December 13, 1962

NDP

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

New Democratic Party

Mr. Herridge:

19. Since that time we have read of Mr. Bennett's visit to Washington and of his attempts to sell his power at five mills, which he said could be sold quite easily. There is no question but that Dr. Keenley-side also said that; but let me tell you that though Dr. Keenleyside is a most impressive figure in a village hall, he did not win the hearts of my constituents.

20. Premier Bennett's latest move suggesting that a United States negotiator be appointed to carry on negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. Did you ever before hear of anything like that in Canadian history, a premier suggesting that we go to the United States to get a negotiator to carry on negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia?

21. This whole sorry mess is, I say, proof that the government entered into this treaty without planning and without the facts, and listened to the boys who make decisions based on computer machines without any relation to the conservation of Canada's natural resources or the sociological aspects of this very important problem.

22. General McNaughton approached this problem as a Canadian development. The treaty reverses this position, because while the Americans are physically downstream the treaty gives them all the rights of an upstream state by reason of their obtaining Canada's consent to the building of the Libby dam.

What in brief are the major defects of this treaty from our point of view?

1. This treaty is the result of a complete lack of planning and lack of knowledge of the facts. It is the result of political rather than co-operative and effective planning. This government entered into the treaty before it knew it could build the High Arrow dam. There are doubts yet about the safety of the foundation. Drillers have gone down hundreds of feet and have not been able to find rock.

Interim Supply

The government entered into the treaty without knowing the cost of moving huge quantities of timber to the pulp mill below the dam. The government entered into the treaty, and the government of British Columbia is to blame as well, without any estimate of the damage to public and private investment, wharves, docks, roads, highways, farms, villages, 18 communities wiped out almost completely and others partially. The government signed the treaty without any assessment of the damage to agricultural land, timber and so on.

2. The treaty for the first time in Canadian history gives control of Canadian waters to United States authorities. For the first time in Canada's history this treaty hands over to another state sovereign rights that belong to Canada.

3. It diminishes the value of the Columbia river for power development in Canada and also provides for power at a higher cost than would be possible under the McNaughton plan. That can be proved.

4. It means the loss of permanent jobs for Canadians forever.

5. It unnecessarily destroys land and living space and millions in public and private investment. Under this treaty we destroy 57,000 acres of agricultural land and forest by the flooding of the Arrow lakes region and of a portion of East Kootenay, whereas under General McNaughton's plan we can bring into production in the future hundreds of thousands of acres of some of the most fertile land in Canada and lay the foundation for a great cattle industry in that area.

6. It destroys recreational resources, fish and wildlife. The fish and wildlife people of British Columbia made a report on this matter. It destroys fishing in the Arrow lakes. The rise and fall of 78 feet annually makes it impossible for the fish to spawn and prevents a proper supply of food for them.

7. It destroys miles of beautiful sandy beaches. People go to Florida, but let me tell hon. members that the Arrow lakes district is the most beautiful inland park in Canada, with many miles of sandy beaches.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
PC

Gordon Campbell Chown (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

The Chairman:

Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Continue.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
PC

Gordon Campbell Chown (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

The Chairman:

Will the committee give unanimous consent to extend the hon. gentleman's time?

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
NDP

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

New Democratic Party

Mr. Herridge:

I appreciate this courtesy, as I have just about completed my remarks. The members of this group believe that Canadian power resources should be developed for Canadians; that Canadian surplus water

Interim Supply

should be used to irrigate Canadian soil; that the Columbia river should be developed so as to provide permanent jobs for Canadians of this and future generations. We believe our surplus water should be used to irrigate the Okanagan and, in the future, prairie lands that are available. We believe our surplus power should be put through a national power grid. These developments will not come in the immediate future, but I believe they will come with national unity and if federal and provincial governments do some co-operative planning. We believe we must provide permanent employment to all Canadians by protecting and using to the best advantage these great national resources. For these reasons the members of this party support the McNaughton plan for the development of the Columbia river.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Walter Frank Foy

Liberal

Mr. Foy:

Interim, Supply

That is the feeling of the trucking industry. Truckers have been wooed by those who speak of the issue of free enterprise versus socialism. The truckers obviously expect consideration from the government in what it proposes to do about the MacPherson report, and they are obviously going to fight to get it. The truckers have sought no special favours and know they are entitled to none. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed that the only reference in the throne speech to the justification for implementing the MacPherson report was that of eliminating horizontal freight rate increases. That is one of the major problems, and I say that without expressing any opinion on the solution recommended by the royal commission. It is a very complicated solution; I understand that even the experts are still shaking their heads over it.

Here is a politically attractive issue, the removal of horizontal freight rate increases. But we must remember that the section of Canada's population affected by that type of freight rate increase, while it is a most important section and is deserving of the concern and consideration of every member of this house, must be looked after by a solution of the transportation problem that is fair to all of the interests that are affected. Let us get the railway problems straightened out, but let us remember also that in dealing with this very important problem of transportation we are dealing with a vital and dynamic element in the Canadian economy. The trucking industry is responsible, I might say, for employing 100,000 people in Canada. No government can make a move on transport legislation today without running head on into issues that affect every form of transport. Therefore I urge the government in what it is planning to do about the MacPherson report to keep in mind that it is dealing with the transportation system, not only a railway system but a transportation system made up of independent competitive elements which all have their place and which are all entitled to fair treatment. The time when our Canadian transport thinkers were able to march with the minds of Beatty and Thornton, or even with Crump and Gordon, is gone. A new era in transportation is upon us. We have to live in that era. We have to deal fairly with transportation industries that actually constitute it, and we have to deal fairly with all of them. (Translation):

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Alexis Pierre Caron

Liberal

Mr. Caron:

Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all to protest against the method used by the government to put interim supply before us.

Since April of last year, we have been asked for proportions of one twelfth at the end of each month. Yes, come the last days of each month, we are told: "We need that to pay the civil servants". Today, we have reached the tenth twelfth, and we still have not been given an opportunity for close examination.

It is becoming more and more evident that it is time we should revise our procedure in this house.

Formerly, governments tried to follow as closely as possible the parliamentary practices which had always prevailed. Today, it is the opposite; no attention is paid to any of the parliamentary customs. That is why I say that perhaps the time has come to amend our standing orders so that the Minister of Finance would have to introduce the budget before February 15, and so that the government could not introduce any legislation until the estimates of every department are passed by parliament.

In a case of extreme urgency, the unanimous consent of the house could always be asked so that some special bill might be discussed and passed. But it seems to me that the procedure used by this government ignores the members of the house and particularly of the opposition.

This time, however, we can take a little more time because it could not be said that the civil servants will not be paid if we take two or three days to discuss interim supply. We have an opportunity to go over certain happenings.

For instance, I should like to raise the matter of the recent salary increases. I think they were given against all common sense. Those who were in greatest need of them have been overlooked. I readily admit that those who earn $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 or even $18,000 per year, are also entitled to a salary increase because of the increase in the cost of living. But they could always wait a few months. But when those who earn less than $3,500 per year are deprived of an increase merely because the pay research bureau did not recommend an increase in their case, such an excuse does not seem valid to me, and I suggest that this is utter nonsense on the part of the civil service administration.

The previous minister of finance claimed that when the pay research bureau would not recommend a salary increase, its report could be made public, but that when the

i

bureau submitted a report recommending an increase, that report became a confidential document and could not be divulged to anyone, not even to members of parliament, except in parts, from month to month, as increases were being granted. If my memory serves me right, the increases started in a certain year and since then, every month of April, May, June, July, August, September and October, increases are being granted to certain groups of civil servants, but never do the October, September or July groups get retroactive pay to April 1, whereas the first group got it.

That is a flagrant case of injustice to civil servants. But that is the way the former minister of finance wanted it. I trust the new minister will not follow the same procedure in future.

This year, the research bureau has recommended increases. About 5,000 employees are getting increases, but they are the most highly paid civil servants. To be sure, the professional classes needed a raise, but this need was not so pressing as it was for the others, to whom the high cost of living has brought hardship seldom to be equalled.

Well, they were denied an increase, although a few days before Christmas 50,000 civil servants received one. On the eve of a snow-bound election-the Prime Minister is all set since yesterday-salary increases are now granted to groups earning $3,500 or over. I admit that they needed one, but I fail to understand how a government, aware of its responsibilities, can behave in such a manner and refuse any increase to the employees whose earnings are under $3,500 in spite of the fact, as expressed by the Minister of Finance, that no other increase is in sight before the month of April 1963.

If there is a group of employees who are in need, surely it is that one because those people generally have families, they have the same obligations as others on their houses, they experience financial difficulties which accumulate as the cost of living rises. In fact, those people find it almost impossible to make both ends meet.

Nothing in the act could prevent the minister from overriding the pay research bureau's recommendations, but this is the excuse he gave, the one he gave me when I asked him a question.

(Text):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister explain why

Interim Supply

the clerks and typists in grades 1 and 2 do not benefit from the salary increases announced yesterday?

(Translation):

This is the excuse given by the minister: (Text):

Mr. Speaker, because the pay research bureau reported in that way.

(Translation):

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame to try and blame officials who are subject to the instructions of a ministry and especially of the Minister of Finance. Besides, as I said earlier, neither the Minister of Finance nor the government has to bow to the pay research bureau's recommendations. They can override them, they have a right to make their own decisions. When they believe a situation is unfair or inconsistent, they have the power to change this decision or this recommendation.

Nothing was done in the circumstances. So, 33 per cent of the federal civil servants, 33 per cent of those who receive the lowest salaries, do not get a raise. Among them, 1 per cent receive less than $2,000 yearly, 6 per cent earn less than $2,500, 10 per cent less than $3,000, and 16 per cent less than $3,500.

Mr. Chairman, while I was studying the question, I found in today's Gazette two short items reading as follows:

(Text):

"Pay boosts for others wait year".

Finance Minister Nowlan said yesterday that the pay of a large group of government clerks and typists who were passed over in the new round of pay increases won't be reviewed again until next October.

He told reporters that the government is not considering the case of the employees ranked as grade 1 and 2.

(Translation):

That is the Minister of Finance's way of doing things.

(Text):

He will not be considering.

(Translation):

They do not want to review the situation.

On the other hand, as can be found on the front page of the newspaper, we note a situation which seems much more logical.

(Text):

Lesage reveals civil service salary boosts.

Premier Lesage yesterday announced pay raises for 3,668 civil servants totalling $978,999 a year.

The raises are retroactive to November 1, he announced following a cabinet meeting. They affect government employees whose salary is under $6,800 a year, he said.

(Translation):

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the government of the province of Quebec starts by paying more adequate salaries to those who

Interim Supply

need them most; increases are being granted to those who earn less than $6,800 a year. In other words, pay increases are given to those who need them most.

The article goes on to say that in mid-January the provincial government will give a pay increase to those who have a higher salary.

That is how this government should have proceeded in the case of the civil servants but it failed to do so.

If one tries to get information, he is told that those government employees get salaries which are about the equivalent of those paid by certain concerns, in private industry.

I wonder where they got those figures. Perhaps they come from certain concerns where business is not too good or from employers who are quite content to employ people who are less qualified in order to pay smaller salaries.

Yet, when we speak of good insurance brokers' firms, of good lawyers' or notaries' offices, we find that the salaries paid there are even higher than those of federal civil servants. I know that at the Metropolitan Life Insurance, in Ottawa, working conditions are better and salaries higher than those paid by the federal government. Moreover, with regard to security the company offers its employees more than what the federal government gives to its civil servants.

Even if it were true that salaries paid by private enterprise are inferior or equal to those paid by the federal government, would it not be up to the government of Canada to show others the way and to make them realize that they are not paying appropriate salaries?

Is it not up to the government to set an example? Indeed, even if we may not pass legislation here which would call for salary increases-as the matter is under provincial jurisdiction-we may, nevertheless, grant a needed raise in salaries, thus showing people in industry and business how they should deal with their employees.

Unfortunately, this government's gesture simply indicated to business and industry in what shameful manner it treats its employees as if they were second rate citizens, and more particularly the low salaried classes.

It seems that the government want to save at the expense of the civil servants. They seem to think that those who might find work in another office will leave, and that they can be replaced by stenographers grade 1 or 2 with lower salaries. This action will mean a saving for the government at the expense of

the low-salaried classes, and I think such proceedings entirely shameful.

Sir, the Minister of Finance gave an interview to the Canadian Press. I hope he will amend his ways-he is old enough to do so- and that he will not share the attitude of some hon. members. I wish he would revise his position and go ahead, even without consulting the pay research bureau, in the knowledge that some civil servants are in greater need than others.

He has the right to do so. He has the right to make such a recommendation to the cabinet and to the treasury board. That is what he should do, and if he does not, I feel that he fails in his duty, since the Minister of Finance is the one responsible for salaries.

I heard earlier a Social Crediter sternly criticizing the government. He took objection to everything the government has done since the beginning. He condemned the government as harshly as the Liberals or the New Democratic party would condemn it. And yet, in spite of everything, in spite of all those criticisms, and of the warnings given by the Social Credit party to the government since the beginning of the session-"If you do not mend your ways, we shall be forced to drop you"-they have not yet abandoned it, and when it is time to vote, they hide or vote for the government.

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that they should take a more consistent position. I do not know whether that is the Hitler way of doing things, because I made no special study of Hitler's career, but I do know that this method is not consistent with ordinary parliamentary procedure.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
PC

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister; Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ricard:

You might perhaps come back to the matter under discussion.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB
PC

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister; Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ricard:

Stick to the matter under discussion.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Alexis Pierre Caron

Liberal

Mr. Caron:

My remarks are in order, and when I speak in this house, it is up to the Chair to rule me out of order if I am, and not to the whip of the Conservative party.

What offends me most of all, is when I hear those Social Crediters put the Liberal party- supreme insult-on the same footing as the Conservative party and suggest that during 22 years, the Liberal party, like the Conservative party, did nothing.

If they can make such a statement, it is because they refuse to face and look into the real situation.

The Liberal party, during those 22 years, gave the country a positive administration which rendered invaluable services to the Canadian nation.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Alexis Pierre Caron

Liberal

Mr. Caron:

The Liberal party, for 22 years, conducted the country's business so that ordinary crises would not be so hard to suffer, that unemployment would not increase disproportionately.

I know that we did not print paper like they did under Hitler when, with 100,000 marks, only a small loaf of bread could be bought; but we saw to it that the administration would allow us to give the Canadian people what they needed.

Let us take for instance social legislation-

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
SC
LIB
SC
LIB

Alexis Pierre Caron

Liberal

Mr. Caron:

I could not catch a thing. If you want to speak, at least open your mouth.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink
SC
LIB

Alexis Pierre Caron

Liberal

Mr. Caron:

Mr. Chairman, I am not against answering questions, but I hope that they will stop whispering and will speak in an understandable way.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Permalink

December 13, 1962