1981-07-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 for which I ask the unanimous support of this House. Inasmuch as it appears this House is expected to adjourn soon, and noting that the parliamentary pages will leave the House of Commons in September after a year of service to this chamber, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That this House thank the pages for their outstanding service to the members;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: -express the hope that some of them will return at a future date as members of Parliament; provide each with copies of Hansard for the balance of this session of Parliament, and with a copy of today's Hansard autographed by Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Madam Speaker:: Since we are about to lose our pages, I suppose this motion is urgent and pressing. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I hope I will have the same good luck with my motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
VIA Rail is planning to cancel rail service on the Edmonton-Jasper-Vancouver run which is an essential part of the historic link in transcontinental service. Further, rail service to Drum-heller will be cancelled, and to Prince Rupert reduced. Since this would be an incomprehensible act economically damaging a trading area of one million people, and which represents a growth area second to none in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That the cabinet, under Section 64 of the National Transportation Act, direct VIA Rail to conduct public hearings before any reduction in present rail service is imposed on Edmonton, an act that would have the gravest repercussions on the attitude of northern Albertans maintaining a sense of national unity.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SERVICE IN NEW BRUNSWICK- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the cabinet is considering cancellation of the Atlantic Limited the only national passenger train service operating in south central New Brunswick; and whereas the ridership of the train has increased substantially in the very short time it has had to prove itself and despite the aged equipment it is required to use, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urge the government to press for an improved service and give the VIA operation a reasonable chance to fulfil its mandate before referring the matter to the CTC for an adjudication on a matter on which it ruled only two years ago.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 9, 1981


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that, including today's announcement by the Bank of Canada, Canadians have for the past eight months been forced to live with record high interest rates, for which the government admits there is no end in sight, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House urges the Prime Minister to call for the resignations of the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada who do nothihg to lower interest rates but continue to allow banks to increase their record profits while all Canadians suffer as a result.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that under the provisions of that horror story known as the National Energy Program, Canadians are subsidizing the automobile driver at the rate of over $400,000 per hour, and because the government's unrealistic and indeed ridiculous energy policy has put us in the ludicrous position of subsidizing American drivers to the tune of some $256 million per year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche):
That this House instructs the government to start telling the Canadian public the truth by describing the energy program for what it really is, that is, not NEP but NED, a program for national economic disaster.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: I rise on a matter of extreme urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to
move a motion which I urge all members to support. Whereas a prominent Montreal doctor has warned the government and the union that the postal strike could well mean the retardation or the permanently handicapping of children if blood samples do not get delivered to the laboratories; and whereas farms and businesses through loss of cash flow are on the verge of bankruptcy, and millions of people are being inconvenienced to the point that their whole future is being jeopardized; and whereas some 20,000 postal workers should not be allowed to paralyse the whole nation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House demands the Trudeau government assume its responsibilities to the nation by legislating the postal workers back to work immediately with heavy penalties for any disobedience to the said law and resuming negotiations once they have returned to work.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR ACTION TO END DISPUTE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Postal employees were given the legal right to strike in 1967. Since then there have been 12 strikes, almost one every year. That in itself tells us quite clearly something is wrong, that the government has failed to co-operate with management and labour to make it work, instead hoping problems will go away by dumping them onto a Crown corporation. The current postal dispute is now in its eleventh day. The government has failed to provide leadership and management. The strike is causing very, very serious hardship for many Canadians. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House urge the government to take these problems seriously and to live up to its responsibilities and obligations by either negotiating in good faith or legislating the striking employees back to work.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport has seen fit to turn down a request for funding from the Canadian Council
July 9, 1981

of the Blind for recreational curling and bowling activities, and whereas this is the International Year of the Disabled, and whereas it should therefore be the policy of this government to encourage rather than discourage these special people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport be instructed by this House to reconsider immediately his decision and extend the minimal grant which the Canadian Council of the Blind requested.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion of pressing and urgent necessity. I move, seconded by the former Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That Canada, being fully aware of her responsibilities within the world community as a member of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, undertake to celebrate, from the year 1981 onwards October 16 as World Food Day.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready to pass the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas it is now very obvious that Canada will not attain the goal of energy self-sufficiency because the Liberal government's ridiculous policies continue
Oral Questions
to cause supply disruptions and now postponement of the Imperial Oil Cold Lake project; whereas the Cold Lake project alone had the potential to produce 140,000 barrels of oil per day or the equivalent of $2 billion worth of energy production in one year at today's prices, and whereas this single work suspension at Cold Lake will have a devastating effect on thousands of families in my constituency of Athabasca, as well as on the security of our country and the economic prospects of the entire nation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to recognize his failure as minister of energy, swallow his pride, and for the good of this nation, resign.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday's cancellation of the $12 billion Cold Lake project is the largest single casualty of the Liberal energy program to date. Until now the minister has been able to ignore, or has ignored, the 165 rigs which have left the country. He has ignored the 20 to 30 per cent drop in employment in the service industry in the west. He has ignored the large increase in imports. However, he cannot ignore the cancellation of a $12 billion project. The national interest is seriously at stake. Since this decision resulted directly from the impasse between the federal government and the province of Alberta, and is also related directly to elements of the National Energy Program, what action is the minister proposing to take since both of those reasons are within his control?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must have spent the morning priming his rhetoric, but I wish it were accurate. There has been no cancellation of the Cold Lake project. The project is delayed until an agreement is reached between the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. The company expressed its intention to proceed with the project if there is a satisfactory agreement between the two governments, which both governments are hoping for. As a matter of fact the statement says, "We will reassess our position on the Cold Lake project as soon as a federal-provincial agreement is reached". Therefore there is no cancellation.

July 9, 1981
Oral Questions
There is a delay or a suspension of the work being done on this project.
As far as the project is concerned, the two governments are having discussions at the present time. I hope we will reach an agreement. It will obviously depend on both sides. I remind my hon. friend that the decision not to approve these projects proceeding is not in the hands of the federal government. It is in the hands of the Alberta government.


REQUEST FOR MEETING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the casual attitude of the minister is just incomprehensible. This is a $12 billion project which will affect all of the country. I cannot understand the minister sitting there and saying it is just suspended, it will get started again. It will take two years to get it going again. The cancellation of this project will, in 1990, result in an increase in imports of about 10 per cent, or $2 billion a year at current prices. It will result in economic opportunity lost in Ontario and Quebec. About 30 to 35 per cent of the cost of the project will be spent in those parts of the country. The minister has a responsibility to all Canadians to get these projects going. Will the minister call a meeting with Mr. Leitch at the earliest possible date to press for a conclusion of these negotiations in order to avoid further failures such as the cancellation of the Alsands project? Having meetings once a month or every couple of months is just not good enough. We have to get this project going.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must not have heard the first answer. There has been no cancellation. There has been a suspension of the activities in this particular project.
Second, Mr. Leitch and I have agreed that we should meet in the latter part of July or the early part of August. We have both agreed that this is the most convenient and appropriate time to do so. The president of Imperial Oil has been advised of this situation, and he recognizes better than my friend that these difficult negotiations cannot be resolved just by a meeting called suddenly. There is a lot of work to be done.
I have proposed in the past that we try to resolve the issue of the tar sands independently for the other, more difficult issues which are still dividing us, but the government of Alberta has taken the view that there should be a global settlement and not a settlement only on the tar sands.
There is not much more I can do in that sense to speed up a resolution of this issue other than to keep on working at it and to hope that we will arrive at a satisfactory arrangement for Canadian consumers as well as the industry.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me just comment one more time that there is no sense of urgency evident on the part of the minister at all. The failures of the Liberal energy
program just cannot be allowed to continue. The sixteen months of failure we have had to date have to end.


FUTURE OF ALSANDS PROJECT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I will repeat the question I put to the minister in my last question. What is he proposing to do to stop another disaster in relation to the Alsands project, which is coming up to a critical decision date toward the end of July? I am sure hon. colleagues on the minister's side of the House are wondering what is going on in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that the minister can act so casually about a major disaster like the cancellation of a $12 billion project.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid my colleague has not understood or even heard my second answer. I repeat to him that there is no cancellation. Only some of the work on the project is being suspended.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: All of the work.


Marc Lalonde: I wish my friend would read the press release put out by Imperial Oil.
My friend talks about failures. The only thing I can tell him is that his party is no doubt an expert on the subject of failures. We believe that the National Energy Program is what is best for the citizens of this country in terms of the rights of consumers, the rights of the producing provinces and the rights of consuming provinces.
We are trying to work out an arrangement with the government of Alberta and the other producing provinces which will be fair to the producing provinces and fair to the consumers of this country. We will try to arrive at an arrangement which will be better than the one even the hon. member's leader could not get in 1979.


EFFECT ON PEOPLE OF NORTHEASTERN ALBERTA
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The announcement yesterday by Imperial Oil to close down the Cold Lake project was a suspension. I hope the minister will listen to my question. We are listening to his answers. Imperial Oil indicated to me this morning that because of the suspension it is moving its people to other projects. It has let its contractor go. It has cancelled the contract, which means that to get started again it will take two years. That is a cancellation for two years.
The minister talks about the Canadian economy, about the Canadian people, and about justice for them. What in the hell justice is that to the people of northeastern Alberta? Are they not Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I certainly heard what the hon. member said. I have had meetings with the president of
July 9, 1981

Imperial Oil. There is no justification for the conclusion that the decision announced yesterday meant that it would take two years to start the project again if there was an agreement reached with the government of Alberta. There does not appear to be justification for that conclusion, certainly not from the discussions I have had with the president of Imperial Oil.
As far as the project is concerned, I repeat to my hon. friend something he knows very well. It has not been the Government of Canada that decided to refuse approval of those projects last year and since then.


QUERY RESPECTING DETAILS OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, before the oil companies proceed they want to know what the commercial arrangement will be. In other words, they want to know what the production price will be, the tax regime, and the royalties. Under the present national energy policy they do not find it commercially viable to proceed with those plants. They have indicated that to this government many times. I cannot believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will deliberately lead this House as he is obviously doing, and I cannot believe he will continue to do so.
As to the suspension of that project, Madam Speaker, Imperial oil is today assigning employees to other parts of their operation; the contractor, Fluor Canada Ltd. has been cancelled and they are reassigning their people. If this continues beyond this month, the project will not proceed for at least two years. Now, the minister cannot continue to lie to this House like he is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his allegation before I will entertain his question.


Mr. Clark:: What do you call what you are doing?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I will-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is an unparliamentary expression-


Charles Joseph Clark: It is unparliamentary behaviour.


Madam Speaker:: -to say that a minister has lied. The hon. member should rephrase the question and not use those words. However, the question should be extremely short because the hon. member has taken some time to ask that question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the term "lie". He is obviously deliberately misleading this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order! Order!
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I ask that he also-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Another member was speaking.


Mr. Andre:: How about "tongue in cheek"?


Madam Speaker:: Another member was speaking to me, but I understand now that the second expression used by the hon. member is not parliamentary either. If the hon. member could use another one, that would be helpful.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, 1 will use an Indian term and withdraw that one. The minister is obviously speaking with a forked tongue. How does that suit you?


An hon. Member:: With his nose? That is something!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is making some difficult progress and it is interesting to see him evolving in his questions. I invite him to read the statement issued by Imperial Oil yesterday. It is all set out very clearly there. He will find his rhetoric has no foundation, that he should look at what has been stated by the company itself.
As far as arriving at a price that will be adequate to ensure this project is going to proceed is concerned, that is something that we, as well as the government of Alberta, have very much at heart. However, we also have to remember that the Canadian consumer will have to pay for any such deal over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We want to have a fair deal for the companies, but a fair deal for Canadian consumers.


An hon. Member:: What about Mexico?


Marc Lalonde: And this government is not going to be blackmailed by any oil company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order! Order!


Jack Wendele Shields: How about the Canadians in northeastern Alberta?


Madam Speaker:: Order! Order!


Jack Wendele Shields: You are a bloody liar.


Madam Speaker:: Order! Order! The hon. member for Athabasca will have to withdraw that interjection as well, because the Chair did hear it. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, 1 respect your position and I respect this Chair, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is obviously lying to this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 need no explanation. The Chair did hear the expression. The hon. member will co-operate with the Chair and withdraw that expression.


Jack Wendele Shields: Well, I wish he would tell the truth, Madam Speaker. I withdraw it.

July 9. 1981
Oral Questions


COMBINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday concerning the question of the uranium cartel there were many important questions pertaining to the legality of that issue. There is an equally important question concerning ministerial responsibility. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question following a quotation from a former Prime Minister on the nature of ministerial responsibility who said that a minister of the Crown is responsible, under the system in Great Britain or Canada, for the minutest details of the administration in his department; he is politically responsible, but he does not know anything at all about them, and that when anything goes wrong in his department he is responsible therefor to Parliament. That is a quotation from a former Prime Minister in one of the standard works on parliamentary government.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said:
-I have not either gone back to read the minutes or study the report of Mr. Bertrand, which I have no right to see, since it is transmitted to the Attorney General-
Given the notion of ministerial responsibility which is widely accepted by all authorities in the field, as well as by members of this Parliament, why did the Prime Minister not request to see Mr. Bertrand's report, let alone assert yesterday that he had no right to see it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam
Speaker, like everyone else 1 learned only yesterday that there were a couple of public servants who were named but not charged. That is the first news I had of it, so I obviously could not have seen Mr. Bertrand's report before that.
In so far as the concept of ministerial responsibility is concerned, 1 think the hon. member would recognize that this means responsibility for administrative acts done under the direction of the minister. Obviously it does not cover the area of acts against the law, if any, committed without the minister's authorization.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER READ REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with respect, that is not precisely the issue I am getting at, the question of legality. The Prime Minister always wants to shift it off to that. The issue at stake is ministerial responsibility concerning decisions which may not have been illegal but might have been wrong or entirely inappropriate.
Since the Prime Minister said that he only became aware of this report yesterday as it pertained to the naming of certain senior public servants, will he now assure the House that he will look at the report to assess it in terms of the culpability, in any sense of that word but particularly in the sense of ministerial responsibility, of the number of ministers who had positions under the Crown at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam
Speaker, I repeat what I said yesterday. 1 am not at all convinced that I would be acting within the law to look at that report. Certainly I would not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are getting into the same situation as yesterday.


An hon. Member:: You gave the same lousy answers yesterday.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You did not look very good yesterday either.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is such a thing as natural justice. 1 intend to respect it.


Mr. Beatty:: There are cover-ups too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The director of combines made a report. His intention was to give it to the Attorney General in view of prosecution. I imagine that in the report there are certain allegations against certain people, since charges were brought. Those charges will be heard before a court. The allegations will be sustained before a court. The defence will have its right and natural justice, under every concept of our law, to defend itself against those precise accusations. That is the way Mr. Bertrand chose to proceed; not a trial by public opinion, not a trial by Parliament, not a trial by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. That is the way he chose to proceed, and 1 intend to respect the law in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


EXERCISE OF PRIME MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that the issue at stake here is not legality. No one is saying that the wrong course of action was taken in terms of the law. The question is political responsibility, and it is time the Prime Minister lived up to that political responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What he has just said about not knowing whether he had the right to look at the document is complete and utter rubbish, and he should know it.
Since a minister of the Crown who is still a minister of the Crown was directly involved because of ministerial responsibilities at the time, does the Prime Minister not think it is his responsibility to look at the report to see if there are any accusations, not about illegality but about ministerial wrong-
July 9, 1981

doing? Why does he not live up to his responsibilities and look at the report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member sustains that it is rubbish that I have no right to look at the report. My understanding of the law-and until I am corrected I wish the hon. member would not describe it as rubbish-is that the Attorney General is the sole person in power to receive that, not the Prime Minister, not the cabinet, but the Attorney General of Canada. That is the way we followed that strictly, lest we be accused, as we would have been, of trying to influence the decision of the Attorney General or of trying to get him to take some other lawyers. That is not rubbish.
We have observed the law as it stands. If I can be corrected on that, I will accept it. If I have a right to look at it, I may, but my understanding of the course chosen by Mr. Bertrand was to go through the Attorney General of Canada and the law process, not the political one.
The hon. member is giving me lessons about political responsibility. For what? For what wrongdoing? There is no allegation of wrongdoing. There is an allegation of criminal action, and that is before the courts.


John Edward Broadbent: Find out if there is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What political wrongdoing is the hon. member talking about? I would like to hear him make an accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CARTEL'S EFFECT ON DOMESTIC PRICES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he could shed some light on the wrongdoing. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked at what point in time did the government of which he has been the head become aware that the activities of the cartel were affecting the domestic price in Canada. The Prime Minister answered that it was likely around 1975.
Now that the Prime Minister has had a chance to refresh his memory and to speak to his officials, could he be more specific on two points? When did he have knowledge for the first time that the cartel, in spite of whatever the government thought it was going to do, actually started to have an effect upon domestic Canadian uranium prices? Second, what was the nature of his knowledge? What did he discover to which he referred yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was answering a question by the seatmate of the hon. member. It was to the effect: when was this brought to my attention? I believe the date mentioned was that Ontario Hydro began to object around 1977. I do not have recollection of that.


Miss MacDonald:: 1975.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take the hon. member's date. If that is the point when there were some objections from consumers, that is the date at which it was brought to my attention, not before, and there is no wrongdoing in there.


GULF MINERALS CONTRACT WITH ONTARIO HYDRO
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I could refresh his memory. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister can recall that Gulf Minerals signed a contract with Ontario Hydro on May 31, 1974. That was immediately after cabinet approved a new pricing arrangement with respect to the export of uranium under the cartel arrangements of $12.20 per pound. The Gulf price was $12.50 per pound for Ontario Hydro, with escalation.
Was the Prime Minister aware of that Gulf transaction involving 3.7 million pounds of uranium? Was he specifically aware that Gulf in a memo of March 8, 1974, indicated:
The EMR staff does, however, recognize that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the same prices that we could achieve from export sales.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Was the Prime Minister not aware of what was happening in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, if not, why did his former principal secretary, who was then the deputy minister of that department, or the minister himself, not inform him of the impact which was affecting Canadian domestic consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the combines investigator, Mr. Bertrand, who has a very high standing in the opinion of the opposition, and two independent lawyers, looked into those facts. I did not. I do not remember the facts. They may have been brought to my attention at the time; I do not remember. I know they looked at these facts and this type of allegation, for four years.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How do you know that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I hear from another hon. member who asks how I know that. I presume they did their job.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You presume.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I presume. So what are you going to make of that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How do you know that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have an investigator, Mr. Bertrand, and his people who worked at it for four years. Am I not justified to presume that they would have looked at this type of document, since it is in the hands of the hon. member? If they did look at it, I presume they also made a judgment on the basis of it, and the judgment was not to allege any ministerial wrongdoing, any cabinet wrongdoing, or even any official wrongdoing, since there are no charges against the

July 9, 1981
Oral Questions
officials. That is all I can say, Madam Speaker. If the House wants to proceed in some other way, let hon. members suggest what it is.


An hon. Member:: We do.


Harvie Andre: Release the report. Have Ouellet keep his word.


Madam Speaker:: I believe one question has been answered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EFFECT OF EXPORT PRICES ON DOMESTIC PRICES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister whose government was responsible for setting up this international cartel. At the time the cartel was set up, what reason did the Prime Minister have to believe that a several-fold increase in the price of uranium on the international market would have no effect upon the domestic market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I had no reason to believe that. The reason the cartel was set up was precisely because the bottom was falling out of the uranium market. It was falling out because the Americans were preventing other countries from selling to the Untied States, which was practically the sole consumer of uranium in those days. That was the situation. Prices were falling low, and workers were being unemployed in Elliot Lake, and companies were going bankrupt. That is why several countries got together to say, "Look, if the Americans think they are going to squeeze us and get cheap prices by bankrupting our companies, they won't. We will get together to hold prices up."
It just happens, and the hon. member was perhaps too young to remember, that in 1973 there was an oil crisis-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps you are too old to remember.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and there was a vast increase in the price of energy. Then uranium began to go up, and it went up very fast. I had no means of knowing in 1971 that there would be an OPEC crisis of the proportions we now have.


CREATION OF CARTEL-EXPECTED EFFECT ON DOMESTIC UTILITIES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting old enough that his memory is beginning to fail him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: If we could have order, Madam Speaker, I would ask if the Prime Minister now, for the first time, is telling the House of Commons and the Canadian people that at the time his government encouraged the creation of this international cartel, with the design of increasing international
prices, he had no reason to believe that this would not have an effect upon prices paid by domestic utilities in Canada?
Second, may I ask the Prime Minister, if a request is received from the attorney general of any province for documentation relating to this incident, will the Prime Minister give the undertaking that all such documentation requested, including the full Bertrand report, will be turned over to provincial authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is surprised that I had no means of knowing in 1971 that there would be an energy crisis.


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks me if I should not have known in some way that the cartel would have an effect on prices in Canada. The whole point, Madam Speaker, is that nobody was buying uranium in Canada. That is the whole point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Ontario was.


Mr. Ouellet:: Not then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The one real buyer was the United States. The cartel was set up in order to prevent the American market from squeezing prices all over the world and keeping them down. That is why we took a defensive cartel arrangement, in order to keep prices up. It is as simple as that, to keep them up in the markets of the world.
I explained yesterday that years later when there was a significant domestic consumer, and if it is true as the combines investigator seems to have found, that some people in Canada used that international cartel to force higher prices by combines action on the Canadian people, then if they are found to have disobeyed the law, they will be punished. You cannot assume that in 1971 everyone would know that in 1977 the price of uranium would be very high. If everyone knew that, everyone would have made a killing on the stock market, including the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT BERTRAND REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, may I address a further question to the Prime Minister on this subject. I hope he will realize that at least as far as this party is concerned we are not on a fishing trip for illegal acts on the part of any member of the government, but we do feel that having information just come out bit by bit is not satisfactory. Now that a couple of civil servants have been named, would it not be common sense and good in the interest of general understanding if the Bertrand report were made public, on the understanding that if there are any innocent names in there, outside of the politicians, they could be blocked out?
Virtually, we are asking the Prime Minister to look at the report, to realize that the information is coming out bit by bit
July 9, 1981

and the whole country wonders what is going on. Would it not be cleared up if we had the report and if there are any names there that should be kept from us, that could be done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we believe that everyone in Canada is presumed innocent until found guilty by the courts. Who does the hon. member want us to leave in the report that we would publish? Who does he presume guilty? I presume nobody is guilty, and that is why I am not releasing the report.


QUERY RESPECTING POLITICAL DECISION-MAKERS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I did not make my first words clear enough to the Prime Minister. We are not looking for legal culpability. We want to know who made the political decisions. The only way we can know who made the political decisions, whether the people of Canada approve or otherwise, is if we get all the information. That is why we asked for the tabling of the Bertrand report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it has been clear, I think, from my answers that we made a political decision to set up an international cartel. It is as simple as that. We made the political decision. We are prepared to stand accused, if it is a crime to protect the workers in Elliot Lake-


Jack Wendele Shields: What about Fort McMurray and Cold Lake?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the combines investigator-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will wait until the hon. member has the attention of his seatmate.


CHOICE OF CARTEL VERSUS MARKETING BOARD
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has just admitted that it was his government which took the policy decision to proceed by way of an international cartel. Earlier in this question period he has admitted that he knew that at the time the cartel was formed to influence foreign prices, it would influence Canadian prices. He has admitted that. It is on the record.
My question to the Prime Minister is the following: why did his government take the decision to proceed to protect the Canadian uranium industry by way of a cartel rather than by a way of a marketing board or some other agency in Canada that would not have run the risk of breaking the law of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure how a marketing board would be
Oral Questions
set up between the countries of Great Britain, of France, of Germany, and of Australia. If the hon. member could suggest how that kind of a marketing board could have been set up and in what way it would differ from the international agreement that we actually reached, well, maybe I would plead that I made a political misjudgment. However, I am glad that the hon. member is suggesting that a marketing board would have been okay, and Fixing prices would have been okay if it had been called a marketing board-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but if it was called an international agreement, then somehow it meets with the distaste of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFERENCES TO PEOPLE IN BERTRAND REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: The
Prime Minister is indicating that he cannot quite remember the details of things which happened some time ago. There are a couple of matters that I would ask him to look into so he could report back later to the House. One is to explain to the House why he chose the route of a cartel when he knows that, for example, in the case of Australia, that Australia chose a marketing board or used a marketing board. He can consult his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, on the efficacy of marketing boards in terms of international as well as Canadian practice.
The Prime Minister has also heard, quoted in this House today, a letter from Mr. N. M. Ediger, then a senior official of Gulf, one of the companies now charged, saying:
The EMR staff does, however, recognize that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the same prices that we could achieve from export sales.
That indicates that officials under his responsibility knew at that time that there would be an effect upon domestic prices.
I would ask the Prime Minister to refresh his memory and to find out why, if the officials of the department knew, the deputy minister did not know; or, if the deputy minister did know, to advise the House that he did, and to advise the House of the state of knowledge of the minister and the Prime Minister at the time. I would like him to do that for tomorrow, because it will give him a chance to look into the record.
Let me now ask the Minister of Justice a question about-
(The Prime Minister rose.)


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Minister of Justice about the contents of the-


Madam Speaker:: Order. For the time being the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 9, 1981
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Pierre, you are not above the law.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, who has seen the Bertrand report, which he refuses to make available to the people and the Parliament of Canada, whether there is any reference in that report to the Hon. Donald Macdonald or to Mr. Jack Austin, as he then was?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the report has been given to me by Mr. Bertrand, and there was some recommendation made in that report by the lawyers whom he had retained for the inquiries. After analysing all the documents they had in their possession, they decided to recommend that I prosecute, and that is exactly what I have done. The report is now in the hands of Mr. Brown, who was the author of it, and it has gone to be the base toward presentation in court. I have received that. 1 have accepted his recommendation. The matter will be dealt with in front of the court.
As far as my responsibility as Attorney General of Canada to decide if there should or should not be prosecution, I have accepted the recommendation that there should be prosecution, and the matter will be dealt with in the court. It was my privilege to have accepted this recommendation. I have nothing else to add.


QUERY RESPECTING HON. DONALD MACDONALD AND SENATOR JACK AUSTIN
Charles Joseph Clark: The
minister neglected my question. Was there reference in the Bertrand report-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He did not say no.


Charles Joseph Clark: -to the Hon. Donald Macdonald or to the now Senator Jack Austin, then Jack Austin, deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Was there reference in the Bertrand report, which he refuses to publish in this House of Commons, to either of those two individuals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to answer that question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -because I received a confidential report from Mr. Bertrand.


An hon. Member:: Taking the fifth amendment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He put in front of me the evidence that they have gathered to go in front of the court. It is a case that will be heard in front of the court. It is now in the hands of the court, and I will not add anything. It is the responsibility of the court to decide what to do with that case.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the pork prices stabilization program, in view of the fact that the government has announced a subsidy and that hog producers had the opportunity, before the postal strike, to apply for a stabilization payment, can the minister tell the House, since the cheques should have been sent a few days ago, what he will do to forward the cheques to producers? Will special agencies be set up so that the cheques will be sent to producers as soon as possible?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have received, I believe, about 7,000 applications from farmers for a stabilization payment. They are being processed as we receive them. Some of them are using other ways and means to get them to us. We will use our agriculture offices and any facilities that we have at our disposal to distribute the cheques to the farmers.


COMBINES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question dealing not only with political responsibility but with legal culpability as well. Since yesterday the Prime Minister admitted in the House that he only became aware, three years after the establishment of the cartel, of its impact on domestic prices for uranium-in other words, he became aware of it in 1975-I would like to ask the Prime Minister what did he do in 1975 when he became aware of the fact that the cartel was impacting on domestic prices. What steps did he take or what sanctions, if any, did he put in place to protect Canadian domestic consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when I was saying I had no idea of any particular complaint of consumers, I had reference to the 1977 date provided me by the hon. member's colleague.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1975.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1977 is when the hon. member said that Ontario Hydro complained, when they complained we created a combine.
I was not following the uranium market in Canada or abroad. Everyone knows that, as a matter of theory and practice, international prices do affect domestic prices. So,
July 9, 1981

here we are. I mean there is nothing new in that. Even the hon. member would know that international prices affect Canadian prices for petroleum. They have even been arguing that the international prices should be the Canadian prices. Certainly Premier Lougheed has been arguing that.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true, either.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore international prices do affect prices in Canada. That is obvious. The issue is not whether the international cartel affected prices in Canada. The issue is whether there were cartel actions in Canada, price fixing, in other words, among the sellers, among themselves, so that they would control the market in Canada as they had been authorized to control the international markets by-


An hon. Member:: That is ludicrous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, what is ludicrous in that? I interrupt my answer, and let us hear what is ludicrous.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Aloysius McGrath: As the Prime Minister, as the chief law enforcement officer of the country, or the one responsible for the rule of law in the country, is the Prime Minister now telling the House that he had to await a complaint on the operation of a cartel that was contrary to the Combines Act in Canada before he took his responsibility and took action as a government under the Combines Act? Is that the position he is putting to the House?
Further, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what happened between 1975, when he first became aware of the cartel operating on domestic prices in Canada, and the triggering off of the Combines Act in the fall of 1977. What happened during that two-year period when the Prime Minister, by his own admission, know that there was an illegal cartel operating in this country? Unless he is prepared to answer that question, he stands guilty of a massive cover-up and an illegal act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must have some kind of question of privilege arise here. The hon. member says that I knew that there was an illegal cartel operating in Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: You said so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not true, Madam Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: You said so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish the hon. member would support his allegation. I have been explaining, until I am blue in the face, that there was an international cartel-


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -operating internationally.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I never-and it was legal.


James Aloysius McGrath: You said you knew in 1975 that it was operating in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 did not say that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Sit down, Pierre.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would appreciate it if hon. members on the opposition side would allow hon. members on the other side to answer the questions, and not engage in a dialogue. It is just impossible to conduct a question period in that manner. I will ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister if he can now answer the question, hoping that he will be able to go to the end of that answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point is that if I had known a cartel was operating illegally in Canada, and if I had not asked for an investigation, and if the Minister of Justice-and all these "ifs"-of course I would stand condemned. But nobody knew there was cartel action in Canada. We knew that the international prices naturally affect the price in Canada. That does not mean there is price fixing. Just because Alberta is asking more than we are prepared to settle for does not mean that they are price fixing in a way which is illegal. They are trying to get international prices. I imagine that the companies in Canada were trying to sell to Ontario Hydro or to any other buyer for as much as they could get. That is what a seller does, try to get the best price. That is not illegal. What is illegal is when they combine to fix the market in Canada.


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I have another view of the law. That is my view of the law, Madam Speaker. We have no evidence that they were. Mr. Bertrand looked into the matter and after four years he found that he had some evidence against some people, which he put in a report. These people will have to answer before the courts. What is so complicated about that? Why do they not try to understand?


ACCEPTANCE OF POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is not a very complicated question. It is a fundamental issue of political responsibility.
In view of the fact that the Bertrand commission suggests by naming two civil servants as unindicted co-conspirators that they may have been involved, that they may have been involved wrongdoing, does the Prime Minister accept some political responsibility for the actions of those civil servants? Was his government aware of their actions during the relevant time, or is the Prime Minister going to hang these civil

July 9, 1981
Oral Questions
servants out to dry and refuse to accept any political responsibility for their actions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, they have not even been charged. The hon. member is making some suggestion that they must be guilty and, therefore, we are guilty by association. They have not even been charged. Why do we not let the matter come before the courts? Some defendants want to make allegations. If they have to call for Mr. Bertrand's report or some other report, maybe they will. But I am not going to conduct the trial.


An hon. Member:: Oh?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't be an ass.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROVISIONS IN COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, Mr. Bertrand has stated, in submitting this report to the government before he was appointed to the Anti-dumping Tribunal, that he was quite prepared to have at least a summary of the report made public. I have a copy of the Combines Investigation Act before me. I would challenge the Prime Minister to indicate any provision in this act which states that he has no right to view the particular report in question and determine whether or not his ministers had some responsibility for the actions that are referred to in that report. Where in this act is the Prime Minister denied the right to view that report?


André Ouellet: In my opinion, Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that hon. members opposite understand how the investigations are conducted under the competition legislation. It is absolutely essential that all such investigations be made in secret because, the moment we begin making public and tabling the contents of those investigations, we significantly reduce the ability and the efficiency of the Director of Investigations. Second, we would cause serious prejudice to those who have been subjected to an investigation and against whom no charge has been laid. We are then victimizing those people by publishing the reports. I can say to the hon. member that indeed the competition policy agency has made its investigation and that the accusations now made public as a result of the decision of the Attorney General faithfully reflect the summary of the proof as well as the recommendations submitted by Mr. Bertrand to the Department of Justice.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have had the usual consultations with my colleagues. Since today is Thursday and since perhaps we would like to adjourn tomorrow, I should like at this time to inform the House about an agreement which was reached after the usual consultations concerning the business of the House and which is as follows. I drafted the text of the motion as follows:

That a bill entitled an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, the Salaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act shall be considered this day at the first reading stage, at the second reading stage, at the Committee of the Whole stage, the report stage, the third reading stage, provided that all stages shall be completed by 9.45 p.m.; and further provided that a division shall be ordered at the third reading stage.
That last request has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It was also our intention to make the same suggestion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Joint Committee on the Official Languages-Mr. Corbin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec-East):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the third report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. If it please the House, I shall move that report be concurred in later on today.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
July 9, 1981


POINT OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in the House, but during the course of the question period he did suggest that I had misled the House in misintrepreting or misquoting what he had said. I will delay my point of order until tomorrow when perhaps the Prime Minister will be in the House. I understand he will be absent tomorrow, but I can speak from the record as to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. As reported at page 11326 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
It was several years, I think three years after the international agreement had been made, that this international cartel began to have some possible effects within our country.
The Prime Minister said that I was guilty of misrepresenting what he said when I said that he was aware of the impact of the cartel in 1975. The record speaks for itself, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I want to rule on this point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member is debating the question. Interpretations of what is said on both sides of the House does not constitute a point of order and cannot be used to continue the debate once questions have been answered in the House.
If the hon. member wants more clarification about what the Prime Minister said or the interpretations put on whatever he said or whatever the Prime Minister said, he can pursue that matter in question period or at some other time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader relating to House business. The government House leader has given notice of his intention to introduce a motion to adjourn the House of Commons.
He will know, as the country does, that we are now in the grips of a very serious postal strike. It is a postal strike that we all hope can be resolved very quickly by negotiation. I think it is certainly clear that we on this side of the House do not want to go home, and do not propose to go home, until mail service has been restored in this country.
Would the government be prepared to interrupt any adjournment proceedings or any other legislative plans it might have in order to ensure that the House of Commons, if necessary, could consider back to work legislation if the postal strike is not solved by means of negotiation? Can we be assured that the House of Commons will not go on holiday before postal service is restored in this country?
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised at the suggestion of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. There were discussions among House leaders and we talked about moving the motion of adjournment tomorrow. There was no firm agreement, but there was a clear understanding that we would adopt such a motion before the end of the afternoon tomorrow. Maybe I misunderstand what he is saying, but it is clearly our intention, after having dealt with Bill C-82 tomorrow-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: -a bill cherished by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to move the motion to adjourn. We hope that the understanding we have will be carried out and that we will be able to leave tomorrow. If this is a notice of some kind of filibuster on the motion to adjourn, I take good note of it. There is nothing much I can do.


Charles Joseph Clark: What the government House leader can do is respond to my question. Naturally we would approve of priority being given to Bill C-82. I think the government House leader will agree that there had been no agreement that a motion to adjourn the House introduced tomorrow would terminate tomorrow. There has been no agreement on that point. I am serving notice to the government House leader now that we do not intend to leave this House of Commons, to let the House of Commons adjourn, until postal service has been restored. We would like to see it restored by negotiation.
My question to the government House leader, which he has not answered, is whether he is prepared to interrupt his plans for adjournment or for legislation other than Bill C-82, to introduce and allow the House of Commons to deal with back to work legislation if that is necessary, in the event of a failure in negotiations in order to ensure that Canadians can have their mail delivered before they have their members of Parliament home.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the answer is no, we do not intend to legislate the workers back. It is their right to strike and that is what they are doing. We are hopeful that they will negotiate a settlement. That is their right. We hope there will be an end to the strike by negotiation. The Prime Minister has been stating very clearly since the beginning of the week that we do not intend to legislate the workers back to work. I reiterate that I am very much surprised by that kind of question because it was never raised with me when we talked about the motion to adjourn. On the contrary. There was no firm agreement, but there was a clear understanding that we were to adjourn tomorrow afternoon.


Charles Joseph Clark: No firm agreement.

July 9, 1981
Travel of Committee


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-83, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, the Salaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Later on today.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to the order passed earlier, the bill shall be read the second time later on today.


MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES
Gérard Duquet: That the third report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services tabled earlier today be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. M. Cotlenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, following consultations with the other parties, I request the unanimous consent of the House, without debate in support of the following motion, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That the sub-committee on Canada's Relations with Latin America and the Carribean of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and members of the sub-committee, be authorized, whenever the sub-committee deems necessary to do so, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside or outside Canada when the House is not sitting, and that such travels be completed before October 14, 1981; and that, whenever it is deemed necessary, the sub-committee or its members, as the case may be, be accompanied by the necessary staff.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the failure of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to exercise his responsibilities in the serious question of potential ministerial culpability in the establishment of a uranium cartel in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has given me notice under the terms of Standing Order 26 of his intention to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the alleged failure by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) "to exercise his responsibilities in the establishment of a uranium cartel in Canada".
It seems to the Chair that the hon. member's motion is couched in the terms of a non-confidence motion in the Prime Minister, which is not envisaged by the provisions of Standing Order 26. I need not quote any rulings by my predecessors as hon. members are aware that there are ample precedents to this effect.
Furthermore, the motion raises a substantive matter which can only be dealt with by a distinct motion after due notice. In my view, the motion relates to the conduct of a minister and to that extent it is excluded from the operation of Standing Order 26. I refer hon. members to Section 16(f) of the Standing Order, and I quote:
-the discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the Standing Orders of the House, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice.
In other words, the motion is essentially of the nature of a censure motion and as a substantive motion it cannot be considered under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
I might add that the logic of this rule is that it would be unfair for the members or the ministers concerned to have their conduct debated under a motion to adjourn the House rather than a specific motion dealing with the substantive question upon which a decision could be taken by the House.
A motion pursuant to Standing Order 26 is not subject to a decision by the House; it is merely a vehicle for debate. Even if it were subject to a decision by the House, the decision would only be as to whether or not the House was to adjourn. Therefore, I cannot allow the debate under Standing Order 26.
July 9, 1981




[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,483, 1,557, 2,348, 2,394, 2,473, 2,553, 2,554, 2,582, 2,583 and 2,618.

FIRA-HOUDAiLLE INDUSTRIES INC.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did Houdaille Industries, at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIR A conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfillment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?
2.	(a) What action was taken by FIRA, if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. Houdaille Industries Inc.-Acquisition of control of Houdaille Industries of Canada Limited:
Yes.
No.
(a) and (b) The investment was allowed on December 6, 1979, and the annual review would normally commence on or about December 6, 1980; however, because of the closure of the Oshawa facilities, an early investigation was conducted.
2. (a) and (b) The investigation revealed that there was no non-compliance with the original commitments. The plant and equipment of Houdaille Industries of Canada Limited have been purchased by A. G. Simpson Co. Ltd., a Canadian-controlled company.
Order Paper Questions
necessary within the limitation of the over-all manpower budget prescribed for every minister of the Crown.
2.
Dewit, A. CR-3 Dormer, M. Special Assistant Dowling, S. A. ST-SCY-1 Hanson, C. Special Assistant Higgs, G. F. Special Advisor
Ladouceur, P. Private Secretary VanRoggen, P. CR-2 Whyte, A. M. CR-3
Ritchie, T. CR-4 Registry and Library Clerk
Gautam, M. CR-1 Junior File Clerk
$12,815-$15,875 Up to $30,000 $ 9,424-$13,423 Up to $30,000 Up to $35,000 or more with T.B.'s approval Up to $23,000 $10,740-$13,212 $12,815-$15,875


[Stage Direction]
The Office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate had one classified public service position with an incumbent at the time Senator Perrault was appointed (Registry and Library Clerk).
In addition, a term position (less than three months) was established and staffed (Junior file clerk-August '80- November '80). All other positions are exempt staff.
3. The duties of exempt staff are to assist their minister as directed.
Mr. Dinsdale: Since the inception of the advertising program "Shop Canadian" (a) how long has the trailer been travelling and for how much longer will it be travelling (b) which communities has it visited (c) what is the cost to date (d) will it be in operation next year?


David Michael Collenette: The Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Supply and Services and the Canadian Unity Information office have no knowledge of such a trailer as identified by the hon. member. For additional information, the hon. member may wish to refer to question 2,297 answered May 19, 1981.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is the hon. Senator Perrault entitled to exempt staff and, if so, how many?
2.	Did the hon. Senator Perrault Fill any positions by appointment and, if so
(a)	which positions (b) what was the job description and qualification for each position (c) what is the salary for each position?
3.	What duties have been assigned to the exempt staff and appointed members of the hon. Senator Perrault's staff and what is the name of each person appointed?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Senator Perrault is entitled to exempt staff. He may have as many such persons as he deems


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): 1.	For each of the past ten years, what was the number and type of summary trials and courts martial held (a) in each region of Canada (b) overseas?
2.	For the same years, what number of cases involved civilians and what number were family as opposed to civilian employees?
3.	For each of the past three years, what were the (a) charges (b) penalties at courts martial?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Statistics on the number of summary trials are not kept. However, a survey of all the commands of the Canadian Forces shows that approximately

July 9, 1981
Order Paper Questions
8,000 summary trials were conducted in 1980 and since this figure for last year is not considered unusual, the figures for past years would be in the same range.
(a) and (b) The number of courts martial for each of the past ten years by region of Canada and overseas is listed below.
2. The number of cases which involved civilians, listed as employees and dependants, is presented below.
3. (a) The most commonly used charges were as follows:
National Defence Act
Criminal Code of Canada
Narcotics Control Act Food and Drug Act
-	Sections 74; 80; 87; 101; 104; 106; 107;
114; 115; 119.
-	Sections 149; 156; 203; 228; 233; 234; 236;
245; 294; 306; 387.
-	Sections 3; 4.
-	Sections 41; 42.
(b) The most widely used penalties were fines and incarceration (i.e. imprisonment or detention).
Trials by Court Martial-Canadian Forces Personnel
Total number: 66
Regionally in Canada:	Ottawa-1; Halifax-3; Valcartier-5; Montreal-
3; Dana-1; Winnipeg-2; Toronto-1; St Hubert-2; Bagotville-1; Petawawa-1; Portage La Prairie-1; Calgary-2; Esquimalt-1.
Overseas: 42
Total number: 58 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 27 1973
Total number: 64 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 40 1974
Total number: 90 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 38
St Jean-2; Valcartier-1; Summerside-1; Shearwater-3; Borden-1; Esquimalt-7; Petawawa-4; Toronto-1; St Hubert-1; Halifax-3; Sydney-1; Edmonton-1; Chilliwack-1; Montreal-1; Kingston-1; Bagotville-2.
Bagotville-2; Comox-1; Mont Apica-3; Halifax-3; Esquimalt-3; Ottawa-1; Montreal-6; Valcartier-2; Cold Lake-2; Toronto-1.
Winnipeg-1; Lowther-1; Shearwater-1; Chatham-1; Comox-3; Petawawa-3;
Kingston-6; Bagotville-1; Valcartier-7; St Jean-1; Halifax-7; Calgary-6; Trenton-2; Esquimalt-2; Borden-4; Sydney-1; Toronto-1; Brantford-1; Gagetown-1; Edmonton-1; Chilliwack-1.
Total number: 99 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 27
Total number: 90 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 27
Total number: 128 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 44
Total number: 111 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 46
Total number: 135 Regionally in Canada:
Overseas: 47
Petawawa-2; Summerside-4; Esquimalt-11; Calgary-2; Halifax-14; Valcartier-3; Toronto- 2; Shilo-2; Kingston-11; Borden-2; Cold Lake-1; Toronto-2; North Bay-1; Bagotville- 4; Gagetown-3; Shilo-1; Montreal-1; Greenwood-4; Comox-1; Wainwright-1.
Montreal-1; Kingston-3; Comox-5; Valcartier-7; Ottawa-2; Halifax-13; Esquimalt-14; Edmonton-1; St Jean-3; Chilliwack-4; Toronto-1; Shelburne-1; Calgary-2; Shearwater-2; Moose Jaw-1; Trenton-2; Bagotville-1.
Masset-1; Esquimalt-6; Valcartier-15; Kingston-3; Montreal-1; Halifax-24; Shelburne-2; Ottawa-1; Mont Apica-2; London-4; Shilo-1; St Jean- 2; Winnipeg-5; Edmonton-1; Gander-1; Gagetown-3; Bagotville-2; Chilliwack-1; Wainwright-1; Chatham-2; Borden-2; Trenton-2; Falconbridge-1; St John's-1.
Calgary-13; Cold Lake-3; Halifax-7; St Jean- 2; Esquimalt-7; London-2; Valcartier-3; Kingston-6; Beaverlodge-1; Chilliwack-4; Inuvik-2; North Bay-1; Beausejour-2; Edmonton-2; Ottawa-2; Trenton-1; Mont Apica-1; Montreal-2; Moose Jaw-1; Toronto- 2; Gagetown-1.
Montreal-5; Valcartier-8; Halifax-27; Petawawa-6; Calgary-2; Chilliwack-2;
Borden-5; Kingston-6; Esquimalt-5; Summerside-2; London-6; St Jean-1; Winnipeg-2; Ottawa-1; Kamloops-1; Gagetown-3; Trenton-1; Edmonton-1; Cold Lake-1; Cornwallis-1; Shilo-1; Royal Roads- 1.

1975	Trials by Court Martial	-Civilian Personnel	Total number: 118	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	Regionally in Canada:	Esquimalt-13; Winnipeg-3; Halifax-24; Ottawa-2; Valcartier-8; Kingston-2; Summerside-2; Borden-3; Shearwater-3;	Employees Dependants	4 6	2 6	1 12	00 to	6 15	Cornwallis-2; Petawawa-2; Montreal-5; Calgary-1; Chilliwack-2; Gagetown-1; St	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	Jean-1.	Employees	1	Nil	1	Nil	3	Overseas: 44	Dependants	12	1)	13	14	7	
July 9, 1981


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence or any government agency record incidents of MlG-25s or other Soviet aircraft flying into Canadian airspace and, if so, in each year 1975 to date (a) how many incidents (b) at what location were the recordings noted (c) for what purposes were the aircraft in Canadian airspace?
2.	Did the government make representations to the government of the U.S.S.R. regarding the flights and, if so, what was the nature of the representations and of the responses thereto?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. (a), (b) and (c) The Soviet airline, Aeroflot, fly IL62 type aircraft on a scheduled route between Moscow, Gander, Montreal, New York and Washington and with the exceptions of these flights, Soviet aircraft have not flown in Canadian sovereign airspace. However, since 1975 there have been occasions when Russian Air Force TU-95 aircraft (NATO name: Bear) have flown through a portion of the Atlantic coastal Canadian air defence identification zone while en route from U.S.S.R. bases to Cuba but these tracks have all been east of Gander, Newfoundland, and well beyond Canada's 12 nautical mile territorial limit.
2. Not applicable.
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-PRATT & WHITNEY


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce pay Pratt & Whitney, Longueuil, $10.7 million to design, build and test an engine known as PT7A-2R and, if so, for what purpose is the engine being designed?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Crown, through the Defence Industry Productivity Program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will pay 50 per cent of the actual costs reasonably and properly incurred for the development of the engine but not exceeding $10.7 million. The manufacturer is paying for the balance. Concerning the purpose for which the engine is being designed, see question 2,554, part (a), answered today.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce pay Pratt & Whitney, Longueuil, $39,484,000 to design, build and test an engine known as PT7A and, if so (a) for what purpose is the engine being designed (b) was the engine built and tested to the satisfaction of the department?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
amount of $39,484,000 represents 40 per cent of the actual costs reasonably and properly incurred for the design, development, performance testing and certification testing of the engine. The Crown's contribution is not to exceed the above-mentioned amount and Pratt & Whitney is financing the balance.
Order Paper Questions
(a)	The PT7 engine is a new advanced technology, three shaft turbo propeller engine in the 2000 shaft horsepower class, and the PT7A is a variant of it. The market requirement is for powering the new 30 and 40 passenger class commuter aircraft, such as the de Havilland Dash-8 and the Brazilian Embraer EMB-120 aircraft. The PT7 represents the beginning of a new family of engines in a power range above that of the highly successful PT6 engine.
(b)	The engine is being developed and has not yet reached the testing stage.
1981 CENSUS-ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total cost of all government advertising for the 1981 Census, including a breakdown of the amount allotted to (a) daily newspapers (b) weekly newspapers (c) magazines or other periodicals (d) radio (e) television?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: the total cost of all government advertising for the 1981 Census is estimated to be $1,700,000. The amounts allotted were:
(a)	to daily newspapers:	$374,194(b)	to weekly newspapers:	$265,703(c)	to magazines or other periodicals:	$ 33,143(d)	to radio:	$456,898(e)	to television:	$301,480(f)	to other media:	$ 68,615
Production costs of approximately $200,000 are not included.
1981 CENSUS-ADVERTISING AGENCIES


Mr. Cossitt: Were advertising agencies used by the government in connection with the 1981 Census and, if so, in each case (a) what was the name (b) how was the agency selected (c) how many contracts were let and what was the amount in each case (d) were competitive bids or presentations requested at any time and, if not, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: the government did use advertising agencies in connection with the 1981 Census.
(a), (b) and (d) See question 2,036, parts 7(a) and (b), tabled April 23, 1981.
(c) Three contracts were let as follows:
Palmer Jarvis and Associates Advertising Limited	$532,000
Gordon Hill Advertising Limited	$746,000
Publicite Media Ltee	$497,000


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Transport contract with DSMA Atcon, Toronto, for $129,578 for an evaluation of a hybrid experimental vehicle and, if so (a) what is the purpose of the vehicle (b) what were the results of the evaluation?

July 9, 1981
Order Paper Questions


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Transport as follows: the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of Transport Canada awarded a contract valued at $129,578 to DSMA Atcon Limited for an evaluation of a hybrid experimental vehicle.
(a)	The purpose of the vehicle is to serve for the evaluation of the potential fuel saving in a hybrid electric/internal combustion engine configuration under actual road conditions.
(b)	The results of the evaluation will only be available during the winter of 1981-82.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No.
2,003	could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	In each year since 1950 to date, what amount of credit was extended by Canada (a) in loans (b) in grants (c) in wheat sales (d) by other means to (i) the U.S.S.R. (ii) other Eastern Block countries?
2.	For each category, what amount was repaid and on what dates were the payments received?
3.	What is the present financial indebtedness to Canada of (a) the U.S.S.R. (b) other Eastern Block countries?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blackburn:: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is very important and cogent. Question 2,250 relates to the hunting down and bringing to trial of suspected-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I presume the hon. member is raising a point of order and not a question of privilege.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I atn raising a point of order. I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
I asked this question four months ago, and the reason I asked the question was that about a year and a half ago the Solicitor General said he would make this one of his top priorities and that an effort would be made to root out and bring to trial suspected Nazi war criminals allegedly living in this country. My question addressed itself to that.
The parliamentary secretary has had four months in which to answer this question, which requires a "yes" or a "no". Is the government actively searching, through the RCMP, I presume, for suspected Nazi war criminals, members of the
Nazi party of Germany, the S.D., the S.A., the S.S. and so forth. If so, all the parliamentary secretary would have to say is "yes" or "no".
I think this question is extremely important because it relates to purported government policy of which we have heard absolutely nothing since this government came into office.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I will have to take note of the hon. member's representation, and I will try to ensure that he gets an answer before the end of the session. This is the first time he has raised the matter of the urgency of the question. I will look into it and try to get back to him.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-83, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, today the House is studying a bill aimed at raising the salaries of members of Parliament. Some people will say that the timing is wrong, but there can never be a right moment! We are always expected to study and solve only the problems of the nation. The public always forgets that we are men and women who of course accept this difficult and demanding way of life but who must also look after their family and be able to lead a decent life. Above all, the public forgets that our institutions force them to shoulder the much heavier responsibility of having to vote for themselves the salary they will be paid. It may look like a marvellous freedom, but in fact it is a thankless task which no one other than parliamentarians can do in their stead. The last time the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament were examined was in 1974. And if I may make a short review, Mr. Speaker, it will be readily understood why a salary increase has now become urgent and absolutely necessary.
In 1974, members of Parliament wanted to raise their salary because they considered that they were paid less than the amount to which they might have been entitled. A group of members from both sides of the House was then formed to
July 9, 1981

examine the subject and make recommendations. After a serious study, that committee came to the conclusion that the salaries of parliamentarians ought to be 50 per cent higher than what they were on July 8, 1974. The committee also recommended a certain adjustment formula applicable on an annual basis. Then there was a debate in this House and, since those recommendations had been made by members of Parliament who happened to be directly concerned with the issue, after a rather lengthy debate it was finally concluded that there had to be a still deeper cut so that parliamentarians ended up with roughly 30 per cent instead of the 50 per cent hike which had been deemed to be the acceptable minimum.
Mr. Speaker, we are caught in a sort of vicious circle. Every time the issue of higher salaries for members of Parliament comes up, we always want, because of the delicate situation I have just mentioned, that parliamentarians themselves introduce the appropriate legislation to be able to catch up so that we will not have to seek substantial raises in the future. However, since we are always ill at ease to endorse the full recommendations made to us by commissions of members of Parliament, we never did manage to catch up so as to get the minimum recommended by those study groups. On the contrary, we always drop lower and thus aggravate the problem and make it even more difficult a few years later to make the adjustments which by then have become more than necessary. That is what happened once again in 1975 when finally, after a long debate, we reached a compromise so that the increase was only about 30 per cent, not the 50 per cent which had been recommended, and there has been no increase since.
I would add also that this 30 per cent adjustment, which was decided on by way of compromise, was to be equivalent to the industrial composite up to a maximum of 7 per cent. Now we all know that 7 per cent was substantially less than the actual increase in the cost of living and in the industrial composite. Since 1975, members have only received 30 or 33 per cent of what was then considered a basic minimum. Their allowance was not indexed but was adjusted to a rate which was out of line with reality, that is a maximum of 7 per cent; not only that, but for two years, under the Anti-Inflation Board, there was absolutely no yearly adjustment. So in real terms, since the 1975 increase which was retroactive to July 8, 1974, members received only a 30 per cent increase compared to the 50 per cent which was recommended, and an average year adjustment of 4.4 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, these are the facts which must objectively and honestly be made public and understood by those who might be tempted to criticize members on both sides of the House for considering after six years, or rather six and a half years, a reasonable and decent salary adjustment. What happened also, and I think it is appropriate to mention this, is that in 1975, when a compromise was reached to limit ourselves to one third or 30 per cent and 7 per cent, which actually became 4.4 per cent because of the two lost years which I mentioned, was that
Senate and House of Commons Act a section, Section 34(7) I believe, was added to the act so that in the future members would not be put in the awkward position of using their own recommendations as a basis. The act will include a provision so that the government of the day will refer the issue of parliamentarians' salaries to an independent commission; that in fact was what made members accept the compromise despite the fact that they found the 30 per cent increase unsatisfactory and the 7 per cent yearly adjustment laughable. But members bought this deal in 1975 because they believed that four or five years down the road, after the next election, there would be an independent commission established under the statutes of Canada, which would review the issue of parliamentary salaries and report to the government within six months after its appointment, and the commission itself was to be established two months after the election.
The members took that for granted and that is in fact what happened. There was a provision included in the legislation and the facts show that after the 1979 election, under the act, under this statutory obligation, a commission was established, the Hales Commission. The commission did report within six months; however, when it did report, another election had taken place. We all know that there were two closely held elections. Therefore, the government, under a statutory obligation, set up another independent commission, the Mclsaac-Balcer Commission, to review the salaries paid to parliamentarians, in the light of the Hales report which was produced in due time but which could not be implemented because of these two successive elections. The important thing to note now, as I am speaking to you today, is that the report of this independent commission established under the statutes of the land has been produced and tabled by the government. I had the opportunity to table that report in December last, and it is precisely that kind of report of an independent commission analysing responsibly and objectively, fair-mindedly and without any conflict of interests, the conditions of members compared to other sectors of economic activity in Canada. It is precisely on that kind of report that the legislation now under consideration is based.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the last major increase in compensation for MPs and senators was made under an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, passed in May, 1975, retroactive to July 8, 1974. This act introduced an annual adjustment formula based on the industrial composite, but limited to a maximum of 7 per cent.
The 1975 amendment added Section 34(7) to the Senate and House of Commons Act. This subsection stipulates that within two months after the date 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 MPs and sena-

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
tors, 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.
In August, 1979, Mr. Speaker, the government appointed Mr. Hales a commissioner under Section 34(7). His report was tabled in Parliament April 23, 1980. No substantive action was taken by the government on this report as another commission had to be set up because of the last election. On May 9, 1980 under Section 34(7) the governor in council set up a commission composed of Dr. J. Clifford Mclsaac as chairman, and the Hon. Leon Balcer. The new commission took Mr. Hales' report into account, and its report was tabled in Parliament on December 2, 1980.
On April 30, 1980, the subcommittee on matters pertaining to members, staff, staff allowances, constituency offices and members' pensions, salaries and allowances recommended that severance pay be given to a member of Parliament who is not re-elected and that the MPs pension plan be modified. The Mclsaac-Balcer report deals with the whole subject and some aspects of it are excellent. It is based on logical and specific arguments, and it draws on extensive and pertinent information to support its recommendations. Most important, it is the first time in history that we can base such legislation on a report made by an independent commission based on the statutes of the land.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I said that the purpose of the bill is to increase the salaries of parliamentarians, but allow me to be more specific. It would be misleading to focus our discussion on a mere percentage increase. Indeed, the thing is to set the salaries of parliamentarians and to figure out the compensation to which they are entitled. The Canadian people want to be represented and governed by the most consistent and devoted people. They do not want politics to be the privilege of those of independent means and they want above all that those who make decisions affecting our collective future to remain financially independent. The sessional allowance, Mr. Speaker, because the legislation carefully refrains from referring to salaries, is designed to allow the member to live decently but not in luxury, so that he may devote himself to state matters. The member gives up his private life. He has often to keep two houses between which he travels most of the year. No one surely goes into politics to become rich, but no one should ruin himself either in the process. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note yesterday the comments made by leaders in their respective sectors in Canada. They are not parliamentarians and had nothing to say about the advisability of legislation designed to increase the salaries of parliamentarians.
I was pleased to see that union leaders favored such an increase, and made very interesting comments in support of the case of hon. members who have not had any salary increase for six years and a half and who have only received a yearly adjustment of 4.4 percent for seven years. They recognized that was a case of glaring injustice and that there was a
danger that hon. members or people in general would take no further interest in public life, and that we might end up by having here only people who are very well-off, excluding those who have to leave their businesses or professions behind, who have a low income, because parliamentary life is too exacting and the salary is inadequate. Let me briefly read the comments of three of those people, quoting from an article which appeared yesterday on page 8 of The Gazette under the title: [English]
Canada's MPs need a raise, panel agrees.
The first one who was asked about this is Mr. Dennis McDermott, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. He said:
There are a lot of talented people out there who are not individually wealthy and who are not professionals and who are probably not running because they cannot afford to. A raise might attract them.
It is a very demanding job. And what you have now is the spectacle of some independently rich people treating it as some sort of game.
Louis Laberge, a well known person in Quebec, head of the powerful Quebec Federation of Labour, in the same article of yesterday's Gazette is quoted as saying about the need for a raise for MPs:
I have lived through quite a few governments-and I intend to keep doing so-I'm more useful to governments and my members where I am-but if you want people who know what they are talking about and who will devote their time then you've got to pay them.
The timing-there's never a proper time. They should do it now.
There are ten people quoted, but I will only quote one more. As opposed to the union sector, I will deal with the small business sector. Businessman John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is quoted as saying:
But their whole job is a social disaster-late hours, travel, unfair demands. Their personal life is a nightmare-I would give them more, of course-they should get an extra $20,000 in harassment pay.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see that at last leaders of opinion in this country have realized and support the need for a decent raise for members of Parliament.
As I was saying, our salaries have been increased by only 30 per cent when they should have been increased by 50 per cent over the last seven years to catch up. We have received an average annual adjustment of 4.4 per cent in the last seven years; no worker in the country has suffered that treatment. This is why I can understand that Mr. McDermott, Mr. Laberge and Mr. Bulloch speak so loudly in our favour. [Translation]
The Mclsaac-Balcer report, Mr. Speaker, recommended a minimum of $45,000 a year for each hon. member in recognition of the demands of his duties, the very long working hours and the necessity to be both in Ottawa to discuss the problems of Canada, and in his riding to listen to his constituents' concerns. The government has very seriously and for a long time considered the recommendations in the report. The increases in the bill could come into effect from July 1, 1980.
July 9, 1981

As a matter of fact, the Mclsaac-Balcer report considered the salaries as of January 1, 1980, and it would be unfair if the delays which were necessary to draft that bill were to postpone the implementation of these legitimate recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, the government, the majority of members on this side of the House, most members of the Progressive Conservative Party and most members of the NDP to-day recommend that we take only two thirds of the increases suggested in the Mclsaac-Balcer report, even though, in the last seven years, parliamentarians have received much lower salary increases than those received by many of their constituents, and even though they have had only a ridiculous average annual adjustment of 4.4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I have here a chart which shows what has been the salary of parliamentarians in the last ten years, from 1971 to 1981, in relation to the consumer price index, the composite industrial index and the manufacturing sector. It is important that people know to what extent those who govern this country, those who try to improve the situation in this country, those who aim only at improving the welfare of their fellow citizens, have lacked in self-indulgence and to what extent what they have obtained in the last few years has been less than what ordinary citizens have received on the average.
Mr. Speaker, if we compare the salary increases for members of Parliament in the last ten years to the consumer price index, we note a difference of 40 per cent. Over ten years, we have received 40 per cent less than the consumer price index increase in Canada. I know of no worker in my constituency, and there is probably none in Canada, who has received wage increases 40 per cent lower than the increase in the consumer price index. Yet this is the case of Canadian parliamentarians, and I am speaking about federal parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker, not of those of Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec, who, as we know, have different salaries which are in certain cases much higher than ours.
If we compare the salary increases of parliamentarians since 1971, that is for the last ten years, to the composite industrial index, the difference is no longer 40 per cent, but rather 55 per cent. This means that organized workers have on the average, over the last ten years received 55 per cent more in increases than we have. If we compare our salary-and this is important-to industrial wages in Canada, the difference is 75 per cent. This is completely ridiculous; it is outrageous! And I could add that the difference between our own increases and those of postal workers, for instance, for whom I have the figures here, is even worse, as much as 85 per cent. Over the last ten years, postal workers' salary increases have been 85 per cent higher than parliamentarians.
What we are proposing today is that we accept two thirds of the increase recommended in our own conciliation report, because we, members of Parliament, do not have the privilege to negotiate a collective agreement every year. We are subject to an act which provides for a review of our salaries by an
Senate and House of Commons Act
independent commission every four or five years. However, this is the first time in our history that an independent commission presents a report as required under the act, and we are not even accepting 100 per cent of what is recommended in this report, in what might be called a conciliation report. We are accepting only two thirds. I challenge any worker in Canada to accept only two thirds of the increase recommended in a conciliation report. This has never happened in the past, and we do so today in spite of the fact that we are now 40 per cent behind the increase in the cost of living index, 55 per cent behind the composite industrial index, 75 per cent behind the manufacturing sector and 85 per cent behind postal workers' salary increases. Then again, only two thirds of the conciliation report is reflected in the bill before us today.
Mr. Speaker, if I get worked up at this point, it is because when I had to study that report, I understood why Messrs. Mclsaac and Balcer were offended by the present. When they made comparisons with workers in other sectors, with industrial workers, with workers in the manufacturing sector, when they analysed the cost of living, when they considered the salaries paid in the public service, I understood why many people in this country do not respect the members of Parliament. We should start by setting an example and respecting ourselves. I feel that what is proposed in this report is a decent minimum and once again, it is thanks to the good faith and the good will of members of the three parties in this House that we agreed to introduce this bill that will be voted on tonight at 9:45. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that this is indeed so and that we have agreed to say publicly that it is as a result of an agreement among the three parties that we proceed in this manner. It is an agreement made not only with the Progressive Conservatives but also with the New Democrats.
Petitions have been signed by a majority of members from each party, a very substantial majority of each party, on the issue of pensions. A petition has been signed by a majority of Liberal and Progressive Conservative members on the salary issue, and the New Democratic Party assured us that a majority of their members support all the provisions of this bill, including those on salaries. We have their assurance that a majority of their members will vote in favour of this bill tonight, and these were the conditions under which we have decided and agreed to introduce this bill that I am now discussing. So let it be quite clear that this is not a unilateral move on the part of the government. The need was so obvious, the injustice so blatant that for the first time, I think, in a spontaneous manner, we were able to win a substantial majority in each caucus to restore some order and bring to a decent minimum the salaries of parliamentarians. I am grateful to the two opposition House leaders, my colleague for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) and my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who both spoke in good faith for their respective caucus and negotiated the agreement which will enable Parliament to implement two
11374

retirement allowances to parliamentarians receiving a salary for extra responsibilities.
As far as the retirement pension allowance or pension is concerned, clearly no comparison can be made with pensions paid in the private sector. Such a comparison cannot hold, for the simple reason that in order to serve in this House, the overwhelming majority of members have to jeopardize, and very often indeed cut themselves off from their profession, business or other occupation. This is a unique feature of parliamentary work, an exclusive condition that is inherent to the nature of our functions. As a member of Parliament I can give an example picked out of many. I am talking about a young MP who had just set up a legal office in his or her home town, hired staff, established social contacts, gotten involved in his community, cared for people, went into debt to start his business and build up his practice, kept up to date on the law and is aware of every change in the existing laws in order to give good service to his clients and who suddenly, because he has been a success for ten years as a lawyer or for that matter as a doctor, engineer, notary, or member of any other profession, and has built a reputation for himself through hard work and made many friends, is asked to serve in the national or parliamentary legislative assembly to take care of the interests of the public instead of just his own patients or clients. He then has to make a big sacrifice and come to Ottawa, only to find out that as a member of Parliament he has not only to take good care of his riding but also to live in Ottawa, to pass new laws, sit on committees and in the House of Commons, work as a legislator and meet with lobby groups and try to have the legislation reflect the popular will. It is a full-time job. In order to do this, he has to find someone to look after his business or office, but he is still requested to run.
Yet we all have generously accepted this call to serve our country. A number of us in so doing suffer a great financial loss. As I was saying a moment ago, nobody comes here expecting to get rich, but we do not want to get broke either if, and after serving five, six, seven, eight, ten or fifteen years, the hazards of politics cause us to be defeated or if our health gives in because our obligations as a public man or woman are so taxing that we are no longer able to travel regularly between Ottawa and our riding to fulfil our responsibilities ably and conscientiously. If at that stage we are forced out of public life because of ill health or election defeat, we find ourselves with nothing to fall back on.
I was giving the example of a professional. He no longer had an office because he had to sell it, then he had to pay tax on it because he could not incorporate. His loss was substantial. Now he has to start from scratch after an absence of 8, 10, 15 or 20 years. He has to begin anew, to get new clients, to update his knowledge, whether it be in law, medicine, or engineering or whatever, and this is not the same situation as those in private enterprise experience when they lose a job in a
Senate and House of Commons Act community, they look for another one for a few months to finally get one in the same community. They can do it much more easily that we can ourselves.
Therefore it is important to mention publicly those particularities of parliamentary life. This is true for professionals, tradesmen, for those in the field of education and it is true also for former public servants, because as soon as you get involved in politics, it is not easy to try to get back into the Public Service. More often than not, it is not an asset, it is a liability. That should not be the case but it is. Some will argue that the sacrifice men and women make to come here was their choice. However, you will agree also that if you want to serve your country, we must have the opportunity to do so not for the purpose of making money, but not to go broke either. This opportunity should not be the privilege of the rich only but should be given to the little man, either lawyer, notary, tradesman, teacher, to all those with a low or medium income, those with a very average social status.
This is the justification, Mr. Speaker, for the difference in the pension plan for members of Parliament as opposed to the private sector. We talk about being eligible to receive 75 per cent of the salary after 15 years instead of 25. I know they have such a plan in Quebec, and I am even told that it is after eight years or at any rate it is less than 15 years.


An hon. Member:: It is eight years.


Yvon Pinard: It is eight years. I am told it is 15 years in other legislatures. That seems to be the norm in legislatures where one serves one's country as an elected representative. The reason for that is that the members of Parliament are in a very special situation in that if defeated, or if they retire from public life for health or some other reason, it is extremely difficult for them to maintain the standard of living they enjoyed at the time of their retirement from politics 10 or 15 years earlier when they worked in the private sector. And I think that nobody wants such injustice in Canada. Furthermore, I am convinced that if we did not bring in these amendments to entitle members of Parliament to a pension after 15 years, we would deter responsible people from going into politics and serving in this place.
Many people, it happens at each election, refuse to leave their business or to quit their job to enter public life, not only because the salary is extremely low compared to what it should be, according to reports made to us. That is not the main reason, but they refuse because they are afraid, and rightly so, of the insecurity in store for them. Regardless of family and health problems, strictly from a personal point of view, anyone who decides to enter public life and makes a decision which brings him insecurity and uncertainty all the time he is in politics very often for the rest of his life. Because, as I said earlier, none of us enjoys job security, none of us can be sure of being re-elected, none of us can be assured that for 20, 25 years, he will be able to set aside enough money to provide

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act himself with a decent pension fund on which to live if he were handicapped or unable to return to his previous job if he does not have the money required.
Mr. Speaker, in closing on this subject let me add that a pension is not exactly an outright gift because members of Parliament will be paying for theirs. They will contribute 10 per cent of their salary each year towards it. For purposes of clarification and for the benefit of those who write about us and those who would be tempted to depreciate what we are doing, I would say that on the average a member of Parliament will serve for less than six years, and to be eligible for pension, one has to serve a minimum of six years. Therefore theoretically, nobody is entitled to the pension.
It is a fact that a rare few sit for twenty five years, and that a few more, not too many, sit for fifteen years. Not many sit for ten years, but the greatest number, the vast majority, sit less than ten years. And as I have just mentioned, those who serve an average length of time do not qualify for a pension; the average stay in Parliament is less than six years. Therefore, from the point of view of the cost to the Treasury, considering the 10 per cent contribution that we are going to make, considering what we will pay and the number of those who will in fact qualify, judging from past experience the cost to the government, to the taxpayer, will be negligible, practically nil. This is something which should be emphasized and publicized because this is not a gift that members of Parliament are offering themselves, Mr. Speaker, it is the very basic minimum a person will accept to enter public life and to serve conscientiously and without anxiety his constituents as fairly and as objectively as possible, without fear of finding himself one day in the poor house and in poor health and without any decent pension. Therefore this is the main justification for our pension system. This proposed pension plan is already applied elsewhere, sometimes much more generously, but in fact very few members will benefit from it.
I might tell you that there are now in Canada about 133, take or leave two or three, persons receiving a parliamentary pension, the overwhelming majority of them receiving a pension of less that $5,000 a year. The highest pension now received by a former parliamentarian amounts to about $17,000. I am referring to federal politicians. Some would argue that on the provincial level some former MLAs get more, but I am referring to the federal level. The highest pension now being paid in Canada amounts to about $17,000. There are only about 133 persons on pension, and most of them receive less than $5,000 a year. It is therefore an inequity, a blatant injustice, and I am glad to see that the majority of NDP members, the majority of Conservative members and the majority of Liberal members have accepted once and for all to lay aside any partisanship and endorse with such spontaneity a piece of legislation long overdue which was recommended in an independent report published and tabled by myself in the House last December. In conclusion, I would
say that a bill of this nature, a bill that concerns each and every parliamentarian, should not be drafted according to ordinary rules. It is essential, under similar circumstances, that members be consulted, which was done, as I pointed out, and it is essential too that their views be taken into consideration; this too was done as well. Again, I appreciate the sustained support of my colleagues, the House leaders, in the past several weeks, I should say the past several months, to ensure that all members were consulted. As a result of our joint efforts, a large majority of members of all parties have endorsed the provisions of this bill and I hope they will come out openly and frankly for it this evening.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying how much I appreciate the review made by the President of the Privy Council and the government House leader (Mr. Pinard) of the sections and the principles of the bill. I will be speaking with respect to some parts of the bill, but not to the same extent in view of the government House leader's statement. He has saved me the trouble of quoting various opinions from the article to which he referred. These were opinions on the level of members' salaries and allowances expressed by labour leaders, business leaders, professional people and leaders. As a parliamentarian I read the article with a sense of gratefulness that there was some recognition of our work outside of this House, which is important.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party in favour of an increase in the indemnity for members of Parliament. I believe the increase to be fair and reasonable in the bill presented by the President of the Privy Council but I want to put it in this context, that no member in this House asks for anything more on his behalf than what the job is worth. We all ask on behalf of this institution the salary level needed to continue to attract and keep people with the skills and ideas required to make this institution function as it should. I doubt whether there is any other group of Canadians who make as many sacrifices to occupy a job than those who offer themselves as candidates to the federal House of Commons.
1 want to defend as energetically as I can the pay bill that is before us, and deal with the arguments put forward by those who say that whatever MPs are paid is too much.
Most of us are here because we want to be here. I say most because a few of my colleagues representing all sides of the House are heard to mutter from time to time after a hard day that they must have been crazy to run in the first place. But that goes with the territory and usually the next morning they feel a little better. MPs go to a lot of trouble to build a political reputation which leads to nomination and then a campaign fight which brings them here. We all like politics. We followed politics before becoming full-time politicians.
I wonder how many of us would be here if we had come across a job description for an MP in the career section of a
July 9, 1981

national newspaper. I suggest that the description would be intriguing but not very attractive. It might read this way:
Wanted: Person to act as member of Parliament. This exciting, management, professional, scientific, accounting, public service, public relations, clerical position offers endless challenge. You will represent 75,000 to 100,000 or more Canadians who have the right to phone you up at any hour of the day or night, criticize your performance on the job, fairly or unfairly, and write letters asking that you intervene with the Prime Minister or any minister on their behalf. You will be flown every week to Ottawa, which is a lovely city, except in July. While you are there you will put in a 70-hour week talking, arguing, reading and, wondering where it is getting you or anyone else. You will attend meetings from 8:30 in the morning to 11:30 at night. When you return to your riding you will be able to say hello to your spouse, if you are married, and to your children, if you have any, before departing to your constituency office, riding functions and more meetings. Fully rested, you will fly out Sunday night for another week in Ottawa. If you work hard, take chances, stay out of trouble and get lucky, you might end up as a cabinet minister, or even worse. Pay: $32,700 per annum, falling further behind inflation every year. The successful candidate must have extensive personal savings or be single.
Most people reading that ad might consider $32,700 a little low for the skills demanded and the workload expected.
But I want to say that the job of a member of Parliament can be challenging. Being an MP can be worthwhile, which is why most of us came here. The job can be absorbing, which is why most of us stay. In the long run it can be exhausting, discouraging and fruitless, which is why many leave. For the last two decades it has been what it was not previously, and that is a full-time occupation.
For the last four or five years, MPs have been badly underpaid. For many members of this House the frustrations of parliamentary life have been compounded by the rising anxiety over family finances. That is a matter which this House must face.
The House of Commons does not exist to offer monetary rewards for those who may come here on the make. Equally, it should not penalize those who come to the House at the peak of their careers when their energy and stamina are at their greatest. The salary level should, in fact, be a neutral factor. It should not be high enough to constitute the principal attraction to the job, but equally not so low that it is the main deterrent against running for Parliament or staying here. The job should be accessible to any Canadian who feels he has something to offer, whether married or single, old or young, rich or poor, with or without children, male or female. As is often said, this is supposed to be a representative institution and a low salary level should not act as an unintended social filter to those who would like to come here. That is the purpose, as I see it, of this bill.
The important question that we and the country have to face is quite simply, how much is the job worth? Mclsaac and Balcer based their proposal for a salary level of $45,000 per year on a comparison of MPs' jobs with others requiring similar skills. I do not think there are others demanding similar hours. Mclsaac and Balcer looked principally at comparable bureaucratic salary levels, which are substantially below those of the private sector since, in a bureaucracy, it is difficult to measure performance. That difficulty applies to ourselves as well as MPs.
Senate and House of Commons Act
Having made that comparison, the Mclsaac and Balcer report called for a minimum salary of $45,000 per annum to be reached in four increments of $3,600, with an annual adjustment based on the findings of the Pay Research Bureau on the average salary changes for supervisory, managerial and professional employees.
Most of us in this House thought that that was a fair approach. We hoped it would solve both the immediate and the long-range problems. We all wish that we had a boss we could go to on an individual basis and argue the merits of our own case, as we would if we were in the private sector or if we belonged to a union or employee association where we could go as a group. We would rather have almost any other arrangement than the one we have now.
We support the adoption of a fair salary level and a formula to more or less maintain it. I will come to the "more or less" in a moment.
What we have in the bill before us is substantially less than the minimum recomended by Mclsaac and Balcer. However, we can accept the importance of a package which can be accepted by everyone as representing a substantial majority of the three parties in this House. Instead of $45,000, it will be $40,200 effective July 1, 1980 with the first cost of living increase coming in January 1, 1981. As a yearly increased index, instead of the Pay Research Bureau reports as recommended by Mclsaac-Balcer, it will be the lesser of the consumer price index or industrial composite, minus 1 per cent of that lesser figure. The expense allowance will remain as it is now, instead of being divided into an expense allowance and housing allowance, as recommended by Mclsaac-Balcer.
I know that certain segments of the country of the country will soon emerge-I hope they won't but they will-in full cry against this reduced figure, even though it is well below what many of us in the House could make elsewhere and well below that of most of the people we deal with daily in the Ottawa bureaucracy and as representatives of the private sector. Nevertheless, the suggestions made in this bill go some way to correcting the imbalance. On behalf of my party, we accept it.
I believe the new salary level is within the range of what the job is worth, if perhaps at the low end of the scale. I also know that a great many arguments are made against any raises at all which have nothing to do with a fair salary level. I wish to deal with them in the next few moments because I do not believe that those arguments which are raised are as unanswerable as their proponents would have everyone believe.
One argument which is more often alluded to than openly avowed is the one I call "for the honour" argument. This line of reasoning suggests there should be a measure of sacrifice in the job of being a member of Parliament and that it is somehow unworthy to ask for a raise in pay in the same manner as anyone else would. The suggestion is that an MP lacks patriotism in expressing dissatisfaction with the pay that exists.

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
I believe that this argument mistakes the nature of the sacrifice an MP already makes. It ignores the changes in the conditions of employment over the past two decades, and in the bargain it argues that a family can be fed with honour. Even if an MP's pay were doubled, it could be argued effectively that an MP puts up with long hours, tedious travel and family separation which would drive people in the private sector either to premature ulcers or premature retirement. There are very real sacrifices undertaken willingly in the line of public duty. If anything, they are more tangible than the monetary penalties which can be staved off by dipping into savings, if one has then, or by regarding the position of an MP as a temporary venture.
In previous eras, going back to confederation, the job of the MP was perhaps more prestigious than it is now. It was undertaken mostly by people who, when they came to the House, where older than the member today. They were already leaders in their communities before coming here. Many had substantial wealth and did not need a salary. For those not in the fortunate position, the sacrifice was marginal since Parliament sat only a few months, often at a time when there was little to be done on the farm or when the business or professional office could be run by associates for a short period of time. The sacrifice, such as it was, was made by those who had a great deal to sacrifice.
Today parliamentary business is a full-time occupation. All of us frown on those who try to take the money as a parliamentarian and then go out and attempt to make more money somewhere else. We look upon this as a full-time occupation. The reason we frown on it is because that kind of member, and there are a few, is not here when he is needed. He cannot be counted on. We here and the public generally have to come to regard this job, quite rightly, as a full-time occupation.
Those in this House who do not need their parliamentary salary are in a minority. Needless to say, those people are not asking for this raise except in recognition of the position of their colleagues. Increasingly, MPs who come here are exactly the type that the public clamours for: young, energetic people, representatives of the bulk of the population, both men and women.
More and more of our MPs are young or middle-aged. More and more have growing families. They do not expect the people of Canada to give them the kind of incomes they could have expected had they continued in private life. They do ask people to understand that a young family cannot be raised on the honour of having a parent as an MP. The expense and the natural strain of raising a family are increased, not diminished, by constant separation, a duplication of residences and the stress of political life.
Another frequent argument against a raise for MPs is that they should set an example in the fight against inflation. Aside from the point I just made, that MPs increasingly are subject to the same or more serious pressures as anyone else, I would argue that parliamentarians have already made significant sacrifices in the inflationary fight. Even with this raise and the yearly increases, as was put by the President of the Privy
Council (Mr. Pinard), we have not seen the last debate in this House dealing with the way in which MPs' pay has fallen behind. I ask my friends to mark those words.
In 1975 the salary level was made retroactive to 1974 and set at $24,000. It was to be increased in each year, beginning January 1, 1976, by the amount of increase in the industrial composite index or 7 per cent, whichever was the lesser. The 1976 escalation was cancelled by this House so that the salary level was frozen at the same level for 1974, 1975 and 1976. How many groups in the economy can point to a total voluntary freeze for three years?
The 1976 freeze cost members of Parliament not only for that year but also for every successive year, since the base upon which escalation would take off thereafter was smaller for each subsequent escalation. The present salary is $32,700. If we had increased it by only 7 per cent each year-and neither the industrial composite index nor the consumer price index registered that low in that period of time-we would now be at $36,336.
Some people-and I suggest there are a number-accuse us of trying to keep up with inflation. If our salary had kept up with the consumer price index, it would now be approximately $40,000. If it had kept up with the industrial composite index, it would now be almost $43,000 and the expense allowance would be even higher. As Mclsaac-Balcer showed, if it had kept its position relative to comparable professional or managerial jobs, it would be higher still. Throughout this period of escalation when the escalations were running behind, the job of the member of Parliament became more demanding, the hours longer and the sessions more dragged out, as this one is dragging out. Compared with any measure of inflation we lost ground in terms of salary every year. Both the cumulative total loss and the loss in salary position has been substantial. I have to ask myself a question: How many of those critics, however well-intentioned they may be, have made similar sacrifices over the past seven years.
The new salary level puts us roughly at where we would have been, but of course it does not take into account the accumulated loss on the escalation, the loss which has forced many members to dip into their savings and into other resources. The new formula refers to the lower of the consumer price index or the industrial composite minus 1 per cent. That is obviously a better arrangement from our point of view, but the 1 per cent will accumulate-this is what I meant earlier when I said "Mark my words"-and after 10 or 12 years this time, instead of seven, we will find that we have fallen seriously behind. How many other groups in the economy have accepted a wage package which locks them into a salary scale which guarantees now that in a decade they will be 10 per cent to 15 per cent behind then current salary levels?
But some say as an answer: "It is your own fault as a member of Parliament that inflation has risen and will rise so much. You promised to fix inflation, and you did not. You do not deserve a raise for failing." Let us leave aside in answering
July 9, 1981

that attack the fact that very few of us promised our constituents we could stop inflation. Let us leave aside the complex factors causing inflation and the myriad of cures which have been advanced for ending it. Let us just look at our system of government and the party system which animates it.
We are not elected as individuals to solve Canada's problems individually. As much as we all hope we are the ones to have to cure revealed to us, that is not our lot. We come in large part as party politicians supporting a party platform. Those opposite me now support an anti-inflation program put forward by the executive which consists of most of the ladies and gentlemen in the two front rows. They as a government have made their choices and, with luck, the people of Canada will hold them responsible as a government for the failure of their policies. When we are in office, we would be held responsible for our policies. That is how the system works. It is wrong in practice and ludicrous in theory to put members of Parliament individually on a commission basis and say, "Your pay is frozen until you cure inflation." Members of Parliament should be paid for the job they are constitutionally called upon to do, which is either to defend the government on the one hand, or to oppose it on the other and propose an alternative. That is our job.
Another line is to say that members of Parliament want a raise to attract better people. There must be an admission that they themselves leave a lot to be desired. I think we recognize the qualities of the people most responsible for making this Parliament run and we wish there were more of them. We know the demands put on people who finally reach the cabinet. Some of us have been there and we hope more people with the necessary qualities reach Parliament. To be honest, we all count ourselves as the sort of people we should be attracting. We all have our own nominees for colleagues who could be replaced for the benefit of this institution. That is not really the point any more. Parliament has been successful in interesting more and more qualified people in running, and the raise in pay and benefits which has paralleled the increase in demands made has been one of those factors. This does not apply simply to the increased number who have left the recognized professions such as medicine, law, business or teaching, but also to the larger number of non-professional people who have established themselves as strong leaders in their communities or strong leaders in their unions and who felt a parliamentary career was a logical next step. The real point is that once we get them here we must keep them- within the bounds, of course, of party competition.
It does us relatively little good if we get better and better people who spend less and less time here in the work of this Parliament. There are already enough non-salary incentives to leave, but a discussion of these belongs in a debate on parliamentary reform. It takes time to reach maximum effectiveness as a parliamentarian. As a Parliament and as a country we cannot afford to have most of our promising new recruits leave in disgust after one term of financial sacrifice or political frustration. We can do something about the former now and
Senate and House of Commons Act perhaps about the latter when my friend, the President of the Privy Council, brings in his reform package in the fall.
There is another argument, and the argument goes this way: Members knew what they were getting into, so why do they not just get on with it? That applies to both salaries and conditions. I really have to ask myself how many employees in this country would accept the argument that, because they wanted the job they were in and knew roughly what the salary and the conditions were, they have no right to ask for a change if a case can be made. If anyone suggested that to a union leader in this country, he would be subjected to a string of epithets of which "reactionary" would be the mildest. I doubt that many really did know what the job would entail, but that is another story.
We run as members of Parliament because we want to do things for our country, not because we tacitly accept that everything about the job is perfect. Certainly there will never be a shortage of candidates, but so what? It is just as important for the health of our democracy to ensure that the candidates are qualified and will try to earn the right to stay in the House as to ensure an unlimited supply.
We are told that it is not reasonable to count only our salary and that we should count our allowances as well. In fact, we are told, since the allowance is not taxed we should count it at more than its face value. Members who are struggling to make ends meet at just over $30,000 are finding sources outside quoting their salaries at figures such as $50,000. It is a specious figure and reflects poorly on those who use it.
Members of Parliament have a wide range of expenses, including the tax-free one, because they are needed to do the job. The most obvious expense is maintaining two homes, but to the cost of housing can be added the cost of family separation, the cost of having almost no leisure time for do-it-yourselfing, the ceaseless demands for donations, dinner tickets and the incidentals of constant travel and public appearances. Sure, some members may make a bit on the expense allowance. Lots of others, however, dip into their savings or investments to subsidize their position as an MP.
The allowance of $14,000-$14,400 as of today-is a compromise which has been traditionally supported by all parties. It is for expenses, and for the great majority of members of Parliament it is necessary for expenses. If an executive officer or an employee of the public service or any business was sent to Vancouver in the course of his work, his travel expenses would be paid. This job calls us from Vancouver and elsewhere to Ottawa.
A final argument holds that if we wish to use as an argument the salary we can make outside this House, we should work outside the House. Well, there are two replies to that argument. The one I have already made is the fact that we wish that a more realistic salary does not in any way diminish our sense of public duty in being here. It simply means that we are not monks or janissaries; rather we are ordinary men and women with ordinary requirements. Second,

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
no one is asking for the money he might have made elsewhere. A substantial number of members gave up high salaries from a sense of duty. They did not and do not expect to attain the same earning levels as they had before they became members of Parliament. They do not ask that the indemnity be lavish, merely that it not be derisory. This is the situation we are in if this bill is not passed.
There is only one valid argument, Mr. Speaker, in assessing the salary levels: What is fair for the job to be done? That is an argument put in this House of Commons, in the legislatures across the country, but it is more fairly and honestly put and recognized in every job occupation outside this place. What is fair for the job to be done? The political process can only be harmed if we try and take legislators and say they must be the whipping boys or must set an example beyond what is reasonable. All the arguments I have referred to sound impressive unless you stop to think about their implications, if followed through, the best people would be discouraged from coming to the House, and those here would seek ways to leave if we do not address the problem now.
In every occupation the salary level speaks for the employer in expressing the regard he has for his employees and the extent to which he values their services. It speaks to the question of what the job is worth in every occupation. A low salary, permanently held low, would serve to devalue this institution and we could not expect it to attract the people who should be here.
As MPs we are targets, but that does not mean we have to sit meekly in the face of some of the nonsense and hypocrisy that is from time to time hurled in our direction. I would have been happy to have had the opportunity to defend the salary proposals put forward in the Mclsaac-Balcer report. The salary set there was a defensible and appropriate one, reached after great consideration by some people who know. Having said that, I have even less hesitation in speaking in support of the proposal of the government, which is considerably lower.
Now, before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the pension proposal in this bill. It would raise our contribution from 7 per cent to 10 per cent of salary, with an additional 1 per cent for later indexing, and another 1 per cent for a surviving spouse provision.
We support this provision for several reasons, including the assurances given us by the government about the finances of the fund. That assurance has been extremely important in our minds and in our decision to accept the proposals. There have been criticisms about the pension arrangements for MPs. However, I put in to the House that this new scheme is not a departure in principle from what has gone on before. It is a straightforward exchange of higher contributions for higher benefits. Under this scheme the maximum benefit level is reached after 15 years, when it is 75 per cent of the six best years. It should be noted this refers only to salaries. The allowances and so on do not enter into this consideration at all. I make that point so that we do not get the same distortion on that coupling as could occur if it were done with respect to pensions.
I think more people are familiar with the rationale for a pension scheme for members of Parliament. Many of the arguments against the pension are made against what might be called the "worst cases". Whenever an argument is made against the pension plan for MPs, it is always the worst case that could possibly be picked, ignoring the fact that for most members the provisions are reasonable and in fact the actual payment levels are really quite low.
Most MPs come into the House over the age of 35 or 40. A 15-year chunk out of their career at this point, with very little extra salary to contribute to an RRSP, means that the prime contributing years have been removed. Not many people could leave the House and re-enter the employment market at 50 or 55, and in the next decade or so not only re-establish themselves in an interrupted career, but make an adequate provision for 20 or more years of retirement. That is the reason the plan was conceived in the first place, and for the way it was conceived.
Similarly, someone who only meets the minimum qualification of six years and gets a small pension entitlement is not being pensioned for life but is simply receiving a proportionate contribution to their eventual retirement plan. You have only to look at the levels that are paid after six years of service as a member of Parliament. Perhaps when we reach the stage as a country of complete pension portability, none of this would be necessary. However, we have not yet reached that point.
There is an impression that former members are already receiving luscious pensions and I would like to repeat some of the figures mentioned in the Mclsaac-Balcer report, which were in term taken from the annual report on the administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act for 1978-79. There were 218 MPs receiving pensions along with 34 surviving spouses and one dependant child. Of the MPs, one received between $21,000 and $21,999; one received between $20,000 and $20,999; and one received between $19,000 and $19,999. Altogether, 24 received more than $10,000 and 144 received less than $5,000 a year. That is not a picture of a pension scheme run wild. Given the assurances of the soundness of the increased deduction and benefit levels, I do not believe there should be any problem in the future. However, that is something this Parliament has a duty to watch, review and monitor constantly. The situation of MPs is different from others in the economy, and the pension plan for which they pay a high rate reflects that difference.
I believe this bill is supported by almost all hon. members of the House. It does not have this support because a theoretical figure has been plucked out of the air to be embraced and held to the bosoms of a group of rapacious members of Parliament. It is supported because members of Parliament know by their own day-to-day experience and that of their colleagues that the present pay level is far too low to meet the expenses encountered, to compensate for the skills which are required, and to encourage the interest in a parliamentary career needed
July 9, 1981

to maintain the effectiveness of this institution. This is why the bill is before us.
I want to close by saying that the overwhelming majority of my party and I support the proposals in this bill. For that reason we agreed earlier today to the order of the House which would allow this matter to be considered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the House knows, there will be private members' hour at five o'clock; it is already scheduled. In order to allow the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody to complete his statement as official spokesman for the New Democratic Party, I am wondering whether there will be the consent of the House to allow him to finish his remarks into private members' hour and then we could start the full hour of private members' hour at the point the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody resumes his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. members have heard the proposal. Is there unanimous consent to hear the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make certain that there will be ample opportunity to proceed at some point in the proceedings with private members' hour in order to ensure that the projects I have in mind will be dealt with.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps the hon. member was entering the chamber somewhat late to hear all the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. Private members' hour has been assured.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, as the NDP representative on the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, it is my duty to present the position on this bill taken by my caucus. I am neither a hawk nor a dove on the pay issue, although by speaking first and in favour of the package I may be a pigeon, but at least I would like people to know that I am not a chicken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: I believe the position taken by my colleagues in the House of Commons and I is a responsible one. Like most other occupations, members of Parliament face the ravishes of inflation. Members of Parliament have children in schools and colleges. Members of Parliament have to renew mortgages at 20 per cent interest rates. They pay taxes too and purchase automobiles which today cost about as much as a house cost when I first bought a home. Some members require two homes because of the distance they live from Ottawa. If they are unlucky, this means two 20 per cent mortgages.
My party and I do not support the total package as presented in the Balcer-Mclsaac report because we feel it was too rich a proposal in a number of ways. Balcer-Mclsaac called for a
Senate and House of Commons Act
$3,600 per year increase over four years. My party rejected this. Balcer-Mclsaac called for a $500 accommodation allowance, but this was rejected as well on the ground that members of Parliament already enjoy a tax-free, non-accountable expense allowance. Therefore, we believe we should pay our rent out of what I would describe as this adequate tax-free portion.
While I am certain that we will not be thanked for it, either by some of my own colleagues, some members of the other parties or some members of the general public who think that any raise for MPs by any definition is too much, I believe it is a responsible act to scale down the recommendations of Balcer-Mclsaac by one third or approximately $5,000 envisioned in the fourth year of their report and one third across the board along the same lines.
There will be some who claim that this is a bad time to have a pay hike, that this is a bad time to discuss a pay increase or the benefit package of members of Parliament. Of those who claim this I should like to ask: When is a good time? There are no good times; there are only bad times as far as some are concerned.
I was here in 1970 when salaries were readjusted and, except for one New Democratic Party member of Parliament, my party opposed the pay raise then. Again in 1974, which was the last time the salaries of members of Parliament were revised, my party, except for three of its members, again opposed the pay bill. It is in our tradition to oppose pay raises, especially if we consider them to be unreasonable.
Some of the newer members in all corners of the House should realize that if my party had been successful in blocking the pay hikes of 1970 and 1974, members would still be earning what they were earning when I came here in 1968. For those members who might not remember, it was the staggering sum of $12,000 taxable salary, supported by a $6,000 tax-free allowance.
Some people would argue that being a member of Parliament is a calling somewhat like the ministry and that we should all be prepared to accept the long hours, the travel, the weekends packed full of meetings and public appearances, the resulting family tensions to which others have referred and so forth, as part of our sacrifice for having the privilege of serving the people of Canada.
Members of my caucus do not accept the argument, however, that high pay is the single most important criterion for attracting so-called good men and women to Parliament. We know that there are hundreds of good men and women serving communities all across Canada who are not particularly highly paid, so we totally reject this "attract good men and women" argument. No one goes into politics to get rich, but it is equally true that members of Parliament are not poor compared with the rest of the country. Speaking for my party, we do not expect to earn what doctors earn, what top deputy ministers earn at $85,000 to $91,000 in government ministries, or even what hockey players earn at $100,000 per year on the average. But we think it is irresponsible to encourage MPs to take home a salary which is less by $5,000 than that of an

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
elementary school principal in my riding or roughly equivalent to that of an interior IWA tradesman in my province if we add a bit of overtime. This is not said to demean in any way either the elementary school principal or the tradesman. And surely the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whatever we might think of him, is worth at least somewhere near the financial reward earned by the average NHL hockey player.
Since 1974 members of Parliament have averaged a 4.4 per cent increase in their indemnities, while the consumer price index climbed 68 per cent by 1980 and the industrial composite jumped 78.2 per cent by the same year. Essentially the salary proposal before us does little more than catch up to where MPs were in 1974. That fact in itself makes the package worthy of serious consideration. Other people as disparate as John Bulloch of the Federation of Independent Business, former British Columbia Supreme Court judge J. V. Clyne and Dennis McDermott of the CLC all agree that members of Parliament need better salaries.
My friend, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), has figured out that this package is worth about 21 per cent over 11 years, plus COLA, if spoken and defined in union terms. No one, unless he has been elected to the House of Commons at least once, has any conception of the hourly demands placed upon members of Parliament. Absolutely invisible to members of the public is the time that MPs spend on such things as party policy decisions, the hours we spend on the committee work of various kinds, such as estimates, annual reports, task forces which sit in the summer, as the alternative energy one did last summer, and as the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements task force intends to sit this summer. No one knows the time it takes to study legislation before the House. Equally invisible is the preparation of speeches, the phone calls, the letters related to constituents' problems, or for that matter, the time spent on travel to and from our constituencies. We are busy people and, I think, effective people. In the main, I think it is time the public heard that statement in complimenting MPs once in a while.
If I may be permitted a brief or perhaps even a lengthy personal note, I represent a British Columbia constituency. I go home virtually every weekend. If any listener or viewer thinks flying across Canada and back once a week is a real treat, I would like to disabuse them of that misconception.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: It takes at least an hour for me to get to the airport Friday evenings, and if my plane is not late, as it usually is, we leave for Vancouver at 7:05 p.m. The plane, if it gets to Vancouver, arrives at about 9:30 p.m. Vancouver time, but that is 12:30 a.m. Ottawa time. By the time I get to my home in Mission, after driving about 60 miles-I think that is about 100 kilometres-it is two hours later. By the time I get home, it is 2:30 a.m. for me, because I remain on Ottawa time. For me, that travel is tough. But for B.C. members, like my colleagues here and some from the other parties who do not
live in the lower mainland, it is terrible. Consider for a moment the travel problems confronting the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) or the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), or the Okanagan and Vancouver Island members.


An hon. Member:: Try Newfoundland!


Mark Willson Rose: These individuals must catch local connecting flights later on that evening after they reach Vancouver or spend the night in Vancouver as a stopover before completing their journey or their trip home. These members like to get home and keep in touch with their constituents too, but the vast size of Canada makes that extremely difficult. The travel time and the expenditure of energy in such travel is immense, and I do not think very many people realize that.
Of course, there will be people who will say that if the work is so tough and the travel is so rough, why does one run in the first place? I think that is a reasonable question, and it is a good question. However, I think it begs the real question whether our salaries are falling behind the cost of living or not; and it also ignores the hours members of Parliament spend on travel, as well as time they spend on their jobs in Ottawa and their jobs in their constituencies, whether it is on weekends or in the summertime. There is seldom a weekend I do not attend some public function in my own riding.
So all in all, in discussing the matter with other MPs, we find that it is a rare week when most MPs do not work from perhaps 9 a.m. in the morning to 10 p.m. in the evening. If one multiplies that by about six days, the total amounts to roughly between 75 and 80 hours per week. That is the number of hours at straight time, say at $12 an hour. I am not talking about overtime, time and a half, or double time. Incidentally, an interior tradesman in the IWA in my province has just received an offer of $16.95 an hour. This is what a tradesman can receive. However, if one multiplies 75 or 80 hours by $12 per hour, one cannot get very far away from $1,000 a week. If one says $1,000 a week, one has to say that amounts to roughly $12,000 per year more than what we are asking for in this package.
Some of us might wonder again why someone like me would speak in favour of this legislation, given my traditions. Unfortunately, we seem over the years to have been saying two rather contradictory things. On the one hand, we have said that since we do not want Parliament to become the exclusive preserve of the privileged classes and the wealthy, we support decent salaries, pensions and benefits to enable even those of modest means to stand for public office without undue sacrifice to themselves or their families. On the other hand, our voting record indicates that we do not really believe this at all, and we have acted over the years to keep salaries relatively low. I think we have been responsible historically. The result of this action, nevertheless, has meant that at least some able people of all political persuasions have been discouraged from seeking public office because their personal financial responsibilities preclude them from standing for Parliament. I think that is a fact.
July 9, 1981

It is probably true that I personally, as an individual, would not be unduly damaged if there were no revision of our salaries, other than the benefits which would come about under the normal course of the 7 per cent. However, I believe that the position of the MP deserves to be recognized, and the position of the MP as related to salary paid to the office, cannot fall behind unduly. 1 have no children at home any more, personally. My obligations to my wife and family are not nearly as great as they once were. If Parliament granted no increase beyond the 7 per cent annual increase, I personally would not feel persecuted financially.
However, I remember with great clarity how things were in 1968 when I was first elected. My first term was in 1968-1969.
I took home $12,000 taxable and $6,000 non-taxable. I was paying on a house in Coquitlam, where my wife remained. I had one child in junior high school. I had two others in two different universities, and I was so broke that I could afford no apartment. Never mind the accommodation allowance; I recall sleeping in a room with a couple of other members of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Move into a tenement.


Mark Willson Rose: Well, I would not want my plight to sound too bad! However, I will say this. I certainly had no automobile in Ottawa. A second automobile for use in Ottawa was naturally out of the question.
The following year we sold our house in Coquitlam so we could afford to buy something here, and we moved to Ottawa. I brought one wife, one child and one car. We all moved to Ottawa. I do not mean to be funny about this; I do not think it is funny. I do not want anyone to weep too much, but I do not think it is funny, either.
Our move to Ottawa, of course, meant that I no longer had a home in my riding. Therefore, each time I visited I had to rent a car and maybe sleep at my mother's house or crash the home of some political supporter. I do not want hon. members to weep over this. I got by. I am still here. I was defeated but later I was re-elected. The shock to my system was not that great. I got by and so did my family. I had to give up my UBC pension for six years, because becoming an MP meant I would have to pick up both the university's portion plus my own and I could not afford the cost.
I was first elected in 1968. I was out for five years. Therefore, I can anticipate a proportionally minimal retirement allowance, based on four years of low salary when I first came here, if and when I am next defeated or retire.
Again, I say I will get by; but it can be argued that Parliament is no longer the private preserve of the wealthy, neither is it any longer the private preserve of the elderly. There are now dozens of young MPs here with growing families who intend to make a career out of politics. For them, serving in Parliament is far more than a calling; it is a career with rather risky job security provisions.
Senate and House of Commons Act
These young members need decent salaries, decent pensions and decent severance pay once they are defeated-as they surely will be. Since 1968, 218 members have failed to win election. I believe the average term of an MP is less than six years. If their terms are less it means that most MPs fail to qualify for even the minimum pension. They will not qualify under this bill either, so I repeat, this package is not overly generous. It is both reasonable and responsible. Even if some of the more senior MPs do not need more money, some of the younger ones with families need the improvements badly. On behalf of this party, I support the recommendations contained in the bill.
Let me speak briefly now about severance pay, and again I call upon my own experiences to illustrate the need for some form of severance pay for those MPs who are defeated, as most are, before they qualify for a minimum pension after six years.
I was defeated in 1974, but while serving here I was on political leave from an enlightened institution called the University of British Columbia and I still am. The day after I was defeated in 1974 I went back on staff at UBC, so the lack of severance pay was not an issue for me. I had security and I had tenure, but hundreds of others do not. The readjustment to "civvy street" is much more difficult for them.
My four NDP colleagues who went down to defeat in 1980 were not so lucky. Three of the four had seven distinguished years as parliamentarians. All were good MPs, but as so often happens when vote shifts occur, being a good MP is like being a spectator at a shoot-out. You can be gunned down anyway. Of the four, not one had a job to go back to the day after the election. One though, after some months, was reluctantly taken back by his school district because the contract demanded it. Two others still cannot find jobs equal to those they left on first becoming elected and the third started his own business and is in debt to the bank for thousands of dollars.
I have said nothing about lost promotional opportunities in the prime of one's career life. I have not spoken of catching up professionally after an extended absence from a job or profession. After an absence of six years, I felt I did not know the literature; I was dated, and it took a long time to get back where I was professionally when I left. I do not mean financially because I was covered financially. I have not spoken either of housing and domestic factors that make the readjustment of a defeated MP extremely difficult.
I think, tough, I have said enough to make a fairly convincing case for severance pay for defeated MPs, and I think I can say, despite our differences on certain parts in the bill and its benefits, that this party agrees that severance pay is essential and supports it 100 per cent.
Now let me turn to pensions. Many people think that upon retirement or defeat all MPs receive pensions bountiful enough to enable them to take numerous world tours, dine only in the finest restaurants and stay at the best-hotels. From the laugh-

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
ter, I notice that some hon. members are not convinced; but most of the general public believes that.
As I have already stated, most MPs do not receive any pension whatsoever because they are not here long enough to qualify. If you do not believe me, just ask some of those nine-month MPs who came and went with the Clark government. How many? Too many, say the Tories.
As the Balcer-Mclsaac report points out, in 1979 there was a grand total of 218 former MPs receiving pensions. Of these, 101, or virtually half, receive pensions less than $3,000, which is lower than the basic old age pension today. There will be no world tours for these pensioners.
The next highest group includes 93 former MPs and they receive between $3,000 and $10,000 per year. This is not lavish when one considers that a pensioner on old age security and with the guaranteed income supplement today receive $5,160 per year. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is known far and wide for his achievements on behalf of the pensioners of Canada. I am not saying that our elderly receive too much. I am saying that if you put it in the proper perspective, the 93 former MPs who receive pensions of between $3,000 and $10,000 per year paid their share of their premium. It was not a gift.
Our present pension requires a 7.5 per cent premium to be paid and the one we are considering will require a 10 per cent premium at the minimum. As was pointed out earlier, the indexing portion will cost another 1 per cent and if one wants a decent spouse's allowance for a survivor, the premium will cost an additional 1 per cent. The contribution, therefore, is between 10 per cent and 12 per cent annually.
This is a pension to which MPs will contribute probably more than the government's share. It is no gift. It is a pension like any other pension and takes 15 years to mature. How many members of Parliament last for 15 years? Very few.
I spoke on this subject of the pension ten or 11 years ago, Mr. Speaker. At that time I believed that no one should be eligible for a pension under the age of 55. In fact, I regret that this bill does not include this provision. When we last discussed pensions I was 46, and I moved a motion to that effect. Of course, it was defeated. I cannot move that motion today since I would hardly be considered objective, being past that magic age, but I would not object if another member moved such a motion. I do not want to move it because it could be considered favouring my own age group over some of the other members and their interests, so I will not do that.
I hope that this has not sounded like a litany of gripes, Mr. Speaker. As has been said earlier, this is an exciting and important place to be. People are not here just for the money, they are here for a lot of reasons. Among the most important of the reasons is the fact that they like politics, they like serving their country, they like the variety and the challenge.
I should like to pay respect and show my gratitude to the people who have sent me and my colleagues here and have given us an opportunity, which comes to very few people, to serve our country in this institution. It is an experience available only to few people and I am grateful for it. I do not want any defence of the bill to sound like I am sick of my job, therefore.
In conclusion, I am supremely aware that, as humans, we are all prone to cloak our actions in the most noble of motives, and probably I am guilty of this human foible today, I do not know. What I do know is that in 1970 I typically voted against the pay raise and later took the money. At that point I decided that, if I ever intended to take the money again, I would vote for a package if it was fair. I think this package is fair and I intend to vote for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-23, an act to incorporate the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we neglected to inform you earlier that following discussions among the parties, in a few moments we will deal with private members' private bills in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Following that, instead of moving to motions for papers in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, there has been agreement that we proceed with motion No. 40 in the name of the hon. member for Davenport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that information.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have a further message from the Senate. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-10, an act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, without amendment.
May we consider that private members' hour started at 5.22 p.m. It being 5.22 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motion, papers, public bills.
July 9, 1981


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that you will find that with respect to Bills S-20, S-21 and S-22 there is agreement in the House of Commons to take these bills through all remaining stages and pass them within the time-frame that we have available today.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that those discussions have taken place as described by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Perhaps we should deal with those matters early in private members' hour, which I think would be quite appropriate and agreeable to all members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVATE BILLS
John Mercer Reid: that Bill S-20, to revive Ontario News Company, Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
G.A. BARBER & SONS LIMITED
John Mercer Reid: that Bill S-21, to revive G.A. Barber & Sons Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

John Mercer Reid: that Bill S-22, to revive Eastern Diversified Company Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
The Environment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing an environmental bill of rights which would, with respect to federal matters:
1.	emphasize the right of an individual or group of individuals to initiate court action when in their judgment the environment is in danger, without first having to prove that they have suffered personal or economic damage;
2.	shift the burden of proof to the polluter after the individual or group has established that damage to the environment is likely;
3.	make information held by private companies and governments on the handling, storing and treatment of hazardous products and related manufacturing processes accessible to the public, with certain exceptions to be defined in regulations;
4.	give the court the power to set interim or permanent injunctions in an action commenced under the act; and
5.	give the court the power to set standards where there are none and order a polluter to comply.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this motion I am asking the government to introduce legislation that would protect the environmental rights of Canadians for the following reasons.
With science and technology advancing in leaps and bounds and with a life style that still encourages consumption rather than conservation, the environment is increasingly coming under attack. As citizens, we need the means to act so that we can prevent damage caused by pollution. We need this legislation because today the citizen does not have real recourse in attempting to prevent an initiative that might seriously damage his environment and even his livelihood. Usually he can only claim for damages after the fact.
We need legislation to protect environmental rights because present laws and practices have the effect of putting the citizen in a much weaker position than the industries that pollute. As described in a book entitled "Poisons in Public" by Ross Howard, an environmental journalist who wrote for the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation:
The polluter's use can stop the swimmer from using and enjoying a lake, but the swimmer's use cannot stop the polluter from polluting the lake ... Even in a world with rules against pollution ... the leverage inherent in resource consumers means that they can continue their conduct until sued. In short, they almost inevitably will be defendants (of the right to use and pollute) and those whose uses preserve rather than deteriorate will ineluctably be plaintiffs.

July 9, 1981
The Environment
What recourse have the people suffering from mercury poisoning in the Wabigoon River against control orders which have been delayed for a decade, or against the company that threatened to shut down rather than clean up? What recourse does the small resort owner have against the polluters causing acid rain which is slowly killing the lake on which his business depends? What recourse do the Nishga Indians, the B.C. Medical Association, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Anglican Church and environment groups in that province have against the dumping of toxic waste into Alice Arm Inlet by the Amax Corporation?
These examples support the argument that it is no longer enough to compensate the victims of pollution. This is why preventative legislation is needed in the form of this proposal or something similar to it.
Environmental protection is not a new concept. This and past Liberal governments have taken many positive steps. There is the Environmental Contaminants Act which among other things has led to the banning of PCBs and chlorofluoro-carbons in many products. It allows for "interested parties" to initiate boards of review into regulations and I am told that "interested parties" is being interpreted widely.
Under the Clean Air Act, the public now has 60 days to comment on new regulations. The results have been positive. Mercury air emission regulations made in 1976 were strengthened considerably after public comment. This act has been amended recently to strengthen the fight against acid rain. Since 1973 review panels have been set up to ensure that environmental effects are taken into account as early as possible in federal programs, projects and activities. We have had an independent environmental advisory council since 1972 to provide the Minister of the Environment with informed advice on problems and policies respecting the Canadian environment. Encouraging developments are under way regarding the testing of toxic chemicals used in industry, and I welcome recent statements by the minister which support the advantages of pulling together into one piece of legislation the various acts which deal with environmental protection. The list could go on.
The motion today proposes another step towards ensuring a clean and healthy environment. How? By opening up the system, by encouraging public action to a much greater extent. Under present procedures citizens are not told in advance what standards of pollution control the government intends to apply to polluters. In fact, in Canada pollution control is accomplished through established standards and emission rates negotiated privately between the polluter and the regulator. Without well researched and well organized comment and analysis by public interest groups and independent experts, issues do not receive a full and fair hearing. Therefore, affected groups feel alienated. With consultation, the better the standards are likely to be, the more public support they are likely to gain.
Traditionally Canadians have relied on their governments to protect the environment and regulate industry. By encouraging public action, citizens too will have a responsibility in protecting the environment.
We are proposing that individuals or groups of individuals be given the right to initiate court action when in their judgment the environment is in danger, without first having to prove that they have suffered personal or economic damage. In essence, this right would permit a citizen to sue for a violation of environmental quality rights in much the same way that one has always been able to claim that a property or contract right has been violated.
It is important that the suit be initiated without first having to prove personal or economic damage because this can be either impossible to prove conclusively or it might be beyond the means of a private individual to produce sufficient technical evidence to support his complaint. The citizen would have to establish first that damage to the environment is likely. The burden of proof would then shift to the polluter. This is the second point in the motion. Today, under present legislation, the major burden of proving even the most basic issues, such as pollution source and impact, is on the plaintiff-in other words, the victim-in almost every lawsuit, and this is virtually an impossible task.
For example, anti-pollution action under the federal Fisheries Act often ends up in court. The onus is on the government to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a polluting substance is "deleterious to fish". However, if sublethal effects are suggested but not confirmed, it is hard to find expert witnesses to testify. The case is therefore lost and prosecution cannot be carried out.
Under the Environmental Contaminants Act, government officials must be satisfied that a substance is or will constitute a significant danger before it can be regulated. The government must prove its suspicions before it can move in reaction to a chemical already on the market. Unfortunately, the most definitive proof is a victim.
As an aside I would like to add that the initiatives that the Canadian government has taken at the OECD to enforce on all member nations standard tests of toxic chemicals are commendable. It is unfortunate that these efforts have been "shot down" by the Americans. However, even if successful, our action would not have protected the ctitizen against any of the 50,000-I repeat, 50,000-chemicals on the market today.
The third point in the motion calls for access to information on the handling, storing and treatment of hazardous products, and it has already been addressed by Bill C-43, the access to information bill. Once it is enacted, the bill will enforce the principle that government information be available to the public and specifically provide for public access to records containing the results of product or environmental testing carried out by government institutions.
The fourth point in this motion, to give courts the power to set interim or permanent injunctions in actions commenced under the act, would have the advantage that damage or threats of damage to the environment would not continue unabated during long court cases. It supports the principle that toxic chemicals should be regarded with suspicion and "guilty
July 9, 1981

until proved innocent". This power would be similar to powers given to the courts under the Fisheries Act where the court can order a polluter to refrain from committing further offences.
The fifth and final point dealing with judicial review flows from the Michigan environmental protection act of 1970. Quite frankly, I would prefer parliamentary review on a continuous basis combined with prior public consultations, but 1 have included this point of the purpose of stimulating debate and arriving at a better conclusion.
I am fully aware that this motion involves provincial as well as federal jurisdictions and that in legalistic terms the motion may seem impractical or unenforceable at the federal level. However, I believe that the environmental issue of the day and of years to come which this motion attempts to address, namely, the survival of life on this planet, is of such fundamental importance that Ottawa cannot afford to abdicate any aspect of environmental protection in the name of federal-provincial divisions of power. Pollution problems do not respect political boundaries. The federal government has the advantage of the larger total view of this issue including the long-ranging aspect with will face us at the turn of the century- and perhaps earlier-namely, the disposal of waste.
Furthermore, there are certain questions which all in this country have to address, no matter what implications they might have on such matters as the division of power under the Constitution or the role of the courts. For instance, how much longer can we continue to dump toxic waste into rivers, lakes and oceans before they will be completely unable to regenerate themselves? How much longer will the air be able to cope with pollution from industry, traffic and other sources of pollution? How much longer will the soil be able to absorb increasing amounts of pollution deposited by rain before being irreparably poisoned by man? And who is to blame? We can blame industry for being the villain, we can blame governments for inaction, but in the end it comes back to the inevitable conclusion that the polluter is man. Blame it on the consumer, on western world affluence or on the wasteful society; the fact remains that individually and collectively we are the polluters.
We have conflicting social values here. In each one of us there is the environmentalist who wants to breathe clean air and drink pure water. In each one of us there is also the consumer. Our lifestyles depend on goods and services whose production endangers the very environment we want to protect. These conflicting values find expression in the legislatures and parliaments. Some laws protect the environment, some the consumer and others the capability of industries to make the products we are so eager to buy.
It is for reasons of this kind that I have introduced this motion asking the government to introduce legislation to protect environmental rights. The intent of the motion, in recognizing that as citizens each one of us needs to accept some of the responsibility for the protection of the environment, is to equip the citizen with the tools he or she needs to exercise his or her responsibility, especially when facing big industries, big governments and the consequences of decisions made in faraway places.
The Environment
Barbara Ward summarized this very well when she wrote a few decades ago:
-the warning remains ... if man continues to let his behaviour be dominated by separation, antagonism and greed, he will destroy the delicate balances of his planetary environment. .. once destroyed, there would be no more life for him.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support and, I think, the support of many of my colleagues for the main thrust of this particular motion, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing an environmental bill of rights which would, with respect to federal matters-
-accomplish certain ends. I have listened with some real interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and can agree almost wholeheartedly with the elements which he would like to see in such an environmental bill of rights. They parallel those which have been recommended by various non-government environmental organizations, including the specific recommendations of the Canadian Environmental Law Association in its excellent publication "Environment on Trial". I am referring, in particular, to the chapter on an environmental bill of rights. I take issue with some of the points in the chapter to which I have referred, just as I take issue with a number of those raised by the hon. member for Davenport. But, on the whole, I support the thrust of the suggestions made both by the hon. member and by the Association.
Like the hon. member who has just spoken, I think we do indeed need a bill of environmental rights which, among other things, would state clearly and explicitly that the citizen has the right to a healthy environment, that government has an obligation to protect the environment against individuals or groups who might be predisposed toward violating the environment and that government's first priority in accepting or rejecting any proposal must be the protection of the public interest as far as environmental matters are concerned.
I think such a bill of rights should be backed up with mechanisms and procedures which would make it possible for citizens to participate in all kinds of processes-whether they be tribunals or whatever-established to protect the environment. Just as important as anything else, it is essential that any environmental bill of rights, be it that of the hon. member for Davenport or another, be applicable both federally and provincially.
The fact is that, when the Fathers of Confederation met between 1864 and 1867, they did not see the environment as a matter of great urgency. That was not a failure on their part; it was just a reflection of the reality that environmental issues were not as important then as they are today. The Fathers did not make the relevant provisions; so we have shared jurisdiction over the environment by the federal and provincial governments, with all sorts of attendant problems. For that reason, I think the bill of rights should have application at the two levels.

July 9, 1981
The Environment
Some elements I would like to see in an environmental bill of rights parallel those contemplated by the motion of the hon. member for Davenport. They include the following. First, a clear statement that the public has an inalienable right to a healthy and attractive environment. That fundamental right should be recognized in legislation that would have a degree of paramountcy. At present the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), however well intentioned, has discretion in the application of environmental law. The discretion should be removed or at least severely restricted.
At present, too, the two levels of government may take certain actions to protect the environment, but rarely does legislation state that government must take action. The environmental bill of rights I have in mind would address that problem in such a way that the owner of a particular piece of land or property would be seen to hold it in trust for the public. He or she would handle it knowing that it is not for his or her use only. The individual has an obligation to protect the environment, and failure to respect that public trust would make him or her liable to legal action by the state or by other individuals.
The second element needed is the right of standing. My colleagues in the legal profession could elucidate that concept more eloquently, than I, but let me simply refer to what I envision. It is the right of a citizen to use the law to uphold his common law rights to defend the environment in courts and tribunals. As 1 see it, members of the public should have the right to enforce the law, a right known as standing. Government should not have a monopoly on enforcing environmental protection laws. Certain provisions should be made so that citizens can sue to stop any project, program or policy-or proceeding, for that matter-which is not conducted legally and which harms the environment in some way. Members of the public, individuals or groups, should have the right to appear before government boards, commissions and agencies for this purpose.
A third element is that of environmental impact studies, a requirement that they be done on projects which might endanger the environment before those projects are allowed to proceed. I need not tell the Minister of the Environment how the existing process works; he is across the floor and knows as well as I do. However, for the benefit of other members, there is an initial environmental screening process to determine whether a particular project might have detrimental consequences for the environment. If after that is done there is reason to believe a project would hurt the environment, a more formal review and assessment is done. It is all co-ordinated by the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office of the Department of the Environment.
The problem is that the process is all discretionary. All of it is done or not done at the whim of the minister or the cabinet, or perhaps on the recommendation of the minister's officials. Even if the minister is well intentioned and has all the goodwill in the world, the fact is that in certain circumstances abuses may happen under the present system. We have already seen how abuses have been allowed to creep in with respect to
the Beaufort Sea. Both the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee, AWAC as it is known, and the Regional Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee, RODAC as it is known, recommended in the strongest terms that certain projects in the Beaufort Sea region not be allowed to proceed until full environmental assessments have been done. I am referring to the circumstances surrounding applications in 1979 for permits for harbour facilities at McKinley Bay and Tuk Harbour.
Well, despite the fact that the government's own advisory committees recommended environmental assessments be conducted, the government proceeded with approval of those permits within only days of the applications being made. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, discretion was exercised without much concern for environmental principles. The inclusion of this particular element in a bill of environmental rights would prevent such an abuse of discretionary power. Governments are always vulnerable to lobbies, special interest groups, and high-powered and well-financed private interests which can manipulate and twist and move the government in one direction or another in their own interest. As a result, the discretionary power of a minister of the environment can sometimes be exercised against the public interest. I think we need public hearings connected with all environmental impact assessments, wherein members of the public who do not have a vested interest in a particular project would have the opportunity to participate fully and without encumbrances. For example, it might be that money will have to be made available for these groups to enable them to take part because it can often be prohibitively expensive to do so otherwise.
There are other provisions, Mr. Speaker, in a bill of environmental rights that I would like to see included. I have already referred to public hearings. In that context, I think freedom of information is vital. The public cannot participate usefully and productively if it is denied information. At present, practically without exception, all information in the possession of government is released to the public at the whim or discretion of a politician or civil servant. No matter how innocuous the information, it requires their approval to be released. Members of this House know from experience that, more often than not, even innocuous pieces of information are marked secret, confidential or restricted.
We need a provision in an environmental bill of rights which opens up the process to the public and allows citizens to have full access to information, with restrictions clearly specified and limited and perhaps with some deterrents to ensure that the system is not abused by the public. Sunshine should be shed on government at a time when all too often darkness prevails.
Public participation should be extended also to the setting of standards. Environmental standards are now largely found in regulations, provided for in some piece of legislation but not detailed there. But practically no one knows what the regulations are because, after the legislation is passed in Parliament, public servants get together, draw up the regulations, and no
July 9, 1981

one ever hears of them. The process needs to be opened up. If there are to be regulations, let them be made public and let them also be devised only after members of the public have been allowed an opportunity to participate in the drafting of them.
My argument is particularly true, for example, in relation to Bill C-48, which is now before committee. Clause 49 will establish an environmental studies revolving fund. Millions of dollars will be disbursed to fund environmental studies to protect the environment against certain resource activities on Crown lands. The regulations which will govern the operation of the fund are not now known to members of Parliament. The specific regulations are not being discussed in the standing committee. They will perhaps never be known to the public. In any event, when they are finally drawn up, they will not reflect any input from the public. An environmental bill of rights needs to take into account that kind of problem.
Also, an environmental bill of rights should make provision for an ombudsman, either an individual or a group. If it is to be a group, it could be an existing environmental body restructured to do a number of things. It would advise the government and the public on environmental matters. It would act as a watchdog on the environment, and it would report periodically on environmental issues.
A further environmental bill of rights provision would give the right to pursue class actions to the public, non-government environmental groups and others. Any citizen or group of citizens would then be able to sue on behalf of similarly aggrieved citizens for any damage resulting from environmental destruction. This might be particularly relevant in connection with hazardous wastes, as the hon. member for Davenport implied.
Another provision in an environmental bill of rights should be the right to defend the environment at reasonable cost. Public participation in tribunals can be prohibitively expensive, as I have already indicated. Individuals and groups will have to be assisted with their participation. We need a mechanism to allocate funds to members of the public who wish to defend the environment through the courts or tribunals.
A further provision should be a restriction on the discretion of environmental agencies. Too often environmental agencies are able to operate unfettered, unbridled and in secret without their decisions being made public or without any provision for public participation in those decisions.
The hon. member for Davenport referred to a judicial review of administrative action. I wholeheartedly concur with his suggestions along those lines. Decisions by government environmental agencies should not be unfettered. These agencies are now allowed to operate almost ex cathedra; they have the last word on the subject and their decisions are usually beyond the reach of courts. I do not think the courts should be allowed to trample upon government agencies or departments. These agencies must be allowed a certain amount of independence. But surely their decisions should not be totally beyond
The Environment
the purview of the courts. The courts should have some role in ensuring that at least due process is followed.
Finally, I think the burden of proof in environmental matters should be on the polluter. I agree with the hon. member for Davenport in that respect. Anyone who wants to introduce a new product, process or substance into the marketplace should be required to demonstrate that it respects the environment. The onus should not be on the public to demonstrate that a certain product or substance will violate the environment. The onus should be on the industry or the company introducing the product into the marketplace to demonstrate clearly beforehand that the environment will be respected.
May I conclude by expressing some regret that the government opposite did not see fit to include environmental rights in its constitutional reform package. It is an irony, with all due respect to the minister, that the Minister of the Environment was asked to assume special responsibilities for piloting the constitutional program through the House and ultimately through Britain, yet the same minister apparently has not had enough clout in cabinet to ensure that the reform package included, if not an environmental bill of rights, then some environmental provisions. Nevertheless, I respect the minister's dedication to the environment and am sure it will be reflected in his remarks this afternoon to which I very much look forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the benefit of some hon. members who may not have been present at the time, the House agreed earlier to commence private members' hour at 5.22 p.m. The Chair will recognize the end of private members' hour at 6.22 p.m.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, First I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for a passionate and compelling speech. Also I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). I do not agree with all the interpretation which he places upon the present situation, but nevertheless 1 think his speech was constructive and useful and one which I will study with great interest.
I want to particularly congratulate the hon. member for Davenport for bringing this motion before the House. Surely it is an appropriate time, when the country is on the threshold of the establishment of a constitutional entrenchment of the protection of our rights, that our attention should be directed by him to the notion of applying the idea of rights to an environmental bill of rights.
It is a pleasure for me to welcome his motion and to indicate that it has my complete and loyal support, even though in one or two places of detail there may be a certain reservation on my part, at least until we have had a chance to examine further and reflect upon his proposals. Both he in his motion and the hon. member for Hillsborough have stressed the point that we are dealing with an area of responsibility in which there is a shared jurisdiction. I want to touch upon that point for a moment.

July 9, 1981
The Environment
The provinces enact environmental protection laws under the property and civil head of the Constitution, the federal government primarily under its peace, order and good government powers, fisheries, criminal law and the trade and commerce powers. Thus, both levels of government may enact environmental protection laws. In so far as we are able, we would like to act co-operatively with our provincial colleagues in ensuring that in our jurisdiction our actions complement one another and lead to effective action to combat polluting effects.
A few days ago in the House, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party I think, expressed the concern that there is not a sufficiently clear definition of federal responsibilities in those areas and that there may be some difficulties in leaving such extensive powers in the hands of the provincial governments as there are at the present time. I think that the reference was particularly to the Clean Air Act and the question of transboundary, that is to say, cross-provincial boundary situations of airborne pollution.
I have taken seriously the comments of the hon. member for Brant, and also the kinds of representations which have been made by my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I would like to say to them and to all hon. members of the House that we have seriously under consideration the question of how the various environmental laws on which federal responsibility is based might be improved, strengthened and clarified, not only in terms of provincial and federal jurisdictions but also in terms of the responsibility for that mandate among the various departments of the federal government. Therefore, it is particularly helpful for me to have the kind of comments which have been expressed today, because within my department, and certainly in my own thoughts, active consideration is being given to exactly how we can strengthen the environmental base for the federal government's action.
The motion that the hon. member for Davenport has brought forward implies that Canadians are denied, or at least may find it difficult to assert, because of the procedural barriers in civil law, the right to seek redress for harm done to them based on environmental wrongs. I can tell your Honour that my departmental officials and I have been examining the difficulties which citizens encounter when they want to make their views known on environmental issues and when they seek redress in the courts. As well, as I have mentioned, examination is being undertaken of the existing federal environmental protection legislation with a view to designing a better, more enforceable and more relevant legislative basis for Environment Canada's environmental protection authorities. Those studies, which are nearing completion, deal directly with many of the issues which the hon. member for Davenport has usefully drawn to the attention of the House today.
First, I should say to the hon. member that Environment Canada expects to implement a department-wide policy which
was first proposed last summer, under which the Department of the Environment will provide for regular and continued consultations between my officials and any and all members of the public. Both of the previous hon. members who have taken part in the debate have stressed the importance of consultation and of widening the basis of consultation. As part of our new proposals, all our important regulations will be reviewed, using clear, equitable and written procedures which will ensure full opportunity for public input at various stages in the regulationmaking process.
There is an important principle which goes far beyond our desire to ensure that the processes of government, such as regulation-making in the environmental protection area, are open and accessible to the public. Let me elaborate on that. When our approach to developing environmental protection regulations was formulated in the early seventies, Environment Canada took great pains to initiate detailed technical discussions with industry in order to identify regulatory requirements which were feasible and which represented the upper limits of good industrial technology and environmental design. The hon. member for Davenport has referred to that process and expressed some skepticism in regard to it, and I think he is right.
In an era when technical requirements established by governments tended to be formed somewhat in a vacuum, there was a risk of legal challenge. I think that in that context, the approach of government-industry task forces was a significant step forward. However, with the benefit of hindsight, I think we can now recognize that that earlier approach, however innovative and progressive it may have seemed in the early seventies, opened the door to the criticism, which was exactly that which the member made, that polluters had a disproportionate influence in the decision-making process, and that the regulations which were issued sometimes may have had the appearance of-and may, indeed, have not only had the appearance but have in substance simply accommodated the needs of industry while providing a kind of symbolic reassurance to a concerned and apprehensive public. I think that the hon. member's criticisms from that point of view are very well taken.
Our new approach to public consultation will welcome and, indeed, will see participation from all concerned public groups. It will provide a much better balance, and, in my view, constitutes a significant feature in Environment Canada's contribution to regulatory reform. I hope that more effective consultation at the rule-making stage will breed better regulations and may reduce the number of occasions on which the enforcement of activity ends up in the courts. I appreciate that public consultation requires calls for innovative approaches. We need to look for and to create new opportunities and discuss policies and programs with those who are either directly or indirectly concerned. We need to have that open dialogue at earlier stages than we have had before in the development of new policies and programs.
I recognize as well that travel costs to effect this consultation can be a burden for some interest groups. I might add that
July 9, 1981

I am pleased to have read that the parliamentary task force on regulatory reform, chaired by my colleague, the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) was encouraged by, and saluted the progressive approach to regulation-making which was being put in place by Environment Canada officials.
My department's new public consultation policy will also include a section on information availability which will be enforced until supplemented by new legislation such as is embodied in the access to information bill which is currently before the committee of the House. I am particularly proud of these initiatives of Environment Canada and feel that they present the vanguard of open and accessible government procedures.
The second point I would like to make is that I am pleased to report that Environment Canada has commissioned a study, which is almost complete, on the general problem of citizen access to the courts in environmental matters. By way of background on this study being done for us, let me remind Your Honour that environmental protection laws have been broadly characterized as common law or statute law. Common law consists of a compilation of reported decisions of judges on disputes resolved earlier, as Your Honour knows. Statute laws are creatures of the legislature and are usually seen as society's legislative statements of a problem. They generally propose a cure for that problem, aimed at controlling and shaping individual behaviour to conform with acceptable societal norms. The controlling devices used are normally regulatory or quasi-criminal in nature. Statute laws are seldom concerned with the rights of a single individual as these have been historically established through the case law associated with civil and property right.
The public should be able to play an important pollution control role at the enforcement level. In Canada, the courts have recognized the right of the individual to enforce the quasi-criminal provisions of regulatory statutes and private prosecution. Your Honour may be aware of the facts associated with a private prosecution concerning pollution problems in the Fraser River in British Columbia. That public action was initiated pursuant to pollution provisions of the Federal Fisheries Act.
I am encouraged that public concern has the outlet, through features of the Federal Fisheries Act, which facilitates the private initiation of legal action. The work on this matter tends to convince me that there should be an increased role for citizen actions on behalf of the Crown to help draw immediate attention and, indeed, to permit the citizen, or any group of citizens, to commence a legal proceeding for the violation of environmental legislation or regulation. I believe that this is a very important principle which the hon. member for Davenport wishes to have us affirm.
One can argue that it should also be possible to use common law causes of action in instances of environmental degradation in order to advance the broader community interest in environmental protection. The prospect of success in privately initiated litigation may be remote due to differing bases of liability, a potpourri of different defences and many proce-
The Environment
dural evidentiary difficulties. For example, in some actions the responsible party's fault is relevant, while in others, liability follows irrespective of whether there is any fault. Often, in order to be successful, a plaintiff must prove that it was the defendant's activity that caused the injury being claimed; or the injuries suffered must be material. In an effort to characterize the injury as material, the plaintiff seeking to advance community interests finds himself on the horns of a dilemma because many of the more pervasive environmental concerns relate to quality of life, to air quality, to quietness, to aesthetics, the lack of which will tend to be characterized by the courts not as material but as little more than personal discomfort. In an attempt to elevate those concerns to the status of material injury, plaintiffs are frequently forced to relate the injuries to their property by showing a general decline in property value.
In spite of some relatively strong judgments from some judges, the trend in Canada seems to be that courts are reluctant to tackle what they regard as the broader social issues. This means that they will tend to favour the economic interests of those who have invested heavily in a project and look to some other agency to strike the appropriate balance of environmental protection and economic development; that is to say, that they will push the determination of that issue outside the context of legal decision. Generally speaking, common law actions are designed to protect property interests, so it follows that one needs some interest in the affected property to maintain the action of a plaintiff under common law.
I would like to abbreviate my remarks on this point, because my simple point is to establish some of the difficulties that we might have if we pursue the objective of relying upon the courts to make some of these decisions concerning the public interest in environmental matters. If we wish to facilitate civil action in the area of environmental protection, we must address those procedural impediments, making it difficult or impossible, and I will quote from the hon. member's resolution, for:
-an individual or group of individuals to initiate court action ... without first having to prove that they have suffered personal or economic damage.
In view of the constitutional considerations, I believe it is the provinces that must take a lead role, since property, civil rights and the administration of justice including civil procedures, are clearly within their domain and constitutional responsibility. I mean that the provinces must take the lead role in relation to the first matter brought to our attention by the hon. member in his resolution.
The second feature of the hon. member's motion proposes as follows:
2. shift the burden of proof to the polluter after the individual or group has established that damage to the environment is likely;


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because it was not possible for a member of this party to get the floor to participate in this debate, may I be permitted simply to say that we congratulate the hon. member for

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on bringing in this resolution. We are glad to see the reasonably favourable response given by the minister. I hope he can proceed even further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.23 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard that Bill C-83, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening following three speakers who have fortunately, or unfortunately covered the waterfront. As is the case when partisanship falls by the wayside and members on all sides of the House deal with an issue in which they have conviction, the first few speakers usually deal with all the vital issues involved.
Let me say that I support this bill. But I want to share a few thoughts and make a few comments on this bill. I have had the privilege of working with some of the members who have spoken who serve on the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. I recognize the non-partisan kind of work and the sincere attempt which was made by all parties to come up with a solution that is represented in the bill we have before us this evening. The matter has been of concern to us and it has been gnawing away at many members for a considerable period of time. We have already heard about the justice that is represented by this bill.
Not long ago I had the honour to be elected by my peers from my caucus to represent the Ontario members who have a sub-caucus on this side of the House. Sitting as their chairman, I have had the opportunity on many occasions to discuss with members, particularly the younger ones who have come to the House recently, some of the difficulties that we endure together. I might mention some things that have already been
talked about. Collectively we have to come up with second homes. But there are other small and insignificant things which create a need far greater than is apparent to most people from the outside looking in. Any home, no matter where it is located, requires the ordinary upkeep, such as, for example, the cleaning of downspouts, the repairing of sidewalks and painting and fixing of windows from time to time. These may seem insignificant tasks, but when one considers the life of a member of Parliament, if he or she is doing what that member is required to do, which is to be here in Ottawa for the sittings of the House, for committee meetings, for meetings with lobby groups and, when they get home, to attend meetings with their constituents, one realizes that there is very little time to do these extra things. As a consequence, one finds oneself paying someone else to do them.
I have no difficulty in explaining to my constituents as do others, where the tax free allowance goes. When I talk to my constituents who are salesmen, businessmen, junior executives or farmers, and I have a large farming community in my area, people recognize they have certain tax deductible expenses that a member of Parliament does not have available to him. What salesman or trucker does not have some kind of expense allowance while on the road? Does anyone suggest that that person is augmenting his salary or wage by the amount spent while on the job? 1 think not. Therefore, 1 believe that the all-party agreement represents an understanding by this House that there is a definite need and an element of justice that is being responded to. That is represented as well in terms of the agreement on a limited debate. It is probably represented as well by the few exceptions we will hear to the general agreement that we move forward.
I have had the opportunity, as have many members, to examine in depth the Mclsaac-Balcer report. This report set out a middle of the road approach which was neither niggardly nor excessive. Notwithstanding that happy middle ground which the Mclsaac-Balcer report came up with, we in the House, recognizing that there are still examples to be given by the representatives here and willing and prepared to give that kind of example, agreed to accept something considerably less than what Mclsaac-Balcer recommended.
Hon. members will recall the last time we dealt with this issue in 1975. We are now trying to bring at least the base back up to the point where it should have been for the last three or four years. In 1975, salaries were brought to the point where they were at a level where they probably belonged. We then decided that we were going to do without the first increment given to us by reason of the conditions which existed at that time and by reason of the example we were prepared to give.
Few people remember that, except for those who continue to suffer from the fact that we gave that example. It is important that we raise it again. A full year of increment has been missing since 1975 when the legislation was passed. Although we may not suffer in terms of what is in our pockets now, we
July 9, 1981

make those people suffer whom we have either brought with us to Ottawa or who support us in our ridings, be they wives or husbands.
At the time of entering politics, we had a certain standard of living. We had no right to expect our spouses or families to suffer a deteriorating standard of living because of our being here. We did not believe that by coming here we would increase our standard of living. I ask the question rhetorically: would it be fair to expect them to sustain a decrease in that standard of living because of our commitment and their commitment to allow us to come here and offer our services, whatever value they may be, to our country?
My final point by way of delineation is I do not believe that by salary alone we would attract people to devote their time and indeed their lives to the service of their country by serving either this Parliament or another legislative house. I firmly believe it can be a deterrent to persons whom we want to be here making the judgment. As other speakers before me have stated, there should not be a financial impediment to attracting people or at least to making it unattractive for them to present themselves as candidates.
Members on all sides of this House want to do the very best for Canada. We want the best in terms of representatives who will be attracted to this place. The fact that we are dealing with salaries and pensions will help. We do not put at risk to as great an extent, even though there is a sacrifice to be made, the lives of individuals who choose to come here in the future. Without this, those who give it a lot of thought may not come.
I would not want anything I have said to be misinterpreted by my colleagues here or anyone outside this House. I would not want anyone to think I wish I had not done what caused me to come here nor anyone to believe that I am now somehow crying sour grapes. Like every member of this House, I am extremely proud to have been sent here. I came of my own free will after a lot of hard work, not only on my part but on the part of many people in my constituency. I continue to take pride in that and to appreciate it. However, I say at the same time that what we do tonight will permit someone to follow in my footsteps and the footsteps of my colleagues who will be replaced as time goes on by, hopefully, people of even better calibre and quality. They will not be, among other things, jeopardizing the standard of living which they and their families will have.
I will be supporting this bill. I compliment the House leader for having brought it forward and I compliment my colleagues on both sides of the House who worked so hard to draft what has ultimately come before us this evening.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly on this bill because many of the points I wish to enunciate have already been covered. At the outset I will state my position because I think it is important. I feel very strongly that this bill is long overdue. I am going to support the bill. 1 am going to vote for the bill.
I want to say publicly what I have said privately in the corridors and outside this House. I do not believe that mem-
Senate and House of Commons Act bers of Parliament are adequately paid. At the same time I am in a distasteful position. I find it distasteful to speak to a matter where I am the arbiter in which I have a personal interest. There is a certain sense of unfairness. As members of Parliament, we must do something to ensure that this does not occur time and time again.
This problem has been before us on numerous occasions. Many members of Parliament thought there was some type of panacea or solution in having a report prepared whereby independent people would provide us with suggestions as to amounts for our salaries, pensions and other matters. Unfortunately what happens with respect to these matters is it is always a source of political embarrassment.
Every political party in this House has a certain concern about what the political fallout will be when we begin talking about matters in which we have a direct personal interest. If we learn anything as a result of this bill and what has preceded it, it is that the type of reform we need, not only for members of Parliament but judges and deputy ministers, is a different process for determining the proper amount of salaries and benefits to be afforded senior officials of government.
This problem is not new in the world. The Australians have a far more preferable system than the one we have to endure tonight and throughout the ages of Parliament when it comes to this issue. The Australians appoint a tribunal. It is not made up of civil servants but of people who have been out of politics in an elected way for more than seven years. They meet every year and advertise their hearings. The government actually makes representations as to what the proper amount of salary and additional benefits ought to be. Then within 15 days of a decision being made, unless 50 per cent of the house signs a petition and puts it before the house in Australia, that is what the salaries are.
It is high time this Parliament stopped spending its time dealing with matters which involve not only our own salaries but also the salaries of judges. I think that is not the proper course Parliament should adopt, and we ought to do something constructive about it. I think the Australians are on the right track. The people of New Zealand have adopted the Australian course of action. We should seriously look at that as a pattern, not only for establishing our own salaries but also the salaries of judges and the salaries of senior civil servants.
With respect to the amounts we are talking about, may I say that the government has not arbitrarily set our salaries. Salaries were suggested by a commission established for that purpose. The amount we are about to receive, as the last speaker so accurately pointed out, is two-thirds of what this independent tribunal assessed, and still within this House there is a sense of embarrassment because we have to speak about it in terms of our own personal interests. That is just not right.
I was very much impressed when we were discussing the Judges Act. Representations were made to all of us with respect to what the proper salaries of judges ought to be. I was one of the members of Parliament who spoke to judges. They

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
pointed out the hardship they were personally enduring as a result of making $60,000 a year. We know what judges make now, close to $80,000 for judges at the superior court level and $70,000 at the county court level. Yet complaints were made to me in good faith that they could not send their kids to college and that they were finding it financially embarrassing. In addition to that-and every member of this House is aware of it-they wanted a pension to which they would not have to contribute. That matter was a source of deep contention in this House. We hived off that bill, and that matter will now be decided within committee. I put it to the House that if judges found it hard to support their families at $60,000, how is a member of Parliament to carry out the responsibilities of supporting his family at $32,000?
There are certain members of this House who are independently wealthy and do not worry about salary. There is a good number of us who have to worry because it is now our only source of income. I am a lawyer by profession, but I do not practise law any more because the responsibilities of a member of Parliament are such that I do not have the time. It used to be different but it is not that way now, and I think our constituents demand that we spend full time in this House. I do not want to be handsomely paid; I want to be adequately compensated.
As I see the suggestion in the bill before us, which is two-thirds of what an independent tribunal assessed, I think there can be no argument in this House that we are being overpaid that meets the test of reason. There is no just way we are. With respect to the matter of salary I wholeheartedly endorse this bill.
Let me speak about a matter which I find in the newspapers constantly, the fact that in addition to the $32,000 we receive as salary we also receive a tax-free allowance. People say that is part of our salary. I for one want to tell those people who think that is the case that it is just utter nonsense. I believe there are members in this House who will agree with me when I say that we spend every cent of our tax-free allowances and more. I do not consider that to be salary at all. I hope the public understands that members of Parliament actually do use that for maintaining homes and for the expenditures pointed out by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) which are incidental to our being members of Parliament. I think everyone in this House is proud of the privilege of representing his own constituency. It is a good feeling to wake up in the morning and to like going to work, in spite of the frustrations.
Nobody here is a member of the House of Commons for the money. That is clear, but what is not clear to many people is that members of Parliament in many cases are hurting a great deal, and they ought to be adequately compensated.
The final point I wish to make is in relation to the very interesting and useful part of this bill respecting severance. To me a 50 per cent severance allowance is a welcome addition. I had a pretty good law practice when I was practising in Cambridge in southwestern Ontario, but if I were to go back to the practice of law and take up where I left off, it would
take me at least a year to establish my clientele again. No matter how prominent a member is, when he goes back into business, law, medicine or dentistry, it takes time. To my way of thinking, one-half of the salary is certainly a welcome addition.
The last matter I would like to address is the question of the pension. I re-emphasize what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton stated. I make a certain assumption, and that assumption is that the pension is responsibly funded. We have the assurance of the government on this matter and, that being the case, I lend my wholehearted support to this bill, which I think is long overdue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by expressing my thanks to my colleagues for agreeing that I might be the second speaker of this party for, as will be expected by almost everyone, it is my intention to speak against this bill and to vote against it when the debate ends.
I want also to thank the government House leader for suggesting this afternoon that both the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and I have been co-operative in arranging for this debate to take place. That is true for both of us, but I would like it to be clear that my co-operation was because I believe in the right of the members of this House to discuss the matter if they wish to do so, and I was happy to lend my co-operation to make that possible. That does not mean I am co-operating for the purpose of getting the bill passed. It was understood-and I am grateful for this-that even if only one member were to stand at the end of the debate to request a recorded vote, there would be such a recorded vote.
Another complimentary word I should like to offer is to my friend, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), for the speech he made this afternoon. He knows I do not agree with him, but I thought he made a well stated and excellent case for the bill and for the position of members of Parliament. I thought he did it-and I say this very deeply and sincerely-without giving any offence to those of us who might take the other side of this issue.
Nevertheless, having said that, I disagree with most of the arguments which have been put forward and, in my view, Parliament ought not to be passing this bill at this time.
I suppose I am a different breed. A couple of years ago the Prime Minister referred to Tommy Douglas and me as leftovers from the depression. Tommy Douglas had an appropriate retort. I made none. I did not mind the suggestion the Prime Minister had made, namely, that some of us have not forgotten the experience people went through in that decade. I suppose if I tell you that I also was born into depression in 1908 and that I graduated from university in 1930 into another depression, members will say: Oh, that explains Stanley. He has had too much of that kind of background.
July 9, 1981


Mr. Paproski:: That is not true. We all went through it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear that, and I am glad 1 have not forgotten those experiences. However, I also feel that I must never forget why I came to this institution. I must never forget the conditions under which so many of my constituents still live. I like to think my constituents are not just those who live within the boundaries of Winnipeg North Centre, but they are pensioners, veterans and people in need right across Canada. I feel I must not forget them.
As I say, it was because of what I went through, what I saw people going through in the 1930s, that I decided I had to move from the pulpit into politics, and eventually found my way here in 1942 for the purpose of achieving greater equality amongst the people of Canada, and to solve some of the economic problems our people face. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and I hold this very deeply, if I am going to remember the people out there, there must not develop too wide a gulf between my standard of living and theirs. I speak only for myself, I do not ask anyone else to agree, but I feel if I am going to represent the people in need, the pensioners, the veterans and all the rest, they must not feel there is such a gulf between us that I cannot really mean it. I am not suggesting members of Parliament have to be poor or go into debt and all that sort of thing. But I am suggesting it does not hurt one whit for us to experience a few difficulties and know what life is like in economic terms if we are to represent faithfully the people out there who are suffering economic difficulties.
I recognize the case that has been made, particularly by my friend, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody whom I have already complimented, for the needs of many of our members, especially the younger ones with families. However, the Prime Minister has already said that older people should rearrange their priorities and somehow get along. If we want to maintain contact and credibility with our people, we should rearrange our priorities, even on our $47,100 combined salary and expenses allowance we now receive and try to make it. I do not equivocate about the matter at all. I think the pay and allowances we are now receiving should stay at that level and we should not at this point be seeking an increase. I say that at this time in particular because of the difficult circumstances facing Canadians in recent months. The tremendous increases in the cost of living and interest rates have put our people in a difficult position, and we in this place have done very little to ameliorate their situation. I do not think it brings us closer to them to ameliorate our situation when we have done nothing for them.
I want to be fair about this session. I do not see very much that we have done at all. There was that $35 increase in the guaranteed income supplement last summer which has been eaten up time and again so far as our older people are concerned. Tomorrow we will pass a bill that I have been pleading for every week this year to cut out the delay in benefits sour 20,000 widows of veterans were subjected to in the bill we passed last summer. Now, if other members can add to that list the things we have done to meet the needs of the people we represent, I would be glad to hear them.
Senate and House of Commons Act


An hon. Member:: Silence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear silence, just as if I were performing a wedding and had asked if anyone had anything to say, let him say it now or forever hold his peace. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we say that we, too, have troubles: the high cost of mortgages, interest rates, the cost of living, cost of travel. However, we are in a position to do something about it. It can be justified; everyone who has spoken in this debate thus far has justified it. I say, and I speak only for myself, that I do not want to be in the position of improving my situation when we have done so little for those out there.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill. As I say, quite frankly-and I do not apply this test to anyone else-I cannot retain for myself the extra dollars that would come to me if this bill were passed. I feel it all very deeply. I have already made reference to what my experience has been. My friend, the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) says we have all had those experiences. That is true. I am not the only person in this place who came from humble beginnings and who know the experience of a shop worker father who was laid off from time to time. I am not the only one; this place has many persons like that. I just do not want to forget it. I think this Parliament should not forget it, and I think we would better represent the people of Canada if we ourselves deliberately suffered a bit, if we deliberately delayed doing things for ourselves until more has been done for the people we represent. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel this bill should not be passed.
I am not trying to answer the arguments that have been made. They are all valid. It depends on the point of view from which you start. I think someone said today, what is the job worth? What are the people prepared to pay? My question is: What am I prepared to pay to maintain the confidence of the people for whom I am working here and not just to get something better for myself? I am prepared to pay the price I have implied in what I have already said.
It is sometimes argued that a better rate of pay is necessary in order to attract good people to the House of Commons. I think that is nonsense. I was going to use another word but the Prime Minister did not like it when my leader used it earlier today.


An hon. Member:: Unparliamentary anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no. In my view, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and it has been quoted, I have never seen any lack of candidates at election time, and everyone knows then what the pay is going to be. I can remember some awfully good men in Parliament when the pay was $4,000 a year and no extras.


An hon. Member:: One-dollar men also.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, $1 men also. I know times have changed, but my fear is that getting the salaries up where they are and where they are going-and these figures are getting pretty high by the time you add in the new salary level, the tax free expense allowance, and the higher indexing, within a few years

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
we will be up there in the stratosphere-all it really does is attract people looking for a good paying job. I think for the good of the country we should avoid that. Maybe others will say: Well, I am just like the rest; I do not want it to be too high or too low. However, I think the emphasis, the main reason for coming here, should be one of dedication to the good of the country and of the people we represent. We may not forget them with more money in our pockets, but they think we will. They think we are in the position of the elite and that we have ail kinds of things that we do not even have. It seems to me that we should be prepared to pay a price to have the confidence of the people we represent. That, to me, is something which is very important about Parliament these days. People are wondering whether we really represent them, whether we are really addressing ourselves to their problems. They are coping with 20 per cent interest rates, they are coping with food costs which have gone sky high, they are coping with housing problems that they cannot meet, and all the rest of it. I just have the fear that in the next day or two, as people read about what we have done today, they will feel, "Well, those men and women have taken care of themselves. Can we count on them addressing themselves to our needs?"
I am speaking only for myself. I say again that 1 am grateful to my colleagues, the majority of whom are on the other side of the issue, for letting me speak at this time. If we cannot make my way prevail, if we cannot get the bill defeated, I hope that at least I will inspire people to the proposition that we must think a lot more about what we are doing for the people we represent.
I know one could say, "We will do this first and then we will do it for the others". It does not normally work that way, but I want some sense of conscience to be felt in the House about what we are doing. I know all the arguments, that the $4,000 which I talked about when I was first here is irrelevant. I may say to the younger ones who are having difficulty that I understand it. I knew what it was to try to get by on a $4,000 indemnity with Mr. Ilsley taking $1,200 of it away in income tax during the war, with no air flights to get home, only railway passes, with out-of-pocket expenses which paid for two trips a year. Boy, look at the distance we have come. Look at the things we have now as part of our jobs. They also add to our standard of living, to the joy of being here, to the thrill of being members of Parliament. 1 suppose it has been decided in each caucus how the vote will go tonight, that the bill will pass, but I want to express my objection to it.
One of the other arguments used of course is that in terms of percentages the increases that we have had in the last few years add up to something like 4.5 per cent per year and that the people out there have been receiving higher average increases than those. Let us remind ourselves that it depends upon the base, it depends upon where it is starting. I have this argument with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) about old age security. She and the rest of the government are proud that the pensions are indexed according to the rise in the consumer price index. The base to begin with
was too low. With us the base to begin with back in 1974-75 was way ahead of the average, and we received increases. The thing to look at is not a comparison of the rate of increase but the absolute dollars and the absolute relationship between us and the people we represent. If we do that, I hope we will think more about the whole situation.
As I say, I do not expect to change the vote. I am glad the government House leader and the opposition House leader agreed with me yesterday that we would have a vote so that those of us who feel as I do could have our votes recorded against this bill. At least I hope the thoughts I am uttering will have some effect on the thinking of members and that, starting tomorrow, starting next week, or starting on October 14 when we come back, we will try to be better representatives of the people, with members more attentive to their needs if for no other reason than for conscience sake because of what we have done for ourselves.
While I am on my feet may I say that there are one or two things I would have liked to raise in committee on the bill. I realize by the time 9.45 p.m. comes, there will still be members wanting to speak on second reading and the committee stage will be quite pro forma. If I have anything I want to say in terms of the things that are in the bill, I will have to say them now.
The first is that I am very sorry that with this bill being brought in, opportunity was not taken to correct something for former members of Parliament who retired a number of years ago for whose wives there is no protection if the member died first. There are only about 20 or 25 such former members, all of whom I knew; they were here in my time. They retired and went on the small pension that it was then, $3,000 per year being the maximum, but it was before there was a provision for survivors. There are these 20 or 25 former members out there who are prepared to make payment to cover actuarially the cost of a pension for their widows. They have been in correspondence with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and with the government House leader. It has been kicked around. I have had copies of most of the letters. I had thought when the time came to amend the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act that something would be done. We are doing things in this bill, especially in the pensions part, for members who are now here. We are permitting them to go back and make extra payments for years gone by so as to get the full advantage of this bill, but why is it that we are never prepared to do something for those who have left the place? As I said, the 22 or 23 former members about whom I am talking are quite prepared to pay the actuarial amounts to cover their widows. I wish something had been done for them.
Speaking of the pension arrangements, I have to say that through all the fine arguments I have heard defending the new pension arrangements I found it pretty hard to accept as justifiable a scheme under which in 15 years one can become qualified for what is known as a full pension. The argument is that members pay for it. They pay for it out of the increased indemnity. Actually we pay for half of it; the government puts up the other half. Any steel worker or any elementary school
July 9, 1981

principal in the country would be happy to pay for a pension that good-fully matured at the top level in 15 years. It has been agreed to. If it goes through now I think it is a little too much. If I may return to my theme, I hope after it is done that we will have a little conscience and realize that having done what we have for ourselves, we ought to be doing a lot more for the people we represent.
By the same token-and I would have raised this in Committee of the Whole had there been time to do so-I still think that it does not make sense and it is not fair that a pension for life is available regardless of one's age. I know it is hypothetical and theoretical, but it is possible for a person to be elected here at the age of 18, spend six years as a member and receive a pension for life, level up to age 60 and indexed thereafter. No one has done that, but there are members who have gone out in their thirties and forties, and there will probably be more. This does not happen in ordinary society. People say, "Why do you do those things for yourselves when you will not do them for us?" It has been my experience that after almost every time we have done something to the pension plan, some Liberal has come to me and said that we should not have done that. I remember particularly when we had the Curtis report a number of years ago. Professor Curtis of Queen's did one of the studies, and one of the things he recommended, I think, was that members' pensions be deferred to age 55. Some have suggested age 50, but certainly it should be age 55 or 60. While it was before us we got nowhere. I suspect within a few days from now there will be some members saying that that is what we should have done, and so we should have. These are things I would have raised had we got into committee of the whole. That will be a pro forma experience, so I mention them now.
I will be a bit more personal. I have heard two or three hon. members say today that it is an honour to be here but that families cannot live on honour. I know that is true. It is not my suggestion that we should ask them to do that. It is not my suggestion that we reduce the indemnity. I would take it if there were a reduction, but I guess I am that strange breed. But I want to say that you could not pay me with millions of dollars to match the satisfaction I have had in being a member of Parliament. I was here for 16 years, from 1942 until 1958. I had a four-year break, and I have been here 19 years since then. So I have been in this House for 35 years. In the first session that I was here, I think the first accomplishment that I won-and hon. members will smile about this in view of what will happen tomorrow-was a concession from the Hon. Ian MacKenzie. He was then minister of pensions and national health, and he had charge of veterans affairs. The department had not yet been created. I pleaded from my seat in the back row, for widows of World War I non-pensioned veterans, for whom there was nothing. They are now covered in the War Veterans Allowance Act. They were not, in those days, even though the act had been around for a number of years.
1 remember the day when Ian MacKenzie got up in this House and tabled an order-in-council which would provide ad
Senate and House of Commons Act
hoc allowance for that year to those widows of World War I veterans. Someone said that it was reported in the paper that I was jumping for joy yesterday. I almost jumped for joy then over the satisfaction of that kind of an experience within a year or two after I came here, in that same first session which ended in 1945. I was not alone then, but I had a good deal to do, by way of participating in it-we got the first increase in the old age pension, which had been $20 a month from 1927 until 1945. Just before the election in 1945, we got that pension increased to $25 a month. There was still a means test. The pension was still paid 75 per cent from Ottawa and 25 per cent from the provinces. Then Manitoba had to be persuaded to pay its $1.25. These amounts sound infinitesimal now, but the thrill of that sort of thing makes the experience of being here, through all of its frustrations and through all of the disappointments, one which one could not match with millions of dollars.
Across the years I have been involved in the same things, such as old age pensions raising them up from that $25 up to where they are now, over $200 on a universal basis at age 65; getting family allowances started and keeping them on a universal basis at a time when the government wanted to put them on a means test. We now have unemployment insurance, hospitalization, medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and greatly improved veterans benefits. I could make a longer list of the things which 1 have not seen succeed; but I say to hon. members; do not think of this place as one where one has to work hard and does not get much pay. Think of it as a place where if one stays with it and has some sense of dedication one can win.
This morning while I was in my office there was hardly half a minute between each of the phone calls which came. Some of them were about today's business and matters like that, but most of them were from people who had seen the item in the news this morning about the bill which was introduced yesterday to end that waiting period for 15,000 or 20,000 veterans' widows. As a matter of fact, I do not think one of the calls was from a widow herself. The calls were from other people, such as veterans and citizens generally who were just pleased that this step had been taken. No sum of money can match that satisfaction.
I do not need a pay increase. I do not need tributes or that sort of thing. The thrill of being here and winning some of these accomplishments, the feeling that people out there are perhaps a little better off in some respects, or that they are glad they have someone who is a friend in court for them, makes this experience, the 35 years that I have had here, such a delight that I hope I can do it again.


Mark Willson Rose: Another 35 years!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another 35. I thank my hon. friend.
I suppose that those who spoke earlier will reply to me, "That is fine, but one cannot feed a family on honour". We are not asking families to live on honour. We are talking about moneys which are into the $40,000 and $50,000 bracket per year. We are talking about a lot of other things that we have.

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act
It is tough in many cases, and if one has not been here very long, one's pensions will not let one travel around the world; but we are reasonably taken care of. We are well ahead of those whom we represent. I think our pay and allowances should stay as they are.
I thank hon. members for their attention. I am delighted to have had this opportunity to state my philosophy of the life which a member of Parliament should lead, and I thank my colleagues again for letting me be the second speaker of our party, even though I differ from the majority of my colleagues. I hope hon. members realize why, when the vote comes at ten o'clock tonight, I shall be voting no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, this intervention will be a short one. It will be one which I do not relish making. First of all, I would like to give thanks for the opportunity of participating in this debate and to explain why, by virtue of perhaps being old-fashioned or by virtue of having a mental block or other reasons which I cannot briefly describe, my reasoning leads me to the conclusion that, regretfully, I cannot support this bill.
This is the way I see the issue. To me it is a question of going back a year ago when I was elected for the life of this Parliament. In a way I felt that I was hired under the terms and the conditions of the duration of this Parliament. I therefore feel that I entered into this role of a member of this House with the clear understanding as to what was ahead of me, both the good and the bad. Having reached this point in my thinking, my next step, therefore, is to comment on the approach which I would support and I would urge the government to consider, because this is not the first time and there will be other times, years from now when this matter will be before this House.
I think we should arrange things in a way whereby one Parliament decides for the next. In our specific case, 1 would be glad to support the measure whereby we would determine the salaries and other conditions for the members of Parliament to be elected in the next Parliament, namely, the thirty-third Parliament. In doing so, I think we would, first, increase the quality of accountability in such a way that it would not harm the texture of democracy, and maybe it would strengthen it. Second, we would be making a decision for a group of parliamentarians whom we really do not know yet, for another group separated from us; some of us may be in that group and some of us may not. In other words, we would not be making a decision for ourselves; we would be making a decision for the next group, whatever the composition of that group may be. Third, the public would know in advance. It might want to make it an issue, but I doubt it very much. However, it would not be an issue which will be raised during the life of a Parliament for that specific Parliament but it would be an issue in relation to the following one. The public would know, the candidates would know, and there would be no element of surprise. I had hopes that this bill would contain a clause which would permit those who wish to do so to continue under
the present regime until the end of the life of this Parliament. In other words, in doing so there would have been an element of choice and a possibility of option. Those who want to continue this regime would be able to do so, and would therefore have a choice. Those who want to have a change, would have the alternative. I regret that this clause has not been included. I would not say that this is the entire picture that I would like to give in my reasoning. There is also one element that has to do with timing. It seems to me that this is not exactly the most appropriate time in relation to what is going on in our economy.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, my position is that I cannot support this bill. I do support the concept, the principle of one Parliament deciding the income of the next Parliament. As I mentioned before, this is not the first and it may not be the last time when MPs debate their own salaries. Each time it is no fun to see this issue come along this way, no matter on which side of the issue one stands. The concept of accountability, the concept of timing and of the option, are all related to this basic principle of one legislature deciding for the following.
I should like to conclude by saying that like all my, colleagues in this House, I enjoy the parliamentary work. I enjoy the conditions under which I am allowed to work and I regret very much not being able to support the majority of my colleagues in this project.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this pay and pension bill which has seen the light of day in this House this afternoon, hence my handwritten notes, rather hastily put together.
Neither I, nor anyone in this House, has had a chance to inspect and calculate the cost of this pay and pension bill. I find that a very uncomfortable position from which to debate any legislation in the House.
I am certain that the pensioners who are waiting for their cheques and the small business owners who are watching their businesses atrophy, will not be impressed at the way we suddenly sneaked this bill in and will pass it in the course of six hours over other much more important legislation. I am particularly appalled by the callous disregard of cost associated with the bill, especially in the pension provision. It would have been far better to split pay from pension so that we could have responsibly investigated and debated them individually. Although they are linked, I intend to deal with them separately.
Let me begin with the pay portion and the increases for members. I will say at the outset, that while many of my colleagues have made eloquent speeches in defence of a pay increase and I agree with many of the points, this is a debatable bill and many of those points are debatable.
I regret very much having to speak against the personal and family interest of many members, as they are perceived by them. Perhaps I should say that it is my former colleagues I will be speaking against when tomorrow morning comes
July 9, 1981

around. Indeed, I could have restrained myself from speaking against the bill at all had we simply been debating a pension bill. Let me dispassionately attempt to offer the counter view on some of the reasons advanced by my colleagues for the pay increase. I had intended to discuss the arguments of hard work, long hours, exposure to public ridicule, maintaining two homes, the fact that higher pay would provide better members of Parliament and all that sort of thing, but some of my recent colleagues and speakers here tonight have made the case for me, so I will not waste the time of the House on that.
Let me deal with a couple of arguments to the effect that this pay increase is needed in order to compensate MPs in a manner commensurate with private sector professionals, and that MPs provide a valuable service and do a most important job of running the country. At the risk of seeming to be facetious and cynical, let me examine some of these points.
The comparison with the private sector income and the quality of service in running the country can, I think, be dealt with together. It is true that executive pay is generally greater than that of an MP but, private sector salaries and pay scales are based on the achievement of results. Much has been made today about the activity of members of Parliament. If we are being paid for being busy, or being inconvenienced, or being bothered by the public at any time of the day or night, or for the discomfort in travelling, or all the other arguments, then the public is certainly getting a bargain if we are paid by the hour. But if we are being paid for results, as in the private sector, then I submit there is little justification for a pay increase based on this Parliament's results.
One of my colleagues has argued that individual members have not made claims to control inflation or hold down interest rates or support the value of the Canadian dollar or hold down the price of gasoline, and therefore they cannot be held responsible for failure in these areas. This, I submit, is a specious argument at best. The government certainly did claim it would do these things and every member was a spokesman and a mouthpiece for those claims with his constituents; ipso facto, every member here, whether elected to the government side or not, made or implied such a claim by virtue of running for Parliament at a fee which was known in advance.
Let us look at the one and one third year record of the government, its members and all of us, to see whether we justify and deserve the $9,000 per year pay increase reward for performance for meeting the obligations and promises in the contractual arrangement we made with the public of Canada.
The price of gasoline which was $1.07 per gallon when we were elected, is now $1.60, which is way over the guaranteed maximum. Interest rates on election day were running at 14 per cent but today they are 5 per cent higher, at over 19 per cent. The value of the Canadian dollar was 86 cents on the U.S. dollar on February 18, 1980 but today it is down to below 83 cents on the U.S. dollar. Inflation was running at 9.5 per cent then, is today running at 12.3 per cent and tomorrow we will hear the latest news on that. I submit that does not justify a pay increase at all.
Senate and House of Commons Act
We could look at other economic indicators or yardsticks but I think these are as important as any and will serve. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that they represent the total failure of this Parliament to achieve the objectives claimed. This does not warrant the reward of a huge pay increase. I suggest that the government side should be penalized by the amount of inflation, not rewarded by its failure to deal with it.
What other Canadians have the opportunity to redress their absolute job failure or to relieve themselves of the burden of high prices by giving themselves an offsetting pay increase? I have heard the argument that inflation cannot be controlled, that it is imported, that it is inevitable, etc. ad nauseam. I suggest that a government which has paid attention to the development of Canadian industry and Canadian production and Canadian jobs over the years would now be seeing the results of sound industrial strategy. These results would have had Canada importing less foreign goods and, therefore, less foreign inflation. We would be producing more domestic goods made from Canadian natural resources and therefore eliminating, to a large degree, the cost of imported inflation. Even if we were importing inflation from our principal trading partner, the United States, that might be a benefit. Their inflation is only two thirds as high as ours.
Even if we do not accept the argument that inflation can be controlled, let me ask; if members of Parliament with the federal government cannot control inflation, who can? This large increase and this increased indexing of both pay and expense allowance will give government members no incentive at all to fight vigorously on behalf of senior citizens, mortgaged home owners, small business people and the people who drive cars and heat homes.
I can just imagine myself going back to my constituents explaining to them how I am down here battling inflation, battling high interest rates on their behalf, while I vote myself an unwarranted-and that is unwarranted by results-pay increase.
Let me now deal with the real issue as I see it, namely pensions. The pension program is a very costly item. This proposal is the most unparliamentary and irresponsible action by a spendthrift government. The government House leader (Mr. Pinard) said earlier that consultation among the parties had preceded the introduction of this bill. That is true. But he neglected to mention that no details had ever been given, certainly not to this party. Indeed, I have never seen any. No discussion with members with regard to detail or cost preceded this debate. We are seeing the bill for the first time today and I consider that irresponsible. No expenditure measure should ever be debated and passed without a detailed examination, in this case a detailed study of the actuarial soundness.
A government which has brought us a $15 billion annual deficit is certainly not one to be looked to for calculating in advance the cost of such an expensive program at the expense of the taxpayer. Surely it would not have been too much to have asked the government chief actuary to inspect. He was

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act not consulted, nor was the superintendent of insurance for Canada.
Actuarial figures, such as the return on investment calculation on the funds invested to see how much there will be when payout takes place, have not been studied. If you look at some of the cost comparisons with the private sector, you will see how bad this is. The average cost of a pension plan in the private sector is about 9 per cent of the total lifetime income of the recipient. Even in the best of private sector plans, the cost is about 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the total lifetime earnings of the pension recipient.
If the salary increases with indexing, and the cost of pensions as shown in the Mclsaac-Balcer report are carried out, the cost down the road to the government, that is the taxpayer, will be something in the order of 75 per cent of the lifetime earnings of a member of Parliament. That is irresponsible. Even if a member pays 10 per cent out of his own pocket, the government will be picking up something over 70 per cent, with the rest coming from investment. The government forbids anyone else in the country, parliamentarians excluded, from earning more than 2 per cent of their lifetime earnings as a pension. That is the law. This plan allows members of Parliament to have pensions as great as 5 per cent of their lifetime earnings, or 2.5 times the amount allowed to a regular Canadian citizen by law. That pension allowance applies from the day a parliamentarian leaves this place and it carries on until a member reaches the age of 60 at which time the pension becomes indexed. It goes upwards from there.
There has never been an evaluation of the members' pension plan. Even the present plan has never been actuarially studied. How could any responsible or informed member support such extravagance? Any 15-year member of Parliament who votes today on this pension plan provision will be voting himself or herself a $250,000 or more increase of lifetime earnings. That is over and above the $700,000 or so that are put away for him already in the present pension plan. Therefore, a member who has been elected for 15 years will have the value of about $1 million set aside in his or her name as pension funds. That is for regular members. Cabinet members will get much more. Even parliamentary secretaries significantly get more, probably $500,000 more than regular members.
In six hours we are sneaking through a $9,000 pay increase as provided for by the Mclsaac-Balcer report which has been cut by one third, which is supposedly a real cutback. The argument was made earlier that what other union or group of Canadian citizens would take less than an arbitrator's recommendation, but I submit that two thirds paid out in full today is better than 100 per cent paid out over four years, if you know anything about 20 per cent money today.
The least we could have done as a government was to consult our two distinguished actuarial former members, one in the Quebec Legislative Assembly and one a former member of this Parliament. They could have looked at this plan on our behalf. Mr. McCrossan was the former member of Parliament for York-Scarborough. Mr. Claude Castonguay is the former minister of health for Quebec and lately is a special adviser to
the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). As adviser to the minister, Mr. Castonguay helped in an intensive investigation into private sector pensions. If it were so important to have looked into private sector plans, would it not have been useful to have consulted Mr. Castonguay on the massive outlay contemplated here today? If the government had not wanted to consult the private sector people, it could have consulted Mr. Walter Reise, chief actuary. He is knowledgeable about RCMP pensions and other public service pensions. He has the computer and the program ready to go, yet he has not been consulted.
How can we study the private sector to death and yet not look even casually into this mammoth expenditure? There is even a federal-provincial conference set up for September to look into the private sector. We are not rushing into that in any six hours.
I implore the government to separate these two items of pay and pensions so that Parliament can inspect the costs and the ramifications of this actuarially unsound and unethically large pension which cannot even be provided under the law to the ordinary citizens.
Finally, let us recognize that by providing such an inordinately large pension after 15 years, an MP will be better off if he or she retires from Parliament, then collects a pension of 75 per cent of the best six years and takes another job. So much for keeping skilled parliamentarians working and getting better members of Parliament.
The government of today does not know and cannot know how many members will retire, will be defeated, how long they will serve or how long they will live an draw pensions, in some cases along with their spouse. So the costs of output cannot be controlled and have not been actuarially studied. Only the input amounts are known.
I intend to vote against this vast and irresponsible disregard of public funds, this unwarranted squandering of the dollars of the citizens of Canada for the benefit of government members of Parliament who are not carrying out their jobs successfully on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to serve. I hope other members will have both the conscience and the good business sense to vote against it as well.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to break down to some of the arguments just made by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist). I do not know how much schooling he had, but when he states that two thirds now are better than 100 per cent in three years, I think that he should figure it out for himself, and he would then see that, in view of the indexation, this amounts instead to 26 per cent less than what is recommended by the report of the Mclsaac-Balcer Committee. He should learn some arithmetic.
Second, I would like him to note, with regard to his arguments against the pension fund, that the average term of office of a member of Parliament is four and a half years, and that to be eligible for pension, a member of Parliament has to remain
July 9, 1981

in office for six years. When the average term of office is between four and a half and five and a half years and when the first condition to receive a pension is to have remained in office for six years, he can certainly not maintain that this system will favour a certain elite. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we consider the problem objectively, we can see that a real problem exists because we are all human and no union in Canada would have agreed to settle for an increase of 4.4 per cent in seven years.
One of my colleagues on this side of the House argued that he knew what his salary would be when he agreed to be a candidate. I remember what went on when I was with labour negotiating collective agreements. When I first got a job, I accepted the first offer that the employer made to me. A year later, I was president of the union and I wanted a higher salary for myself and for the others. I therefore think that it is unrealistic to maintain that we entered politics with full knowledge of the conditions and that we must now live with them.
I would like to give a few examples for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the beginning of his comments. For my part, I would like to quote Plato, who was a great philosopher and a great politician. Plato said that politics must live with honour. Those who know me will say that it is unusual for me to quote Plato. I especially want to remind the hon. member that Plato was somewhat older than he is and that values have changed as well as practical realities.
When my hon. colleague first came to Parliament I had not even been born. I am sure things have changed since then. I am sure as well that things have been happening outside this House and there are times when I would urge him to go outside a little more often. As to those whose conscience prompts them to speak sincerely against the increase as proposed, I do invite them to get in touch with my office, for I am quite sure that they will find poor people in my riding who will be willing to accept the salary increases which those members find indecent today. I will be pleased to spread it among my electors. In that sense, one must be honest with everybody here. The salary increase we are about to vote for ourselves a little later is quite realistic. We simply have to look at Quebec right now where welders earn $1,300 a week-and they are on strike. They want $2,000 a week. Multiply that by 52 and you get $ 104,000. Those are today's facts of life.
When we came into politics, we wanted to serve the public. We also liked it and were willing to do it. But that does not mean that today we should try to belittle the role of member of Parliament because I for one believe that refusing to give a member of Parliament a decent salary is tantamount to belittling his role. That is quite all right for those who can manage to survive on $4,000 a year or who are so well off that they do not know what it is to be broke. We would then find ourselves
Senate and House of Commons Act within a group of wealthy people and a closed circle of millionaires who will be able to pay their own way, sit here and say: "Yes, we are working because it is an honour".
Mr. Speaker, I see nothing wrong in the fact that men and women in this House decide to accept a proposal which is less generous than the one recommended by an independent committee. I am saying this to you and 1 say it in front of all my colleagues here: I would have liked to get much more. I would have liked us to accept the Balcer report recommendations because he himself said in his report that those were minimum levels; and yet, keeping in mind the economic rather than the political situation, we have already agreed that perhaps it might be more normal to cut that increase by one third. I do not know many people who have offices and who work outside the House, who would go along with a cut of perhaps one third in their income.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel ashamed to take part in the vote tonight, because I think that next year the average salary of national league baseball players will be $383,000. Although we have a great athlete, Mr. St-Jean, among us, I think that those guys may be a bit overpaid. One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker, the people here work almost round the clock first to get elected but foremost to try and improve the lot of those whom they represent.
Imagine, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister will get to be paid-the Prime Minister is now paid $67,000 and the Leader of the Opposition $53,000 and yet there are welders, as I was saying, who earn $1,300 a week and who are on strike because they want $2,000-as I was saying the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will get substantially less than that despite the fact that their responsibilities are considerably greater. I think that in 1981 we have to be able to face facts and to make it possible for members of Parliament to work within the system.
I would like to go back to the pension system, Mr. Speaker. I know a member-and I am serious-who, when he came here, drove a Jaguar. Today he drives a small foreign car. Some members here were set up in practice and doing really well, their businesses were flourishing, but now they cannot do both, that is work as a member of Parliament and maintain their law practice or their business. What is wrong with wanting some security? A lawyer who leaves a good practice and who spends 10 or 15 years of his life here would have great difficulty, if he was defeated, adjusting and building up a clientele in order to enjoy the same standard of living he had before entering politics. To those who argue that the salaries of $40,000 proposed here today are indecent, I would say that some of our provincial counterparts earn more. In Quebec, for example, MLAs will be getting $49,000 as of next September.
I also remind the House that we recently voted a salary increase for judges which made their salaries jump from $50,000 to $72,000 a year. Why? Because we know they need it to do their job. There is nothing dishonest in that. There is

July 9, 1981
Senate and House of Commons Act nothing wrong in wanting a decent salary because decent salary helps one to do one's job and I think that the people who voted us into office expect from us first rate work.
We could give numerous examples. In the labour force and among professionals salaries are considerably higher than the one proposed here today. If I were to figure out the hourly salary of a member of Parliament, I am sure that some provinces would consider it illegal because it would be less than minimum wage. Of course, some will say: In my riding, my MP is not worth that much! This is what I would like to tell the people: Do you know how much your MP costs you? Your MP costs you about 25 to 30 cents a year. If my colleagues feel they are not worth 25 cents, I wonder what they are doing here. They have no respect for their constituents if they feel they are not worth a quarter.
Considering that, the work of a member is far from being an easy one. My hon. colleagues from the east should consider for a moment that our western friends have to log six hours of flying time to come and sit here five days a week and then go back to their ridings to carry on their work there. Think of our friends from the other provinces who have two homes and have to bring up their children by telephone. Yes, that is right: several hon. members in this House raise their families over the phone. That is how their families are raised.
I ask the people to think of that, to have a second look at the role and work of members of parliament. I say to the Canadian people that it is no easy task for us to sit here in judgment and vote ourselves an increase, being both our own judges and employers. It is no easy job and that is why it was decided to have an independent commission look into the whole problem. That commission recommended an increase spread over a three-year period to up to $45,000. After discussions with all the parties, it was decided, not because of the present political situation, not because it was feared we would not get re-elected, but because of the economic situation, to reduce that proposal by a third. And here again I say: those who maintain that two thirds of that increase today, as opposed to three thirds in three years from now, is a better proposition, are wrong. I beg of them to figure it out. The last proposal represents a net decrease of 26 per cent as compared with the recommendation of the independent Mclsaac-Balcer Commission. That is what it boils down to. In other words, today we are accepting a cut in salary. Had I been there, had I still been president of the union, I would never have accepted a cut in salary for the union members I was representing. I would not be ashamed to go to my constituents and to tell them: "Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I took part in the debate, because I thought I was worth that much money and if you do not agree, since we live in a democratic country, when the time comes, I am sure that you will know what to do."
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all my colleagues, all those who are against this bill, to stop believing that everyone here is rich or a millionaire. Already in our
constituencies, some people think that we earn $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 per year. In addition, seven years ago, when a bill was introduced to provide for a salary increase, some people thought that we had got three increases. The bill had been tabled on first reading and the next day it was mentioned in the newspapers, so there was the first increase. A second increase on second reading and when the vote was taken on third reading, they believed that a third increase had been granted.
I say to those same people that, since 1974 when the last increase was granted, hon. members' income has in fact increased by 4.4 per cent. Such are the facts. In a democratic society for professional and labour groups some catching up is in order and it was done. It is merely a slight catching up. 1 thank the Opposition House leaders. I thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who did a lot of work on this. I also thank all my colleagues, especially the member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) for his efforts to come up with what I consider a decent minimum salary which will enable us to carry out some decent work and not to "fill our pockets", as some people suggest but on the contrary to continue to provide first rate service to those who have put their trust in us.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult debate for any member to intervene in. I think those of us who have been here for several years ought to take a moment to reflect that we have been through this before. The Hon. Mitchell Sharp, as president of the Privy Council, introduced a similar type of bill on December 17, 1974, and he said at that time:
-one of the most distasteful tasks for any minister is to take the lead in proposing a bill which, among other things, increases his own salary as a member of parliament and as a minister.
He was followed in that debate by a member who is well remembered and revered in this House, the great Ged Baldwin, who preceded the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) as the House leader for the Conservatives, and he said at that time:
We are faced here with a vexing, difficult and contentious problem, that of how to persuade people to come to this House or to become members of legislatures and do the job that they should do.
Mr. Baldwin at that point added:
All over the world the light of freedom is flickering in face of the strong winds of violence and intimidation, of attempts to secure a government of the people by other than democratic means. Let us not delude ourselves.
I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) is here tonight. He made a distinguished contribution to that debate, which continued on into the early part of the next year, and he said at that time:
-I suppose no member of parliament is likely to earn the undying favour of the public by speaking in favour of this bill, but the act is that the bill as it is now before us, and with possible future modifications, is not only one which would provide justice to hon. members of this House and the other place but it is also a bill which would safeguard the public interest.
July 9, 1981

That is what this debate is about today, the public interest.
There are only a few moments left in this debate. I hope the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) will have an opportunity to make his contribution. In speaking to support this bill I only want to tell the government House leader that it is time members of Parliament ended this business of having to stand in the House to speak about and vote on a subject of such clearly vested interest. It is time for the government to be serious about bringing in a measure that would enable the setting up of an independent tribunal following an election, not just a tribunal of former members to advise and recommend as the Mclsaac-Balcer report does, which report I support.
I think the government House leader, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have done a distinguished job in bringing to this House the recommendation that we will vote on in a few moments, a recommendation which is two thirds of the Mclsaac-Balcer report. I say it is time members of Parliament stopped having to vote on such a measure in which they have a vested interest. Let us have a tribunal empowered to set the standards for future parliamentarians. That is what we need. I suggest to you, sir, and the other distinguished leaders in this Parliament that we need a tribunal headed by a judge, and will include a representative of labour, of management, a former parliamentarian and perhaps others, whatever is considered appropriate.
This tribunal would be empowered by a future Parliament to set the standard, and we would no longer have this distasteful job. It is not a pleasant thing for members to have to rise in this debate. I spoke to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton privately about this measure and he knows where I stand. I come here now and say publicly in support of what I said to him privately as a member of this House for nine years, with some experience, and as a father of five children, three of whom were in college at the same time, and as one who attempts to devote his full time to being a member of Parliament, but as one who does not dare to complain. I consider it an honour to walk onto this floor every day that Parliament is assembled. However, at the same time we have to recognize the realities of life.
I say to you, sir, it is absolutely essential that members of Parliament can continue to come here in a full-time capacity and not have to depend on previously acquired wealth in order to maintain their existence in this place. This, sir, is a place of the commoners. A former leader of this party, the great Robert Stanfield, used to say: "You have to remember, this is a place of the commoners". I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you want that to continue, you must enable people of ordinary means to come into this establishment and stay here.
I think this reasonable proposition put forward tonight by the combined endeavours of the House leaders has enabled us to come to this point where we are about to vote, and as distasteful as this voters, let us proceed with it. I am looking down the road to a younger generation and I want people to be
Senate and House of Commons Act
able to come in here, people who have some beliefs and who want to be able to stay here. I think it is absolutely essential for world order, for the wellbeing of Canadians and for the democratic system that we have a system of fair compensation, which is not by any means rewarding-and we know that the Mclsaac-Balcer recommendations are not rewarding; they are compensatory. We say it is essential to maintain that kind of fair, equitable and stable system, not on behalf of the members who happen to be here now, but for those who will be here in the future. That is the reason I have come here tonight to make this address.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being 9.45 o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth every question necessary to dispose of all stages of Bill C-83. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Yvon Pinard: that the bill he read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried, bill read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.


Madam Speaker:: Far be it from me to want to anticipate the adjournment of the House, but I thought this evening was as good a night as any to have a reception for hon. members in Room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.19 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, July 10, 1981