from time to time. It would not be Canadian government policy to abolish the seal hunt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I, myself, have spoken with the minister and there is another side to the issue that is not often raised in this House.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. As reported in Hansard on April 15 at page 4806, in reply to a question by myself about a 20 per cent increase by the railways in class rates to be effective on May 5, the minister stated he was still opposed to what the railroads were trying to achieve in the way of an across-the-board increase and that he would get in touch with the Transport Commission to see to it that what he said was really accepted by the companies. Did the minister get in touch with the CTC and the railways? If so, what was the response, and have the railways, in fact, really accepted what the minister said? If not, what does he intend to do about it?


Jean Marchand: Yes; I understood the hon. gentleman underlined the fact he was referring exclusively to the class rates. I met yesterday with the ministers of transport of the Atlantic provinces and I am supposed to get in touch with both railways today or tomorrow in order to see that what I said in Calgary is carried out.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister also said on April 15 that he would get in touch with the CTC and the railroads. In view of the fact that the Montreal Gazette of last Friday, April 25, reported the intention of CP Rail to raise its rates in other rate categories such as agreed charges and specific commodity rates, and since this appears to constitute further across-the-board increases which the minister says he is against, may I ask what action the hon. gentleman proposes to take to prevent these additional increases and to live up to the commitment he made to the western transportation ministers on February 24 last?


Jean Marchand: I do not intend to discuss the laws as they exist-the statutes as they were passed by this House. The hon. member knows what kind of legal authority I have: the only authority I have over the railways is a moral authority and I am trying to use it as far as possible in order to maintain the rates as low as possible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are still waiting for the minister to bring in legislation which will give him some authority. In view of the commitment by the minister to remove anomalies between short and long haul rates and between raw
Oral Questions
and finished products, what action is being taken to ensure that the recent across-the-board increases, as well as proposed future across-the-board increases are applied in such a way as to eliminate such anomalies and inequities, thus implementing the commitment to the four western provinces?


Jean Marchand: As to the anomalies, we are working with the four western ministers on this aspect. We have a report in hand now, and next time we meet we hope we shall find a solution, or a justification for these anomalies.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since a significant amount of mail has accumulated at the central post office in Montreal, would the minister tell the House whether he intends to take measures so that old age security pensioners will not be penalized by delays in mail delivery caused by the labour dispute in Montreal, and that pensioners receive in time the guaranteed income supplement they are entitled to?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has specific cases to bring to my attention, I shall be pleased to discuss them with the Postmaster General. I have to inform him, however, that to the best of my knowledge, all family allowance and old age pension cheques have been distributed in the normal and regular fashion this month.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Is the minister aware that all the basic pension cheques have been distributed, but the guaranteed income supplement was not included, because application forms submitted by pensioners were locked in the Montreal post office?


Marc Lalonde: On this point, Mr. Speaker, we have been making a number of requests to pensioners, as early as January last, that they send their guaranteed income supplement application forms in time, so that they would receive their supplement as early as April 1. Unfortunately, some pensioners have yet to answer that request. We are waiting for application forms, and as soon as they arrive the adjustment will be paid retroactively under the guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, it is impossible both for the Postmaster General and myself to fill in such application forms for the people who are now late. If there are forms stuck in the mail, we shall do everything possible, as soon as service is reinstated, so that the people involved get their supplements.

April 29, 1975
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M30)



AUDITOR GENERAL


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the government has had several weeks to brood over the report of the Independent Review Committee on the office of the Auditor General, does the government intend to introduce legislation this session to implement that report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have no plans to introduce legislation in this session, but it really depends on how long the session lasts.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will carefully avoid the last part of the answer; it might provoke me. Are there any cogent reasons why this parliament, through a parliamentary committee, should not indicate its position on behalf of the people of Canada with regard to the proposals which have been made in this and other legislation which is now in the safekeeping of the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have two alternatives. We could follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River, or we could take our responsibility and bring a bill before parliament for discussion. In either case, the opposition will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the issues. I believe that the government ought to take some responsibility and introduce a bill.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, who seems to be playing musical chairs. If he would return to his throne, I should like to ask him this question. In a recent interview the president of the CNR stated that the CNR is forced to adhere to the standard of the CPR or to try to better it. Can the minister state if it is government policy that a government-owned railway take the view that it is not number one but number two in the field of rail transport and, if not, would the minister inform the president that the CNR should strive for leadership in this area and that private enterprises should follow the standards of the Crown corporation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will excuse me, but is the hon. gentleman referring to the speech made by Mr. Bandeen, the president of the CNR? If he is, then I think Mr. Bandeen did not mind his business when he stated that.
[Mr. Lalonde.l
Policy is supposed to be stated by the government in the House of Commons.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was Portugal included in the minister's stopovers during his trip and, if so, did he meet the foreign minister and discuss Portugal's involvement in NATO?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did have an opportunity to stop over in Lisbon and on Sunday evening I had dinner with the foreign minister. I should express to the House the feeling of almost exuberance that exists in Portugal as a result of the successful election in which a very high percentage of the electorate participated and which resulted in a very massive support for the moderate parties within that country. I expressed to the foreign minister on behalf of the government, and I am sure this parliament, our congratulations on the success of the election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I expressed the hope that the result would be a major step in the further democratization of Portugal.
With respect to the latter part of the question, the foreign minister advised me that the head of state will be attending the summit meeting at the end of May, and that the foreign minister himself will also attend. I did express to the foreign minister our desire to co-operate fully with the government of Portugal, and hopefully we will be having discussions at an early date to explore ways in which we can co-operate.



POSSIBLE LINK BETWEEN CANCER OF THE LIVER AND TRICHLOROETHYLENE-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PROTECT WORKERS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the possible link between cancer of the liver and the industrial chemical trichloroethylene, I wonder whether the minister could inform the House whether or not he has taken any action with regard to this particular chemical?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my department is aware of the progress of studies being conducted in the United States on this subject, and we are also keeping a close watch on the situation, but no decision has yet been made in this regard.
April 29, 1975


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder whether the minister could assure the House that his department will also do studies into this chemical and its inherent dangers in order to protect Canadian workers who are exposed to it in large numbers in their daily work?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the health protection branch has studied this particular chemical since 1968. There are also current investigations being carried out concerning the relative toxicity of the ingested and inhaled chemical and its potential mutagenic activity. I might point out that the results of recent studies conducted in the United States have indicated that massive doses of the chemical ingested for 462 days produced tumours in one strain of mouse. Officers of this department are in communication with the U.S. scientists who made these observations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the in connection with the banishment, as it were, of the communist attache whom the government of Canada requested to leave. In view of what took place in 1945 when, as a result of the action taken with Igor Gouzenko, revelations were made as to what had occurred and prosecutions took place thereafter, would the minister say whether or not the reasons for ordering this attache to leave indicate that there has been a breach of security to this nation? If so, was he in any way involved with Canadians, and how many were involved in this regard if there were such? Without going into further detail, I think Canadians as a whole have a right to this information, as it was furnished by Mr. King in 1945.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer as much of the right hon. member's question as I can. The activities involved did not include the collection or attempted collection of classified information affecting Canadian security; and there will be no charges laid with respect to any Canadian citizens.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then, on what basis was he ordered out of this country? Why the enigma? Why was he ordered out if he did not do anything that was detrimental to the security of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, he was asked to withdraw because his activities were, in my view, incompatible with the role of a diplomat in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: What activities?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will come to that by telling the right hon. gentleman that in my view it would not be in the best interests of Canada-Chinese relations to discuss this aspect of the case.


John George Diefenbaker: We have heard everything now, Mr. Speaker. We have a government afraid to answer because it might annoy communist China, yet it orders this man out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it has been reported that the Toronto Police Department is having difficulty with the Department of Immigration over the recruitment of British policemen, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration what steps his department is taking to expedite the granting of landed immigrant status to these individuals who are required to assist in the control of domestic crime and violence?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if there are definite job offers available we will do everything in our power to expedite the recruitment of these people. The fact of the matter is that there has not been a formal job offer made by the Toronto Metropolitan Police, and until that situation is clarified the immigration regulations are not being met. We will be glad to expedite things when there is a formal job offer made.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer to the effect that the Department will do everything possible to expedite these applications, am I to understand that if steps are taken today by Toronto Police Department officials to make formal requests for the landing of these individuals, and after the necessary security checks have been made by the department, these individuals may be allowed into Canada in an expeditious way?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if there is a formal job offer, and if the security and other checks of eligibility to which the hon. member has referred are satisfactory, then the answer is yes, we will do everything to expedite the matter.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might enlist the co-operation of the Minister of Transport in assuring that there will be an inquiry at the earliest possible date into the fatal crash of the PanArctic aircraft on the islands, in view of the fact that
5288

April 29, 1975
Oral Questions
there has been a sort of impasse reached between the inquest and the minister's statement to the effect that he would not hold an inquiry until the inquest had been completed? There are many relatives and immediate members of the families of the victims of this crash who are quite frankly being prejudiced by this sort of official stalemate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only reasonable that I first receive and read the report before taking any other action.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But there is a stalemate.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the government-controlled Canada Development Corporation has indicated to the Arctic Gas consortium that it is prepared to provide $100 million for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, would the Acting Prime Minister explain why such a financial commitment was made prior to the Berger inquiry completing its findings on the advisability of the pipeline?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Development Corporation acts under the directions of its board of directors. It is an independent and autonomous organization. If it has made that decision, it is a decision which has been made in the interests of its shareholders.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, since the Berger inquiry and the studies of the National Energy Board have not been completed, I should like to ask the minister what report or information the CDC received to justify the $100 million investment in Arctic Gas, and will this information be made available to Justice Berger and the National Energy Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will pass this inquiry on and see whether the information can be provided. However, as I say, this is an organization which operates on commercial grounds and I am sure the House of Commons would not want the government to interfere with such operations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Who are the shareholders but the government?



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Olympic coin program

under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General has evidently not become the success the government led us all to believe, and because the minister just last week indicated the government would be advancing legislation to supplement the present deficit, would the Postmaster General indicate whether the minting of a special gold coin will in fact be part of such legislation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the preamble as to whether it is successful or not, in answer to the main question as to whether we are considering the minting of a gold coin, this is one of many variations we are considering.



COIN PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GOLD TRANSFERRED FROM TREASURY AT MARKET PRICE IF GOLD COIN ISSUED

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer and the possibility of the minting of a gold coin I would direct my supplementary question to the acting Minister of Finance. Because it seems obvious that a gold coin will probably be minted, would the minister assure this House that the government will not directly or indirectly transfer gold from the federal treasury at a price other than true market price, which today is approximately $165, compared to the official rate put on by the government of $42?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is a rather complicated question based on a hypothetical premise.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General and I want to emphasize the time limit. Now that the Solicitor General, his department and other members of the cabinet have had time to study the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to one case that involves capital punishment, when will a decision be made by the government, if the matter is under consideration, and will it be made soon in light of the time element involved?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the Vaillancourt case. This will go to the cabinet for consideration this week.
April 29, 1975



HOUSING


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the desperate housing situation which is reflected in high unemployment, high costs and high mortgage rates, will the Minister of State for Urban Affairs at least move to set up the federal mortgage exchange corporation, in respect of which legislation was passed in this House over a year and a half ago, and which the minister's predecessor claimed would do so much to improve liquidity in the mortgage market?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter would fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Finance who will be back shortly.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the minister take it upon himself to make these representations to his colleague, and will he also report whether there has been any consensus reached in his meetings with developers and builders regarding the kind of action needed to put residential construction back on the rails?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I should also add that the Minister of Finance and I have had discussions on this matter. He is deeply concerned about getting the federal mortgage exchange corporation going as quickly as possible. Certainly, I have had discussions on this in the minister's absence as recently as this morning. With reference to meeting with developers and builders, of course we are trying to meet with them and other groups regularly in an attempt to obtain the necessary responses. I have also been meeting in this regard with my provincial counterparts. This is an on-going and aggressive program that I am sure will result in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question last week concerning an investigation by the Minister of Public Works of a call for tenders for office space in Vancouver for the district taxation office the minister said he would bring his notes next day. Having heard nothing further I should like to ask the minister what were the results of his investigation into this call for tenders?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there, there was a call for tenders which produced unsatisfactory results in economic terms. As a result, the call for tenders was reissued, enlarging the area of availability of space and the results were equally unsatisfactory. No contracts were awarded as a conse-
Oral Questions
quence of either of these two calls. We are now looking at the demand for accommodation on a consolidated basis to see whether a rather larger project can be put on foot.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is for the Minister of Transport, whom I welcome back from his meeting with the four Atlantic transportation ministers, particularly noting that he returned on the inaugural flight from Prince Edward Island to Ottawa. Can the minister indicate, having agreed with the provincial ministers that there is a need for a rail rate policy and agreement on a regional development policy and a desperate need for accurate information on transportation costs on the national carriers, when he would offer to supply that information to the Atlantic ministers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I get it from the Canadian Transport Commission.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister indicated that he was bringing in an act having to do with transportation information. Can he indicate how soon that might happen in order that such information could be on the table?


Jean Marchand: I think the House leader is the one who should answer this question because I am not the one who introduces the bill to the House.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the minister confirm that over $20 million was committed by the federal government during the past year for guard and protective services contracted and supplied from the private sector? Is that an accurate figure?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly have to check the figures; but considering that we have a very important contract with the Corps of Commissionaires, such figures could possibly reach $20 million.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Can the minister also confirm that, with reference to Securex, one of these companies from the private sector, grave reservations and warnings were expressed to him in the past by the special security department of the Montreal police respecting the awarding of a
29557-591/2

April 29, 1975
Oral Questions
contract to provide security services at the Montreal international airport, and that despite these warnings the contract was awarded, although since that time the company has been replaced?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I feel that security matters within international and national airports come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The Sydney airport firefighters, most of whom are in my riding, have notified me that the Treasury Board intends to force regional rates of pay as opposed to national rates of pay in the Atlantic region, based upon the assumption that the psychic income derived from physical, social and cultural environment there is superior to the rest of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question directly?


Andrew Hogan: Is this true or not? Since the first language of the minister is French, may I advise him that "psychic income" means the general cultural environment. Are these in general the criteria which the union is accusing the Treasury Board of using in order to keep the rates of pay low in the Atlantic region as against the rest of Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to reply to a similar question yesterday in the House. The hon. member might consult Hansard.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Economic Regional Expansion. How can the minister claim that DREE is really helping to close the income disparity gap in this country when the Treasury Board operates on such a discriminatory basis with regard to federal employees in the Atlantic region, not only firefighters but GLT workers, national park workers and everybody who works for the federal government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think the common response to that is that the question is argumentative. However, I am discussing the whole question of regional rates frequently with my colleague in the Treasury Board and I think he is responsible for the government's position.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: My question is for the Solicitor General. In view of reports of persistent efforts by certain members of the RCMP to form an association for the purpose of negotiating on matters of pay and other things, can the minister advise the House as to whether discussions have been going on with the association or any of its representatives? In order to avoid the necessity for a supplementary question may I ask the minister if he could advise the House as to whether or not it is contemplated that the government will bring forward legislation which will have the effect of removing the provision in the present law prohibiting the organization of trade unions in the RCMP, and what are his comments with respect to the right to strike?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, no petition or application has come before me at this time with respect to a union or association in the RCMP. I have investigated the reports that were in the newspapers and I understand that the association to which reference has been made has so far enlisted about 100 men, most of them in the Ottawa area. Therefore, the association cannot be considered representative of the RCMP at this time. I imagine that if at a certain period of time the association becomes widely representative of the force, I will be pleased to take this under further consideration.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who is in such good form after his trip. Now that we are all rejoicing in Air Canada extending its service to PEI, can he report progress on another long desired and long discussed regular service, namely the service between Canada and Cuba?


Jean Marchand: I must confess that I know we have been negotiating with Cuba but I do not know whether we have reached agreement. However, I will inquire into it and report to the hon. member.
April 29, 1975



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the allegations made by Mr. Stoner recently that the government is not a good employer, can the minister tell us what steps he is taking to investigate this statement to see whether or not it has any basis in fact, and whether there is a serious morale problem within the public service of Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I have from my deputy minister is that the title that appeared in the Journal was not in accordance with his thinking and with what he really stated publicly.


Walter David Baker: Would it be breaching confidence if I asked the minister to say what his deputy minister did say with respect to this particular matter?


Jean Marchand: I do not think the deputy minister ever complained to me about his own working conditions. I know that he earns much more money than I do, and I am happy about that.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the expressed concern of beef producers that United States quotas limiting Canadian beef and pork may last for a long time, especially since it now appears that there is a surplus in the Canadian supply of beef and that it will outlast the American domestic supply, can the minister inform the House whether any progress has been made to settle this trade dispute?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all there is no chance that we can fill our pork quotas because we do not have enough pork. As to beef, discussions are still taking place with the United States. I will point out to the hon. member that we are deficient in our beef production in Canada.



PUBLIC WORKS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is for the Minister of Public Works. Can he now tell us whether his department intends to proceed with any dredging operations and whether his department has figured out any way to protect the Canadian people,
Order Paper Questions
particularly in view of its obviously abject failure to provide any protection to Canadians in past contracts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to announce a course of action for the future on either Thursday or Friday of this week.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of the correspondence between myself and the president and chief executive officer of Home Oil Company on the oil sands project.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,890, 1,941, 1,942, 1,945, 1,953, 1,955, 1,956, 1,958, 1,967, 1,989, 1,992, 1,996, 2,003, 2,085, 2,133 and 2,193.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Brewin: 1.	Were licences for the export of arms or any sort of war material to Turkey granted since July 20, 1974 and, if so (a) to whom (b) for what amounts (c) on what dates?
2.	Were any of the contracts negotiated through the Canadian Commercial Corporation?
3.	Was the supply of materials to go directly to Turkey and, if not, to whom were such arms assigned?
4.	Were conditions attached to the licences as to what theatre the materials could be used in and, in particular, were there restrictions made as to the use of such materials on the Island of Cyprus?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Three export permits have been issued for the export of military equipment to Turkey since July 20, 1974. (a) Since every application for an export permit under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act is treated on a commercially confidential basis, it is not the practice to reveal to whom such permits were issued, (b) The three permits

April 29, 1975
Order Paper Questions
issued were for a total value of $870,028.29. (c) Two of these export permits were issued in January, 1975 and the third one in February, 1975.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Were two purchases made totalling $546,680 for army rucksacks within two months of one another and, if so, will the Minister of Supply and Services provide the reason the quantity purchased was not made at the same time?
2.	Is it the Department of Supply and Services' procedure to forecast market price increases and consider inflationary spirals when making such purchases?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes. The second purchase resulted from a DND decision to authorize the issue of rucksacks to militia units of Mobile Command. The covering requisition was received after the first contract had been awarded.
2.	DSS provides market trends on a commodity group basis to materiel managers of federal departments and agencies. When making the actual purchase, it is DSS policy to establish a contract price through competitive tendering. In this instance, each requirement was tendered separately and the resulting two contracts were awarded to the lowest bidder, which in both cases was Manitoba Tent and Awning.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded on January 29, 1975, to E.K. Neuser Machine Co. Ltd., of Downsview, Ontario, for the supply of 2,550 postal carts valued at $1,226,843?
2.	How much did each cart cost?
3.	What is the difference in design of this cart compared to a supermarket's grocery cart?
4.	Were tenders called for on this contract?
5.	What companies tendered?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	$479.64 (Note: 2,550 x $479.64 = $1,223,082. The balance of $3,761.00 between this amount and the contract award amount of $1,226,843 covers the supply of Spare Parts and Maintenance Manuals).
3.	These carts are 5 feet (1.52 m) in length and 3.5 feet (1.07 m) in width. Each is four-wheeled, flat bedded, open sided with closed ends, weighing 450 pounds (204.5 kg) when empty. Each is designed to carry up to 1800 lb. (818.2 kg) of mail, loose, in bags or monotainers. There is, therefore, no direct comparison with the supermarket grocery cart.
4.	Yes.
5.	The E.K. Neuser Machine Company Limited, Downsview, Ontario; G.E.C. Elliot Mechanical Handling, Division of English Electric-A.E.I. Canada Limited, Willow-dale, Ontario; Moody-S.I. Limited, Terrebonne, P.Q.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to M.W. Industries of Montreal for the supply of four diesel engines for locomotives functioning with the Pakistan Western Railways Programme?
2.	How much did each engine cost?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. A contract was awarded to M.L.W. Industries, a division of M.L.W. Worthington Limited, Montreal, Quebec for the supply of four diesel engines for locomotives functioning with the Pakistan Western Railways Programme.
2.	Four engines with kits of components, panels and wiring for modification of engine systems, lot price: $630,847 f.o.b., Montreal.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd., North Vancouver, British Columbia for the supply of two fireboats at a cost of $3,208,712 on March 7, 1974?
2.	Were tenders called on the contract and, if so, what companies tendered?
3.	What are the particulars as to the actual construction and accessory equipment aboard the vessels?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Were tenders called on the contract as awarded to Riverton Boat Works Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba for the supply of a Twin Screw Buoy Tender?
2.	What companies tendered?
3.	What is (a) the dimensions of the $1,500,000 boat (b) accessory equipment?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Riverton Boat Works Ltd., Riverton, Manitoba; Purvis Shipyard Ltd., Selkirk, Manitoba.
3.	(a) Length, 110'-3"; Breadth, 28'-0"; Draft, 7'-0"; (b) The steel hull ship will be fitted with two diesel engines of 1350 combined horsepower driving twin screws to produce a design speed of 11'A knots. A Speed Crane system will be fitted for laying and retrieving navigation buoys on Lake Winnipeg.

April 29, 1975


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many dollars in contracts were awarded to Kodak Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for the year 1974?
2.	To what departments did Kodak supply goods?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. $5,374,608.
2. Agriculture, Canadian Penitentiary Service, Canadian Transport Commission, Canadian International Development Agency, Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Industry Trade and Commerce, Defence Research Board, Energy, Mines and Resources, Environment, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Information Canada, Manpower and Immigration, Ministry of Transport, National Defence, National Film Board, Canadian Commercial Corp., Master Standing Offer (all customers), National Health & Welfare, National Library, National Museums, National Revenue, National Research Council, Post Office, Public Archives, Public Service Commission, Public Works, Regional Economic Expansion, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Secretary of State, Solicitor General, Statistics Canada, Supply and Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Urban Affairs, Veterans Affairs, Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded May 30, 1974 to Marystown Shipyard Limited, Marystown, Newfoundland for the repair of a DPW dredge costing $119,369?
2.	What did the repair work entail in the period at which it was at the shipyard?
3.	How much does a new dredge of similar construction cost?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes. The contract was awarded on April 4, 1974, the press release was dated May 30, 1974.
2.	Extensive work on underwater hull including renewal of keel plates and adjacent shell plates. Also repairs to main machinery.
3.	Approximately $4 million depending on the degree of sophistication.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on May 9, 1974 to Saint Lawrence Cement Co., Montreal, Quebec for 110,000 tons of cement at a cost of $35.62 per ton?
2.	Were tenders requested?
3.	What were the names of companies who tendered?
4.	What was the price of cement as offered at that time by Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd. of Montreal?
5.	(a) For what reason was Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd. not given the contract earlier in the month for the same destined place for which goods were contracted May 31, 1974 and delivered (b) what saving would have accrued from such purchase?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes, however, date of contract award was April 23, 1974; the news release was dated May 9, 1974.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Eleven firms were invited to tender.
3.	Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd, St. Lawrence Cement Co.
4.	Canada Cement Lafarge was unable to quote on the supply of cement for delivery in 1974 because of previous commitments. Their tender for supply in 1975 was to be the list price in effect at time of delivery.
5.	(a) Firstly, Canada Cement Lafarge was not prepared to quote on the 1974 requirement and secondly, the firm did not provide a firm price for the delivery of cement during 1975. Consequently, the company's tender for the supply of cement for the construction of cargo aprons was considered non-responsive. (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Bristol Aerospace Ltd., Winnipeg for the repainting of 15 CF-101 aircrafts at a cost of $16,773 per aircraft?
2.	Were tenders requested on the contract?
3.	What companies tendered?
4.	Did the Department of Supply and Services provide incentives to Bristol Aerospace Ltd. for the construction of their paint shop?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Tenders were not invited since the repainting was carried out at the same time and in conjunction with a major repair and overhaul modification program. Significant cost savings were achieved by not duplicating the dismantling, reassembling and testing, as well as ferrying costs, necessary to a separate contract. The out of service time for the aircraft is also considerably reduced.
3.	Not applicable, see 2 above.
4.	No incentives were given to the contractor for the construction of the paint shop.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded September 1973 to Leonard O'Brien, Ottawa, Ontario for technical services costing $10,000?
2.	What technical services were acquired?
3.	Were tenders requested for the contract?
4.	To what purpose were the services used?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	The development of assigned portions of operational and training programs and projects related to supply activities operating in a state of emergency.
3.	No. Mr. O'Brien was the only individual known as being capable of providing the service in the required time-frame.
4.	In support of program planning.

April 29, 1975
Order Paper Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES-SECURITY DEPOSITS


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is it the practice of the Department of Supply and Services to hold the three lowest tenders, together with a ten per cent security deposit, until a contract is awarded?
2.	How long do the three low tenders, including the two unsuccessful ones, have to wait before refunds are made?
3.	To the Department's knowledge, has this practice ever resulted in the reluctance or refusal by potential suppliers to tender?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Security deposits are rarely required. During the past fiscal year (ending March 31, 1975) seven tender calls required security deposits. Normally all security deposits are held until a contract is awarded.
2.	When called for in the tender security deposits are held until a contract award.
3.	Yes. On rare occasions firms have refused to tender.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Leach Textile Ltd., Huntington, Quebec for 18,000 yards of cloth at $11 per yard on March 12, 1974?
2.	Were tenders requested for the provision of this cloth?
3.	What companies tendered and what were their respective prices?
4.	Is it a purchasing prerogative to maximize on dollar savings through the purchase of large quantities of goods and, if so, what is such prerogative?
5.	How much does a RCMP constable's blue serge trousers cost?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. A contract was awarded March 1, 1974 to Leach Textiles Ltd. for 18,000 yards of 16 oz. wool whipcord, 56 inches wide, at a cost of $10.72 per yard, f.o.b. destination. The news release was dated March 12, 1974.
2.	Yes.
3.	Two companies tendered: Leach Textiles Ltd.-$10.72 yd delivered; Textile Sales Ltd.-$10.86 yd delivered.
4.	It is a departmental objective to work towards minimum PROC (Product, Resource, Operating and Contingency) costs. Where opportunities exist for savings on the purchase of large quantities of goods, this is considered with the other factors to optimize cost vs benefit relationship.
5.	The last purchase of RCMP blue serge trousers was for 12,312 pairs at $15.12 each, inclusive of material, sales tax exempt, delivered to destination. The contract was awarded by competitive tender. The last purchase of blue whipcord trousers was for 2,400 pairs at $32.50 including cost of fabric. This trouser contract was also awarded by competitive tender.


Mr. Orlikow: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,345, of the 3,307 public servants earning $25,000 or more per annum, were those in the Research-Scientist field included and, if not, how many are in such classification?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Mr. Masniuk: 1.	What is the total number of French language teachers currently employed by the Canadian Government in all countries of Africa under education, aid and assistance programmes?
2.	Of this total, how many are teachers in secular Roman Catholic schools and colleges?
3.	What is the total cost of salaries paid to the teachers?


Mr. Herb Breau (Paliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows: 1. There are 13 teachers of the French language in Africa under CIDA auspices.
2.	One.
3.	$196,605 per annum.


Mr. Neil: Since the passage of the amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act
(a)	how many new petroleum and natural gas leases were entered into
(b)	how many new oil and gas wells were drilled or are in the process of being drilled?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) None, (b) Three.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary once again to the fact that question No. 636, which was originally put on the order paper by myself in the last parliament, has still not been answered. This question deals with the Olympics and the executives who are handling the Olympic coins program, particularly their experience in the financial field. I think it is very relevant because the Olympic coins program seems to have gone off the track. I urge the parliamentary secretary, once again, to answer this question.


Mr. Paproski:: Now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) is back from his excursion during which he visited all the various CIDA projects, I wonder if perhaps each week he can answer one or two of the questions standing in my name on the order paper.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have never done this before, but I put some written questions on the order paper last October 23 relating to very simple questions regarding the Olympic Games, the number of coins which have been sold to date, and so forth. They are questions Nos. 549 and 551.1 would appreciate the government's getting off its seat and answering them.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today a question was directed to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) in the absence of the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc). My point of order is based on the Government Organization Act which defines the Minister of the Environment as the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. As such, I submit that questions
April 29, 1975

directed in the House to the Minister of Fisheries in the absence of the Minister of State (Fisheries) should properly be directed to the Minister of the Environment who, according to the law, is still the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the government to expedite the answering of starred questions which are placed on the order paper, so that pressure can be removed from the present situation which forces hon. members to ask, in the oral question period, questions which might satisfactorily be answered as starred questions if there was any assurance that such questions would be promptly answered.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a related point of order, having called the attention of the parliamentary secretary to questions Nos. 2,184, 2,185 and 2,186 standing in my name on the order paper for over a month. These questions were answered in detail in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence about a week ago, and I wonder when I might expect a response on the order paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and as reprinted in accordance with Mr. Speaker's decision of Wednesday, April 23,
1975.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has had an opportunity to consider the amendments filed to see if there is some order in which they might be grouped for today's discussions. Perhaps for a moment we could direct our attention to that question and to the question of the deferring of divisions if they occur. I have asked the House leaders to give some consideration to this problem.
It is the suggestion of the Chair that motion No. 1 be debated individually and that any division thereon be deferred. In like manner, motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 might be grouped for debate but each disposed of by a separate vote and deferred division, if necessary. Third, motions Nos. 5 and 6 could be grouped for debate but, again, a separate vote called on each motion and division deferred, if required. Finally, motions Nos. 7 and 8 could also be grouped for debate but, again, a separate vote and division, if necessary. During the course of discussion of the several amendments, if it appears that a number of divisions have developed, rather than deferring all of them and having too many at one time the House may want later to direct its attention to the possibility of disposing
Members' Salaries
of perhaps four divisions, if they have accumulated, and there are approximately that number remaining. But for the moment perhaps this might be an acceptable way to begin the proceedings.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, on behalf of my party, that the groupings you have made seem eminently fair and sensible. We are happy to accept the direction you have suggested. I wish simply to indicate that it is my intention, under the provisions of Standing Order 75(8), to move an amendment to motion No. 4 which is on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). I mention my proposed amendment now because this may have some bearing on when votes are taken. Since my amendment is one which will be made on the floor, it might be desirable to take a vote on it when the debate thereon is ended, so that the vote on motion No. 4, either as is or as amended, could be amongst the votes which are deferred.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). Your Honour will probably have noted that it contains two separate and distinct propositions. I think it would be helpful to the House if Your Honour could split that motion into two, so that the question of retroactivity could be debated with and voted on with motion No. 7. The second part could be debated with motion No. 4, with separate votes taken on each motion, that is, that part of motion No. 2 which would be debated in the course of motion No. 4 standing on its own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say a word or two on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid). It seems to me that the contention that there are two separate propositions in the proposed motion does not make it automatic that it should be voted on separately.
If one looks at the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) he will see that it has in it several distinct and separate propositions. If we are going to apply the rule just suggested to one motion, it would have to be applied to others as well. It so happens that there are portions of the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council which I find more offensive than others and I shall be moving an amendment for a separate vote on the portions of the motion which I dislike the most. It seems to me that if anyone is really anxious to have separate votes, that is the way it can be achieved, rather than asking Your Honour to split a motion into separate votes. This has been done on occasion, but it is very rare and it is an extremely complicated procedural proposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary has a point, we in this party are willing to overlook the lapse of the rules by the NDP party and take just one vote on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is true that more than one amendment suffers from the disability that the hon. par-
5296

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
liamentary secretary has described. If the Chair were disposed to split the amendment of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), it would certainly have to be very sympathetic to the same kind of argument on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). For the moment, it would not be the intention of the Chair to do that. If discussion on that particular amendment develops in a way that might reopen that point of procedure when we are on a particular motion, the matter can be considered further. On the basis of the discussion to this point, however, I think we ought to go ahead with discussion on the amendments.
Again I say that if the Deputy Speaker or one of the Assistant Deputy Speakers is in the chair for discussion upon motion No. 2 and it appears that further consideration might be given to that point of order, there is no reason why it cannot be raised and discussed at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For obvious reasons, I think it best that I be replaced promptly before discussion on this motion begins.


Stan Darling: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended in clause 1 by deleting lines 12 to 14 inclusive at page 1 and by substituting the following therefor:
"(b) to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the sum of twenty thousand dollars per annum; and".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see such unanimity. I brought forward this motion in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, where it was defeated. With all due deference to the 29 cabinet ministers, I feel that the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is the fifth ranking person in Canada after the Governor General, the Chief Justice, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Senate, should be paid at the same rate as cabinet ministers. I am delighted to know there will be unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I am a fairly well known opponent of this bill as a whole, I rise to support the amendment that has just been presented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be voting against the bill as a whole if and when we reach that stage, but in the meantime when we are discussing individual salaries I agree with the mover of the motion that the Speaker of this House ought to receive a salary equal to that paid to members of cabinet.
I also congratulate the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) on being in the unusual position of being able to move a motion that seems to involve an increase in expenditure and yet being in order. That comes

about because when Bill C-44 was first brought down last December, it included a provision for the salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons to be $20,000 per year and therefore the Governor General's recommendation supported that proposition. The salary was reduced to $16,000 in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but because the original Governor General's recommendation still stands the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is in order.
I believe he is expressing the view of the House that if any increases are going to take place, the Speaker ought to receive the same salary as members of cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment. When the recommendations were made for the salaries of ministers, the Speaker and other functionaries, it was decided that the government should not depart from the general principle proposed in the Beaupre commission report. I certainly believe, as do the other members who have spoken, that the Speaker should receive the same salary as members of the cabinet even though the Be'aupre commission found otherwise.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to say I concur.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Darling) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge) moved:: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-44 an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended (a) in subclause (1) of clause 2 by deleting from lines 5 and 6 at page 2 the words "July 8, 1974 and ending December 31, 1975" and by substituting therefor the words "July 1, 1975" (b) by deleting subclause (2) of clause 2, being lines 11 to 49 at page 2 and lines 1 to 20 at page 3 of the bill.


Stan Darling: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 10 inclusive in subclause 2(1) at page 2 and by substituting the following therefor:
"34. (1) For the portion of the said Parliament commencing January 1st, 1975 and ending December 31, 1975, there shall be paid to every member of the Senate and the House of Commons a sessional allowance at the rate of twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars per annum."


Mitchell William Sharp: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amend-
April 29, 1975

ed by striking out lines 11 to 49 at page 2 and lines 1 to 20 at page 3 and substituting the following:
"(2) Section 34 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(3) For the twelve month period commencing January 1, 1976 and for each twelve month period thereafter, there shall be paid to every member of the Senate and House of Commons, for the sessions of Parliament in each such period, a sessional allowance at the rate per annum that is obtained by multiplying the sessional allowance payable to each such member for the twelve month period immediately preceding the twelve month period in respect of which the sessional allowance is to be determined by the lesser of
(a)	the percentage that the Industrial Composite for the first adjustment year is of the Industrial Composite for the second adjustment year; and
(b)	one hundred and seven per cent.
(4)	For the purposes of subsection (3)
(a)	in relation to any twelve month period in respect of which the sessional allowance is to be determined,
(i)	the "first adjustment year" is the last twelve month period preceding the commencement of the period in respect of which the sessional allowance is to be determined for which the Industrial Composite is available on the first day of the period in respect of which the sessional allowance is to be determined, and
(ii)	the "second adjustment year" is the twelve month period immediately preceding the first adjustment year; and
(b)	the "Industrial Composite" for an adjustment year is the average weekly wages and salaries of the Industrial Composite in Canada for that year as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act.
(5)	The salaries and allowances payable to members of the Senate and House of Commons pursuant to sections 33, 41 and 42 and subsection 43(3) of this Act, sections 4 and 5 of the Salaries Act and subsection 4(1) of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act shall, for the twelve month period commencing January 1, 1976 and for each twelve month period thereafter, be adjusted in the manner provided by subsection (3) as if they were sessional allowances.
(6)	a sessional allowance or other allowance determined for a twelve month period pursuant to subsection (3) or (5) that is not a multiple of one hundred dollars shall be rounded to the closest multiple of one hundred dollars that is lower than the sessional allowance or other allowance so determined.
(7)	Within two months after the day fixed for return of the writs at each general election the Governor in Council shall appoint commissioners to inquire into the adequacy of the annual variations of sessional allowances payable to members of the Senate and House of Commons and other allowances payable to them and to report thereon to the Governor in Council, with such recommendations as they consider appropriate, within six months after the time of their appointment.
(8)	Every report to the Governor in Council made pursuant to subsection (7) shall be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days after the report is made that Parliament is sitting."


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rare mood of co-operation that the House seems to be in this afternoon, giving unanimous consent to the amendment of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling), I hope hon. members will look with the same favour upon the amendment being moved in my
Members' Salaries
name on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I might take this opportunity to point out to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), since he is such a stickler for accuracy, that I would appreciate it if in future he would refer to the New Democratic Party in that way, or by saying "NPD", but not "NDP party". That is not correct, and I am sure the hon. member would be the first to correct this error.


Gerald William Baldwin: Send me a memo.


Max Saltsman: I will send you Hansard tomorrow. This amendment seeks to do three important things: it seeks to remove the retroactivity provision in clause 34, to remove the indexing provision and to remove that part of the bill dealing with increases in expense allowances.
There are a number of reasons for this proposal. We take the position that the increase in members' salaries is probably acceptable and necessary, and we do not quarrel with the new salary of $24,000: we think it is adequate and will allow members' salaries to catch up. The new salary is $6,000 greater that the old salary of $18,000. That part of the bill we want to leave alone: we think it is satisfactory even though the increase is far greater than the sort of increase other members of society have enjoyed during the last number of years.
We part company with those parts of the bill calling for an escalation formula. We do this because the government has indicated that it is working on a general formula of restraint which it will ask the people of Canada to accept. We have heard it hinted that the government will ask the people of Canada to accept something less than it is asking members of parliament to accept. A serious situation is developing connected with how we are to ask Canadians to accept restraint in future. It almost seems as if the government has been saying to the more powerful elements in society, "We will overlook what you are grabbing. Go ahead. Once you have taken what you want, we will bring in restraint for those who are not so powerful."
It seems almost as if the government intends to wait until the powerful groups have finished their negotiations; then it will move in on the weaker sectors of the economy who do not have the same bargaining power and cannot disrupt the economy as effectively as the powerful groups. It will impose restraints on the weaker groups if they do not go along with the government. In the meantime, the strong and powerful will have taken what they can. Included among the strong who to some extent can dictate their income increases are members of parliament and, of course, members of the other place. This is wrong. If we seriously want the Canadian people to accept a policy of restraint, we should apply that policy to ourselves. Surely, this is the place to start. If we do not do this, any government policy of restraint will be suspect. As it is, much damage has been done to the government's credibility.
I think there is still time to do something; that is why I urge members of the House to consider the importance of this question and to support this amendment. It will be argued that we are not taking as much, in percentage terms, as other sectors of the economy have taken. Let me point out that increasing by 14 per cent the salary of a man
29SS7-60V2

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
earning $9,000, $10,000 or $11,000 is not the same as increasing by $6,000 the salary of a member already earning $18,000. The increase in the present instance is to apply right across the board. While it may be difficult to justify such a salary increase, it is even more difficult to justify an increased expense allowance and the inclusion of an escalator clause.
Let me deal with the salary question by itself. As I said, we accept the proposed salary of $24,000 although that is going further than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would be willing to go. I think his position is that there ought to be no increase at all. We have agreed that we are prepared at least to accept an increase in salary. We do not want to stand pat and say "nyet" to everything. We think the increase is necessary although we know that one could argue against it. But, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the cost of living does not go up equally for all. For those at the $18,000 level, the increased cost of living is less onerous than it is for those at the $10,000, $9,000 or $6,000 level. It does not cost us that much more to eat than it costs a family trying to live on $8,000 or $9,000.


An hon. Member:: Especially in the parliamentary restaurant.


Max Saltsman: Especially in the parliamentary restaurant, as my colleague says. I brought a young relative of mine to parliament. I thought he would be terribly impressed by the buildings, the procedure, the debate and the distinguished people in the House of Commons. I made the mistake of taking him to the parliamentary restaurant. The only thing that young man remembers is that he had never seen food that was so cheap and so good. That was his total impression of parliament. We will try to correct this impression over the years. I merely give this example to show that our costs are not as high as some make out.
I know there are many disadvantages to being a member of parliament: one incurs expenses which others do not incur, and so on. But we tend to gloss over the benefits we receive and not to set off our benefits against costs. A significant portion of the income of those receiving $18,000 a year, or $24,000, does not go to consumption. Almost all the income of those earning $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 pr $10,000 goes to consumption because a family in Canada of any size cannot live on much less. But when you earn $18,000 a year, although much of your income goes to consumption-to consumption at somewhat higher levels than average-part of your income goes to savings. I know members of parliament will tell you-I have no reason to doubt them-that they have no savings, that they are in hock to their bank manager and that they find it hard to get along. I am sure there is truth in what they say. But they tend to overlook the fact that a substantial part of their $18,000 salary goes toward retirement savings plan, which is certainly an excellent form of saving. The pension plan of members of parliament is better than any other pension plan I have seen.


Mr. Peters:: It is not better than the judges' plan.


Max Saltsman: My hon. friend says that it is not as good as the judges' plan. Perhaps that is the only exception. Certainly, the members' plan is superior to the public

service plan and superior to any plan in industry. It is much better than any general pension scheme I have seen. If we increase salaries to $24,000 we shall increase our ability to consume and to compensate for the effects of inflation. We shall also increase our level of savings because much of the increase will go to savings. Statistics show that those in the higher income brackets-we, obviously, are in the top 10 per cent of income earners, even at our present salary levels-apply less of their incomes to consumption and more to savings. When you are living at the margin on an income of $7,000 or $8,000 you do not save.
When you want to index an income, you must first choose the index which is to apply. You may choose the industrial composite index. That index, the ICI, may at some future time be lower than the CPI, although I doubt it. Traditionally, it has been higher than the CPI. We use the CPI as the general index when we want to adjust family allowances or old age pensions. It is evidently a cause of great dissatisfaction in this country that we tie old age pensioners to the lower index, yet when we apply indexing to ourselves we use the industrial index which provides some benefits. The government has tried to get around this by saying we are not going to take the entire amount, only 7 per cent or some other figure, depending on what amendments may be introduced. It is, nevertheless, wrong to have two standards, one for society in general and another for members of parliament and a few others. It seems we are going out of our way to aggravate society and discredit parliament by our behaviour.
In our view, the indexing should not be retroactive: there is no justification for that. When retroactivity is negotiated in a labour contract, it is based on the fact that there is a large overlap. If there is an argument for retroactivity, surely the period of retroactivity should go no further than the point at which we started discussing this bill, which certainly is not back to July 8, 1974. Therefore, it is our view that the retroactivity section should be struck out. It should be sufficient to increase our salaries from $18,000 to $24,000.
Our final objection is with regard to the expense allowance. That, more than anything else, is offensive to the public. There are only a few elements in society which have this and they seem to have taken their cue from federal behaviour. Everyone has to account for expenses. I receive letters from businessmen and trade unionists who are reasonably sympathetic with the idea of a salary increase. Other people have had their salaries increased and they feel that members of parliament are entitled to some increase. However, no one agrees there should be an unaccountable expense allowance. There should not be any increase without some accounting being made. Up to this point, no one has provided evidence to persuade me that there is any justification for increasing our expense allowance.
A number of things have happened in the past few years that have in fact reduced my expenses. For many years I sent out newsletters to my constituents. I carried the cost of printing and the cost of postage out of my expense allowance. For many years the cost of maintaining constituency telephones in the constituency offices came out of
April 29, 1975

my expense allowance. Admittedly, my expenses were somewhat more than my expense allowance, but not much.
We now have certain additional benefits. Four times a year we are permitted to send out newsletters at public expense. That is a tremendous benefit and something we should take into account when talking about expense allowances. We are now allowed a very substantial amount for a constituency office and constituency officer. That also has to be taken into account. This is why I see no justification for increasing the expense allowance and certainly not for indexing it. If there is going to be any increase, it should be based on members of parliament accounting for the use of that money.
I want to say a few words about accounting for expense money. During the committee hearings, three members took exception to the position which I have outlined in the last few minutes, namely, that there is no need to increase the expense allowance and, if it is increased, it should be accountable by evidence that the money was spent in certain ways. A number of arguments arose in the committee. The first member who took issue with me was the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I said that he is one who in fact has a grievance.
We have met that grievance by making special allowance for people who live in remote territories. Even though that special allowance is greater than that received by most members, it still may not be enough. If it is not enough for members who represent these large constituencies that are peculiar to Canada, they could submit their expenses. Even if they are twice as great as the amount allowed under this or the previous bill, I am sure most people would agree they are acceptable expenses.
I did not hear any member from Ottawa say that he has expenses far in excess of those permitted under the old legislation or this legislation. In fact, they do not. Members who live in Ottawa receive a windfall benefit from something that is really organized on a kind of mutual ground. Certainly they do not have the double-housing problem or the transportation problem of most members of parliament. They may not even have the same constituency office and constituency telephone problems of most members. We should try to be fair.
Members who live in or close to Ottawa should receive less than the amount now in the legislation. Those who live in the northern parts of Canada should perhaps receive substantially more than is provided for in the legislation. As long as some evidence is provided to show how the money is used, I am sure that would be acceptable to the public. The public understands that you cannot have the same population measure for representation in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. They know that because of the nature of this country it is more expensive to maintain democracy in the northern areas of Canada: they accept that and are happy to do so.
One member in committee was quite outraged by what I had to say. He said that he attends many weddings and has to give many gifts. He pointed out that the cost of those gifts sometimes exceeds $2,000 a year. Was the hon. member trying to suggest that somehow the public has a responsibility to ensure that he has enough money to make gifts so that he can be a great fellow and be re-elected? We do a lot of that anyway. The public pays for a great
Members' Salaries
many things to help members of parliament become re-elected.
While newsletters, ostensibly, are reports of members of parliament, surely they have some political connotation attached to them. Certainly, newsletters are a way of reinforcing the work of a member of parliament. This is also true of constituency offices: they certainly enhance the ability of a member of parliament to get himself re-elected. Do we also have to start paying for wedding gifts out of the public treasury? I always thought that generosity was something one did not indulge in under certain circumstances, and it is true that if you have less money, if the expense allowance does not go up, you may not be able to give so much to the United Appeal, to the Red Feather, to Cansave or to other kinds of organizations. But then we would not be in a position any different from that of any other citizen in this country who gives according to his ability to give.
It should not be a source of shame to a member of parliament to say, "We are not the highest paid income earners in this country. We can't count these contributions as deductions as if we were corporations; therefore I am going to give in harmony with my earnings." Everybody will understand that there is not some kind of bottomless pit. But what people will understand is an MP saying, "I need to be generous. Give me the money so I can be generous with it." Therefore, this whole business of saying we have terrible expenses, we buy raffle tickets and give to all kinds of organizations and therefore these expenses should be included in the expense allowance, strikes me as not being a legitimate argument at all. These things should come out of one's income and should not, in my opinion, come out of a separate public fund.
When the President of the Privy Council appeared before the committee and urged certain amendments, I put to him this question of the justification of expense allowances. I thought I was being fair when I told him that I had come to the conclusion that an increase in expense allowances was not justified. I also told him that other members of this House had reached the same conclusion. I asked him to demonstrate to me that we were not correct in our assumption.
I told the President of the Privy Council that I would be prepared to change my mind if he provided some substantial evidence to the committee justifying such an increase. His answer was that he had not conducted any research into this aspect and that he was not in a position to give the kind of answer I sought. I asked him why he had come to the conclusion that the increase was justified. He replied that other members had told him the increase was justified and that they required it. Surely, Mr. Speaker, on something like this which has aroused so much public anger, this provision more than any other is what sticks in the craw of the public-that we can not only vote ourselves an unaccountable expense allowance but that we should now be asking for an increase in that allowance.
It does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. Because we do it, municipal councils now do it, provincial governments now do it and heaven knows who else now does it. I think it is incumbent upon us at the very least to draw the line here.

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
If we are not prepared to go in the direction I think we should go, that is, to eliminate this business of unaccountable expense allowances completely and say there are certain things in respect of which members should submit accounts-we should at least not increase the allowance unless there is some evidence placed before us and before the public to show that an increase is justifiable.
If the amendments we are proposing, or something similar to them, are not acceptable to the government, perhaps the government would propose something of the same substance in their own wording. If so, we would be prepared to support it. In the absence of such amendments, enormous damage is likely to be done to any restraint program that parliament tries to institute. We have already done a certain amount of damage, although I do not believe it is irreparable. If nothing is done, though, I think we will increase that damage and the credibility of members of parliament will come seriously into question. That is terribly important, Mr. Speaker. A democracy depends upon people having a high degree of confidence in the men and women they elect to serve them in the parliament of their country. If that credibility is diminished, if that confidence is reduced, then democracy itself is diminished and reduced.
While the money is always nice-and I am no different from anyone else; I never have enough money to do the things I want to do, and in some cases people have persuaded themselves that they desperately need this kind of money-we have to balance this against our special role as members of parliament. We are different from other people. We are not better-I am not suggesting that for a moment-but we are different. There are 264 of us, out of a population of 22 million in this country, and there is a special responsibility laid upon us. This special responsibility is not only laid upon us; it is one we have accepted as members of parliament.
Had we wished to make money, there are much better ways of making it than by being a member of parliament. Had we wanted fame or success, there are probably much better ways of achieving them than by being a member of parliament. Had we been seeking security, there are better ways to find it than by becoming a member of parliament. But we have chosen this special responsibility, and I therefore appeal to members to consider this aspect and to weigh it against the benefit of receiving a higher income, which is what anyone would like. That is really the question which has to be decided when determining our attitude toward these amendments.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not need half an hour in which to speak on this occasion, because everything has been said, everything has been written. We have all received, I don't know how many letters or how many newspaper clippings telling us what should be done, and so on. Standing on my feet now, I am well aware that members from both sides of the House would prefer me to sit down. Nevertheless, I should like to say a few words.
When this bill was first brought in, setting the increase at 50 per cent, I was shocked. I said so then and I say so today in no uncertain terms. I said then that we must set an example. When the amount was reduced to 331/3 per cent, I stated that if this amount could be justified I would

support the proposition. As the previous speaker has told us, we are in a unique position. As members of the highest court in the land, we are here to set an example.
I believe I was quoted as long ago as December 19 as saying that if 50 per cent was asked for, we would be further ahead if we took 25 per cent, apart from the fact that it would look better in the eyes of the public. This is the reason I put down my amendment. I do not need to go on giving the reasons for it. It amounts to $4,500 in hard cash. I am not good at the intricacies of fractions, and so on; but I think the House should give consideration to this amendment on the basis of setting an example to segments of labour in other parts of the country which are asking for outrageous salary increases. If we accept something which is pretty high, then, of course, all they will do is point the finger of scorn at us. I hope the House will consider my amendment favourably, and I trust we shall be able to get along on what is proposed.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), whose motion we are discussing, should not be here.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on! Be reasonable. He has just stepped out for two minutes.


William Arnold Peters: I am simply curious.


An hon. Member:: You were not here last week at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why doesn't the minister speak to his own motion?


An hon. Member:: That is very mean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why doesn't he speak to it?


William Arnold Peters: I am curious as to why he is not here.


Mr. Lefebvre:: He is here more often than you are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then why doesn't he speak to his own motion?


William Arnold Peters: I hope the Hansard reporters are able to get some of these comments from members who cannot make speeches from their feet but do so from their seats. At least it will be noted in Hansard that they have done something, which is more than they are likely to do in other instances.
I am concerned with the way parliament handles our salaries. I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), some of which I agree with. I think members of parliament, and perhaps members of the public as well, should give consideration to a remark that was made this afternoon by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) which I think is apropos this debate. When someone mentioned his deputy minister and asked whether the minister intended to do something about him, the minister said-I am paraphrasing him-that he was doing the job he was supposed to do
April 29, 1975

and was getting well paid for it, that he was getting considerably more money than the minister and he was glad his deputy was able to do so.
It has always surprised me that in our structure a cabinet minister gets less money than a deputy minister. In some cases a cabinet minister gets less than half what a deputy minister gets, which seems to me a rather odd situation for a government that is supposed to be democratic. Although parliament makes the decisions, we are willing to pay the mandarins in the civil service considerably more than we pay the boss, I know of no other field where this happens.
I am also surprised that some members of parliament believe they can increase their prestige by being highly paid. It is certainly true in society in Canada today that the man who is paid the most is obviously the boss of the enterprise. Cabinet ministers receive something like $60,000, members of parliament receive considerably less, yet we are supposed to be on an equal footing with cabinet ministers. I am not sure how the rate structure in the civil service has been developed but I have always been very concerned that the same system prevails in this House.
I think this is the fourth time we have increased our salaries since I have been here. The last time I said I would not support an increase in salaries and allowances unless a continuing formula was worked out that was related to the increase in the cost of living, or increase in expenses or some such criterion. Since that time we have been able to increase the amounts paid to those for whom parliament is responsible, such as the old age pensioners and war veterans, including federal payments to the provinces for the care of those whom the state looks after. We have done this fairly effectively on the basis of a cost of living escalator clause. Yet when we come to examine our own indemnities we have a different kind of escalator.
I do not care so much about the money involved. I do not think it really matters if we increase our salary to that of a deputy minister; I am not sure that it would make very much difference to the economy of this country. Paying 265 members of parliament a salary that puts them in the top 20 category in the civil service is not going to bankrupt this country. However, there does seem to be a need for legislators who want to increase their salaries to do so, in light of what other people are receiving. If we are going to move to the industrial composite index, then we should immediately tell all the old age pensioners, war veterans allowance recipients, all pensioners and those on fixed incomes, that instead of tying their pensions to the cost of living index we are going to tie them to the industrial composite.
I am sure most members of parliament would agree that it would be difficult to establish a classification for MPs. Each member's role is different from that of his neighbour. It differs from area to area. I am not prepared to argue whether the Ottawa members need more money than Toronto members because I think both play different roles. Therefore, I find use of the industrial composite wage index somewhat unusual. Whether we use the cost of living index or some other index, if we put a limit on any increase of, say, 7 per cent when the increase in the cost of living this year has been 12 per cent, it seems to me we are being schizophrenic.
Members' Salaries
Hon. members who were here when this question was discussed in 1970 or 1971 will recall there was considerable discussion between myself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who at that time was president of the privy council, over whether or not we should use an escalator. Obviously, we had to face the problem again and now we are facing it. I do not think we as members of parliament are competent enough or able in any way to decide what our own requirements are when we look at members of parliament as a class, since each member performs his own distinct role. For example, an Ottawa member will have an office that is easily accessible to people in his area. I may have to drive 200 or 300 miles over the weekend in order to see eight or ten people, whereas an Ottawa member can perhaps see 200 people and not need to drive anywhere. This is why I say it is very hard to arrive at some sort of classification for all of us.
I would much rather see some sort of permanent index written into the bill, and I see nothing wrong with using a cost of living index that has been built up over a long period of time, one which is used for other programs in order to maintain the standard of living of other people. This would mean going back to the suggestion I made in 1970-71 in respect of a cost of living bonus. I would be willing to have it at that level, as that is exactly what I wanted then. There is nothing inconsistent about that. I agree that this will be a considerable amount of money because the cost of living has been rising rapidly throughout this period. This would mean we could do for ourselves now what we are willing to do for everyone else.
I think this government will find itself in extreme difficulty if it is not willing to change the indexing formula as it applies to others, thereby applying one formula to them and a different one to ourselves. Almost every labour agreement negotiated this year has included a cost of living escalator clause, or an amount of money equivalent to that cost of living increase, plus an additional amount to keep those workers on par with others in our society. In many of these contracts the cost of living factor has been more important than the increase in wages. Many of these contracts have called for a 10 per cent increase each year for the duration of a three-year contract, amounting in total to 30 per cent. They have called for a 5 per cent increase in respect of the standard of living, also per year for the term of the contract, so without taking any other benefits into consideration this amounts to a 45 per cent increase. This in fact is an inflationary factor in our economy.
We will find it very difficult if we set our own standards above the formula we are asking the country generally to accept. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is asking labour, business and all segments of our society to hold wage demands to 7 per cent per year, or less. It will be difficult for the Minister of Finance to justify that kind of restraint when we are not willing to apply it to ourselves. Any formula that allows for renegotiation of a basic salary increase will not solve the problem I should like to see solved.
There has been some discussion about the allowance we receive. For most people, this allowance is mixed in with

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
their wage structure. I, personally, have one current account into which I put all my money and from which I make all my payments, and I do not worry about whether the money comes from the wages or allowance side. When that money is gone, I have to look for more.


An hon. Member:: You draw on another bank.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The one in Switzerland.


William Arnold Peters: It is not quite that drastic, but I always have found that when you do not have the money, you cut down on something and very often it is the commitments you make on the basis of the allowance. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge in this regard only up to a point. I differ from the hon. member in that I prefer that the allowance be nonaccountable. I was in a business for some time, operating on a salary plus an expense account and the expense account was considerably higher than the salary. I found that I could write off almost anything on the basis of expenses, but this involved a great deal of accounting. For this purpose one needs an accountant and a financial structure. One also needs to be as crooked as hell about a lot of things. Many of these things are legitimate expenses. For example, I operate a mobile office in my constituency because of its size. I know it would be possible to sell that unit to someone else who is not a member of my family, and rent it back, charging the cost against expenses. Whoever I rent the unit from has to carry insurance, pay for the licence and set up a bona fide accounting system.
Many of these expenses are legitimate but they must be accounted for by the individual for the purpose of his income tax. I know from experience that this never works out, so I have decided to operate the unit myself. From my point of view it is better to buy the unit, operate it yourself, carry your own insurance and licence and forget about the assistance provided by the government. I know that I could probably operate in a different way at a considerable saving, but this would involve a lot of monkey business and a lot of expenses that are honest in a business sense but morally irresponsible. For that reason I do not want this expense allowance on the basis of having to account for it. It is not that my expenses are anything but legitimate, but this involves hiring an accountant in order to write off all the legitimate expenses for the purpose of my income tax return.
I am the representative of the people who elect me and I am happy to make the expenditures necessary to represent them. When I have no more money, I spend no more in respect of that representation. I have in mind the cost of flowers for funerals as well as the cost of wedding gifts and other such expenditures. I would not enter the cost of the wreath for someone I knew as an expense or a deduction on my income tax. When I start providing wreaths for people who are not my friends and using the cost as a legitimate expense, I will quit buying them. Quite frankly, I do not want to see this allowance put on the basis of an expense account because I consider most expense accounts to be factually correct and acceptable to the Income Tax Department, but morally dishonest. They are legitimate as

far as the Income Tax Department is concerned, but in my opinion they are often morally wrong.
There are other expenditures that could be added to those which we now consider normal. We, as members, no longer have to pay for our own stationery. I remember when we had to buy our paper. When I first came here I think we received 2,000 sheets free, and if you wanted more you had to pay for it: if I remember correctly, the wholesale cost to a member was $2.75 per 1,000 sheets. We had such a lousy bookkeeping situation at the time that I always ended up paying twice before getting my account settled. We also had to hire extra staff. Many of us bought mimeograph machines. This place used to have many such machines out in the hallways because there was not room in one office for two members, two secretaries and a mimeograph machine. So the mimeograph machine was put out in the hall, where one often saw two or three people and a bunch of kids stuffing envelopes and sometimes working in the evenings and on Sundays. That has been stopped and we now serve our people better.
I think there are additional advantages we can obtain that will be of advantage not to us but to our constituents. I am pleased to note that there is a royal commission travelling around the world looking at the way in which other parliamentarians serve their constituents. I am awaiting their report with great interest. In the meantime, unless we are willing to do the same for all those for whom we are responsible, that is, provide a cost of living index which goes back to the last increase, then I am not prepared to support such a program for us.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, here we are again, engaged in one of parliament's periodic exercises in self-flagellation. It is quite unnecessary. We could have done as several other countries have done quite sensibly, that is, provide for a system of regular, independent reviews of remuneration for parliamentarians. My bill, C-335, would have established such a system, according to which every four years a review would be made not only of the salaries of parliamentarians but of those of federal executive and judicial officers, and adjustments made as a result of its recommendations at the time of the following general election.
I have no objection to the salary levels proposed in this bill and I disagree with those hon. members who tell us that they are excessive. I think that any reasonable person, in looking at comparable salaries in the professional, academic or business world, or for that matter in the trades, would agree that the proposed salaries are quite reasonable. However, I take exception to the approach and the timing of this bill. With all due respect to those who have proposed it, both on the back benches and the front benches, let me say that there has rarely been a more tanglefooted effort in the history of this parliament.
I oppose the principle of indexing. I think that parliament should decide on the basis of independent review and recommendation. It should take the responsibility for fixing what the appropriate remuneration should be for the members of the next parliament. I do not believe we should be incorporating in this bill a provision for the
April 29, 1975

indexing of parliamentary salaries. I do not believe that we should be, ideally-although there has been so much neglect in this respect that it is hard to avoid it-legislating a change in our remuneration without having received an independent recommendation in this respect.
I believe we should have taken the recommendations of the Beaupre commission to heart and implemented them at the time the commission's report was received. One of the recommendations in that report was to do away with the non-taxable expense allowance and to make the salary a reasonable one. I think that if members will inspect the recommendations of that commission with respect to expenses, they will find those recommendations eminently sensible and reasonable.
I do not want to take up much time on this matter. I cannot beat my breast and appear here in sackcloth and ashes and tell you that I think the proposed salaries for members of parliament and others provided for in this bill are excessive, because I do not think they are. But I object to the process we are adopting and I deplore the neglect of the government over too many years to establish a sensible system of independent review and adjustment of remuneration for federal executive, legislative and judicial officers. I believe that we should attempt in this bill, if we do nothing else, to establish such a system.
I welcome the amendment of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to provide for a commission of sorts, and I welcome the change in his amendment which would leave the decision as to the implementation of the recommendations of the commission to parliament and not to the cabinet; but I still object to the manner in which the commission is to operate. It is my suggestion that a commission should be appointed in the middle of a parliamentary term, not at the beginning.
We can see now how difficult it is for brand new members of parliament to face the prospect of awarding themselves an increase in remuneration. Surely such a commission should be appointed in the middle of a parliamentary term and it should report as promptly as possible. Parliament should have the opportunity to act on its recommendations, but any variations in remuneration which may be enacted as a result of those recommendations should take effect after the next general election.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook):
That motion No. 4 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "within two months'' from subclause (7) and substituting therefor the words "within one year after this act comes into force and within two years'', and by adding subclause (9) as follows:
"Any variations in remuneration which may be enacted in any parliament shall take effect on the day of the next subsequent general election".
This would have the effect of requiring the commission to be appointed within a year from this act coming into force. There would be time for the commission to report, to have its report tabled, for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to make his contribution as to what he thinks is reasonable in the recommendations, and for other members of parliament to do so. We would then make a decision as to what would be reasonable remuneration, not for ourselves, unless we happened to be re-elected, but for members of the next parliament. I
Members' Salaries
urge hon. members to give serious consideration to this proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to motions Nos. 2, 3, and 4 which are before the House. I wish to move another amendment to motion No. 4 but I am awaiting direction from the Chair. Are we now debating motions Nos. 2, 3, and 4, or are we debating the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury)? If we are debating them all and there will be a whole series of deferred votes,
I am prepared to speak now; but I await Your Honour's direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The decision of the Chair in this regard is to defer all votes until the debate is concluded. Then, when motion No. 4 and its amendments are called, the division will take place on motion No. 4 and the two previous motions, along with the amendments to motion No. 4.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It struck me that there were two or three ways to do it, but your way is very sensible. I rise also to move an amendment to motion No. 4 dealing with other subclauses besides the subclauses which the hon. member for York-Scarborough seeks to amend. My amendment will deal with what I think is a most dishonest step the House is taking if it passes motion No. 4. But before I come to that may I say just a few words about the matter as a whole.
Hon. members are fully aware, I trust, that I am opposed to our raising our salaries and allowances at this time. I think it is far too soon after we sought election at the polls at rates we knew were in effect. I think the economic situation in this country is very serious. It is so serious that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has promised to bring down another budget within a month. It is likely that he will have something to say about restraint practices and for us to be exercising no restraint, but to be doing the very opposite with respect to our own salaries and allowances, at this time is utterly irresponsible. I earnestly hope that despite all the emotion and feeling which exists about this measure, hon. members will yet agree that action by us on this question should be deferred.
My hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has made a point which I feel is very cogent. We have before us a proposal that the salaries and expenses of members of parliament should, in a sense, be related to the industrial composite index. I realize that there is a 7 per cent ceiling, but nevertheless it is the industrial composite index which is cited for us, whereas we have refused to give the benefit of that better index to old age pensioners, veterans, recipients of family allowances, retired public servants, retired RCMP and armed forces persons, retired railway workers and all the rest. What kind of beings are we to say no to this for everyone else, but to take it for ourselves?


An hon. Member:: Greedy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I plead with hon. members to do some thinking about this. I know there are hon. members who keep citing what other per-

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
sons receive. I received a memo from one of my colleagues in the House which shows what top public servants receive and the increases they have had, and I am reminded of what teachers, longshoremen and all sorts of other people receive. I am not concerned about the people who make as much as I do, or more. There are not very many in the latter case. We are among the top 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the income earners of Canada. Statistics vary; sometimes it is the top 1 Vi per cent and sometimes the top 2 per cent, but certainly we are in the top 3 per cent or 4 per cent.


Mitchell William Sharp: We're in the top ten.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) says "the top ten." I question his figure, but I am prepared to accept it. If we are already in the top 10 per cent, we have no right to be improving our economic position at this time. I am not concerned about the relationship between what I earn and what is earned by others receiving as much or more. I am concerned about the 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Canadian people who earn less than I, particularly the 40 per cent or 50 per cent who earn a great deal less than those who make up this House of Commons and the other place. For us at this time, when there is so much need and distress in the country, to be improving a position which is already very good, in my view is not the mark of responsible statesmanship and I hope we will give some more thought to it.
I want also to say that I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) are right when they complain about the inequalities in our society and in our world. One of the best statements about world inequality yet made was made a few weeks ago overseas by the Prime Minister. One of the best statements on the evils of inequality in our Canadian society was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Toronto last fall, and he made another good speech a few days ago in Toronto on the necessity of our doing something about poverty in this country. That is what I came to parliament for, more than three decades ago. It has been the concern of my life to minimize the inequalities, to move in the direction of an egalitarian society, and I think for those who are in the privileged position we are in to use that privileged position to worsen the inequalities in our own favour is not the mark of responsible statesmen. Therefore, I hope we will think a little longer about this matter.
I confess that I take some pride in the fact that this bill has been around for a long time, that it has been delayed several months. It was brought in last December and the hope then was to have it through before Christmas. Here we are, almost into the month of May, and it is not through yet, and those of us who have caused the delay have done a service. The result is that in the intervening time some thinking has been done. Even the point of order I raised last week, on which Mr. Speaker ruled favourably, has had one substantial effect. The amendment to the bill regarding the commission which was before us last week when Mr. Speaker ruled three amendments out of order and to which the hon. member for York-Scarborough has referred was set up in such a way that once the commis-

sion reported to the cabinet in future parliaments, the cabinet could put increases into effect by order in council.
I found it offensive beyond understanding that this House would consider giving to the cabinet in future parliaments the right to make increases in the indemnities and allowances of members of parliament. Thanks to the ruling made from the Chair last week, there have been a few days to think it over. The amendment put in today in the name of the President of the Privy Council still includes commissions to be set up after each general election, but there has been withdrawn from it-and I commend the government for this-the right of the government to put the recommendations of such a commission into effect by order in council.
If there have been several changes since last December, and if there has been this further change since a week ago tomorrow, I suggest that a little more time might cause the members of the government and the members of this House to give a little more serious thought to the enormity of what we are doing. I have in mind the fact that we are in the very top income earning bracket of the people in this country and this separates us, as the elite, from the people we are supposed to represent. In my view, we should not be doing it at all.
The several amendments now before the House, both those that were on the order paper and those moved on the floor, deal with several things. I can see the voting getting a bit complicated when the time comes, because all those things have been put together, the question of the amount of the indemnities-is it to be $24,000 or is it to be $22,500 as proposed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling)? I understand the reason he arrived at that figure is that it would represent a 25 per cent increase over what the pay is at the present time.
Then the question of the effective date is involved. Is it to be retroactive to last July 8, the day of the election, is it to be retroactive to January 1, 1975, or is it to come into effect on July 1, 1975? The various votes will have to deal with these various issues.
Then there will be the question of the commission. I am glad the President of the Privy Council has dropped the impossible idea in permitting increases in future parliaments to be brought in by order in council. But now from the hon. member for York-Scarborough we have a real improvement in the idea of a commission. The commission in motion No. 4 is simply a commission appointed after each election to consider an increase in the pay for that immediate parliament. But the proposal of the hon. member for York-Scarborough is that we set up a much more independent commission with authority to review the whole matter of what happens to members of parliament and to make recommendations which could only be put into effect for the succeeding parliament. I think he is to be commended for the proposal, and his amendment will certainly have my support.
The other thing that is done in this batch of motions and votes now before us, concerning which I intend to move an amendment, is something that I regard as a piece of gross dishonesty. I refer to the 7 per cent compounding escalation that is provided in motion No. 4 moved by the Presi-
April 29, 1975

dent of the Privy Council. That 7 per cent does not sound very bad when you say it fast. I want to say a couple of ' things about it, but I had better get to the reason I am calling this a piece of dishonesty.
When the proposal was made for an across the board 50 per cent increase last December, I think it is a truism to say there was a howl about it in the country. We vocalized some of that howl here on the floor of this House and the government, within a matter of days, recognized that and said, "All right, we will come down. We will come down from a 50 per cent increase to a 33V& per cent increase". The country was given the impression that members of parliament had pulled in their horns and were willing to settle for 33 'A per cent instead of 50 per cent.
If it had stopped there, perhaps one could commend it. But when you add an escalation in January, 1976, another one in 1977 and another one in 1978 of 7 per cent on the salary and allowances that were in effect the immediately preceding December, you produce a compounding effect. The result is that by 1978 the increase will be 63 per cent over what we are now receiving. So it is not just 7 per cent simple addition; it is 7 per cent compounded. If you take the 33Vs per cent and compound it by 7 per cent, by 1978 the increase will be 63 per cent over what we are now receiving.
This is the reason I respond so warmly to the amendment of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. Under the present bill the 7 per cent compounded goes right on. We do not need to raise the issue again. By 1982, presumably the time of the election after the next one, the increase will be 113 per cent. Members vote the 33 Vi per cent and then tell the country what fine people we are, settling for that instead of 50 per cent. But we add on 7 per cent compounded, so that by the time of the next election it is up to 63 per cent, and by 1982 it is up to 113 per cent.
This is completely indefensible, Mr. Speaker. I am quite prepared to agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming, all of those ideas do not tally exactly with mine, that salaries, accommodation and all the rest for members of parliament needs to be reviewed; but surely we should not act before a review in a way that would provide these increases that become so outlandish as the years go on. Of course, 7 per cent sounds simple, but once you get our pay up to 100 per cent of what it was, then a 7 per cent increase of that amount is really 14 per cent of the base you started from. I really think the House should slow down, Mr. Speaker, and give further consideration to this whole matter.
I said a few moments ago that within a few weeks the Minister of Finance is going to be bringing down a budget. My hon. friend from Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) asked, and so do I, what right we have, in anticipation of a budget that is going to talk about restraint, to act now? Maybe what is being proposed will be within any restraints proposed by the Minister of Finance. I doubt that, but it could be. If that is the case, why can we not wait? We are going to look awfully greedy, as members of parliament, when the minister brings down that budget proposing restraints, if the people of the country can ask how the Minister of Finance can propose restraints which are so much more severe than members of parliament
Members' Salaries
accepted when they passed their pay bill at the end of April or the beginning of May.
There are other amendments on the order paper and I will have a chance later to say something about expense allowances under motions Nos. 5 and 6. I shall also have something to say about giving more money to the Senate under one of those motions, and about the effective date. So perhaps I have said enough at this stage of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That motion No. 4 be amended by deleting therefrom the proposed new subsections (3), (4) and (5).
The effect of this amendment would be to leave the salary at the $24,000 figure or, if my friend's amendment carries, at $22,500 for the balance of this parliament. We would wipe out the dishonesty of saying we are giving ourselves only a 33 Vs per cent increase and then letting it go up to 63 per cent at the end of this parliament. We would conform to the suggestion of the hon. member for York-Scarborough that this sort of thing should not happen and that there should be a commission to review it for future parliaments.
I suggest very strongly that a combination of these amendments would make this parliament look a lot more responsible than it has thus far. If my amendment can be adopted, accepting whatever salary we decide on for the balance of this parliament and providing for no escalation until it has been reviewed, and then if we can pass the amendment of the hon. member for York-Scarborough and get a commission to review the matter on an independent basis with a view to making changes for the next parliament, I think the position of this institution would be much more responsible that it now is. We might get back some of the credibility that we are losing because of the demands that we seem to be making on the public treasury because of our privileged position.
I hope, therefore, that the House will consider seriously the amendment which I have proposed, namely, that motion No. 4 be amended by deleting therefrom the proposed new subsections (3), (4) and (5).


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Before putting the amendment, I remind hon. members, as I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows, that it is irregular to have two amendments to a motion. However, I believe the Chair bears some responsibility for the situation. We are following a somewhat complicated procedure involving a number of motions and deferred divisions.
In order to carry out what was suggested earlier by the Chair, the second amendment will be put. The question is on the amendment to motion No. 4 proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Members' Salaries


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred. The question is on motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The question now is on motion No. 4.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not necessary for Your Honour to put first the questions on the two amendments, the one moved by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) and the one moved by myself? Should not the question for the vote on motion No. 4 be called after we find out how the votes will go on the amendments?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The main motion will be called and then the two amendments to the main motion in the order of presentation to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is there not a simple rule of procedure which says that if there is a motion and an amendment before the House, the amendment must be voted on first? I think you will find that not many in the House will argue about that. Surely the amendment must be voted on first. There are two amendments. I submit that the votes on those should be taken first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The first amendment to motion No. 4 is the amendment in the name of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). The question is on the amendment to motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed to the said amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the amendment to proposed motion No. 4 stands deferred.
The question is on the second amendment to motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. All those in favour of the amendment to the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.
After the ringing of the bells:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 75(11), the House has considered and disposed of motion No. 1, has deferred divisions on motions Nos. 2 and 3, and on two amendments to motion No. 4. I therefore propose to call the division on motion No. 2.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the votes on motions Nos. 2 and 3 were deferred. Motion No. 4 had two amendments put to it and it was the votes on those amendments that were to be taken now. I make the point that those votes were called for before five o'clock. We are now in private members' hour, and I do not think it would be proper to take votes on motions 2 and 3 in the private members' hour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless, of course, there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to use any more time than is necessary, but the rule leaves it open to either interpretation. I might refer to the rule specifically. Standing Order 75(11) provides:
When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed during the report stage of a bill, Mr. Speaker may defer the calling in of the members for the purpose of recording the "yeas" and "nays" until any or all subsequent amendments proposed to that bill have been considered. A recorded division or divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.
So it is obvious that we can proceed with this division, having deferred discussion on some or all of the amendments. Simply for the purpose of neatness, it seems to me that at this point, since we have called in the members, we should now dispose of everything that is outstanding.
April 29, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the point made by the hon. member that we return to private members' hour immediately upon conclusion of the taking of the divisions.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is now on motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is on the amendment to motion No. 4.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The vote of the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) was not counted. I understand that he stood in error. Perhaps it would be best if he refrained from voting on the other side of the question.
I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the amendment to motion No. 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Presumably when the House resumes consideration of regular business at eight o'clock it will be on consideration of motion No. 4 standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).

April 29, 1975
Sir John A. Macdonald Day



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. 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 adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)- Finance-Request for increase in employment in agriculture exemption; the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae)-Environmental Affairs-Asbestos fibre count of water in Great Lakes-Request that International Joint Commission conduct independent study; the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt)-National Defence- Agriculture-Request government not make change in grades of beef purchased for armed forces.
It being after 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, on a point of order, I think there might be agreement to take Bill C-240 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed, and is it in order, that the House shall move, without prejudice to the standing of other bills, at this hour directly to the consideration of Bill C-240 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: that Bill C-240, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have lost some time for private members' hour, but I could say that it was for a good cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: For many years I have been
endeavouring to direct the attention of this House to the great need in this country for sharpening the awareness of Canadian people and parliamentarians of the great men and great moments in our historic past. I have had some losses and gained some victories.

The beautiful house of Sir Robert Borden was destroyed, we still do not possess the historic home of Sir John A. Macdonald, and I have just heard from the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) that the fine residence of the great and distinguished former prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, is now for sale. I wonder when we will ever learn to stop despoiling historic sites and begin to appreciate some of the great men of our past.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Where's Heritage Canada?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As a great admirer of Sir John A. Macdonald I agree with him on the importance of compromise, and while I have tried for 12 years to have a Sir John A. Macdonald holiday brought about and never quite succeeded, if I understand the intent of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, one of the days listed as Heritage Day will be designated Sir John A. Macdonald Day, and that will be a great satisfaction. I think if Sir John A. were here he would say that you gather in what you can and make the most of it. So I am satisfied with that, and I pay tribute to the men and women in the committee who worked so well.
I also want to pay tribute to those who, through several parliaments, have tried to develop a better and richer appreciation of our history. The work of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), who was the first to introduce a private members' bill to have the likenesses of our prime ministers appear on paper money, has now been realized. Sir Wilfrid Laurier appears on $5 bills and Sir John A. Macdonald on $10 bills. I am told by those who have them that Mackenzie King appears on the $50, and the $100 bills will soon see the likeness of Sir Robert Borden. Some day I may be able to see one of those as well.
It is my hope that the spirit of co-operation will carry through, that this idea will be enforced, and that I will have the privilege of seeing a further spirit of compromise and ask, after all those who wish to speak have spoken, that this bill be withdrawn and the sentiment find its expression in Heritage Day.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my good friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), and thank him for his courtesy in mentioning that it was a private member's bill of mine that suggested putting the likeness of former prime ministers on our currency. I am glad that has come about.
The hon. member is to be congratulated for continually bringing forth this matter of having a day to honour our first prime minister. Although it is a little disappointing for him that the committee did not decide to have a Sir John A. Macdonald Day every year, I am glad that he is at least partially satisfied that Heritage Day will honour Sir John A. on at least one occasion, and perhaps on other occasions in the future. It is good to have things Canadian, and it is good to honour our past. Suggestions, such as the one made by the hon. member for Hillsborough, make us appreciate our past, and help us with respect to the feeling for citizenship in Canada.
There are many other things that we can honour. Although the hon. member would undoubtedly have liked
April 29, 1975

to have a specific day every year for Sir John A. Macdonald Day, this gives us an opportunity through Heritage Day to honour many people and things in Canadian history. I understand that in one year Heritage Day will honour the Canadian flag, which is something that should be close to the hearts of all Canadians.
This desire that many of us have to honour things Canadian calls to mind another matter which is coming before this House very soon concerning the oath of allegiance to Canada. This matter has come up in the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts a number of times concerning matters of citizenship. We have asked for an oath of allegiance that would include our great country in the words, and that other things we hold dear be included as well. This has not been forthcoming, however. As a matter of fact the departmental officials concerned with this matter in the last seven years have chosen to ignore the wishes of many of us in this House, and the wishes of the committee, which specifically asked for an oath that would do more for Canadians and Canada.
Of course, we will be able to discuss this again in committee but I think it well to bring to the attention of hon. members that, unless we are on top of it, it will go through again in exactly the same form as before. The oath of allegiance makes absolutely no mention of our country, our flag, our constitution, the Bill of Rights, or anything that is strictly Canadian. I think it is high time we did something about that, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough. I would suggest that his offer to withdraw his bill in favour of the Heritage Day bill should be accepted by the House before we call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in 30 seconds, and I mean every word of it, I congratulate the hon. member for having brought in this bill. Certainly he did not get it in the way he put it in, but I commend him for accepting the compromise so that in some way we will be honouring Sir John A. Macdonald and, not just by the 12 minutes we are giving him now.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be speaking right through until six o'clock. I was asked if I would care to participate in this debate when we expected it to last considerably longer. I accepted with alacrity for two reasons, one being that Sir John A. Macdonald was born on January 11, 1815, and I was born on January 11, some time later. We share a common birthday, but I must say to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that January 11 is a pretty poor day to have a birthday. It comes after Christmas when the gifts are all gone, it is one of the coldest days of the year, and this has kept us from celebrating Sir John A.'s birthday in fitting style.
During one low period in his life when he was defeated in Kingston, Ontario, thus blotting what was an otherwise unblemished escutcheon in that era, he came to the constituency which I represent, and in 1878 won a landslide victory with a majority of 358 votes. It is probably the only riding he represented where you can celebrate his birthday in decent weather.
Members' Salaries
I had a long speech prepared, Mr. Speaker, but the exigencies of time have caught up with me. I should like to commend the hon. member for Hillsborough, given the date he was given for Sir John A.'s birthday, for doing the best he could with it, and now bowing to reason. I am pleased that Sir John A.'s birthday will be remembered as part of Heritage Day.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The abbreviated hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and as reprinted in accordance with Mr. Speaker's decision of Wednesday, April 23, 1975.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The House is considering motion No. 4.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, let me make it clear at the outset that I honestly and sincerely felt ever since the introduction of Bill C-44 that I could not support it in any form. I have taken time to study the bill and the amendments as objectively as possible. I am sure all members of the House are fully aware of the economic conditions we face in this country. If members are not aware, it is darned well time they found out about unemployment and how it is affecting some parts of the country, particularly the region from which I come.
Day by day the evidence becomes clearer. Last fall the government indicated that among its goals, was, inter alia, that of government restraint in spending. I suggest strongly that this restraint should apply to members of parliament as well as to members of the public generally. Members of parliament should set an example by restraint. The

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
history of this bill, its introduction, and the manner in which it has been proceeded with through its various stages, reminds one of a tiger. Well, we still have that tiger by the tail. Maybe parliamentarians deserve a salary increase-maybe. But I suggest to you that from the beginning, the wrong road was followed, the wrong path taken. An independent body should have been set up long ago to consider salaries and allowances to which parliamentarians ought to be entitled.
The odd thing about this bill is that possibly parliament has spent more time considering this matter in the present session, since September 30 last, than it has spent considering most other important pieces of legislation which come before the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not so.


Leonard C. Jones: Where are our priorities? I detect just a bit of selfishness on the part of parliamentarians-just a bit. I don't like it, and citizens generally do not like it.
Furthermore, parliamentarians should realize-I suppose they all know this now-that if this bill becomes law they will move into a higher tax bracket, and a good portion of that so-called increase will be retained by the government, or returned to treasury coffers, to be spent and wasted by the government in some other form. That rule applies to members just as it applies to ordinary taxpayers and wage earners.
Being a member from the Atlantic provinces I find it difficult to understand why the government adopts a policy of regional disparity in its payment of wages for federal government employees across this country but does not adopt that policy with members. The government has presented a bill providing for increased salaries and allowances; the bill practises regional disparity in reverse. Actually, earlier today a maritime member asked a question on this same point.


An hon. Member:: That was the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).


Leonard C. Jones: I am told the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked the question. In all good conscience I cannot support a pay increase in any way. I look at the attitude adopted-


An hon. Member:: Don't take it.


Leonard C. Jones: Stand up when your turn comes, sir. I might inform the hon. member that my income tax is greater than the salary I am paid in this place.


An hon. Member:: But you are an Independent.


Leonard C. Jones: If the hon. member wants my job and wants to run as an Independent, he is welcome.
The evidence is clear. In a democracy it is incumbent on a government to consider others. Consider, for example, the attitude toward those on fixed incomes. I am talking about people like CNR employees in the Atlantic region and other regions of Canada, and other pensioners. They, generally, are also looking for benefits. I must be guided by the collective majority conscience of the constituents of Moncton. They do not favour a pay increase for parliamen-

tarians at this time. I suggest that all members of parliament should, in all conscience, be guided in the same manner.
Members were elected to this House on July 8 last. At that time, or even before then, they ought to have known what the salary, allowances, and other benefits would be. This bill has created, yes, and increased cynicism and distrust. There is increasing disrespect on the part of the public and the citizenry for parliament. I think this House would be well advised to give this bill a complete hoist. Let us establish an independent body now to consider this matter, and let us get on with the important business facing this country. Let us set an example with our restraint, and show a sense of stability at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 4. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider together motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). First we will take motion No. 5.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), seconded by Mr. Peters moves:
That Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended in sub-clause (1) of Clause 4(a) by deleting from lines 45 and 46 on page 4 the words "five thousand three hundred dollars'' and by substituting therefor the words "two thousand dollars"; and (b) by deleting from lines 14 and 15 on page 5 the words "ten thousand six hundred dollars" and by substituting therefor the words "eight thousand dollars".
Next I will put motion No. 6.
Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended by deleting sub-clause (1) from Clause 4 being lines 41 to 48 at page 4 and lines 1 to 18 at page 5 of the Bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, these two motions, Nos. 5 and 6, are being debated at one time as directed by the Chair. Both relate to the question of the tax free expense allowances provided to members of the Senate and the House of Commons.
April 29, 1975

As we have indicated many times, whatever argument there might be for an increase in the indemnities of members of parliament, we see no case whatsoever for an increase at this time in the expense allowances of the members of either of the two Houses. When arguments are made for an increase in what is called our salary, it is put forward that there have been increases in the cost of living for members of parliament as there have been increases in the cost of living for others. It is on that basis that that case is made. I do not agree with it, as I hope I have made very clear, and most of us in this party feel very strongly that whatever arguments might be made with respect to the indemnity, those arguments do not apply to our tax free expense allowance.
My leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), and others in this party have pointed out that since the expense allowance was last fixed at its present amount, which is $8,000 for members of this House and $4,000 for members of the other place, a great many things have been added to the list of those things that enable members of parliament to do their work, and which are paid for out of the public treasury. I wish to remind hon. members of a few of those things.
It used to be that the amount of printing we could get done free of charge was very little. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out this afternoon in another debate that there was a time when there were a number of mimeograph machines in various corridors in this building. Members joined together to purchase those machines to do some of the printing they wanted in order to send material to their constituents. The quantities of printing we can now get done free are voluminous.
The provisions regarding free mailing have been enlarged so that we are entitled to send to our constituents, free of charge, four household mailings a year. This means four times a year every member of this House can get a piece of printing done free, in the thousands, and the nature of that printing seems to be getting more and more elaborate as time goes on, and have it sent to the entire constituency free of charge.
Our telephone facilities have been increased. I am not complaining about these things, I am just pointing out that these are things that are now being paid for that were not paid for when the expense allowance was fixed at $8,000 a year. We can telephone to almost anywhere in Canada; anywhere there is a seven digit telephone number. We also have certain facilities for telephoning to Ottawa when we are in our constituencies or in a number of other cities in this country.
Our travel arrangements have been greatly enlarged. If members opposite think that by chatting and cat-calling they are deterring me, I assure them they do the opposite. They encourage me to keep going. I was talking about the increase in travel. I hear members complaining about there not being enough in some cases. I remind hon. members that when I first came to this place we had railway passes that entitled us to travel on any railway train in Canada, anywhere at any time. However, we had to pay our other expenses such as berth and meals on all trips that we took, except for two round trips a year. That was the situation. We got our berth and meals twice a year from the constituency to Ottawa.
Members' Salaries
An hon. member says we were not here all the time. Others say that as a result of that we were here all the time. Members should make up their minds. I am not complaining about progress. However, I suggest that members who have had so many improvements in their travel arrangements that now we can have 52 air tickets a year, either to use between Ottawa and the constituency, or to use ten of those for trips anywhere in Canada, or six of those trips for one's spouse-


An hon. Member:: What if you have two spouses?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are no provisions for two spouses, and not for 52 spouses either. The hon. members can carry on with interruptions. However, the point I am making is that there have been these tremendous improvements in the facilities that are made available to members and that are paid for out of the public treasury.
There are improved facilities in our offices. There was a time when in most cases two members shared one secretary. After a while it was one secretary per member. Now there are two per member, and in many cases there are three.
There has recently been added the provision for up to $6,000 for rental space for a constituency office, and money toward the salary for a person working in that office. These things are all good. They enable members to do their job better than used to be the case. I submit that because we have these more frequent contacts and these means of communication, we are able to do a better job than was done 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I suggest it also means we work a lot harder. I do not need to argue that point in this place. Everybody agrees we work hard. However, these things having been provided for us out of the public treasury, we do not feel that at this time we should be increasing the tax free expense allowance which in effect is part of our income.
I also make the point that in the public eye the idea of tax freedom for an amount of money for which we do not have to submit vouchers or make an accounting, is a form of discrimination in our favour and against the general public.
I remember when this tax free allowance idea was first brought in by that master craftsman, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, back in 1945. At that time the total income of members of parliament was $4,000 a session. There was pressure on Mr. King and the cabinet of that day by the backbenchers for an increase. One can understand that. It goes on all the time. The increase that was sought was rather substantial. Mr. King did not like the idea of meeting the demand for a substantial increase so he came up with a clever notion that if the increase were only $2,000 instead of a larger sum, but were made tax free, it would mean more to the members than if it were a larger sum and would have the advantage of sounding less offensive to the public.
Originally this tax free allowance was proposed for members of the House of Commons only, but there was a hue and cry in the other place about it and Their Honours let it be known that they would not pass the bill if it

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
contained provision for a $2,000 allowance for members of this House and nothing at all for those in the other place. Mr. King's solution was to redraft the bill so that it provided $2,000 for members of the House of Commons tax free, and a $2,000 expense allowance for Senators and for cabinet ministers, this amount to be taxable in their case. It solved the problem for the moment. It got the bill through both Houses. It secured what then seemed to be a substantial total increase for members of parliament. But it was one of those clever solutions to a problem of the moment which has left us bedevilled ever since with this concept of a tax free, unaccountable allowance to members of parliament.
The only time this was ever considered thoroughly was during the sittings of the Beaupre Commission and, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) said this afternoon, that commission said in its report that the time had come to get away from the tax free allowance idea. Of course the higher the amount goes the more difficult it is to get rid of it because, if it is to be replaced by an indemnity which would be worth as much, it would mean adding a larger and larger indemnity. I submit that the hon. member for York-Scarborough was right, and that the Beaupre Commission was right, and that some day the clever idea which Mr. King adopted in order to solve the problem of 1945 should be corrected. At least we should not make the situation any worse.
Some of us think the tax free element should be removed, even if in order to do so it is necessary to increase the indemnity. But if this course is not to be followed, the least we should do is leave the allowance where it is. That is the position that is taken by most, if not all, members of this party, and these two motions, Nos. 5 and 6, deal with this aspect of the matter.
When we were considering motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 this afternoon the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) quite properly commented on the tax free allowance aspect because in motion 4 there is a provision which refers to the tax free allowance and says it is to be escalated by the same 7 per cent as the indemnity We are now at the substantial part of the bill as far as the tax free allowance is concerned-the clause which provides for the allowance. At the moment it is $8,000 a year for members of this House and $4,000 a year for members of the other place. We think it ought to stay where it is, that there should be no increase at all. That would be the effect of motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. That motion, if carried, would rule out any increase in the tax free allowance and leave things exactly where they are now.
The reason we have put down two motions, No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, and No. 5 in my own name, is to give members two choices. If they do not like the idea of leaving the allowances exactly as they are, or if, on the other hand, they want to have something to say about the position of the senators, or if they want to have something to say about the justifiable claim of those who represent northern constituencies, my motion gives them a chance to express their views.
My motion differs slightly from that of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby in that it would leave the $8,000 expense allowance for members of parliament generally

right where it is; it would accept the increase in the expense allowance provided in the bill for those who represent the northern constituencies-the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and a number of others; I doubt whether anyone would argue that the members concerned are not entitled to an increase. That is the second thing my motion does.
The other thing my motion does is to alter the amount of the allowance to be paid to members of the other place. There is a notion around that I do not approve of the Senate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who said that?


Mitchell William Sharp: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear a question about that coming from the Tory benches, but what is my friend doing over there? I accept the charge. I think parliament would be far better off without the other place. I contend that the Senate ought to be abolished.


William Arnold Peters: It would save some money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) says that would save some money. Yes, it would. And it would obviate a lot of other difficulties around here. Well, since I say the Senate should be abolished I suppose that when I move an amendment touching the incomes of the senators I could move to reduce them to one dollar. I believe I have some takers. I even went down the list of cabinet ministers who are getting $20,000 with the idea that I might pick out some of my favourite targets and move to reduce their salaries to one dollar. But it is now too late to do that; the amendments had to be in by last night.
Seriously, though, whatever comments we may wish to make or whatever fun we may have, there is no case whatever for increasing the total income of senators. At the moment they receive $18,000 by way of salary and $4,000 by way of expense allowance for a total of $22,000. Under the bill before us that $18,000 will become $24,000, and their expense allowances will go up to $5,300, making a total of $29,300. Can anyone in this House tell me there is any reason at all why senators who are now receiving a total of $22,000 should receive a raise, effective last July, which would bring them to $29,300? In my view they should not get one cent of a raise.
It was difficult to draft an amendment which would cut senators' salaries to a figure less than our own. However, on the clause we are now considering, under motion No. 6 we can cut the amount of their allowance, and that is what I am proposing to do. I am proposing that instead of their tax free allowance being raised from $4,000 to $5,300, it should be reduced to $2,000.
My friends over in the Senate will be impressed by my generosity. The result of this would be that they would get an increase. They are now getting $18,000 salary plus $4,000 allowances, for a total of $22,000. Under my proposal they will get $24,000 salary and $2,000 expense allowance, for a total of $26,000. All I really have to say about that is that it is too much, but at least I am not suggesting
April 29, 1975

something so far out, outlandish and penurious that I could not expect any support for it. I have arrived at this figure on a responsible basis. I swallow my notion that they should not get anything at all; I am prepared to give them that much of an increase, so that they will receive $24,000 salary and a $2,000 expense allowance. But $24,000 salary and a $5,300 expense allowance is just unthinkable.
Let us remember, Madam Speaker, that a great number of Their Honours in the other place have other incomes. The number of presidents, vice-presidents, and directors of corporations in the other place is rather lengthy. They have incomes of other kinds, and the kind of money that really means something to them is money that is tax free. The salaries they receive in many cases result in their having to pay quite a bit in income tax; the money that they like is the tax free allowance, and I think it is at that point that we should make this difference. That is the intent of my motion.
We should now start moving in the other direction, looking toward the elimination of the tax free expense allowance. In our own case we could leave it where it is at $8,000, with the thought that perhaps another Beaupre will come along and recommend to us that we reduce it next time; and we should start the reduction process right now as far as Their Honours in the other place are concerned and put the expense allowance back to the $2,000 figure, which is what it was when it was first introduced in 1945 under the direction of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
We are terribly aware of what goes on and of what does not go on in the other place. This is not the occasion to debate the question of abolishing the Senate, but I think it is worth noting, as some writers have pointed out, that it is largely the centre of Liberal party organizational activity. It seems to be a rule to have over there, with a salary and all that goes with it, the persons who head up the organization of the Liberal party. I think it is enough that they have offices, and staff, and the money they receive, without our giving them still more money. The Conservatives do not have sufficient members over there to set up any organizational activity, so they can be pure in this House on that issue, and I hope they will be. But, as I say, to provide at this time for increases in the total income of Their Honours in the other place is unthinkable.
If I had taken the position that I want an increase but I am not prepared to give one to them, then, of course, certain criticisms could be directed at me. But, as you know, Madam Speaker, I feel that this whole bill has been brought in at the wrong time. I do not just mean that it might be better to introduce it a month from now or to have introduced it six months ago; I mean that in these days of economic trouble in this country, a time when so many of our people are in need, it shows the most abject lack of leadership I have ever seen around this place for us to take this action of raising our own incomes beyond any limits that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) can possibly have in mind when he brings down his budget at the end of May.
I regard this whole bill as offensive. I regard the whole bill as something to which the members of this House should have what it takes to say no. But if hon. members have not reached that point yet, we should at least say no
Members' Salaries
to any increase in our expense allowance, and we should say an absolute no to any increase at all in the expense allowance of Their Honours in the other place. Instead we should say it is time for their expense allowance to be reduced, and this is what my motion does. It lets members for northern ridings get the increase set out in the bill; it provides that our allowances generally stay at $8,000; and it provides that allowances for the Senators be reduced to $2,000 a year.
If members are not prepared to go for this adjustment set out in my motion, then I hope they will go for the proposal set out in the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, namely, that there be no changes whatsoever at this time in the amount of these expense allowances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 6?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended by deleting clause 7 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. This Act shall come into force on July 1, 1975."

April 29, 1975
Members' Salaries
He said: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am to put motion No. 8 also.


Stan Darling: That Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be amended by deleting Clause 7 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day
of January, 1975."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, although my motion comes ahead of the one moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), perhaps he might be permitted to speak first and I would be happy to follow.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I hope this evening in respect of motion No. 8 standing in my name, on which I had some difficulty in getting a seconder, hon. members will give serious thought. I have put forward various ideas and have spoken on a number of occasions, both in the committee and here, about this proposed increase. It would certainly seem that hon. members will receive an increase of 33 Mi per cent when this bill receives third reading.
This bill in its present state will make this increase retroactive to July 8, 1974. This is something with which I take great exception. I have said that a pay raise is in order, but the idea of picking the pockets of the taxpayers retroactively for nine or ten months does not sit well with me. I have said this before. When I spoke in committee I said I would be perfectly agreeable to a pay increase that was effective when the bill received Royal Assent, but I expressed doubt that the House would go along with that.
In all fairness, and in all humility, members of parliament should at least say to themselves that they have the pay increase and the least they can do is make it effective on January 1 of this year rather than retroactively to July 8 of last year. This bill did not come in until December. There might be some rhyme or reason for making the effective date January 1 of this year, but if the bill is made retroactive for six months it will cost the taxpayers another $1,480,000 to be distributed among members of this House and the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Some hon. members applaud, but to me this is absolutely unconscienable. If the bill makes the increase retroactive for the entire nine months, this will amount to an extra $2,600,000 in back pay for members of parliament. I can see a lot of them with their eyes lit up. I suppose they have most of it spent already.
I hope members will say that, now they are sure of a pay increase they should not be greedy, and make the increase effective only to January 1 of this year. I would go along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in making it effective on July 1, 1975. If his motion happens to carry, I would agree with it. If it does not carry I hope hon. members will seriously consider
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
January 1 of this year as the effective date, leaving about $1,480,000 in the treasury to be spent for some needy purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has just pointed out, it is extremely hard to make a case for the size of the increase being voted.


An hon. Member:: We hear again from Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, there does seem to be something in the name of Stanley. It is even more difficult to make a case for making that pay increase retroactive to July 8, 1974, the date of the last election. I hope even at this stage the House will re-think this question and support one or other of these proposals either that the effective date be January 1, 1975, or, in my view, preferably July 1, 1975.
The fact still remains that when we ran in the election campaign in May and June of last year we knew what the salary was going to be if we were elected on July 8. I think it is unconscienable on our part to try to make this increase retroactive to that date. The same thing applies to all other items in this bill including the salaries of cabinet ministers, the Speakers of both houses, the parliamentary secretaries, and all the rest who are covered by this bill.
The least this House should do on this occasion is make these changes effective either January 1 or July 1 of this year. If I may put in another plug for July 1 as preferable to January 1, let me remind the House again that in a few weeks the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will be bringing down a budget, and indications are that the budget will relate to the problems of our time and the need for restraint. This House is going to look pretty ridiculous a month from now when talking about restraints that are more severe than we were prepared to exercise for ourselves.
Members of the House may think they will get away with this because it will be an accomplished fact, but the public will be terribly aware of what has happened. I suggest the Minister of Finance and other members of the cabinet will have real trouble in trying to get co-operation for any program of restraint in view of the complete failure to exercise any restraint so far as members of parliament are concerned.
I suppose we are just about at the end of the report stage. There does not seem to be many members around who want to speak to these motions. No one today has spoken for Bill C-44. I am surprised the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has had nothing to say today. Motion No. 4 was his, and the guts of the bill are in that motion. He allowed it to be put in his name, and has not said a word.
I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has been able to sit out this whole debate. He did not take part in the debate in December or in April. Is that leadership? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken no part in this debate either. My heavens, leadership just does not exist on this particular issue. There is one more day, tomorrow or whenever, when the government
April 29, 1975

At the moment we are dealing with the question of when this- increase is to come into effect. Hon. members seem to have decided by votes on other amendments that they want this massive increase, that they want this 7 per cent compounded annually until we get up into the stratosphere-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope, Madam Speaker, that Hansard has recorded the applause that members gave in that regard. Members are admitting without any shame, that they want this money. I hope they will yet have the decency to say they are prepared to wait, preferably until July 1 or, if not, that it should be effective January 1 of this year rather than last July 8. If they do not, then on third reading we will have to try again to get the matter put off for another six months.
I deplore the failure of members to debate this issue and to take it seriously. They think they can just sit and the money will fall into their laps. All I can say is that there is an old Spanish proverb I sometimes used years ago when I was in the pulpit. It goes like this: "Take what you want," said God; "take it and pay for it."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motion No. 8. All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now. proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions. Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
April 29, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 6, in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
The House divided on motion No. 6 (Mr. Broadbent), which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 40)
++YEAS
Division
Messrs.
Benjamin
Cossitt
Darling
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Abbott
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Allard
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres (Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton) Baldwin Bechard Begin (Miss)
Blackburn
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Cafik
Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Caouette
Messrs.
Hogan Howie Jones Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupras Duquet Ellis Epp Ethier Faulkner Flynn Forres tall Fortin Foster Fox Francis Fraser Gauthier (Roberval) Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier) Gendron Gilbert Gillespie Goodale Goyer Grafftey Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Haidasz
Peters
Rodriguez
Saltsman
Stanbury
Symes
Towers-14.
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Langlois Lapointe Laprise Lawrence Leblanc
(Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
Lumley
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
Pearsall	Roy	StewartPinard	(Laval)	(Cochrane)Portelance	Sauve (Mrs.)	TrudelPoulin	Schellenberger	TurnerReid	Schumacher	(London East)Reynolds	Scott	WagnerRitchie	Sharp	WatsonRoberts	Smith	WenmanRobinson	(Saint-Jean)	WhelanRoche	Stanfield	WiseRompkey	Stevens	WoolliamsRoy	Stewart	Yanakis(Timmins)	(Marquette)	Yewchuk-164.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 8 (Mr. Darling) negatived.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thai Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now!


Stanley Howard Knowles: No!


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House, then. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
e (2150)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the question that I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the other day about the exemption of $250 and 25 days for farm workers. I welcome the opportunity because I should like to explain the situation further; I do not really believe too many understood the question that I was asking.
Adjournment Debate
A farmer does not have to collect income tax from anyone who works for him who makes less than $250 or works less than 25 days. Nor does he have to make out a T-4 form for such worker. The reason I bring this matter to the House is that these regulations were made a few years ago, at a time when farm workers were paid between $10 and $15 a day. Today wages and piecework rates on the farm are much higher, and therefore I am requesting that this exemption be raised higher than the $250. I do not think 25 days makes that much difference because a worker on a farm can make $500 in 25 days quite easily now, especially if he is on piecework.
We realize that there can be abuses of any of these regulations and I do not really believe that anyone wants intentionally to abuse these regulations. Certainly the farm workers are upset about such a regulation. I say this because the worker comes to the farm, and when he gets close to earning $250 he wants to leave and go to another farm. What has happened, and what is happening, is that it is making these workers much more mobile. They are not staying long enough on a particular farm. In many instances, within five or six days they are coming close to $250 and they know there is a job down the road so why should they stay and have to pay income tax? In many instances the farmer is accommodating them, because why should he go through all this exercise of making out a T-4 form? So I am asking that this amount be raised to $600 and maybe the days to 30 days. I do not think the 25 days requirement is too critical.
I know from experience of this regulation, and because of the fact that some workers do not want to have to go through paying income tax, that when they do pay, when it is deducted at source, because their earnings are not that high they have to make out an income tax form, so they do things to make sure that they are not kept on. In some instances it could be picking apples; they know how to have themselves released by bruising or doing other things with the apples that are not really the way they should be handled.
We also realize that there is a shortage of seasonal farm workers today. We know that many people on welfare can and should be working at these seasonal jobs, but why should they go off welfare and go out and spend .25 days, or 20 days working and then have income tax deducted? They are not going to make enough wages or money during the year to have to pay income tax at any rate.
The same thing applies to UIC. We know that the people in the unemployment insurance offices are reluctant to say to a man who is on unemployment insurance, "You must stop getting unemployment insurance, go and work on the farm or do seasonal work, but when you come back the regulations say you cannot go back on again, you have to get enough days".
The whole thing is very confusing and it leads to not giving us a big enough work force for seasonal types of work. We should take way as many roadblocks as we can to get these workers on to the farms. We hear quite a lot
29557-61Vi

April 29, 1975
Adjournment Debate
today about production of food, so this is the reason why I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to consider raising this exemption to at least $600 and probably to 30 days.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am advised by the Department of National Revenue that this matter has been raised frequently over the past years, but usually in reference to the Canada Pension Plan and Unemployment Insurance Acts, both of which contain provisions exempting workers in the primary industries from coverage provided they earn less than $250 and work for less than 25 days with one employer.
However, what is being recommended tonight, in my view, would be most discriminatory in that it would be difficult to provide a certain segment of farm employees with an exemption of $600 for purposes of reporting on T-4 returns and at the same time to justify such exemption to employers of casual workers in other industries where deductions for CPP and unemployment insurance are required from their salaries or wages without exemptions of any kind.
Furthermore, the present policy for income tax purposes requires a reporting on T-4 returns of all amounts in excess of $250, or if tax, CPP or unemployment insurance is deducted, any amount paid as income from employment. Changing the reporting limits to the level suggested by the hon. member would result in a very substantial tax loss when applied to all workers. It is submitted that the limits would have to apply to all employees if the government is to avoid being accused of discrimination in applying the tax laws.
I made reference at the beginning to the fact that this advice came to me from the Department of National Revenue. Of course any representations made by the hon. member will be considered by the minister.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ASBESTOS FIBRE COUNT OF WATER IN GREAT LAKES-REQUEST THAT INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION CONDUCT INDEPENDENT STUDY
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss a question which I asked the acting minister of external affairs last week regarding the IJC and my hope that it will investigate more thoroughly the whole business of asbestos fibres in Lake Superior, particularly in the area of Thunder Bay.
There have been three distinct results concerning the number of fibres in Thunder Bay harbour and in the drinking water of South Ward, Thunder Bay. The Ontario Water Resources Commission recently did a test which showed .08 or 800,000 particles of asbestos fibres per litre; the Lakehead University did a similar test which showed 12 million to 15 million fibres per litre, about five times as great; and McMaster University did similar tests with results comparable to those produced by Lakehead University.
In 1973 the same Ontario Water Resources Commission had results of .08 or 800,000 particles per litre. Research in
(Mr Whittaker.)
1973 gave four sets of results which varied from .06 or 600,000 particles to 12 million particles per litre.
It is very important healthwise that we find out what the correct readings are because there is a great variation between the lowest reading of .06 or 600,000, to 12 million particles per litre, and this variation is very pertinent from a health point of view.
Concentrations of about 7 million or 8 million particles per litre are likely to be very injurious, and I think it is important that we obtain accurate results through the IJC, or the CCIW; that is, the Canadian Centre for Inland Water Studies.
Most of the testing done by the Ontario Water Resources Commission was conducted by the Ontario Research Council, a body funded both by private industry, including Public Steel, which owns the taconite plant which is dumping some tailings which contain asbestos into Lake Superior, and funded or supported by the Ontario government.
There are two types of asbestos fibres Amphilab and Chrisotile. Apparently the amphilab fibres are similar to those from taconite at Silver Harbour where asbestos is being dumped into Lake Superior. The amphilab type appears to be particularly dangerous. According to Lake-head University and McMaster University the results they are getting at Thunder Bay at this particular time are similar to the results which are being found at Duluth, and the city of Duluth has warned its householders not to drink the water.
There is strong evidence that asbestos fibre counts of the order that are appearing, according to Lakehead University and McMaster, can have very serious results including carcinogenic or cancerous effects. It is thought in Japan, for instance, that the high rate of stomach cancer may be due to the heavy ingestion of rice containing talc, which in turn contains asbestos.
I would ask the government to undertake three or four things. First it should carry out a real study to find out exactly what the situation is, and to find out what the fibre counts actually are. Asbestos fibre counts can vary depending on weather conditions, winds, tides and so on. I think we have to establish norms, and we have not done so to the extent that they have done this in the United States in their studies.
I have also asked the Canadian government, and do so again, to accept a certain responsibility because of our position in respect of inland lakes and the Great Lakes, and also because there is strong evidence that these fibres may be coming into the water from the taconite plant at Silver Harbour on the United States side. I would also ask the Canadian government to make a concerted effort, through the National Research Council, and I understand the IJC has done the same, to determine the possible effects, and to set out tolerable amounts of asbestos fibres in our waters.


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


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, first of all I
April 29, 1975

want to thank the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) for raising this important subject this evening. I can certainly understand his concern in view of the alarming reports that have appeared recently.
Officials of the Department of the Environment have been monitoring this situation carefully. The Canada Centre for Inland Waters has carried out water sampling and analyses in the Thunder Bay area specifically, and the Lake Superior area generally, in order to evaluate the possibility of trans-boundary movement of asbestos fibres in Lake Superior.
It has been found that the north shore of the western arm of the lake showed concentrated amounts of cum-mingtonite fibres associated with the mining operation at Silver Bay, Minnesota. However, at Thunder Bay, Ontario, no cummingtonite fibres were monitored. Chrysotile fibres, however, were found and these are normally associated with the natural processes involved in the weathering of rocks in the area. As well, the general circulation of the water in Lake Superior is a counterclockwise action, tending to carry any material from the Silver Bay mining operation towards Duluth, Minnesota, and the south side of the lake, rather than towards Thunder Bay on the Ontario side.
The variation of sample analyses mentioned by the hon. member is quite possible because the behaviour of suspensions of fine particles in water is such that wind agitation of the lake could re-suspend fibres which had settled to the bottom, and analytical results would thus vary depending on the wind and the weather, and this was mentioned by the hon. member.
The Department of the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment are continuing to carry out research with respect to asbestos fibres.
The Great Lakes Research Advisory Board which reported to the International Joint Commission will also continue to monitor the progress of ongoing research as it relates to the Great Lakes, report it to the commission, and recommend directions for future research.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AGRICULTURE-REQUEST GOVERNMENT NOT MAKE CHANGE IN GRADES OF BEEF PURCHASED FOR ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, on February 24 I asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) a question about the new tendering policy being followed when purchasing beef for use by the Canadian armed forces. This question is recorded at page 3499 of Hansard. At that time I asked the minister why the new tenders call for grades A1 and A2, since the previous tenders called for grades B1 and B2. This change in tendering is costing the taxpayers of Canada an additional $60 to $70 per carcass.
The minister replied to my question by saying:
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly examine with interest the impact of that policy and check with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, what were the department's requisitions.
I have yet to receive a reply from the Minister of Supply and Services. Since the new grading system has been
Adjournment Debate
adopted, absolute chaos has resulted in the cattle industry. First, the industry has been paid off with a price differential as high as 37 cents per pound on the same grade animal. Second, the buying public has been led to believe that they are purchasing better quality beef when buying grades A1 or A2. To the contrary, grades B1 and B2 carry a higher degree of marbling and finish.
The previous policy of the Department of Supply and Services had been to purchase grades B1 and B2. When these grades were in short supply, the department then purchased A1 and A2. This policy did a great deal to facilitate the feeding and processing industries in Canada by allowing a choice in grades, which helped to alleviate congestion in the processing plants across Canada.
I directed a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). At that time I asked the minister whether he would make a representation to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), and ask him to revert to the previous tendering policy in order to help not only the beef producers but consumers as well. The answer given by the minister, which can be found at page 3,500 of Hansard, was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that Canadian meats are always used when they are available, regardless of the department to which they are supplied.
When talking to members of the staff in the Department of Supply and Services they informed me that beef purchased for use by the Canadian armed forces in Europe is purchased from the United States government.
Questions are being asked, not only by myself, but by cattlemen in every province in Canada. First, why does the minister not know the formula for purchasing beef? Second, why does the Minister of Supply and Services not know the difference in cost between grade A and grade B beef? Third, why does the minister not know the amount of space available for cargo in the armed forces Boeing 707 jets used in their weekly flights to Lahr, Germany? The next question Canadian cattlemen would like answered is: why it is that after the astronomical losses which have been experienced by the beef industry during the last 18 months, the Minister of Agriculture does not know that Canadian servicemen are not eating Canadian beef?
In conclusion, I feel that my only hope now to obtain a satisfactory answer lies with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), who has promised me that an investigation by his department would be forthcoming.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, may I first say that the Canadian Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Canadian Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) are very interested in having the Canadian Armed Forces well fed.
By way of background information, the percentages of beef by grades raised in Canada in 1974 were as follows: grade A, 74 per cent; grade B, 3.7 per cent; grade C, 2.8 per cent; grade D, 17 per cent; grade E, 2.5 per cent. The figures since January 1, 1975, are not much different in that only 4 per cent of total beef killed in Canada for the period January 1 to March 15, 1975 was grade B beef.

April 29, 1975
Adjournment Debate
The Department of National Defence in its requisitions for beef supplies in Canada has in the past stipulated grade B beef, but that if grade B beef was not available, grade A would be supplied. Grade B beef has not been available in the large quantities required by the department, particularly from the smaller packing plants, and as a result most of the orders were filled by grade A beef.
Also, because the smaller packing plants could not supply grade B beef, only major plants such as Canada Packers tendered bids for contract which eliminated competition for bidding to a great extent.
In view of this situation it was decided, in consultation with the Department of Agriculture-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The coolers are full.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member's colleague wants an answer, Madam Speaker; hon. members had their chance to speak.
In view of this situation it was decided, in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to change the specification for beef purchased by the Department of National
Defence from grade B to grade A to increase competition by opening the door for smaller regional packing plants to participate in bidding for national defence beef contracts. However, this decision did not apply to all types of beef. Ground beef contracts are continuing to be specified as grade B beef, and veal as grade C.
The cost factor was considered prior to reaching a decision on the change of specification. The price differential between grade A and grade B beef averages 3 cents per pound which, on a carcass of 550 to 600 pounds, results in a total price difference of $16.50 to $18 per carcass.
In summary, the change of specification from grade B to grade A beef for only certain types of beef, was made to stimulate competition and to permit smaller regional packing houses to participate in bidding for National Defence contracts and also because the smaller packing plants did not supply grade B beef. Only the major plants such as Canada Packers tendered bids on contract, which eliminated competition for bidding to a great extent. The policy was changed to prevent this from happening.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Wednesday, April 30, 1975