1972-05-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
ITranslation]

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Forget (Saint-Michel).

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. I understand that there has been consultation with the House leaders by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) who is unable to be here today but who would have moved this motion had it been possible for him to be here. The motion is prompted by a sentence handed down in the courts in Hamilton a few days ago involving the imposition of corporal punishment on a young offender who, in addition to being sentenced to ten strokes of the lash, received a rather substantial jail sentence. Therefore I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
That this House recommend the suspension of sentences of corporal punishment until the disposition of Bill C-2 by this parliament.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is somewhat irregular, I realize, but there were consultations with the hon. member for Egmont and I undertook to examine whether it would be possible to accede to this request. I find that there are some difficulties in accepting the motion but that the objective, hopefully, can be reached by another route. At least, that is under consideration. Regretfully, I would have to say no to the
acceptance of the motion at this time, although I agree with the spirit of it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is a typical Liberal position.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East is submitted to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in the two official languages copies of the seabed arms control treaty along with the Canadian interpretative declaration. The treaty was ratified yesterday and will come into force today.



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in the two official languages copies of the memorandum of understanding between the Department of Communications of Canada and the European Space Research Organization concerning their co-operation in the field of advanced space technology, and also a copy of a diplomatic note to the Director General of the European Space Research Organization from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

May 18, 1972
Urban Affairs URBAN AFFAIRS



SEWAGE DISPOSAL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and compelling necessity. It involves the recent development of a water recycling system undertaken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ontario Research Foundation which will make the probability of the saving of enormous costs for municipalities across Canada a distinct reality in a very short period of time. I urge and recommend that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs take steps to confer with municipal authorities, with the objective-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he must indicate what the motion is. The hon. member is now urging the minister to do something or other; that, of course, has nothing to do with the spirit of the motion. The hon. member should indicate the urgency of the motion and then propose the motion.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the urgency is that throughout Canada there are many pipeline sewage disposal plants being constructed, and if a conference could be arranged with municipal authorities there would be a saving of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
The Chair, of course, cannot disagree with the hon. member's suggestion. All I am doing now is to invite him to put his motion.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member beside me-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Who is he?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the Tories are not interested in saving millions of dollars in taxes.
I would move:
That an appropriate committee of this House be instructed to discuss how communications could be made to municipal authorities for saving millions of dollars of taxes through the use of a new invention that has been researched by the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member a copy of the motion? The hon. member appears to be on weak ground. There is no seconder and no motion.


Mr. Alexander:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would take great pleasure in seconding the motion proposed by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member for Hamilton West has the motion? Perhaps the matter might be reconsidered at a more appropriate time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister of Canada was reported today by the press as having stated that the present unrest in Quebec would prompt Quebecers to vote for his party not only because the Liberal party represents a strong government but also because the Quebec government is weak. Obviously, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can clarify that statement, and also whether he intends to make an election issue out of that important question, namely the unrest in Quebec.
Can the Prime Minister throw light on the statement reported in the press?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
I have been warned that such was actually the interpretation put on my remarks. I should like hon. members who might be interested to read the actual text of my interview. I have it here but I will not quote from it. I can however reply to the hon. member's question by saying the matter was discussed within the context of difficulties our government might encounter, for instance, if holding an election several months from now, let us suppose in the fall, if the disturbances, and what the reporter called a semi-revolution or semi-disturbance, were to continue for several months, his actual words being "If this Quebec problem continues over the month".
My reply was that such a situation would not prevent us from holding an election in Quebec.
I was replying about a hypothetical case. However, I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to be able to say that in my opinion that supposition is not materializing. The interview took place several days ago and the developments of the past few days indicate that, on the contrary, the Quebec government has shown considerable control of the situation and is indeed a strong government.
The supposition is therefore not materializing.


Martial Asselin: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Prime Minister has obviously clarified his statement by saying that the Quebec government is strong, I would like to know, following the creation of a security group by the Solicitor General to investigate social troubles in Canada, whether any security group has reported to the cabinet the true reasons for the troubles in Quebec, and whether the Prime Minister intends to cooperate with the premier of Quebec in order to restore the situation in Quebec?

May 18, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is mistaken when he speaks of the role of what he calls "a security group". The RCMP operates in Quebec as in other provinces, as a federal police force, under certain circumstances. There is no other security force, to use the hon. member's words, than that one, which operates in all provinces.
As for a report to the cabinet referred to by the hon. member, there has never been any; there has certainly not been any since the recent developments. I am not speaking about October 1970, of course.
As for the question asking whether we want to co-operate with the Quebec government, the answer is yes, of course. I also stated in the interview mentioned by the hon. member that there was no question of having the same type of co-operation as then. In October 1970, the Quebec government and the city of Montreal had asked for the help of the armed forces. I made it clear that there was now no similar request, nor any discussion on the matter. This confirms what I said in my first answer, that Premier Bourassa acted with firmness and stability in the circumstances, and that the country is grateful to him.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a statement in the House on Tuesday next that there will be a summit conference between himself and the Prime Minister of Quebec on restoring amicable arrangements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the question is at least procedurally questionable.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR LIST OF AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who was scheduled to be here but who I am sure is away for a good reason, may I ask either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whichever one may be able to deal with the matter, whether it is possible for the government now to inform parliament with respect to the names of the 1,500 or so United States corporations which are using the DISC program or have registered for the DISC program?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is meeting today with a delegation of Russian officials who are here in Canada and he therefore cannot be in the House. The list of companies which have applied for DISC registration in the United States is not yet available for public scrutiny. Therefore we have not been able to obtain a copy of it.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADA-UNITED STATES-DATE FOR RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS

David Lewis: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or any minister, the following question. In view of a report that Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance Grey has stated that decisions in Washington are likely to determine the access of Canadian exports to foreign markets for the next decade, can we be informed, in light of this serious statement by a senior government official, whether trade negotiations between Canada and the United States have been recommenced and, if not, whether a date has been set for these negotiations to start?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Some changes have taken place in the official structure in the United States within the last few days, as the hon. member will be aware. It does not therefore seem prudent to be commencing official negotiations at this time.



REPORTED INVESTIGATIONS BY UNITED STATES INTO CERTAIN IMPORTS FROM CANADA-SOURCE OF INITIATIVE

David Lewis: I appreciate that perhaps the parliamentary secretary is at some disadvantage, but there is another question which he might answer or take as notice. It arises out of a report that investigations have been initiated in Washington into a number of Canadian imports such as aluminum, potato granules and sulphur as well as tires from the Michelin company in Nova Scotia. Arising out of this report, can the parliamentary secretary inform the House whether the department is aware of these initiatives to investigate these products and, if so, whether the initiative came from some government department in Washington or from private companies that are being hurt by our exports; and what is the purpose of the investigation?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The products mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party are dealt with in different ways. If we take aluminum as an example, there has been a request for anti-dumping duties to be applied. This request came from a private company in the United States. The government of the United States is under an obligation to investigate and to respond to the charge. So it is not an action that has been invoked by the government itself.
The position of the United States government regarding the Michelin Tire Company would be entirely different, because it would involve countervailing duties that they might consider applicable against the Michelin company, which would be an action taken by the United States government. But there is no indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are going a little far afield at this point. I see three members who are seeking to ask supplementaries. I will recognize one hon. member and then the hon. member for Temis-camingue, and return to the supplementaries later. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowiehan-The Islands.

May 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADA-UNITED STATES-REASON FOR DELAY IN RESUMING DISCUSSIONS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. Since he and President Nixon agreed to arrange discussions on trade between their respective ministers, what is the reason for the delay in holding these discussions? Is it due to reluctance on the part of the United States government, or is the Canadian government itself deliberately withholding any discussions at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not deliberately delaying, to use the words of the hon. member. We have done what we undertook to do; we have reviewed our position. We are looking at various modifications that we might find desirable, and we are prepared to meet with the United States officials at any time they judge convenient for them after they have done the same thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the delay due in any way to the fact that the Canadian government is prepared to make some very serious concessions respecting the auto pact but is waiting till after the election before making these concessions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable procedurally.



MANPOWER


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the hon. Minister of Justice or rather to the hon. Minister of Finance. One of my colleagues says there is no justice there.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my question concerns many federal representatives. It arises from the closing of the Canadian International Paper plant in Temiscaming on May 31. The employees contributed for a number of years to a pension plan to draw a pension when they reached the age of 65. Now they are asking the company to reimburse the amounts paid under the pension plan, along with the interest, since they will be laid off on May 31.
Since I am told that insurance and trust companies in Montreal have these amounts, can the Minister tell us whether he intends to take any action so that the CIP employees may get these amounts since they will no longer be working for the company?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that this comes under my jurisdiction but in any case, I will consider the representations made by the hon. member and I will give him an answer.



POSITION OF TALKS ON POSSIBLE PURCHASE BY EMPLOYEES OF PART OF SOUTH TIMISKAMING CIP MILL

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Have the talks that the minister has held with the workers at the South Timiskaming CIP mill in terms of their purchasing part of that operation with assistance from the minister's department been finalized, or are they still continuing?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the stage the talks have reached now but I will inquire of my department. I do not think they went very far.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-REASON FOR DELAY IN RESUMING DISCUSSIONS

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, perhaps I might direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since there appears now to be a serious reduction in our balance of trade internationally, with a resulting increase in the importance of our trade relations with the United States, I should like to know whether the delay in the negotiations has been caused by the swiftly changing pattern in the United States making it necessary for a more complicated and in-depth submission on the part of Canadian officials?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any change in the underlying circumstances except, of course, the change in respect of the Secretary of the Treasury.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have a supplementary question which I think is within the purview of the minister to answer. Because of the major importance of these negotiations to Canada and the necessity for early and favourable progress, can the minister indicate whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his top departmental officials are engaged in direct negotiations with their counterparts in the United States, or are we still at the stage of lower level departmental communication?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, the position is as expressed by the Prime Minister, namely, that both sides have been reviewing their positions with a view to resuming negotiations. We are ready to do so at any time but the time has not appeared opportune for the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North and then return to the second question in respect of which there are supplementaries.
May 18, 1972



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether a vote was taken yesterday or recently in the United Nations on the legalization of possession and use of marijuana, and if a vote was taken in the economic committee of the United Nations why did Canada abstain from voting?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ascertain whether those are the facts. I will take notice of the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the minister is checking into the matter, will he ascertain whether all other nations voted against it while Canada abstained?



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF CANADIAN CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR GUIDELINES AND EXTENSION OF POLICY

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce having regard to those corporations which have made applications under DISC. Has the situation been looked at in an attempt to determine whether these corporations have violated the good corporate behaviour guidelines laid down by that department, and is it intended to extend this policy whenever it is discovered that corporations are making applications under DISC?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, where we are aware of companies that have taken out DISC corporation status in the United States we have had discussions with some of them. I cite, for example, the automobile companies with which we have had discussions during the last two or three weeks. In so far as other companies are concerned, we are attempting to gather as much information as is possible under the circumstances and we are reviewing what action we can take in that regard. I would draw the hon. member's attention to the changes made in the budget which will make it possible for Canadian corporations to deal more effectively on a competitive basis with the DISC corporations in the United States.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, since so much of government policy is going to hinge on knowing which corporations have made applications for DISCs, can we get a firm answer from the parliamentary secretary on whether the corporate guidelines are going to include those corporations that have made such applications?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take notice of that question.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT SAFEGUARDS WILL NOT BE ABANDONED

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact it is reported this morning in the business section of the Globe and Mail that the Under Secretary of the United States, Mr. Paul A. Volcker, has intimated that the United States government has not reviewed its trade proposals and does not intend to until after the forthcoming federal election in Canada, and in view of the claim there has been a deal made between the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States to give up the safeguards in the auto pact after the federal election, will the Prime Minister assure the House that, whatever else happens in respect of the auto pact negotiations, these production safeguards will not be abandoned after the next election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for assuming that we will be here as a strong government after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is a rhetorical suggestion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was, of course, referring to the hon. member of the NDP, but I know the Conservatives are nervous about this, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Call it now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I do take exception to the implications or innuendoes in the question as asked. It seems to me that the facts as recited by the hon. member, which he says he got from the Globe and Mail, rather give the lie to the question asked by the former leader of the NDP when he assumed that we were dragging our feet. I wish the two members would get together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary. We do have to get on as we are still on the first round of questioning.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I directed the question to the right hon. member for Mount Royal asking for his guarantee because I knew I need not ask for that from the hon. member for York South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask a supplementary question to settle this matter. Will the Prime Minister make a statement in the House today or tomorrow on the question of the date of the general election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is this an urgent question of national interest, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 18, 1972
2384__________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS



PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF OFFICIAL NOTICES OF LAND EXPROPRIATIONS

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Is he in a position to indicate to the House the date of the gazetteing of notices of expropriation respecting the acquisition of land for the proposed airport at Pickering?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there are about 500 titles involved and at least 500 interested parties who have to be notified before we are able to do so. I should think this could not be done before early August.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River has put a question to the Prime Minister regarding the election date. The Prime Minister has replied too fast and we were unable to understand him. Could he repeat his answer to the hon. member for Peace River?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was under the impression that the right hon. Prime Minister had announced the election date.



ALBERTA INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE ON FEASIBILITY OF MACKENZIE VALLEY CORRIDOR- DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the plans of the government of Alberta to call a joint industry-government conference regarding a study of the feasibility aspects of an energy corridor down the Mackenzie River Valley, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether his government is in liaison with the Alberta government in this regard and, if not, is the federal government going to make known its own findings at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally been in contact with the Premier of Alberta on this matter and cannot say whether there have been discussions or otherwise between some members of this government and the premier. I will look into the matter and perhaps be able to help the hon. member.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Are he and his department now considering the making of a specific offer to the Native Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories in return for the extinguishment of treaties 8 and II with regard to their land rights?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the government's position in that respect is well known. We are prepared to abide by the treaties and we have offered two options to the Indians: either their lands or a compensation. They have not made any choice.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would he mind informing the House frankly whether the department has now under consideration a specific offer to the brotherhood with regard to extinguishing treaties 8 and 11 with respect to their land rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has reservations regarding a question in those terms. I do not think an hon. member has the right to ask a question in the words used by the hon. member. I think that is argumentative. But the question has been asked and the minister might be allowed to reply.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the government's position in this matter was well known. I have no comment to make on the hon. member's question.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-RIGHTS OF NATIVE PEOPLE

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Have the offers made to Indians and Eskimos of the Northwest Territories been made also to the Indians of northern Quebec, to those of the James Bay area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the two situations are not similar, because in the Northwest Territories land control comes directly under the federal government while in the James Bay area it comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec government. However, the principles are the same.



SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS RESPECTING TREATY NO. 7

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he give the House and the country the decision with regard to treaty No. 7 and
May 18, 1972

the Indians' claims for their ammunition money for the past 97 years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we got a recommendation from commissioner Barber to that effect. We are considering this recommendation and we will inform the House when a decision has been taken.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STANBURY-FIELDS REPORT

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on another matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and will return to a supplementary by the hon. member for Calgary North in a moment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister concerns the request for tabling of the Stanbury-Fields report and the response of the parliamentary secretary during the adjournment debate on May 1 when he said in effect that the federal government would have tabled the report if it could have secured the concurrence of the government of British Columbia. Later a public statement by the British Columbia Minister of Municipal Affairs was reported in which he denied the allegation that the report was being kept confidential because the British Columbia government had not assented to its being made public. Would the minister recheck the information on which the statement of the parliamentary secretary was based? Alternatively, would he inquire whether the British Columbia government has changed its original position on this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the government of British Columbia has changed its position on that subject. If it has, however, and is ready to allow us to table the report, we will be glad to do so.



POSSIBILITY OF SUGGESTED MACKENZIE VALLEY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the original question about an energy corridor down the Mackenzie Valley and the Prime Minister's announcement of a new highway to the north, may I ask him whether there have been any discussions or negotiations with regard to having the energy corridor follow that highway down through Alberta to bring energy supplies from the north to the industrial centers of Canada and elsewhere?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the member asks whether there were any discussions I am not sure with whom he means the discussions might have taken place. There were, of course, discussions within the federal government and cabinet, and the purport of my decision was to indicate that we would be planning the road and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already said that surveys are proceeding along that basis. The intention would be to have a road which preferably could be the core of such an energy corridor down the Mackenzie Valley.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State be good enough to investigate the claim of the President of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians that moneys approved in principle by the minister's officials for the human rights proposal submitted by the union have been held up and no explanation given? Would the minister be good enough to use his good offices to expedite the matter as soon as possible?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about. I shall inquire and I am confident that everything relating to grants to Indian associations is considered by the government very quickly.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether the program for control of swamp fever in horses will be compulsory, and what compensation will be paid for infected animals?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the requirement to have horses subjected to a test or indeed to be slaughtered should they show positive results from the test is not compulsory. There will be compulsory quarantine if a horse should have a positive reaction to the test. There will be a compensation program effective as of yesterday, and the details of the amounts will be announced shortly.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Would the minister consider making the compensation for these animals retroactive to January 1, 1971?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, that is a representation. The hon. member for Edmonton East.

May 18, 1972
2386________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION ACT



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES AND EFFECT ON APPEAL BACKLOG

Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of press statements in recent days regarding proposed changes to the Immigration Act, would the minister inform the House what those changes are and whether in any way they will affect the backlog of cases before the Immigration appeal Board?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the changes to the act are very comprehensive and too detailed to explain to the House now. Certainly they will have a position effect on reducing the causes that led to this backlog in appeals. In other words, when the new act is before us in the fall it will have a positive effect in this area.



SUGGESTED PLACING OF IMMIGRATION UNDER SEPARATE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the present confusion in the department in regard to Immigration, is the government considering separating immigration from manpower and placing it under a fulltime minictry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, I am sure, appreciates that a question asked in those terms is not in order. The second part of the question might be in order, but I see no point in allowing a question to be asked in those terms, the hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Prime Minister is this: Is the government considering separating immigration from manpower and placing it under a full-time ministry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this time we are not contemplating any new administrative arrangement concerning that department.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the difficulty experienced by some nurses and other hospital employees who do not wish to participate in performing abortions, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to introduce any legislation that would adequately protect the position of such employees?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is no present intention to introduce any changes in
the law. The relationships of nurses to hospitals and their general employment relationships would, of course, ordinarily fall within provincial jurisdiction.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this does involve federal law, could the minister indicate if his department is considering legislation on the matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the problem to which the hon. member has specifically referred is rather more within provincial jurisdiction than within ours. I am not sure any of his colleagues would go along with him in trying to solve the problem through the federal field.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the welcome announcement he made recently that the diversion program for potatoes in New Brunswick was being extended. Is it estimated that this extension will meet the requests of the five potato organizations which forwarded their representations to him recently through the Minister of Agriculture of Prince Edward Island to an extent that will strengthen the market?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this action has already had some influence in strengthening the market in the days since the extension was announced. At this point we cannot say precisely how much diversion will take place, but certainly it will be up to the maximum capability of the starch plants to receive and process potatoes for the time involved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he now advise if he has any information on the evacuation of any Canadian nationals from North Viet Nam since the escalation of the war, and also can he advise if personnel of the ICC in the area are performing any duties or functions, or if in fact there are any personnel in the area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had better make inquiries before I answer that question in order to make sure that my information is fully up to date.
May 18, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. With reference to the takeover by Manitoba Pool Elevators of the line elevator system of Federal Grain and the consequent announcement of closure of elevators which is causing great hardship for many farmers, can the minister say whether the Wheat Board is looking into these closures with a view to protection of the farmers concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not had specific closures brought to my attention. These, of course, are ordinarily undertaken by the elevator company concerned on its own examination of the financial situation and presumably with the best interests of the farmers in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are only three or four minutes left before the end of the question period, and even that may be stretching the time a little bit. I note that the hon. member for Churchill has a supplementary and he will be recognized for that purpose, but it should be brief.


Robert Simpson: Is the minister saying that he has not had representations to have the Wheat Board look into the situation caused by these closures?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I said that none had been directed to my attention.



BROADCASTING


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that television stations are now announcing that "Sesame Street" will not be carried on most of the stations concerned this year because there has been a change in its designation from a neutral position to an American position in terms of Canadian content, in light of its educational value would the minister give consideration to having this program re-established in its neutral position with regard to Canadian content?


Gérard Pelletier: I shall examine the matter, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Because of the excessively crowded conditions in Stoney Creek manpower centre which is in very poor rented premises, could a new manpower centre be built there very shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a representation.



INQUIRY AS TO PLANS TO INCREASE NUMBER OF FAMILY DOCTORS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the overwhelming evidence given by people recently indicating the great need for family doctors, has the minister any plans for increasing the output of family doctors?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. There was some commotion and I did not fully hear the hon. member's question. Would he kindly repeat it?


Philip Bernard Rynard: In view of indications by the people that their great need today is for more family doctors, what plans does he have to meet this need?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about a question so general in nature which has been asked a number of times in past weeks, but if the minister can reply in a few words he has just about ten seconds to do so.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the very detailed answers I gave to the same question in recent weeks indicating that a great deal has been done.


Philip Bernard Rynard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is not the question at all. A news release was issued about a week ago but it had nothing to do with the manpower situation.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to the study by a professor of sociology at Simon Fraser University which finds that supermarket chains
25316-28.1

May 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
are masters of the illusionary pricing technique, and often control products from farm to store shelf to the detriment of the consumer and, if so, would he consider making a grant available so that this booklet could be widely distributed across Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that a question such as this one should normally be put on the order paper. But the question has been asked and the minister might reply briefly because we have almost run out of time.


Hon. Robert X. Andros@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member's comment and the booklet have been brought to my attention, I will examine them with great interest.


Winona Grace MacInnis: If, on examination, the minister does not want to do this, will he consider an investigation into the control by the supermarkets of products from farm to grocery shelf?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a hypothetical question or a representation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is not a representation. It is a question that I am asking. I am asking if the minister will conduct an investigation into the control by supermarket chains of products from farm to grocery shelf? There is a question mark at the end of that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that my impression, gained over the years, is that all representations have a question mark at the end when they are made during the question period.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is he aware that many persons, unemployed for the past three months, have not yet received their unemployment insurance benefits? If so, would the minister advise us whether this delay is due to a lack of funds on the part of the commission or to the incompetence of the central office civil servants in Montreal?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if there is any incompetence it is on the part of the hon. member in not bringing one specific case to my attention sooner so that I could have intervened personally.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received a telegram from NABET requesting him to review the negotiation proceedings between that organization and the CBC and, if so, what was his answer?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: I have received that telegram, Mr. Speaker, and I am giving consideration to it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the lengthy time that negotiations have been proceeding without having come to any conclusion, will the minister speed up his review so that his thoughts can be made known to the parties in the very near future- tomorrow, let us say?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I suggest that this is a suggestion or representation. We have just about run out of time, but before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for a last question.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he consulted with the provinces of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Columbia on the provisions of Bill C-183-I am thinking especially of clause 107(1)-has he also consulted with the fishermen and, if not, will he do so?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, there have been very extensive consultations with the fishermen and the Fisheries Council. The standing committee is currently sitting and has heard both of those bodies. I am not in a position to answer this afternoon on whether or not there were consultations with the provinces.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question. Is the minister of the opinion now that there is dual jurisdiction with respect to fishermen and bargaining?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give a legal opinion on that question. We obviously took the position when we introduced the provisions in the bill that there was federal jurisdiction, and we intend to proceed on those grounds unless and until challenged.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
May 18, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for the Yukon is rising on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: My question of privilege involves an alteration to Hansard. On a previous occasion the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in reply to a question of mine deleted a whole word-either that or his officials did-entirely changing the senses of the answer. On page 2351 of Hansard for yesterday a word has been changed which completely alters the senses of what the minister said. On the previous occasion, his answer was in English and that might have been forgiven, but this time he spoke in French and distinctly used the French word "minorite" and it appears in Hansard today as "majority".
It may not have been the minister who altered Hansard; it could have been his executive assistant who often reads the blues. But in my view it is a breach of the privileges of members of the House to have this happen. The least the minister could do would be to instruct his helpers not to change the sense of his answers by such blatant alterations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House Leader about the business for the rest of this week and for next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when orders of the day are called we will continue with Bill C-207 which is under a House order that the debate shall end within an hour. Following that, we will take Bill C-208, the Veterans Act, Bill C-211, Election Expenses, Bill C-203, the Representation Commissioner Act, Bill C-7, the Explosives Act and Bill C-191, Wildlife. On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, I should like to call the budget debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact, as has been noted by the Chair and by myself, that between now and the end of June there are only 12 days left for government parliamentary business, would the government House Leader give some indication as soon as he can which bills now on the order paper are, in the opinion of the government, of immediate priority so that he can continue to get the co-operation of the official opposition in advancing discussion of those measures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way in which Bill C-207 and Bill C-208 have been dealt with. If priority is required, I would at the moment indicate that Bill C-211 is a priority item, and the foreign takeovers bill would have a high priority as well as the Representation Commissioner bill. All the bills are quite important, but if I had to list them I would do it in that way at the moment.


Mr. Bell:: Have you heard from the Senate lately?
Old Age Security Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 17, consideration the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on third reading of this bill dealing with the rise in the old age security pension of $2.88 to cover the cost of living increase, I might say that this indicates the government finally has seen the light and realizes the necessity, because of inflation, of guaranteeing some automatic pension increase to those people who are over 65 who are, in some cases, unable to work. In view of the rapid rate of inflation in recent years, it is only just that this be done. The increase in the guaranteed income supplement to $15 a month is also significant, and is certainly indicated for most people falling into this category.
This action of the government has been denounced in some quarters and it has been suggested by the Quebec government that it is unfair. According to the newspapers, the Premier of Quebec has accused the federal government of arrogance in failing to discuss the old age security pension increases with the provinces. Although the federal government has steadfastly assumed the right to make direct payments to Canadians, I am one who believes that more consultation should take place on the increase in old age pensions, particularly in the guaranteed income supplement area. Provincial governments, under the British North America Act, have had the responsibility for health, welfare and education thrust on them. At the time of Confederation these were minor areas of government responsibility, but they are much larger now.
The advent of shared cost programs has meant an uneven distribution of funds across Canada for various welfare and social programs, and the federal government has often been to blame for forcing the provinces to take on programs that they were not ready for, either administratively or financially. The payment of a universal old age pension to every Canadian regardless of where he lives and regardless of his financial situation, is one thing, but the attempt to give further assistance to those in need by means of the guaranteed income supplement seems to me not to be the best way of providing extra assistance to those who need it. I would regard it as a considerable intrusion into the affairs of the provinces. The most logical thing, it would seem to me, would be for the federal government to confine itself to direct payment on a universal basis to all Canadians, regardless of their financial status, with the provinces providing extra assistance for those who need it.
The old age security pension is, in effect, a type of insurance paid by the citizen through his years of service in the community whereas the guaranteed income supplement falls under the heading of social benefits made

May 18, 1972
Old Age Security Act
necessary by his financial position. It seems to me that the guaranteed income supplement program should be phased out after suitable arrangements are made with the provinces, to take care of those in need. There are many needs which are not met by the guaranteed income supplement for those pensioners who must of necessity have further help from their provincial governments.
One of the weaknesses of the guaranteed income supplement Mr. Speaker, is that it is based on the dollar income of the pensioner, and it does not take into account any of the assets that a person may have. For instance, a person may have his own home but he will receive the same income as one who has the cost of rent and other expenses to meet. Indeed, a person may well leave assets such as cash in his current account in the bank, drawing no interest, and he could quite easily receive the full guaranteed income supplement. It is, therefore, a very imperfect way of assessing what extra income a person should receive over and above the old age pension.
There is one area that I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), whose department makes the assessment for guaranteed income supplement. It concerns the matter of annuities. At the moment, according to the ruling I have received, an annuity payable at so much a month, on the principal portion of which tax has been paid and represents savings, is considered full income.
I know of a specific case in which a person with a small amount of capital, about $12,000, was advised to buy an annuity on her 65th birthday which would have provided her with so many dollars a month. However, on investigation it turned out that this annuity would be wholly considered income in the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement, so she would lose heavily by taking the annuity. At the end of five years, she would have just as much left out of her capital as if she had invested in an annuity. This seems to be an administrative technicality that should be investigated. Where the tax has been paid on the principal portion of the annuity, that should be exempt from the calculation of income in the guaranteed income supplement. We might also learn that in many cases those who have saved through the Canada Pension Plan will find that their guaranteed income supplement has been reduced to the point where they are little better off than those who did not save toward an annuity or did not even contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the bill and hope it receives speedy passage.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on Bill C-207 to amend the Old Age Security Act.
My remarks shall be very brief and deal mainly with certain statements made in the course of this debate by members of the opposition. The other day, I heard the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Caouette) stating that it was thanks to his party that senior citizens obtained higher pensions.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: The leader of the Social Credit party is a past master in the art of saying shocking things and I think it is proper, in this House, to state the facts.
In fact, the planned increased pensions are strictly in line with the tradition of the Liberal party which has always been the protector of those in their golden years. In 1908-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. parliamentary secretary?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to answer the questions of the hon. member when I have finished my speech.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Temiscamingue rising on a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out to the hon. member that, two years ago, when an increase in the old age pension was proposed to the House, he voted against it.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I expect the hon. member could not stand to be contradicted. He mentioned, when he last spoke in the House, that he would like to pit himself against me in public debate. I told him he could invite me to his riding at any time and that I would gladly go and explain to the voters in Temiscamingue how the hon. member has been telling them half-truths for many years.
Mr. Speaker, in 1908, for the first time, a Canadian government, then headed by the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, tried to help elderly people by passing an act on annuities. That was long before the Ralliement Creditiste came into existence, and long before the hon. member for Temiscamingue came on the scene.
Second, in 1927, a Liberal government-and Creditistes had nothing to do with that either-introduced the Old Age Security Pension Act. It originally provided financial assistance of $20 a month to people aged 70 or over who passed the means test. At the time, the act was administered by the provinces, with the federal government sharing in the expenses to the extent of 50 per cent.
Subsequently, several amendments were brought to the act, to increase benefits and to alter provisions relative to the means test. It was however becoming obvious that this system for meeting the needs of elderly people could not be satisfactory to all. That is why in 1951, following an appropriate amendment to the constitution, the federal government, under the administration of the right hon. Louis St-Laurent, undertook, first to assume full responsibility for administration and financing of an old age security pension plan applying to all persons of age 70 or over.
Second, to pay half the costs of a provincial old age assistance scheme with a means test for persons aged from 65 to 69.
The monthly benefits payable under the terms of the act have changed through the years, Mr. Speaker, and it can be said that the legislation passed in favour of the elderly
May 18, 1972

over the past ten years under the administration of the right hon. Mr. Pearson and of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are unequalled in any country of the free world.
When the Liberals came back to power in 1963, the pension was $65 a month for persons aged 70 or more. Let us consider the progress achieved and this, without any help from Social Credit.
First, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the pension to $75, and afterward to $80 a month, for all pensioners.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would not wish to restrict the Parliamentary Secretary in his comments, but I wonder to what extent they have to do with the bill we are now considering. Sometimes, in similar circumstances, the Chair allows a lot of leeway to hon. members with regard to the subject-matter of the act to be amended, but, in the present case, as the debate is limited to one hour and as the Chair knows that many other hon. members would like to have the floor before the question is put, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to come back as soon as possible to the bill under study.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief, but I feel that it is important, following the stupidities said in the House, especially by the Creditistes, to recall the facts and to show that the Liberal party has never hesitated to help the aged when the time had come for doing so.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we established a new plan to grant a supplement to pensioners who have no other resources for their retirement.
This amount at first was $30; we increased it to $55 and now it will go up to $70 for single persons and $125 for couples. Thus, 550,000 pensioners will now receive $150 a month.
We have lowered the age of eligibility for old age security pensions from 70 to 65.
We have financed-this hon. members of the Social Credit party do not mention-through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the building of thousands of homes and units for older Canadians.
We have also made sure that the major part of the burden of health preservation, an essential condition for happy retirement years, does not bear only on senior citizens, through the medicare and Canada assistance plans.
Mr. Speaker, we established the Canada Pension Plan and its equivalent in Quebec in order to guarantee a supplementary pension for Canadian workers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Once again, I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. He could make this kind of speech during the debate on the budget or when the next session opens or at any other moment. He must understand that we are now considering a bill amending the Old Age Security Act and that this remarks should be limited to the bill before us and to its amendments.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss some clauses of Bill C-207 which I consider extremely important.
Old Age Security Act
We will be offering to Canadians additional protection by allowing them to deduct for income tax purposes, up to $2,500 a year, their contribution to a registered retirement plan.
We have also raised up to $1,000 the special exemption for income tax purposes granted to any person 65 years old or older and to any blind or disabled taxpayer. This means that nearly one third of the pensioners will not have to pay income tax, and that all the others will be paying much less.
Another important aspect of the measures we are recommending for the elderly is the recognition of the fact that reaching a certain age does not necessarily mean that a person is unable to make a useful contribution to our society. Several Canadians aged 65 and over have talents and skills which we want to develop, not only to give their lives some meaning, but also because we want to profit from the skills of these people. This is why we are going to launch the New Horizons program which will enable older people to fully participate in community life.
Mr. Speaker, as a conclusion on this very impressive achievement, I would like to say that, when the present government was elected in 1968, the annual maximum level of pensions was $1,285 for single persons and $2,570 for married couples. In 1971, these figures were upped to $1,620 and $3,060. Presently, in 1972, they are increased once more to $1,800 and $3,420. These are important and significant increases over a period of two years.
These payments, Mr. Speaker, can be favourably compared with others in any other country of the western world. Let's make a few comparisons together.


David Réal Caouette: Go and tell that to Rene Levesque.


André Ouellet: The maximum yearly amount paid in a country like Great Britain, for example, is $1,300 for a bachelor and $2,200 for a couple.
In the United States, these yearly amounts are $1,649 for a bachelor and $2,428 for a couple.
On the other hand, the maximum yearly amount paid in Scandinavian countries which are supposedly very progressive in the social field, is far lower than in Canada. Let us, for instance, take the case of Denmark where a bachelor draws $1,245 and a couple $1,868. Sweden is also far behind Canada in this respect. A bachelor in that country draws $1,200 and a couple $1,867.
I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, to those who are beset by constitutional qualms, as is the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), for example, who joined in the debate yesterday and whom I would qualify as a separatist in disguise, that the federal government is absolutely justified in helping Canada's pensioners and particularly those of Quebec.
There are now 422,000 Quebecers aged 65 years and over who draw the old age security pension. Of this number, 258,600 receive the guaranteed income supplement. During 1971-72, old age security pensions paid to Quebecers amounted to $400 million while the guaranteed income supplement was $146 million.

May 18, 1972
Old Age Security Act
The proposed amendments mean that payments to Quebecers will increase by $67,300,000 in 1972-73. I fail to understand that some people are indignant that the federal government is trying to add $67,300,000 to the lot of Quebec's senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my comments, I would like to reply to certain objections raised by some hon. members of the Social Credit Party. They are wondering why the government has not extended the eligibility for the pension concurrently to both husband and wife.
Mr. Speaker, the government has carefully considered the question and found important difficulties, such that if the Social Crediters' proposal was implemented, it would be grossly unfair to widows, single women and unemployed people in the same age bracket. Allowing benefits to the very young wife of a pensioner would untowardly perturb social priorities. In fact, one could expect that women might provide for themselves when their husband's income is insufficient.
On the other hand, paying benefits to the pensioner's wife after 60 would mean discrimination against widows, single women and unemployed men in the same age group.
And, as I said, it would be extremely unfair to apply the proposals of the Social Credit.
The members of the Social Credit party have asked a second question: Why not provide for early and optional retirement at 60?
Such a measure conceivably might encourage the employer to compulsorily retire 60 year old people, even though they might wish to keep on working. Besides, our economy would then be deprived of their productivity, our welfare and health services laden with heavier burdens when they are already hard put to cope with all the problems of those who have prematurely retired.
Mr. Speaker, with the old age security pension set at $80 and the guaranteed income supplement at $55, we spend at present some $2,200 million. An early retirement such as the Creditiste party is advocating-supposing everybody was eligible in 1972 and we paid $200 per person- would mean a considerable increase and we do not feel we can afford the cost of such a system at present.
If, at 60, we granted only a pension based on financial means instead of a universal pension, it would cost at least an extra $265 million.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to observe that the efforts made by the government to help old age pensioners have been constant. All Liberal administrations have granted pension increases. We can thus say that the present government is most concerned with the fate of pensioners and has always wanted to introduce measures which took into account not only the needs of senior citizens but also the resources of taxpayers.
The suggestions made by Creditiste members during this debate show how irresponsible they are, and how unrealistic. A payment of $200 a month for every person aged 60 years and over would cost Canada a minimum of $5 billion for old age security pension alone, while our present budget is about $14 billion.

I would like, therefore, to conclude my remarks by saying that a responsible government should govern taking into consideration the needs of the whole community. This is why I hope that this bill, which is a most adequate and generous measure, will be approved by all parties without hesitation.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the remarks of our colleague on the other side of the House justifying this legislation, my memory went back four years to an election campaign that had as its key words "a just society". If there has ever been an injustice perpetrated upon the senior citizens of our country, it was the legislation brought in five years ago which limited the adjustment of the pension paid to our senior citizens to a 2 per cent rise in the cost of living. I do not understand the reasoning behind that kind of legislation. If inflation amounts to 5 per cent a year, why do we penalize our senior citizens? Why do we mock the very purpose of supplying a senior citizens' pension by limiting him to half or less than half of the increase in inflation?


Some hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: All we are asking at this time is that we make this measure retroactive to January 1, 1967, when the guaranteed income supplement was introduced, and adjust the guaranteed income supplement to make it equal to the actual cost of living increase. We are not asking for anything more than that. That would be justice, Mr. Speaker.
The implementation of the correction of faults in our society to render justice should begin at this level of responsibility which affects the very lives of the people who have given their all to help make Canada what it is today. What this legislation should have done in the first instance was to make what is owing to our pensioners as a result of the increased cost of living retroactive, over and above the $80 basic pension and over and above the guaranteed income supplement, so that the pension would be equal to the actual cost of living. I think it is a disgrace.
I think that, regardless of how the Liberal government attempts to justify its position we have to wait until another election campaign to try to give these pensioners part of what we owe them. It is the old story of playing politics with our senior citizens, and then only to give them half of what they deserve, by making it retroactive only to the beginning of this year. That is simple justice. The government would have faced its responsibility by raising the basic pension to $100 a month and the guaranteed income supplement $15 a month, only if they intended to compensate for the cost of living rise during the last five months. Again, I do not understand why the government has not been able to see this.
There is another glaring injustice. It relates to the spouses of pensioners who have reached 65, and who have themselves not yet reached the age of 65 but who have passed their 60th birthdays. This suggestion relates very specifically to the needs of many widows across the country. However, it applies to all those whose husbands or wives have reached the age of 65 and find it difficult to
May 18, 1972

maintain an adequate income. Surely, we could at least have brought those past 60 into pension entitlement, provided the husband or the wife had reached the qualifying age of 65.
I am only underlining the inadequacy of this bill. I think, to sum up, that to correct this injustice, the government-and I do not see how government members on the other side can argue as they do-should have made this cost of living adjustment apply back to the date the legislation was first brought in and make it available to a spouse who is over 60 but not yet 65, and included that cost of living adjustment for those who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. This applies to all pensioners. There is no single group of Canadian people who are so adversely affected by the inflationary situation which concerns us as those we are attempting to deal with justly in this legislation. Anything short of this is injustice; anything short of this is irresponsible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that when I took part in this debate on second reading on May 10 I announced the date of the forthcoming federal election as July 17. I did not realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had now gone to Government House and got the actual dissolution. But listening to some of the speakers this afternoon, especially the speech of the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), I am beginning to wonder whether we are already on the hustings.


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An hon. member tells me to take my time. Well, there is only half an hour left in this debate. I do not intend to take all of it; I shall take only a few minutes, so that others who may wish to speak will have an opportunity to do so.
It is still my very strong view, Mr. Speaker, that the pensioners of Canada want the basic old age security pension raised to a figure of not less than $150 a month, and it is my view that they have the right to expect parliament to raise the basic pension to that amount. We feel, also, that along with a basic old age security pension of $150 a month there should be the kind of changes in the Income Tax Act which would take the money back from those in the upper income brackets. We insist that this is the way to do it. It is not conducive to a society of equals, it does not lessen our being a country of haves and have-nots, to continue a practice of applying a needs or income test before the rate of a person's pension is fixed. So we take our stand very strongly for $150 old age security pension with the necessary tax changes to make sure that the wealthy pay it back. We also feel there should be an escalation provision better than the new one which is provided in the bill before us. We welcome the one provided in Bill C-207, because it is better than the old one with its two per cent ceiling, but we still feel there should be an escalation provision which would make it possible for retired people not only to keep up with the rising cost of living but to share in the rising standard of living which they in their working years helped to make possible.
It is our view, despite the argument advanced a few minutes ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis-
Old Age Security Act
ter of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Ouellet), that pensions under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan should be available at the age of 60 to all those who are prepared to leave the labour market or who are already out of the labour market. I hope it is clear that in the latter phrase I include wives of pensioners where wives are younger than the present pension age.
I agree with those who argue that some kind of provision should be made for spouses and this seems to fill the need, by making it possible for those who are a few years younger, to receive the pension if the breadwinner is also drawing the old age pension. The arguments which have been advanced against this today, and on previous occasions by the hon. member for Papineau and others, do not convince me. We think these are reasonable provisions which ought to be enacted. Some day we shall have to take these steps. We think they should be taken now.
As for this bill, Bill C-207, it does contain a few things that are good. There is nothing in it that is bad. The trouble is, there is so little in it that is good. All it does is provide for an escalation in relation to the rise in the cost of living. No account is taken of the gross national product or the rising standard of living, and it is calculated in relation to a basic pension which is already inadequate. If the hon. member for Papineau and others on that side of the House intend to take credit on the hustings for the principle of escalation, let them realize that they will be facing many old age pensioners to whom an escalation formula of this kind is no help because the basic pension itself is too low. That is what is wrong with this bill. It does not go far enough. As I say, it does provide something. It puts the escalation back on the basic $80, and it provides for an increase in the guaranteed income supplement both to single and to married couples. The bill is also drawn in such a way that perhaps for the first time in old age pension history, if my memory serves me correctly, payments are to be made retroactive.
Elections are wonderful, Mr. Speaker. Usually these increases do not come into effect until after two or three months have gone by, but with the prospect of an election on July 17, the bill has been drawn in such a way that there will be a six months retroactive increase in the cheques to be received by our pensioners at the the end of June. Nevertheless, even though on a former occasion I have called that what it is, if any money is going to get through to these people I think it should get through to them as soon as possible. This is why I regret that this House did not pass the bill yesterday, as I think we could have done and as I believe we should have done. I hope that any suggestion that the ladies and gentlemen of what is sometimes called the "other place" will hold up the bill is false.
In any event, I have indicated our position on the question of the old age pension, namely that we think it should be a basic pension of $150 a month, with the other provisions to which I have referred. By way of contrast, the position of the government, the Liberal party, is that it is good enough to have a basic pension of $80, escalated from the point, and to take care of those who need more by an income or needs test system. That is their position; they are prepared to go to the country on it and to ask the

May 18, 1972
Old Age Security Act
people to give them credit for it. But I would suggest it does not meet the needs, indeed the rights, of our senior citizens and is not in line with progressive thinking in the whole field of human and social development.
I said a moment ago-and I am just about through; as I have said I do not want to take up an undue portion of the time that remains, which is very little-that I regret that we did not get the bill through yesterday so there would be no question about these increases being in the cheques of our pensioners at the end of June. I regret yesterday's performance for another reason, too. It is not often that we on this side of the House spar off against each other. The three parties on this side of the House usually present a common front against the government side. Be that as it may, I was quite disappointed yesterday that our friends of the Progressive Conservative party spent the whole afternoon presenting motions, amendments and arguments which led to one point only: they were trying to get a little more into the escalation clause. I give them credit for the fact that they got down to precise figures as to what they wanted. They wanted to get the basic pension up to around $90 a month by giving the pensioners the full cost of living increase back to the time when the pension was set at $75 a month. But that is all they contended for yesterday, $90 a month.
I say to my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party that if $90 a month is all they have to offer, as opposed to the $82.88 from the Liberals, then they might as well quit talking about pensions. The fact is that their leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), has said publicly and categorically that if he is elected to power he will not go for a basic pension of $150 a month. So, despite the things that individual members of that party may say, that is now the position of the official opposition-one of opposition to a basic pension of $150 a month. I regard these attempts to make motions to raise the pension to $90 a month as an effort to cover up that basic inadequacy. It is a position pensioners cannot accept.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there it is. I have accused others of speaking as though they were on the hustings, and maybe that charge will be thrown back at me. But at this point I would suggest it is a good idea to make sure that the lines are clearly drawn. The Liberals are satisfied with a $80 pension, now raised to $82.88, with the income test as a means of providing additional money. The Conservatives are satisfied with a basic $80 pension provided it is escalated to around $90 to $95. My hon. friends of the Social Credit party can speak for themselves, and they have done so. Our position, and I believe it is the position of the senior citizens of this country and of most Canadians, is that the basic pension ought to be raised to $150 a month; that the income tax structure should be modified along the lines I have suggested; that the pension payable both under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan should be available at age 60; and that special steps, if necessary, should be taken so that spouses a few years younger-not the young brides to which reference was made a moment ago, but those a few years younger than the breadwinner-should be included in the pension. These are the steps that we think ought to be taken, and I regret that they are not in the bill. However, as far as the bill is concerned, the provisions it contains

represent a move in the right direction, and we hope it will pass when this debate ends at 4.05 this afternoon.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, as always, I listened with enjoyment to the previous speaker. He very kindly stated what the position of the government was on this bill, and also took it upon himself to tell parliament and the country what the position of the Conservative party was. Then, he said that his position was that there should be a basic increase in the old age pension to $150 a month for the senior citizens of Canada.
What the hon. member did not do, Mr. Speaker, was to tell this parliament and the people of Canada where to get the $1,400 million that that increase would cost. I say that it is intellectually dishonest for any member of this House, even though he be a man of the calibre of the last speaker, a completely respected member of the House who has done much for parliament and this country, to stand up in the House and suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should extract an additional $1,400 million in taxes, without spelling out that this is how the money would have to be raised.
It is all very well to tell the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he would adjust the income tax rate. I'll say it would be adjusted! It is so adjusted now that every member of this House admits he would like to lower taxes. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would adjust it so high that the middle class people of this country, who are already over-taxed, simply could not stand the burden of the taxation that the hon. member suggested only a few minutes ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not even' out of a gross national product of $95 billion?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This is wrong and it shows, in my opinion, a complete lack of responsibility. The hon. member comes from a party with 20 members, and there is every possibility that its membership will be reduced after the next election. Yet he stands up in his place, knowing perfectly well that his party will never come to power, and tells the members of this House and the people of Canada that a further $1,400 million in taxes should be raised. That is not the way I do business, Mr. Speaker. When I suggest that some money be raised, I spell out just where the money should be found. I have always said, and many other hon. members have said, including the hon. member who has just spoken, that taxes ought to be reduced. The hon. member wants them reduced when the budget debate is on, and he wants them increased when he wants more money for our pensioners.
Let me say this to the House: there is not one single member of this House, that I know of anyway, be he government member, member of the official opposition, a member of the NDP or the Creditistes, who does not want to give the senior citizens of this country every single nickel that the country can afford. The hon. member is not the only member of the House who knows that these are the people who made Canada great; of that we are sure. When I had the great honour of moving the adoption of the address in reply to the Throne Speech some months ago, I said that the senior citizens of Canada were treated better than anywhere else in the world, and that statement
May 18, 1972

still stands. The fact is that now they are being treated even better, and I say to you that I am proud to be a backbencher in a government that has done so much for the senior citizens of this country in the past four years.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it was only a few years ago when old age pensions in this country were $40 a month, payable at age 70. We find now that those people, who for some reason or another have not enough money at age 65 to support themselves, will receive $150 a month for a single person and $285 for a married couple. This is the result of the efforts of this government. Every member of this Parliament and every Canadian should hold his head high and say proudly that we have treated our senior citizens, who made Canada great, as well financially as this country can afford. We would like to do better but we are now doing better than anywhere else in the world.
When I say that this is the best pension scheme in the world, I should ask my hon. friends to remember what other countries have in the way of pension schemes. The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, does not have an old age pension scheme. Let us look at socialistic Sweden, and England which, as I have said before, has been drowning in socialism for many years. Let us consider the pensions those countries pay and compare them with the old age pension scheme of this country. OUr scheme has been created chiefly by this government and the Diefenbaker Conservative government. I suggest you get a good old age pension scheme as a result of having a free enterprise system in a country because then it can afford to pay great pensions such as we are paying at the present time.
I listened a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) castigate the government. I was somewhat surprised, but I must apologize because I do not really think he was speaking on behalf of my good Conservative friends. I think he must have been speaking as a former Creditiste when he castigated the government for not doing something for widows at age 60. We all feel sorry for these people, but let me remind the hon. member that when the party he now supports was last in office old age pensions, not only for widowed people but for the so-called heads of the household, were given at age 70, and the amount was not anywhere near what it is today.
Many other things have been done for our senior citizens in Canada. Every member of this House, whether he is on the government side or not, can proudly say that nobody who receives the old age pension plus the income supplement from January 1 of this year, amounting to $150 a month single and $285 a month for a couple, will pay one single cent of income tax into the coffers of this government. I say this is a mighty good thing, and the government should be proud of itself.
I also think of what has been done in the medicare and hospitalization fields. I also remember that in most provinces, if not in all of them, no one who is receiving a supplemented old age pension today pays anything to medicare. I think of what happens in my own province of Ontario, and I am sure this is true of other provinces. No one 65 years of age or over pays one single copper in
Old Age Security Act
hospitalization costs. Once more, I am proud to be a Canadian and a member of a government team which has made this possible.
I think also of the many senior citizens' homes that have been built in Canada from Vancouver to Newfoundland. Only 20 years ago there was no such thing as cheap housing for our senior citizens. There were no senior citizens' homes like those being built all over the country for those people who helped to make Canada great. Once again, I hold my head high and am proud to be a Canadian.
This does not mean we could not do better. It would have been nice to raise basic pensions to $150 per month as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested. The fact is that this would cost $1,400 million, and I suggest that we must tell the people of Canada where that money is to be found. Some months ago, before this bill was even conceived, we had the best pension system for senior citizens of any country in the world. When this bill is given third reading, we will be able to say to the whole world that our system is even better. It has been made better because we appreciate these people who have really made this country great.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I should remind the House that one hour was assigned for the completion of this debate before the vote. I had hoped there would be representations from all parties during the hour. Only seven minutes remain, and I believe the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) hoped to have two or three minutes to close the debate. I hope the hon. member will keep that in mind and, if possible, bring his remarks to a close very soon.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I appreciate your bringing that to my attention, Mr. Speaker, and naturally I will abide by your wishes.
In closing, I should just like to point out that about six members of the opposition party spoke last night, but the government did not have one speaker during that time. Like every member on the government side, I want to be fair. I am sure the Creditistes have views to put forward, so I will not use up all the time. I simply say that there is much more we could do in this country. This is not heaven, by any means; it is still called Canada, but it is the next thing to heaven as far as our senior citizens are concerned. If my hon. friends to the left do not believe what I say, let them name one country that is closer to heaven than this country of ours.


Thomas Miller Bell: Prince Edward Island is heaven to me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Alberta.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate your intervention. I also thank the hon. member who spoke before me for the courtesy he has shown me.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of the few minutes at my disposal to deal with very serious matters. I shall not attempt to refute some of the arguments put forward concerning Creditiste hon. members because time is too valuable.

May 18, 1972
Old Age Security Act
I feel we should not, as responsible parliamentarians, use the problems of old people for petty partisan politics. Those people are entitled to some security in their old age and that is not a gift. If Canada can assist them, it is because they made good use of the time available to them to build our country.
The government is now administrating the country's resources, distributing them to give security to these people who have deserved it. The government does not create resources, it merely distributes them, grants assistance and recognizes the rights of these people.
I for one consider the increase in the guaranteed income supplement to be inadequate. I base my claim on the fact that many of these people have to live in old people's homes. They find some comfort in those homes but, considering the increase in the cost of living and in the construction cost of such homes, and considering the obligations of the companies building them, the cost of room and board for the aged increases so much in some homes that they are asked to pay $180 a month, because of the high cost of financing.
I wish to call the attention of the House to this: in the province of Quebec, they played politics with the question of homes, when they are partly financed by the central government. The truth should at least be told. There are enough problems, enough things of which we are accused, so that, at least, when some things are done properly, let us say so.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that, to my mind, the amendment was justified since today most people of 60 are turned down on the labour market. According to the act as it stands, they are not eligible for the old age pension. What will we do with those of them who have no income? We must do something for them and that is precisely why an amendment was proposed asking the government to amend the bill they they might become eligible.
Granting that right to people of 60 to 65 will in no way harm the disabled, the widows, those who are in difficult circumstances, even if they are not yet 60.
Some day, sooner or later, although we may think of it as utopian now, it will have to come to that; it might as well be sooner, not only for those people who are 60 to 65 but also for the young who are waiting to get into the labour force. That will enable Canada to provide employment for young people; that will help solve a problem and will have beneficial effects on the social climate.
I believe we are right to say we do not have the financial means that would be necessary. The present system should be reformed so that finance should be at the service of people, young and old alike.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of the special order adopted on Wednesday, May 17, I must interrupt this debate and put immediately any question that would be required to dispose of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).J

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-208, to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-208 to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder, be concurred in.
Motion for concurrence agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the past week we have had to deal with two important measures introduced by the government. Even though some other bills have been introduced, we have been able to reach third reading stage on Bill C-207, to amend the Old Age Security Act, and also have been able to report the same progress on Bill C-208, to amend the Pension Act, which is before us at the present moment. This must be some sort of record, Mr. Speaker, but the important thing is that through co-operation from all parties we can progress with legislation in a non-partisan manner, if that legislation will benefit the citizens of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That does not happen too often here.


Jack Marshall: It should be worth noting also for the record that these two bills were introduced for first reading just one week ago. This illustrates just what can be done. In just seven days, two important pieces of legislation have received first and second reading, have gone through committee stage, and should receive third reading today. Furthermore, following consideration in the other place, the two bills can receive Royal Assent by the early part of next week. So, let it never be said again by the government that there has been a lack of co-operation by opposition parties, unless the legislation introduced must be challenged for its content for the benefit of Canadians. I am sorry to say, however, and I will continue
May 18, 1972

Pension Act and Other Acts
repeating this, that the same practice does not hold true for Bill C-170, to raise family allowances. There has been little or no progress on this bill since it passed second reading and was referred to committee on April 27. Neither should the government try to say that this bill could not have received quicker treatment, because the original bill was introduced in the last session and was allowed to die on the order paper for reasons which have yet to be explained.
Bill C-208, in the main, provides for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder to reflect changes in the cost of living. In the words of the minister, as recorded at page 2253 of Hansard for May 12:
There never has been any clear principle governing the general changes made from time to time in the amount paid in veterans pensions or allowances . . . Veterans and their families, or widows, had no certainty as to the amounts of the payments they might receive from year to year.
He went on to say:
This bill will for the first time remove that uncertainty. It spells out clearly the fact that the pensions and allowances will be adjusted annually; that when changes based on living costs are warranted they wiil take effect on January 1, and that the amount of these changes will be . .. determined by the movement of the consumer price index.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot see the reason for all the complimentary remarks that have been made about what great things the government is doing for the veterans, other than the small escalation provision in the bill. By this time, and in this bill, many of the other inequities which still exist in the legislation could have been corrected and should have been corrected. We are dicussing a bill in which there has been no recognition of the repeated appeals of war veterans organizations from across the country. How many times since the Pension Act was first introduced after World War I have veteran members heard the pleas for establishing a basic rate of pension equal to the wages of an unskilled labourer in the government service. And how many times have they heard the same promises from ministers of veterans affairs, the same words which the present minister used in his speech last Friday when he said:
Another point which I would like to stress is that the present bill relates only to the question of changes related to the cost of living; in other words, to the principle of escalation. Veterans organizations have also been making representations to the government with regard to the basic rates of pensions. In other words, apart from the periodic changes in rates there is also the question as to whether or not the pensions stand on the right base.
Just listen to these words:
I want to say clearly that this question of basic rates is under careful study. At this time, I cannot predict the outcome of that study but I do want to point out that the present measure should not be regarded as being prejudicial in any way to the review of this question of basic rates.
Study what, Mr. Speaker? Surely, members will not accept that story again for which this government is so famous. Surely, the veterans organizations which have studied the basic rates, and made recommendations for the past 50 years, are not going to swallow that one. How many briefs on the basic rate of pension are lying gathering dust in the Department of Veterans Affairs?
Let us just look for one moment at the brief from the National Council of Veterans Associations of Canada submitted on April 14, just two months ago, and at a statement of the minister of veterans affairs in 1965 to the effect that the government was considering the development of some new basis for pensions, all of which has had a most unsettling effect on the war disability pensioners.
In part the brief states:
It is felt now that the question of a formula has been under study long enough, and it is now incumbent upon the present government to re-affirm the principle of the unskilled labour market, in the terms prescribed by the Woods Committee, and that is,
That the basic rate would be equivalent of earnings in the class of untrained labour in the public service of Canada. Having endorsed this principle, the government should then proceed to recommend to parliament an increase to the level of $4,550 per annum for the single pensioner, with commensurate adjustments for dependents and for widows and orphans.
One further step is necessary. That is, the adoption of the cyclical review principle which means that, once compensation has been established at the $4,550 level, the rate would be subject to fluctuation each year in accordance with increases in either the cost of living, composite wages or some other reasonable indicator of purchasing power.
Although the brief contains some 15 pages I will just quote one more paragraph, Mr. Speaker.
If this principle means anything at all, there is an obligation on the part of the present government to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the seven-year long study to which this matter has been subjected. The review should be terminated in a manner satisfactory to all concerned before the life of the present parliament expires. It would be inhumane if Canada's veterans and their widows and children were now required to wait for the results of further deliberations while a newly elected government settles into office.
There has been a seven year study, and now the minister says he is going to study it again.
In 1966, the then minister of veterans affairs told the Dominion Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion that the government was searching for some new yardstick on which to base pensions. The veterans' organizations, quite properly, took this as a promise that the government would tackle the problem which had been allowed to develop since the end of World War II, as a result of which war pensions had not kept pace with earnings in the unskilled labour market.
As hon. members know, a committee of three independent people under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Woods of Saskatchewan was established in 1965 to review the organization and work of the veterans Pension Commission. The committe's terms of reference did not include the quantum of pension, and thus the veterans' organizations stood aside on this particular issue in order to assist the government in remedying some of the structural and administrative faults in the Pension Commission, as well as some of the ancillary benefit areas, including allowances for attendants and exceptional incapacity. The report of the Woods Committee resulted in some important amendments which were passed by the House on March 30, 1971, but nothing was done about the basic rate at that time.

May 18, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
It would seem that the claim of the veterans' organizations, which is to the effect that the government is obligated to overhaul the basis of payment of war pensions to bring them in line with the rate for unskilled labour, is an extremely valid one. Since 1965, the government has approved three increases which appeared to have been based on the rising cost of living, but did nothing to bring the pension closer to the pay of an unskilled labourer in the federal public service.
Within recent months the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) has received lengthy submissions which indicate a great deal of research on the part of veterans' organizations, all of them proposing an increase in the basic rate to the aforementioned figure of $4,550 per annum. These veterans' organizations are much disturbed, and rightly so. The increase in war pensions of 3.6 per cent was announced at a time when they were awaiting a reply to their serious and well-documented requests to the government for an increase in the order of 30 per cent, which would have given the 100 per cent pensioner parity with unskilled labourer. The government's announcement made no reference to anything which might be done to close this considerable gap which successive governments have allowed to develop. It, therefore, seems that if it is the government's intention merely to take the basic rate of $3,504 and subject this to annual or biennial fluctuations in keeping with the cost of living, it will have effectively robbed the 100 per cent disabled veteran of approximately $1,000 a year.
I submit to the minister that since 1919 there has been an implied contract that the 100 per cent pension would be aligned with earnings in the unskilled labour market. No matter what indicator is taken, no person in his right mind could suggest that such earnings today are below $4,550. It seems to me that the veterans' case is a reasonable one, and I sincerely hope the government will assure veterans that the 3.6 per cent increase is another interim measure, and that there will be no undue delay in the government bringing a further measure before the House to place the basic rate of pension on par with the junior grades in the federal public service.
The minister said last Friday, as recorded in Hansard:
I want to say clearly that this question of basic rates is under careful study.
How many more studies could possibly be done when the matter has been studied almost to death already? Another of his statements with which I have to take issue is the following:
Another matter of considerable interest in this connection is the question of how the current increases under the Old Age Security Act will be treated for purposes of War Veterans Allowance. I am pleased to announce that the government intends to seek an authority from the Governor in Council for a regulation exempting these increases under the Old Age Security Act, so that they are not treated as income when computing entitlement under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I understand that an order in council has now been signed to that effect. However, I wonder why an amendment could not have been included in either Bill C-207 or Bill C-208 to have this matter corrected. Whoever drew up this bill must have had a short memory or did not have too much influence, and whoever authorized it in government must also have a short memory. How much more

time must we spend in waiting to repay the veterans of our country, other than in a piecemeal fashion? After 27 years, the government fiddles with the lives of our Hong Kong veterans who have submitted millions of pages of briefs giving proof of the effects of inhumane treatment which it is distressing to repeat.
New evidence was presented as late as April, 1972, giving proof of the effects of stress from the Japanese concentration camps which accelerates aging. The request was made that the Hong Kong veterans so afflicted be considered for 100 per cent pension. But still the answers are vague and disheartening to these veterans who wonder what is going on with a government that seems to forget so easily. When anyone mentions this you get a backlash of comparison showing how our pensions are ahead of others. Mr. Speaker, these veterans are aging far ahead of others. It is time we stopped the hypocrisy and repaid the debt that is owed to these veterans in a meaningful and Canadian manner.
How much longer will the European prisoners of war have to wait to get recognition, are they going to be the subject of another study? The studies have all been made with regard to these prisoners of war, Mr. Speaker, and the briefs are multitudinous. I have some of them in my files. Back in 1953, there were the findings and recommendations of the Chief Commissioner on War Claims. I have a study on the effects of malnutrition and other hardships on the mortality and morbidity of former prisoners or world War II, prepared in 1956. There are many other studies in existence. And still this association pleads for reasonable consideration from the government for those who suffered and who continue to be affected. This bill means very little to the veterans of our country because it does not include amendments to compensate for the discrepancies which exist in the Pensions Act. It is only another political gimmick, and the government should be ashamed to pass it.
This bill means nothing unless it includes an amendment to clause 59(3) which permits the Pension Commission to take into account, in deciding on the amount of an exceptional incapacity award, whether the veteran amputee wears a prosthesis. In representations last year from the War Amputees of Canada a contradiction arose regarding the assessment of section 59(3) by the then minister and the Chairman of the Pension Commission. The minister denied that there was a basis for reduction of the exceptional incapacity allowance unless the amputee unreasonably refused to wear a prosthesis. However, the Chairman of the Commission confirmed that the act does require the Commission to take into account the fact that an amputee wears a prosthesis, and will pay less allowance because of it. This is a discrepancy which could have been corrected in this bill if there were any sympathy for our veterans.
There are many other considerations which must be taken into account, many of which have already been mentioned by my colleagues. The time is getting a little late, perhaps too late, to make amends. It is almost too late to amend the eligibility provision for allowances under the War Veterans Allowances Act, and immediate consideration should be given to reducing the require-
May 18, 1972

ment that veterans must have served in the United Kingdom for at least 365 days in World War I.
It is almost too late, but we still have time to apologize and amend the residence requirements of war veterans who live outside Canada. As indicated by many of my colleagues and myself on different occasions, the War Veterans Association of Britain has pleaded with the government to ease the regulations, especially for the elderly or disabled who decided to remain in Britain. There was little or no response, and we now have the opportunity to answer those pleas if the government wants to display some sincerity or by recognizing their sacrifice.
It is almost too late, but there is still enough time to review the Veterans Land Act for amendments to help provide decent accommodation for some of our veterans who still live in substandard housing and have no other means of applying for help, even though the department says otherwise. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we should be in too much of a hurry to throw kudos to a government that each year pushes farther in the back of their minds the objectives of the Pension Act, which in the very first section refers emphatically to the debt that the people of Canada and the government of Canada owe for the sacrifice and disability of war veterans due to service to their country. None of us here should be too ready to give praise to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for the nibbles he has given to the senior citizens and the veterans of this country, when the motives are so glaringly suspect.
No, Mr. Speaker, let none of us here get too complacent and accept with evident satisfaction that governments, past and present, have fulfilled their obligations to almost one million veterans, many of whom are still waiting after 52 years or even 27 years for a little more comfort because they returned from wars disabled. We may be discussing escalation clauses, whatever percentage it may be, but we should be dealing in a more meaningful way with human beings. We should be discussing with a little more feeling our failure to provide all that has been reasonably requested over the years by veterans' organizations on behalf of those citizens who in their youth went to two world wars and offered their lives on behalf of our country.
We become involved in wars, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, because of the weakness and ineptitude of those who govern. We should feel proud then, that we are able to sit in government and, with a sense of comradeship, regardless of political affiliation, deal with the problems of war veterans, ever conscious of our obligations. This bill could have done much more if those responsible for its content could have delved a little deeper in their consciences, and been mindful of the purposes of the Pensions Act.
In the interest of effecting passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, it appears that veterans will have to wait a while longer. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government will take heed of the many weaknesses still remaining in the Pension Act and deal with them in the immediate future. If not, Mr. Speaker, it may be too late.
Pension Act and Other Acts


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give my support to the contention that has been made so effectively by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), that for all the good that is in this bill a number of things are not in it that ought to be. He has outlined these deficiencies extremely well and I hope that the government will pay attention to the plea that something be done soon with regard to the various matters to which my friend has referred, notably the reassessment of the basic rate of pension under the Pension Act, certain matters under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the whole question of dealing more favourably with prisoners of war, with the administration of the exceptional incapacity allowance and so on. As I say, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has stated this case very well and I imagine that I am not the only one following him who will want to be associated with what he has said.
The second thing I should like to say this afternoon is that whenever some of us make the plea that I made earlier today for substantial increases in the old age pension, there is always a member for Bruce around to ask "Where is the money coming from?" I tried to suggest, by way of an interjection, that our gross national product is over $95 billion and out of that we could provide adequately for our senior citizens. The point I want to make now is that I do not think I ever heard that question asked in the midst of a debate on veterans affairs. All of us believe that the best possible must be done for our veterans and no one gets up to ask where the money is coming from. I must say that I have heard a number of ministers of veterans affairs take the same line, namely, that our obligation to our veterans, their dependants and their survivors, has to be met and that our job is to take steps to meet that obligation.
Having said those two or three things by way of introduction, Mr. Speaker, may I say the rest of what is in my mind at this point as briefly as I can. Like other members, I am anxious that this bill get through and get to the other place so that it can be passed and its benefits get to our veterans as quickly as possible.
As I said at the second reading stage of this bill, the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) to the effect that the cost of living increase provided in this legislation is not to be regarded as a substitute for an increase in the basic rates, is very welcome. He noticed our appreciation immediately after he made the statement. He confirmed it at the end of the debate on second reading and also made it clear that he was speaking not just for himself as a minister who might not be with us much longer, but that he was speaking for the government. I think this is part of the reason for the plea that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has made, namely, that this commitment should be kept without delay, that there should not be another four or five years of study of the matter but that the basic rates should be put in line with the basis that was accepted when the Pension Act was first passed after the end of World War I.
I wish that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) would look at what the Minister for Veterans Affairs has said. The Minister of National Health and

May 18, 1972
Pension Act and Other Act
Welfare has been trying to sell the people of Canada on the idea that an increase of 3.6 per cent in the basic pension is an increase. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is a wiser man. He knows that 3.6 per cent is not an increase, that it is the basic rates themselves that have to be adjusted. We welcome the commitment that has been made that this is to be done. Like all who took part in this debate, I insist that it be done with the least possible delay.
May I say again, as I have said at an earlier stage of the debate, that we are glad that this bill is so drawn that the cost of living increase to be provided in it will be obtained by all who draw any kind of pension that is under the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are the various pieces of legislation mentioned in the title to this bill as well as other pensions and allowances and we are glad that the scope of this bill is such that it will cover them all.
By the same token, it has been admitted by the minister that these increases are just for cost of living purposes, that they are not to be a substitute for basic increases. I insist that all the basic rates connected with all of these acts, must be reconsidered and brought in line with the proper basis that was accepted many years ago.
Again, Sir, may I say that something the government has done at this time we welcome enthusiastically. I use that expression despite the warning of the last speaker who suggested we should not give this government undue praise. We cannot do that. It praises itself so much that, even if we tried to match that praise, we could not do it. I still say that we welcome enthusiastically the provision, partly in this bill and partly in the order in council that is being obtained, which makes it clear that war veterans allowance recipients are not to be given their guaranteed income supplement by one department of government only to have that supplement taken away by another. That will not happen, although that has happened in the past far too often. Actually, it has happened so often that the mail I am now receiving from veterans shows that they expect this to happen again. It is difficult to convince them that this time that will not happen. As I say, it will not happen, and this is good. So, even at the risk of offending my friend, the previous speaker, I give the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) a bouquet on this point. Mind you, I agree with the previous speaker that all this should have been included in the bill. This provision was not in the bill, and I think we can take some credit for what is to be done. After a few speeches had been made and after a few conferences had been held, the minister was able to say, "We will attend to this and do it by order in council." So long as that is done, we shall be satisfied.


Jack Marshall: We helped the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The motto of the opposition parties in this House is, "We help the government". After all, someone has to provide that help.
I support strongly the proposition that this business of guaranteeing the full benefit of escalation should be included in the statute. Since the guaranteed income supplement first came into being, the few cents added to the guaranteed supplement each year have also been passed

on to veterans receiving war veterans allowance, but only on the basis of an order in council passed every year. Why should we leave it that way? Why should there be any question about this? Why should we have to get up on the floor of the House and ask if the government is to do this year what it did last year? Now that escalation has been made a statutory annual proposition with respect both to the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand, and war veterans allowances and other veterans pensions on the other hand, why does the government not say right in the statute that when these increases are granted, veterans are to get the benefit of both?
I gather that my friend, the previous speaker, pleaded that it is not good enough to leave this to the uncertainty of an order in council. The uncertainty of the government's acting on the matter is not good enough. I say, why not put this provision in the statute so that it will become a permanent proposition? We are happy to see that our veterans are to be accorded better treatment this time than they were accorded in the past. I hope word will go out to them to make it clear that this time they are to get both the increase they are getting in the guaranteed income supplement and the increase they are to get by virtue of the 3.6 per cent increase in their war veterans allowances. Since the government has done it this way this time, I hope this can be put on a permanent basis.
I again express the hope that the Department of Veterans Affairs will find it possible to include these increases in the cheques at the end of June. I understand there will be some difficulty here, because so many cheques have to be computed separately. Computing the old age security pension increase is easy. All the $80 cheques will now increase to $82.88. Also, in the case of the guaranteed income supplement, the increase for a single recipient is to be $15, and for a married couple $30 in every case. This amount is simply added to the amount being paid under GIS. So, this can be done quite easily with respect to cheques coming under the Old Age Security Act. I am told that with respect to veterans' cheques, the matter is more difficult, because so many individual computations must be made. My fear is that if at the end of June veterans get their increases in their old age security and guaranteed income supplement cheques but do not get them in the war veterans allowance cheques, they will wonder what has happened and perhaps think they have been misled in the assurance given to them that they are to get both increases. I am sure that there are enough computers around this place for doing this work, and enough mathematical experts could be obtained for doing these computations, so that if this bill passes through this place today and perhaps through the other place tonight, arrangements can be made for the increase for veterans to be in their cheques at the end of June.
I am about to sit down, Sir. I merely want to say a brief word on two other subjects which, I admit, are not included in this bill. However, I will have finished referring to them before you can call me to order. We who are members of the Veterans Affairs Committee are delighted that the House gave us a reference enabling us to hear the various prisoner of war associations. We are in the midst of hearing them now. I hope the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission and the gov-
May 18, 1972

ernment will pay close attention to the particular pleas we are getting from these bodies; also, that close attention will be paid to their plea for more generous administration of the provision for exceptional incapacity allowances.
Sir, we welcome this bill. It is unlike some other bills, since there is nothing in it that we oppose. We like it all. Even so, as the last speaker said, there is still more to be done for the veterans of this country, such as a guaranteed income, and the government, parliament and people of Canada must meet that obligation. I hope we shall do it soon.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words concerning Bill C-208, which increases veterans pensions and I want to say that we are also satisfied with the increase granted by the government.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that veterans have been asking for an increase because the cost of living goes up constantly. Therefore, the increases we are giving now will soon become useless. We will have to start all over again.
This is why I want to ask hon. members and the administrators of our country to see if they could not try to adjust the economy so as to check spiralling prices. We boost pensions because prices have risen; now that we have increased pensions, we will again increase prices. The problem is not solved.
Soon both veterans and all pensioners in our economic system will still be at the same point. The economy is unbalanced; we are nearing bankruptcy.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was saying our production was close to $100 billion this year and consumption near $60 billion. In other words, we still have about $40 billion in capital. So, instead of taking revenues or money from the pockets of taxpayers, and they have precious little as it is, we could draw the necessary funds from the total revenues of national production.
As long as we take revenues, salary increases and taxes from the pockets of taxpayers, we will keep on disturbing our economy.
Veterans are certainly right in asking for increases, because they must do with a meagre pittance and are almost at the rationing stage. So, we owe them something, because they went to war. What for? To safeguard our freedom and democracy.
After the war, we were not supposed to have any economic stagnation. We were supposed to live entirely and fully free, and the economy was to be put at the service of all Canadians. And we realize that this has never been achieved. Actually, approximately 20 per cent of our population enjoys the benefits of our economy; the remaining 80 per cent live in poverty, from day to day and in slums.
If there are so many slums, it is because the interest rate is too high. Our citizens lack the means to build new houses. Those who do build them must pay interest rates as high as 4, 5 or even 6 per cent. The government does
Pension Act and Other Acts
not concern itself with establishing interest rates which would permit lenders to make a reasonable profit, while allowing those who need a house to buy one. At the present time, we are all tenants in this country and we pay excessive interest rates which in part accounts for the increase in the cost of living and prevents our citizens from living their lives properly.
Then, what should we do to enable all our citizens, including our veterans, to have a decent life? We must set up a well balanced economic system so that we can put an end to the increase in the cost of living and the increase in taxes.
As long as we fail to solve the issue, we shall ask for increases which do not bring any solution but do cause new problems because, under the present system, we shall pay for the increases out of the pockets of those who already do not have much.
Mr. Speaker, we have been speaking for a long time of our proposed solutions designed to balance our economy and correct the mistakes of our present system. In fact, we admit that the present system is the best in the world, but we realize that it lends itself to much abuse, something which must be identified and corrected.
We must balance our economy in order to provide every person with what he is entitled to get. Thus, all the goods we have in hand might be used to meet people's requirements, thus ensuring their economic freedom and security.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), on some of the major criticisms of this bill. However, I will say that we welcome what is being done for our veterans.
I have just returned from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs where we completed a clause by clause study of the bill and had a frank discussion with the minister and the officials of his department. They explained some of what we considered last night to be apparent anomalies in the bill. The minister reassured us with regard to our fears in connection with the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the war veterans allowance by telling us that the total benefit would accrue to the veteran. This was one of the fears that I and others voiced in this debate.
The standing committee also heard representations by representatives of two prisoners of war associations, the national association and Hong Kong veterans. While it may be argued that they did not have anything to do with this bill, they did ask for increased benefits and further recognition. That is what this bill is all about, increasing benefits to veterans.
The National Association of Prisoners of War represents those who were incarcerated in prisoner of war camps in Europe, particularly those taken prisoner in the infamous Dieppe raid when, despite the valour of our Canadian soldiers, many were taken prisoner. They asked a very small thing from the government. While I agree that something like this cannot possibly be incorporated into this bill, I urge the government to take note of the

May 18, 1972
Pension Act and Other Acts
brief presented by the national association wherein they ask for an immediate 10 per cent increase in pension for those who suffered indignity, starvation, humility, inhumanity and mental anguish in the war. They have reason to make this simple request. I might say that all members of the committee, government and opposition alike, were sympathetic to the request by this association. The departmental officials were present, heard the representations and made note of them. I hope they are also sympathetic.
This morning the Hong Kong veterans made similar representations. The committee afforded them the same reception. All members were sympathetic toward them. The brief is in the hands of the government. I trust the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) will take note of their representations which are reasonable, especially in view of the fact that a comparatively small number who suffered at the hands of the Japanese are still alive today. Most members of the committee agreed that the sum of money that would be involved would be in the neighbourhood of approximately half a million dollars. Surely, we cannot afford to do less than that for these men who gave so much. I wish to put on record that the Hong Kong prisoners of war asked that such conditions as arthritis, coronary ailments, mental breakdown and so on be considered automatically a result of service under those terrible conditions they suffered during the war.
Your Honour has allowed me to wander a bit. I appreciate that. I will now return to the substance of the bill before us. We are talking about a 3.6 per cent increase in pensions and allowances and all the benefits in veterans' legislation. Let us take a look at what this means to a 100 per cent pensioner. The basic rate of pension is $3,504. Based on 3.6 per cent, that works out to $126 and some odd cents per year. Broken down, this means they will receive $10.50 a month. This is a good thing and we do not object to it. However, let us not over-praise the government for what it is doing. This is long overdue.
As was pointed out last night, what is really needed is to bring the basic rate into line with the inflation that has taken place over the years and parity with the unskilled labourer in the federal public service. If that had been done, the veteran would be satisfied with the 3.6 per cent increase and would not even have asked for an increase at this time. Had that been done, and the escalation formula attached to the new basic rate in line with the present wages for unskilled labour, I am sure we would have received this bill with far more favour, and so would the veterans organizations. I shall not mention this aspect any further except to say that when we praise the government for the action it has taken we should remember that it is only veterans drawing the 100 per cent pension who will be receiving the $10 or $15 a month. And not many of them are getting the 100 per cent pension. Many are getting less. Of course, the percentage of benefit decreases in proportion to the reduction in the amount of pension they are getting. So the crying need is for an increase in the basic rate of pension and if the government is really sincere about helping the veteran, this is the direction in which we should move. As my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has pointed out, the veterans organizations have requested such action time and time again through their representatives. I am afraid 
their briefs are gathering dust in the pigeonholes of the department. Let us dust them off; let us do something meaningful for those who did so much when their services were needed.
Everyone in the House agrees that what is being done for the veterans needs to be done and we support the measure wholeheartedly. There is nothing the matter with the bill except that it does not go far enough. We have tried to draw attention to its deficiencies and we have tried to make some impression, not only in the House but in committee on the officials of the department concerned and on the mind of the minister in the hope that heed would be paid to some of our representations. Let us hope this is not the last of the bills to aid our veterans. Let us hope it is only a beginning. It has been suggested that the government only takes action of this kind when it is considering going to the people for a mandate. Why not take action some time when there is not an election in prospect? If we are serious about aiding those who gave so much of themselves for their country when they were needed, then surely we can look after them when they are entering the twilight of their lives and when their own need is greatest.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: I wish to join other members of the House in welcoming this bill. We have received an assurance from the minister, and I, for one, am very pleased about the attitude he has taken toward this important matter in assuring us that the basic rate will in fact be looked into and that a benchmark commensurate with the rate of pay of labour on Parliament Hill will be put into the statute once and for all. Surely, this is not being over-generous. And if we are looking for a standard which can be rationalized, may I say that I have never met anyone in the years I have been in parliament who ever raised any objection when this particular benchmark was mentioned.
The Hong Kong veterans were before us this morning in the committee. They are very happy, generally speaking, about the recent improvement in their lot, but, as they say themselves, time is running out on them. Some 20 per cent of them are still fully employed, which is a miracle in its way, when one realizes that these men endured three and a half years of the most frightful treatment as prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese. They have made heroic attempts to remain self-reliant and self-supporting. As one might have expected, they became tremendously close as a group. They have stuck together, and they worry a great deal about those who have not been able to make it. They say, and I will take their figures, that there are 25 per cent of the survivors, some 1,150 in round figures, who are still unable to support themselves completely. Then again, as everybody knows, a strong-willed man is often able to put up with the rigors of life but in these cases it frequently happens that hardships fall upon the family, wives and children who do not enjoy the standard of living which most Canadians can get for themselves today. The best they can look forward to is a standard of living below that of the labouring man on Parliament Hill.
May 18, 1972

This is why the veterans have come to us and said: Can you not look after those people who do not measure up and who cannot bring their standard of living up to that of labour. They admit that some of their number have done so well that they have not even applied for their pensions. Some have done very well indeed. In every walk of life there are giants, mentally and physically, who can survive even the rigours of a Japanese prisoner of war camp. But the representatives of the group are realistic enough to know that one must not take account only of the very few who do not need help from a grateful Canadian people. So they have come to us and said: Will you not give us the benefit of the doubt in certain cases. We have done so on many occasions with respect to other veterans, as I mentioned yesterday.
The Hong Kong veterans asked to be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to complaints of premature aging, cardiac conditions and arthritis. They say they can bring forward medical evidence to support their claims. I do not think there is need to labour the point. Everyone in this chamber would agree that it is not good for a man who has a weak heart to spend three and a half years in a prison camp. This is a classic example of a case where the benefit of the doubt rule might well be applied. These people have made an heroic attempt for 27 years to put themselves on the road back. They come forward now and ask for a little more help. I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt as requested.
I shall resume my seat, now, and end my participation in the debate. Let us keep an open mind toward these people and give them all the help we can.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, granting these increases in the form of an escalator clause based on the current increase in the cost of living rather than at a low fixed rate as previously contained in some of our legislation is to be commended. We agree we should be making provision for special difficulties encountered by veterans who were prisoners of war and who may now be suffering from arthritis or heart disease related to privations which they then endured. The inevitable end for some of them is near so we are not being overly generous.
As we approach an election I keep thinking of the argument that has been used, not only by this government but by previous governments, that if we are to provide pensions and allowances they must remain at a very low level since the country would not agree to pay the kind of pension that was originally envisaged to put the war veteran pensioners on a par with a sweeper in the civil service. As many hon. members have indicated, this level has now risen to a reasonably respectable one, and since it is now higher than a mere subsistence level we have to find another way of justifying the low pensions that we pay. Hon. members will recall that the Woods Commission reported that those with multiple disabilities should receive an amount that was three and a half times what was originally suggested as the basic pension rate. Only recently members of the government said that this was too high, having figured it out in dollars and cents, and that it could not be justified.
Pension Act and Other Acts
Although the increase was not nearly as generous as Commissioner Woods would have liked, the legislation has now been in effect for about a year and to my knowledge there has been no complaint that the veterans are receiving undue consideration from the Parliament of Canada. Neither have I heard anyone say that the amounts we are paying are overly generous in terms of the compensation that a country as rich in resources and wealth as Canada could afford to pay those who made the kind of sacrifice they did. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that we were able to increase the cost of living escalator clause relating to both pensions and allowances to bring it in line with the cost of living increase. It had always seemed to me that we adopted an unrealistic escalator, but we have now corrected this situation.
I am reminded of labour organizations that argue against the implementation of wage controls. They say, and rightly so, that wage controls are fair for some, but for those in the lower categories they are very unfair. If you freeze the pension of a person on low income so it becomes stabilized at a level considerably below the standard of living achieved by the average person in this nation, then you put these people at a considerable disadvantage, which I do not think is in the interests of Canadians.
Finally, may I say that I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) will stay in the department for a considerable length of time. I would appreciate it if he would change his mind and run again, though I do not know how that would sit with some of my colleagues from the minister's province. Nevertheless, he is the first minister of the department who, on his own initiative said he would do this, he would do that, he would do the other, and I think the veterans of this country will be very pleased that the order in council will be implemented and that those changes that the bill neglected to make will in fact be made. I am sure the veterans of this country will congratulate him on the forward step that he has taken, and some of them will remember Art Laing long after he has left this place.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being after five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), public works; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), supply and services; the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), agriculture.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, in arranging the schedule of business for private member's hour this afternoon, it had been hoped that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-

May 18, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
way (Mrs. Maclnnis) would be able to go ahead with one of her two notices of motions for production of documents. She was, in fact, prepared to do so and we on this side were prepared to reply. However, there has been a late scheduling change. A committee of which she is a very active member was called into session this afternoon. I refer to the health and welfare committee, which is dealing with the family income security plan in which the hon. member is very interested. Accordingly, at the last moment, without any opportunity for advance notice to be given either on her part or on our part, it was necessary for her to withdraw from the arrangement and she will not be moving her motion this afternoon.
As a result, we did discuss the possibility of using this hour, or a good portion of it, to conclude the debate on the measure that has just been passed. That being so, I think there might be a disposition among hon. members to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-211, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before beginning to set out the details of this particular bill I might make one or two comments about the question of election expenses, the background to this bill and my approach in bringing the bill before the House of Commons. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, every member of this House in a sense is an expert on election expenses because each member has met the difficulties and responsibilities in a financial way of contesting a general election. Therefore, everyone here has knowledge that probably is at least equal to the advice that is received from all other sources concerning what we ought to do about this difficult problem.
(Mr. Jerome.]
First of all I might mention that this bill follows in the main, if not entirely, the recommendations of the Special Committee on Election Expenses which reported to this House in June of last year. That was an all-party committee which met frequently and heard witnesses. In so far as can be determined, its recommendations to the House of Commons were unanimous. That report in turn benefited from the study which had been made previously by an expert group, a committee which had been appointed by the Pearson government and headed by Mr. Barbeau, known as the Barbeau committee. The membership of that committee included two former distinguished members of this House, Mr. M. J. Coldwell and Mr. Arthur Smith. In addition to the three gentlemen I have mentioned, the other members were Mr. Norman Ward and Mr. Gordon Dryden.
To a great extent, as did the report of the special committee, this bill for its guiding principles rests on the main recommendations of the Barbeau committee. There are some divergencies. I will perhaps later be prepared to explain why I am not recommending to the House the implementation of every single item that was put forward either in the Barbeau committee report or in the special committee report, although I repeat that we have followed in the main the principal recommendations.
We are keeping an open mind in respect of the details of this bill. I shall be listening to the views of hon. members on all sides of the House, and if perhaps persuasive arguments can be made and if gaps can be revealed in the bill, then certainly I will be ready to accept changes to it. As an example of that approach I might mention that the Barbeau committee recommended that in the disclosure provisions, registered political parties be obligated to report contributions received from foreign sources. There was no reason given at any point in the report concerning the basis for this recommendation, the extent to which in the view of the committee it felt political parties were financed by foreign sources or, indeed, why from a public policy point of view foreign sources ought to be segregated from domestic sources.
The special committee did not follow the Barbeau committee in that regard but recommended that non-resident individuals, corporations and unions be prohibited from making contributions to registered political parties. Again, in the report of the special committee I have been unable to find any reasoned argument in support of this particular proposal. In the absence of any compelling argument in favour of either of these approaches, I have not included any such provision in the bill. However, I certainly will be listening to the observations of hon. members on this point and if good arguments can be brought forward indicating the inclusion of such a provision would be an improvement to the bill, I would be prepared to accept an amendment along those lines: likewise in respect of other details of the bill, except that I am not prepared to depart from the main principles which underscore this bill.
The bill itself incorporates three main principles which have been widely discussed since the last electoral reform on this subject in 1920, namely, the limitation of election expenses, the disclosure of sources of contributions and the need for financial assistance by candidates and politi-
May 18, 1972

cal parties. The piecemeal electoral reforms between 1871 and 1920 all suffered from the twin difficulties of failure to recognize the existence in the law of political parties and failure to recognize that political parties and candidates require fairly large amounts of money in order to carry on their activities.
In the modern world very large amounts of money are required to conduct election campaigns and to communicate effectively with the electorate. Hopefully, this bill will overcome the problems imposed by these earlier failures and as well will bring the question of political finances to the attention of the public. Hopefully, also, it will place candidates seeking public office on a more equal footing.
I am sure hon. members will be asking why we are bringing this bill before the House at this particular time. There is no sinister motive at all behind the timing. Members will recall that the report of the special committee was presented last June, and as the person principally responsible for the scheduling of government business I can say that had I had the bill in my pocket on that date it would have been quite impossible, because of other legislative priorities, to have brought it before the House much earlier since it would have meant removing from the legislative program items to which the government attached priority.
Last fall, as hon. members will recall, we spent much time on the employment support bill, on the tax reform bill and on the farm products marketing bill, just to mention the three main items along with budget bills that had to receive the attention of the House. Also as hon. members know, in this session we have been occupied with legislation of considerable importance. That is why I invite members not to speculate that there is some sinister motive which has induced the government to bring the bill forward at this particular time, unless it is to support the speculation which exists in all our minds that elections are necessary and probably will overtake us at one time or another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now tell us about your good motives.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a question as to when the bill will come into effect and whether it will be in effect before the next election. Not knowing when the House will pass the bill and not knowing the date of the next election, it is quite impossible for me to answer that question, except that it is clear that the Chief Electoral Officer can insist under the law on a time period of six months before he is obliged to implement an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. But there is nothing in the law that would prevent the Chief Electoral Officer implementing any amendment or being in a position to implement any amendment to the Canada Elections Act within a shorter period. Of course, hon. members may have conferred individually with the Chief Electoral Officer as to when in his opinion it would be possible to give effect to the provisions of this bill when and if it comes into effect.
The first principle in this bill is a decision to put a limit on election expenses. We all hope and strive for the objective that money and financial resources in the hands of
Election Expenses Bill
any individual or any party should not be the deciding factor in elections. There is a widespread opinion, incapable of proof however, that money has been very instrumental in waging and winning elections. Any discussion on the eligibility of persons for office must be premised on the assertion that a candidate with limited funds should have some equality or some semblance of equality of opportunity to present his views as much as the candidate with large resources. This bill in all its aspects will not assert full equality, because how is that possible in any field of endeavour? But at least it will bring us closer to the objective of equality among candidates competing for public office.
One method of putting candidates of differing financial means on a more equal footing in election campaigns, suggested by both the Barbeau committee and the special committee, was the imposition of a ceiling on the amounts which candidates could spend on election expenses. That is quite important because if an effective ceiling is placed on election expenses then a particularly wealthy candidate cannot rely upon great resources in order to influence unduly the outcome of an election. We have not put a cap, we have not put a limit or we have not recommended a limit on all election expenses. We have avoided that, as the Barbeau committee avoided it and as the special committee avoided it, because first of all there is a question of necessity. Is it necessary to put a limit on every conceivable item in the expense list of a political candidate?
There are certain overhead expenses within a campaign which exist from one election to another, which do not vary a great deal and which exist in every constituency- for example, the travelling expenses and personal expenses of candidates. What the Barbeau committee did and what the special committee did was to select those items in the over-all expense spectrum which first of all were foreseeable, were controllable, were subject to the greatest escalation and which were putting the greatest burden upon candidates and political parties.
For that reason, election expenses are defined in the bill generally to include expenditures in connection with the media, the print media and the electronics media; in other words, paid advertising, the biggest element in modern election campaigns. Accordingly, we have imposed a ceiling on a candidate's election expenses to be defined as the cost of paid broadcast advertising, paid press advertising and other forms of paid advertising. A candidate's fixed costs which I have mentioned already, such as travelling expenses, the costs of his nominating meetings, and so on, are not included. The rental of halls, for example, is not included within the definition of election expenses. These are not included because they are relatively static in nature and they have not been inordinate consumers of election campaign funds. Therefore we have defined election expenses to include these special items and we are proposing a limit on campaign expenses under the definition I have mentioned.
The limit on a candidate's campaign spending proposed is $1 per elector for the first 15,000 electors, plus 50 cents per elector for every elector over 15,000 and under 25,000, and 25 cents per elector for each elector over 25,000. This formula works out at the figure of $20,000 for the first 25,000 electors, plus 25 cents for each elector over 25,000.

May 18, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
For example, in a constituency having 45,000 electors a candidate would be limited to $30,000 on his campaign advertising costs. These are the figures put forward by the special committee. They are larger than the amounts recommended earlier by the Barbeau committee. They are within shooting distance of the actual experience of particular urban candidates in the last federal election.
They may seem to be generous or to be too large, but bearing in mind the recent experience of candidates, and that if adopted this legislation will exist probably for quite a number of future elections, they seem to be a reasonable limit at this particular time. As a government we are not married to these particular figures. If persuasive arguments can be made that they ought to be increased or decreased, then we would consider that question as well.
Now I would like to deal with a number of constituencies so that hon. members will get some idea of the amounts we are talking about. For example, the constituency of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with estimated electors of 60,284 at April 1, 1972, would have a spending limit of $28,825.


An hon. Member:: He will need more than that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The constituency of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), with 45,807 electors, would have a spending limit of $25,201. The constituency of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), with 47,130 electors, would have a spending limit of $25,550. The constituency of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), with 33,000 electors, would have a spending limit of $22,000. Those are the limits for these constituencies. It is not difficult for hon. members to compute the amounts for themselves. If I can make a personal comment based on my experience as a candidate in a number of elections, I believe that these are real limits, not fictional limits and that in the future candidates will be held back quite forcibly by these limits when they are confronted with managing a modern election campaign based, as it is, on the employment of the media.
I should like to turn for a moment to the limitation of spending by the parties. The bill does not impose any over-all spending limit upon registered political parties. In this particular we followed the recommendation contained in the Barbeau report. The bill does, however, impose limits on the use of the broadcast media by political parties through an election campaign. It is in the area of the electronics media that campaign spending by registered parties has escalated most notably in recent years.
It was for this reason that the Barbeau committee and the special committee recommended that some limitation be placed on spending in these areas. Spending by registered parties in other areas such as in the press has not proved to be as significant in terms of consumption of campaign funds as the broadcast media, and consequently the need for control is not so great. Registered parties will be limited to 6 i hours on any broadcast outlet during the election campaign. That is not 61 hours for each political party; the total 6) hours is to be shared by the registered parties and the bill provides that the CRTC will be

given the responsibility of adjudicating any dispute as to the allocation of time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is pretty dangerous.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is also a real limit. It follows the recommendation of both the Barbeau committee and the special committee. In arriving at any allocation formula, the CRTC is to consult representatives of the registered parties in an attempt to have the formula worked out by agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, the CRTC can put forward a proposal and give notice that it will be binding and after two days it will be binding on all parties. The CRTC will then notify all broadcasters in Canada of the proposed allocation and these broadcasters must provide time to the registered parties on the basis of that allocation. There are penalties for any failure to provide this time. The time will be paid for one-half by the Chief Electoral Officer and one-half by the political party itself.
Beyond this over-all limit, political parties will not be permitted to buy time but broadcasters who so wish can contribute time over this limit to registered political parties. If such a contribution is made, it must be made to all parties on the basis of the formula just mentioned. Consequently, the advantage to any registered party which might be obtained by having had campaign funds available for media advertising will be lost and all parties will be on a comparable footing as far as the use of paid broadcasting is concerned.
As hon. members are aware there is a great deal of interest in the question of disclosure of the source of campaign funds. The Barbeau committee in its hearings identified a feeling held by many Canadians that political parties must have something to hide because they do not disclose who are their contributors. I do not suggest that this feeling is justified by the facts surrounding the contributions to any party; however, because this feeling exists it is necessary that we not only reassure the public about political parties but that we do it in such a way that they will be convinced that the assurance is real and solid.
This bill reflects the view that disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions will put the facts surrounding contributions before the public. It will have a salutary effect in reducing the alleged mystery surrounding the financing of political campaigns, and probably for the first time will impress upon the public the fact that usually political parties are broke and between elections have a great deal of difficulty financing their annual activities, and that despite the alleged wealth of political parties each of them has great difficulty and candidates have a great deal of difficulty at election time in raising money to finance their campaign.
It is a myth, of course, of modern politics that money flows into the coffers of political parties without limit and that really it is an abundance of riches with which the parties work at election time. We hope that the system of disclosure recommended in this bill will put a good deal of this misunderstanding to rest and that the public will have a real look at how much money political parties raise each year, how much they raise for elections, how much they spend and what they spend it on. As a government, we have not gone into conclave and decided what system of
May 18, 1972

disclosure would be in the best interests of the Liberal party, for example. On this point we have accepted the recommendations of the Barbeau committee and the special committee of the House of Commons.
In this bill we are proposing that political parties be obliged by law to disclose their sources of funds by category, namely, the corporations, trade unions, private individuals and so on. We are not obliging nor asking that the individual contributor to a political party be identified in the return. In taking this approach we are following that taken by the Barbeau committee and by the special committee.
The Barbeau committee discussed this particular question and hon. members may want to refer to the discussion in which they put forward the pros and cons of disclosure by contributors. They concluded that for a number of reasons it would be in the best interests of the democratic process not to identify particular contributors whose privacy would be violated, who may be subject to harassment from all political parties and whose secrecy of political activity would be jeopardized. For these reasons they did not recommend the identification of the contributor. They accepted the view that an obligation to disclose individual contributions to political parties would probably dry up sources of support from legitimate contributors and would force political parties to rely on what they term illegitimate sources of campaign contributions.
It seems to me that in obliging political parties on an annual basis and after an election to disclose by source their contributions in total dollars, by obliging the chief agent of the party to make a report to the Chief Electoral Officer, by obliging the party to have its accounts audited and confirmed that in the opinion of the auditor the accounts had been kept in accordance with the law, and by obliging the Chief Electoral Officer to make these accounts public we are going a long way in putting a searchlight on the activities of political parties. We are taking a very important step and I hope that members of all parties will realize its implications for the future of all political parties and the operation of their financing.
With regard to candidates, the system of disclosure for candidates under the bill is intended to be the one contained in the present law. In this regard we are simply adopting the Barbeau report and the special committee report of what should be disclosed by candidates. We are requiring candidates to publish returns relating to the names of contributors, whether private individuals or corporations or unregistered groups who have contributed to their campaigns. The names of specific contributors must be set out on the form relating to election expenses.
In addition to the return relating to election expenses, a candidate must within two months following date of the election have his official agent turn over his accounts, receipts and vouchers and his return relating to election expenses to an independent auditor who will check the accounts to determine whether or not they accurately reflect the spending or, alternatively, that there is insufficient information.
The official agent of the candidate must then forward the return relating to election expenses, and the auditor's
Election Expenses Bill
report to the returning officer who in turn submits it to the Chief Electoral Officer who keeps both reports as public records. The returning officer is obliged to publish the return relating to election expenses and the audited report in a local newspaper following the election. The candidate is not entitled to the return of his deposit or the financial assistance, which I will discuss later, until these returns have been submitted.
The concept of the auditor's report was developed by the special committee and it is felt that this will allow an individual citizen to determine quickly and accurately what a particular candidate has spent or whether a particular candidate is in violation of the law. If a candidate does not submit a return and an auditor's report, or if the return is inaccurate or incomplete, then the candidate if elected will not be allowed to take his seat, or if not elected will not be eligible to be a candidate again until the return and the report have been filed.
I have already discussed the system of disclosure by registered political parties but I should give a little more detail because it is a key proposal. Under the bill, parties registered under section 13 of the Canada Elections Act will be required each year, within two months of the end of its fiscal year, to submit an annual return showing the amount of contributions made to it in that year by classes of donors. These classes of donors are individuals, public corporations with share capital, private corporations with share capital, corporations without share capital, trade unions and unincorporated associations other than trade unions.
On the disbursement side, the parties must show amounts of money provided by the party, the value of other assistance given to each provincial and regional organization of the party, the amount of money expended on operating expenses of the party, including the travel costs of the leader of the party, and the total of all other expenditures made by or on behalf of the party. In addition, within six months of each election the registered parties must submit a similar return with respect to contributions and expenditures made by the party during the election.
Both the annual reports and the post-election reports of registered parties must be accompanied by the certificate of an independent auditor similar to the one to be obtained by candidates. This must state that in the auditor's opinion the accounts of the party and the reports accurately reflect the expenditures of the party in the annual period or in the election campaign, whichever is applicable. That is certainly a new step.
I have already discussed the question of disclosure and I have mentioned the reasons which led us to accept the recommendation of both Barbeau and the special committee with respect to the obligation. We fully accept the principle of disclosure with regard to political parties, but it is disclosure by category. For the first time we have applied the doctrine of agency. To ensure that the accounts, vouchers and receipts of the registered political parties accurately reflect all the expenditures and contributions made to political parties, it is necessary to apply the doctrine of agency to political parties.
The system of agency for political parties will be analogous to the one already applicable to candidates. Regis-

May 18, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
tered parties will be required to designate agents with the Chief Electoral Officer forthwith after the coming into force of this bill. Thereafter, all payments on behalf of the party must be made by agents and all contributions made to agents. Each party will be required to designate a chief agent who will be responsible for the filing of the party's annual and post-election reports and obtaining and filing the auditor's statements thereon.
Each agent of the party will be required to render whatever assistance is required to the auditor for the annual and post-election audit. The chief agent will be held responsible for filing the auditor's reports and ensuring their accuracy, and will be guilty of an offence for not doing so. The registered party itself may be prosecuted for failure by its chief agent to discharge these duties. This makes it possible to go after the agent of the party or the political party. The fine proposed for an offence by a registered political party is $25,000. It may seem an inadequate amount, but it seems to me that the sanction here is not solely the fine itself but the embarrassment which any national political party would suffer if it found itself in violation of the provisions of this bill.
I would also point out that the existing provisions governing the duties of the candidate's agent will ensure that no person other than the official agent incurs election expenses on behalf of the candidate. If other persons or groups incur election expenses with the knowledge and consent of the candidate or his official agent, such expenses must be included in the candidate's expenses and will be subject to the candidate's limit.
If such groups incur election expenses without the knowledge and consent of the candidate, they will be guilty of an offence unless they can show that they incurred these expenses in supporting or opposing a candidate for the legitimate purposes of an organization to which they belong and not for the purposes of avoiding the candidate's expenditure limits. We feel that protection for persons who incur election expenses for the legitimate purposes of an organization to which they belong, and not to avoid the limitation of expenditure provisions of the act, is necessary in order to preserve a balance between freedom of speech on the one hand and the necessity to observe spending limits on the other.
In addition to imposing a limit on the amounts which candidates can spend on personal publicity, both the Bar-beau report and the special committee report recommended that a degree of financial equality should be established among candidates and among political parties by the extension of certain services and subsidies to all who qualify and to increase public participation in politics by broadening the base of political contributions through tax concessions to donors. The bill contains several provisions to accomplish these purposes.
Any candidate receiving 20 per cent of the valid votes cast is entitled to a return equivalent to 25 per cent of proven and allowable election expenses defined in the act and certified in the audited report. In addition, the candidate will receive a sum of $250, which is intended to be a contribution toward the cost of obtaining an auditor's report. Candidates in scheduled areas, that is, large north-
(Mr. MacEachen.]
ern ridings, will receive a further federal allowance of one cent per square mile up to a maximum of $3,000 for proven travelling expenses, whichever is less. These amounts are paid by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.
These payments are directed to assisting candidates for parliament to meet the basic requirements of communicating with the public, and since modern election campaigning is heavily dependent on the mass media with their very high costs, it becomes desirable that candidates should receive a degree of assistance in meeting these costs.
In addition to the time alloted to the registered parties on the broadcast media, broadcasters are required to make additional time available to the candidates of each party in the amount of five minutes on television, 20 minutes on radio and 20 minutes on cable television services. In practice, this time is divided among candidates of the parties in the area covered by the outlet. Where a broadcasting outlet covers more than one riding, each candidate would get the amount of time which I have just mentioned. Provision is also made for independent candidates to have access to broadcasting time on an equitable basis.
At the same time, while this is a guarantee to ensure that every candidate in every riding where there is an outlet will have guaranteed minimum access to the media in the way I have stipulated, each candidate is free to purchase media time up to the limits of his own election budget. In other words, though there is a guarantee of minimum time which must be provided, he cannot be denied any amount of time he wishes to purchase up to the ceiling imposed on his election expenses.
There is another important point. Rates for individual and registered parties are fixed at the standard rates charged by broadcasters for normal commercial customers and increased rates during an election campaign are not permitted. We are all familiar with the practice of the media of charging, not the lowest commercial rates but what are described as national rates. In future, under this law the media will have to provide candidates with the lowest commercial rate.


Mr. MacLecm:: Good.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, in essence, describes the provisions of what is a wide-ranging effort to reform and update the electoral process in Canada with respect to election expenses. We accept the principle of disclosure, of greater public knowledge about the financing of political parties. We do not take the approach in the bill that politics is evil, that it is sleazy, that it is something to be hidden. We proceed on the basis that it is a legitimate activity and that it should be given the same status as other activities in the community.
It is for this reason, and in order to broaden the basic contribution to political parties, that we are providing certain tax incentives to contributors to political parties. An individual or a corporation can be eligible annually to a tax credit of up to $500, or one-third of a maximum annual contribution of $1,500. We believe that this tax credit, available to contributors of political parties, should make it possible to broaden the base of support for politi-
May 18, 1972

cal parties while making the practice of contributing to political parties more appealing. It should certainly encourage smaller contributors and reduce dependence among parties upon very large contributors.
We have chosen the tax credit system as opposed to an income tax deduction because we feel it to be a more equitable system and because it does not affect the tax base. Here again, there was a difference of opinion between the Barbeau committee and the special committee. The Barbeau committee recommended a tax credit; the special committee recommended a tax deduction. After considering the arguments for and against, we thought it was in the interest of equality among taxpayers and better for our political system to use the tax credit method.
I believe I have covered all the main items in the bill. Where we have departed from any of the recommendations of either committee I shall be glad, either on winding up the second reading debate or in committee, to go into further detail. But I am sure the principles of the bill, namely, the principle of disclosure, applicable for the first time to registered parties, the placing of a ceiling on election expenses of candidates and of political parties and, finally, the support of political activity through direct grants from the treasury to eligible candidates and through the provision of tax incentives will be widely supported.
I wish to apologize for the time I have taken in introducing this bill but I judged it to be of some interest and did not wish to miss any of the important points. I might add that I am approaching the bill with an open mind, in full knowledge that everyone in the House is an expert on the subject. We, the experts, in the House of Commons will finally determine the shape of this bill based upon what I consider to be the superior knowledge and experience possessed in this field by members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, so impressed am I with the minister's very interesting defence of this bill that I am almost tempted to say "Amen" and sit down. But I will resist that temptation for a while. The minister is indeed a very plausible parliamentary practitioner when he wants to be. I must say I was more impressed by his presentation than by the bill he is presenting. As to the whole question of election expenses, I have long been an advocate-and I imagine most members of this House have been advocates-of introducing a measure of change. There is much that ought to be done; this is a very important aspect of our parliamentary system.
I think some of the general principles that the minister has recapitulated find general acceptance in the House. It is proper and appropriate that we officially recognize the tremendous importance of political parties to our whole parliamentary structure. Sixty years ago Lord Bryce declared that political parties are older than democracy and that no great, free, representative state ever worked without them. He was not able to see that you could work democracy without political parties. And so we must real-
Election Expenses Bill
ize that they are essential to the working of our system. Only too often do we hear the sordid suggestions that surround political parties rather than acknowledge the essential democratic function that underpins them.
I was immensely moved by the minister's invitation not to suggest that there was anything sinister about the timing of the presentation of his bill. I also noted his invitation to suggest why the separation of foreign contributions, which was recommended by the Barbeau committee, had not been included. I should not have thought that at this "grey" stage of parliamentary discussion that that kind of invitation would have been necessary or that such prompting would have been required.
I noted, too, that the minister said it would have been very difficult to get the measure through during all these many, many months, that even had he had it right in his pocket there may have been great difficulty about getting passage. I suppose had he never tried, he would never have known what parliament would do with his measure had he taken it out of his pocket. I have the feeling that it was not in his pocket until very lately, that this measure is a scissors and paste job, and that where Barbeau did not fit the minister used the special committee. Certainly the synchronization of the two does not strike me as the result of a long, careful series of legislative steps; I find a lot of disharmony in the piecing together of what Barbeau suggested and what our very fine special committee suggested. Therefore, I am not going to cast any sinister suggestions but I am just wondering whether there was a burning desire to produce yet another panoply of progressive excellence before a certain event, and to produce it in such a way that nothing really had to be done but produce it.
This is a discussion that has been going on for many years. The subject of election expenses has been a dreary story of sometimes shady dealings and worrisome suspicions. We have had many calls for reform down through the ages. Sir Robert Borden-as he later became-made his first speech in 1896 and spoke of nothing else but the outrageous, rotten practice that had put certain members of the other party into office. He made a very good job of it, too. There were a lot of crooked things done in olden days. For example, there was a certain sheriff who on nominating day did not tell the Conservative candidate where the nominating meeting was to take place, and the poor lad showed up after nominations were closed and there was a Grit acclamation.
I may say that my party was not free from iniquitous practice. We never forgot the Pacific scandal, though over the long course of history we were never seemingly able to become the masters at this sort of thing as another prominent and ancient party did. But it is not for me here today to throw two Beauharnois against one Pacific scandal; suffice it to say that there was room for reform.
But then, again, it should be said that down through the years as Parliaments have tackled this subject we have produced what by comparison with many states, indeed with practically any state, is a very fine parliamentary system. We have an elections act which I think compares very favourably with any I have studied, and I have studied a good many. We have improved the elections act and have in our own time, generally speaking, gained the

May 18, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
confidence that elections that take place in Canada pretty clearly and generally reflect the popular will of the day. We cannot judge the popular will, though at times we might make comments about it. Certainly ever since I have been in this House and long before that we have had at the helm a Chief Electoral Officer who was a man of ability and integrity, a judgment which I am sure is universally held and widely shared.
There are some things about this measure which cause me immediate concern. I agree that there are advances in it, and not for one moment do I suggest that much good has not been produced in this bill. But I am troubled about many matters. In the first place, we do not really yet have anything like a limitation on what parties will be spending. The big, well-heeled party will still have the advantage over the other parties not so affluent, and I do not say that because I do not happen to belong to the most well-heeled party. But let us not pretend that we are putting a ceiling on election expenses when in fact it is something a good deal less substantial than a ceiling. We must note that we are limiting expenses to some aspects only, such as advertising, broadcasting and printing material. We all know there are many other areas than these.
I would not use the word that the minister used: the other expenses are not "static" and they are certainly not insignificant. Heaven knows, they are not lacking in costliness. The disclosure provisions are not such as to create a tremendous advance or to cause any real quaking and shaking. It is not terribly hard to form a corporation, shall I say. There are many ways whereby in its administration and its practical operation this measure will be something less than a gem of perfection.
Another thing that I do not see dealt with here and which concerns me is that if we believe that parties are important-and they are important-we must recognize that parties have to live between elections as well as at election time. I think this consideration should and could have been thought about. The minister mentioned that various new positions would be created and an auditor would be appointed. I presume that the Chief Electoral Officer will pay him too. I hope that this will not be a charge upon the local candidate. I also noted that in the picking out from the Barbeau report and the picking out from the special committee report we lost what I thought was a very good suggestion, that of free mailing. I think that would have been a useful and helpful contribution to the conduct of an election. Surely we should be able to facilitate contact between a candidate and the people he seeks to represent.
I shall not dwell long on the idea of the tax credit or discuss it in contradistinction to the tax exemption; I might get mixed up, as the minister did momentarily this morning on the radio, though he soon corrected himself. I am wondering whether perhaps somewhere along the line we might make it easier for the little man to contribute and help, because I believe parties should be as broadly based as possible, with as many people as possible helping to make that party something in which they have a part and a tangible investment. That is the way you make a broadly based, popular party and I believe that is a very good thing.

When I get to the clause on broadcasting I see more evidences of haste than in any other clause. This is an area which will be filled with problems and which will require many amendments and reconsiderations. In the first place, what genius thought up the notion that prime time for radio is between 6 to 12 p.m.? That, surely, is not the kind of thing that people with this bill in their pockets since 1966 or 1970 should have let go by. That is not prime time for radio at all. In spite of the fact that we have spent millions preparing for satellites, there are still places in this country which depend upon the radio for messages of this kind and of other types. This bill lumps together TV and radio, and a little separation or surgery will be required there. In this whole area we find evidence of haste which would almost lead to sinister suggestions to which, of course, I do not want to give utterance.


An hon. Member:: You are restrained in that regard.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes, I am a very restrained man. As I read over the clauses I am wondering just how they are going to become operative. I am wondering what we are going to do with the broadcaster who has his prime time fully booked, yet the state tells him he must carry this and that. Who decides whether he cuts into Pepsi-Cola or Coca-Cola time? He may have a bit of a problem in deciding which one he should bump. Who copes with the candidate's strategy in preferring to concentrate his small, limited amount of time rather than spread it out? There you have another problem. I notice that proposed section 99(2) is very much in need of guidelines and I think this will have to be discussed in great detail and more explanation will be required. The minister was probably very wise in gliding over this subject pretty quickly.
I come to another problem in this whole area, in respect of what you do with newspapers during the blackout period before election day. We had grown accustomed to having 48 hours during which we had no TV or radio political messages. This time was cut down to 24 hours. We now have this inhibition moved to the written media, the newspapers. We read that any article, editorial, advertisement or announcement of a partisan political character in relation to the election or by-election, as the case may be, is an offence under this act.
Supposing the Leader of the Opposition goes to Toronto the night before an election and addresses a tremendous crowd of enthusiastic people. What do the newspapers of that city do? Do they blot it out altogether or do they send two reporters, one of whom might say that many people thought it was an enthusiastic meeting while the other might say many thought it was not? Perhaps they might say there were a number of people there but they are not able to disclose how many because that might look like something of a "political nature". I suggest you are going to make namby-pambies out of the press lest they be charged with the offence set out in the act.
How are they going to report a political meeting? This is still a legal operation for them which now, under this bill, they may not fulfil. I believe in this connection the bill extends a badly defined prohibition which had existed heretofore for broadcasters only. This extends it to the press, which is a much more difficult media to have
May 18, 1972

involved because I cannot see papers being blanked out altogether.
It is always a difficult thing to choose a good, general objective such as we have but I am inclined to believe that perhaps this bill suffers from a little too much hasty and ill-coordinated particularization. There are some other jurisdictions which have a limit on expenditures but which allow the parties and the candidates to decide whether they shall put "X" number of dollars of effort into radio, into television or into print, but in this bill we have a series of inhibitions which will be extremely difficult to sort out.
Probably we might achieve the objective more easily and more efficiently if we allowed a choice within the framework of expenses. There still is a great deal of diversity in this country and a campaign which would work for the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), for instance, would not be the kind of campaign which would work for an hon. member such as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) whose riding is quite different. So you cannot apply judiciously and wisely a too rigid formula as to how a man or a party makes an appeal to the electorate.
Of course we have the right to say there are certain things one cannot do, and this is said in the elections act. We have the right to suggest that we bring a degree of equity into the measure of assistance. I think that is all to the good. The only danger here, of course, is that we might find that the contribution which comes from the state will become a kind of a floor and that over and above that the same needs and desires to collect and raise funds will still be required. Perhaps if there is any misconception in the mind of the public it may be more difficult to attain them.
If I speak only half as long as the minister it does not mean I am only half as interested, but it is hard for me to get over my habit of laconic brevity even in a matter of this kind. One of the most important things I looked for and did not find was a reference to shortening election campaigns. I think election campaigns in Canada are far too long, and when we have people who have the right- and our system gives one man this right-to decide when a campaign takes place, this prolongs them still further. This adds still more complications to our efforts to shorten election campaigns. I am not the only one who thinks that. At page 48 of the Barbeau report we find this passage:
Modern communications and transportation, in the committee's view, render unnecessary the present length of campaigns. The duration of campaigns now not only imposes a heavy burden on the finances of the parties and candidates, but also on the stamina of the leaders and candidates as well as the electorate.
The committee recognizes that the time necessary to enumerate electors under the present machinery may make it impossible to shorten the period between the issuance of the election writ and pooling day, without the introduction of a permanent list of electors. The committee also recognizes that considerable planning and preparation are required by parties and candidates immediately following the dissolution of parliament, and there is no intent on the part of the committee to suggest a restriction on this type of activity during any prescribed period. The committee suggests, however, that the campaign period need not coincide with the period needed for the establishment of the election machinery.
Election Expenses Bill
The report goes on to suggest that parties and candidates be prohibited from campaigning on radio and television before the 29th day before election day. I would presume to go even further than this illustrious body and accept the minister's invitation to constitute every one of us here as an expert. I think this is a good suggestion which was carried through by the special committee on election expenses. They pretty well recommended the same thing, except they declared it should be 29 days.
The report recommended that parties and candidates be prohibited from campaigning, as distinct from preparation for and holding nomination conventions, advertising for workers, and so on, on radio and television, and from using paid print media including newspapers, periodicals, direct mailing, billboards and posters prior to the twenty-ninth day before polling day.
I think both groups have missed a significant point. Once the writ is issued it will be terribly difficult to deal with the days before you would formally commence your campaign. What would you do? Would you go home and knit, or draw pictures in some private book? I believe if the recommendation of the Barbeau committee or of the special committee were followed we would have two campaigns, a kind of phony war for a month and then the real thing for the next month. Both would be costly. I say, and I have said this before, that the time has come to adopt a permanent voters list. It would cost money, of course, but so does enumeration and so will all this legislation.
The permanent list works quite well in other countries. I think with a permanent voters list we could have an election within a month. With modern technology I believe a month is plenty of time. I am convinced that with the campaign period cut in half we would have not only a better and more sustained campaign, as well as a more highly intensified voters' interest, but we would also be able to cut down expenditures across the board, which is what we are after. This, I think, is a more effective way in which to reduce the cost of campaigns.
I propose to move a reasoned amendment in respect of this measure. Before I present it I wish to reiterate that for the good that is in this bill, we are thankful. We are thankful for the things which are useful, valuable and adaptable. Under reasonable terms and under efficient administration we will lend our support. I regret profoundly that the whole measure has been surrounded with cynicism. I shall not go back into history and into other efforts to reform in this manner, but this particular situation is shocking. This reform began in 1964 when the Barbeau committee was established. The report of that illustrious body was ready in 1966. We had all sorts of appeals to the government in between. What happened? On April 7, 1968, a most auspicious day, the then new Prime Minister was asked this question:
I wonder if you could tell us, coming back to this election expenses matter, whether you intend to do anything about implementing the report of the election expenses committee. It seems to me this is rather fundamental to the just society which you mentioned.
The year 1968 was the year of the just society. This was the Prime Minister's answer:
I agree. Top priority. Next Speech from the Throne.

May 18, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
The verve, the enthusiasm, the high gear of 1968 has sloughed and slumbered. The special committee reported months and months ago. People have been asking when we will have the legislation. The minister never told us it was in his pocket. I do not think it was in his pocket. I think it is impending, cloudy events which has caused them to look for something a little brighter perhaps than that which went before. I am not enamoured of that method. I find inadequacies in the measure and I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) to move the following motion:
That all the words after "that" be left out and the following substituted:
This House, regretting that government delay in introducing Bill C-211 prevents the full operation of a measure dealing with election expenses before January 1, 1973, and that the bill fails to provide for adequate reform, declines to pass a bill which does not take advantage of present day advances in the mass media and transportation which would provide for a shorter election period and thereby, amongst other things, substantially reduce election expenses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) may appreciate that the Chair would have procedural reservations about an amendment of this nature. I have had occasion during the past few weeks, when there has been a proliferation of amendments of this kind, to indicate that to my way of thinking hon. members are really attempting from time to time under the guise of so-called reasoned amendments to bring in substantive motions.
Hon. members know well, or will find out if they study the history of procedure in the Canadian House and in the British House, that reasoned amendments are a very limited type which can be proposed and accepted procedurally. Traditionally, in our British parliamentary system there are really only very few amendments which can be proposed at the second reading stage, essentially an instruction to a committee or a three-month or six-month hoist. The so-called reasoned amendment is intended to give a member an opportunity to place on the record the reason he is opposed to the principle of a bill and why the people on whose behalf he is addressing the House will oppose the bill and vote against it.
I notice we have tended to stray from this principle to the extent that just recently we had a reasoned amendment proposed by a member of the House who later voted in favour of the bill, which is pure heresy so far as procedure is concerned. There is no doubt whatsoever that a reasoned amendment can only be an indication for the record as to why a member or a party intends to vote against the principle of a bill.
I find it difficult to recognize in this proposed amendment the essentials of a so-called reasoned amendment. Mind you, if we look for precedents we will find precious few because in the history of procedure in our House there have been very few reasoned amendments proposed. I suggest that for some strange reason it seems that in recent weeks and months hon. members have been taken with the idea that perhaps a reasoned amendment is a good way in which to propose a substantive motion which very often does not bear too much immediate and essential relevancy to the principle of the bill.

I wonder whether that is a good practice. I fear very much that we could become involved in an entirely new principle or method of amending a motion for the second or third reading of bills. Before accepting this amendment I should like to look at it very closely. But before I do that I will be very pleased to hear arguments which might be submitted for the consideration of the Chair, either in support of the procedural aspect of the amendment or in opposition to it, which I would be glad to take into consideration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Your Honour, I was notified this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that it was proposed to move a reasoned amendment. I indicated to him that probably because of the reasons Your Honour has mentioned-and he was aware of them-there might be some discussion as to the validity of the amendment. He put forward the proposal that we might defer any consideration of the arguments pro and con until he could be in the House tomorrow to deal with the procedural aspects for the opposition. That is quite agreeable to me and, I hope, to other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an excellent suggestion, because I feel that some day we will have to look at this idea of reasoned amendments and among ourselves agree whether it is the type of situation into which we want to get. I have serious doubts about whether we should allow the House to drift procedurally to the position where any amendment can be moved on second reading; I think this would be very regrettable from a procedural standpoint.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that discussion on the validity of the amendment is deferred until tomorrow because hon. members have been using up my time for the last five minutes. I begin by paying tribute to the special committee of the House which worked for over a year on this matter because, first, I thought it worked extremely well, extremely hard and with a great deal of harmony and, second, because I was a member of that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well put.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell), did a good job in guiding our deliberations. We had a great many discussions, and even arguments, but never with any ill-feeling. We tried to come up with a report that would be unanimous but unanimous in the sense that it would be a consensus and that each of us, if and when we received the legislation, could stand up and speak on specific points in the report with which we might have disagreed in our committee deliberations. Now, Mr. Speaker, after all the talk of politicians of all parties for so many years we finally have legislation to limit and control election expenses. This bill is welcome if for no other reason than that we are starting to do something about this situation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made many statements, one of which the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) quoted, and there are a number of
May 18, 1972

others on the record about his anxiety to place controls and limitations on election expenses. Since last June 4, when the report of the Special Committee was tabled, on several occasions I have asked both the government House leader and the Prime Minister when we would have this legislation.
It seems to me that if it was the government's intention, as is now apparent in the bill, to accept most if not all of the recommendations of the Barbeau committee and the special committee, the drafting of the legislation could have been done much sooner. It also seems to me that the arguments of the government House leader about the lack of time, pressure of business and the heavy legislative schedule do not hold water since we had time for seven weeks of recess at Christmas, two weeks at Easter and a long summer recess last year. Somewhere in those three periods surely at least two weeks could have been available to deal with this legislation.
I would have some worries and doubts about how much the government means it if an election were called tomorrow, next week or the week after that before this legislation is passed. If that happens, my worries and doubts will have been proven valid. We will then know that the intention of the government was not to have legislation passed before the next general election but to have a bill that its candidates could wave in the air during the campaign. In that event it would be the basest kind of political cynicism and political perversion. I hope I am wrong; I hope with all my heart that it is the government's intention to have this legislation passed.
If by chance no election is called until November, December, or January or February of next year, then there is no good reason why this legislation could not be in effect for the next general election, even though there is a provision in the Canada Elections Act that six months must elapse. I point out that there is an exception, that where the Chief Electoral Officer advertises to the effect in the Canada Gazette that he is ready to go ahead, then the provisions of this bill can be implemented in a period sooner than six months. I suspect that he would probably need at least four or five months to implement this kind of legislation.
My first remark about the bill itself are that we will support it in principle. I was pleased to hear the governe-ment House leader say that he has an open mind on this matter and that he would be willing to listen to and possibly implement worthy suggestions put forward by members in all parties. I was pleased to hear him say that because I want to point out to the House a large hole in this legislation, one mentioned also by the hon. member for Hillsborough. There is no provision in the bill to put any limitation on party spending. Mr. Speaker, that in effect nullifies the whole purpose of legislation to limit and control election expenses. If my memory serves me correctly, this is one item on which members of the special committee were unanimous, and in its report the committee said:
The Barbeau committee did not recommend any general limitations on expenditures by parties. However, your committee considers that imposing limitations on candidate's expenditures would not be as effective if limitations were not also imposed on parties' expenditures. Therefore, the committee considers that its
Election Expenses Bill
proposal to limit candidates' expenditures is closely related to its proposal to limit parties' expenditures.
Not limiting party expenditures not only nullifies the purpose and principle of legislation to control election expenses but it causes me to have worries and doubts about whether the government really means it when it talks about controlling and limiting expenses. I still have a fear that the old-line parties cannot bring themselves to part with their corporate bagmen, or at least reduce the amount that those bagmen need to get, because with no limit on party spending the bagmen can operate at full-steam as before.
We had a great deal of harmonious discussion on this matter, members of all parties expressed their concern about it and the committee recommended a limit of 30 cents per elector in the aggregate of the electoral districts in which each party ran candidates. If a party ran a full slate of 264 candidates, a limitation of 30 cents per elector in all of Canada, with some 14 million electors according to the June, 1971, census, would mean that each party would have a limit of $4,200,000 it could spend. Surely that should be enough. In the committee I argued that 30 cents was too high and spoke in favour of 20 cents; other hon. members wanted 35 cents or 40 cents. We ended up with a compromise and recommended 30 cents.
Even $4,200,000 would probably cut the Liberals down by $2J million or $3 million, and the Tories perhaps by a million or a million and a half. At least it would put the limit on, because without that limit the party can spend money in any and all constituencies in the country without mentioning a candidate's name, for the aid and comfort of the party. I hope the minister and the government will agree to an amendment when this bill reaches committee to insert the recommendation of the special committee to limit party expenditures to 30 cents per elector, which can be a maximum of $4,200,000. I may catch heck from some of my colleagues for this. I think that is really too much, but at least it is a limit. With rising costs it may well be that two or three elections from now it will not be too much, but surely at this time it should be enough.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we limit candidates. The recommendations of the committee were adopted word for word in this bill and I am grateful to the minister and the government for that. I am sure all members of the committee will feel complimented that the government accepted the entire recommendations on the limitation in respect of candidates. I have a feeling that the minister's figures on how much the limits would be were slightly out for some of the ridings he cited. I do not think he was using the latest figures; I think they were 5,000 or 10,000 low for each riding, though I may be mistaken. For 60,000 electors the limit for the candidate would be $28,750, for 80,000 electors the limit would be $33,750 and for a riding with 100,000 electors it would be $38,750.
Mr. Speaker, when the committee met I felt this was too generous and I said so, but others wanted higher limits. One or two members of the committee agreed with lower limits but we ended up with these. It may well be that two or three elections from now, with rising costs, those limits also will not be too high. It is a kind of political chicanery

May 18, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
if we limit candidates but do not limit parties. Parties can spend more on many things in provinces, regions and constituencies. Money can be spread around and cannot be proven to have been spent on behalf of any one candidate. What saddens me is that in traditional fashion the Liberal government can take a good principle, bring in legislation incorporating that principle and then proceed to pervert it with the provisions in the legislation.
Another item I should like to talk about is reimbursement. At least this provision is in the bill. Since 1933 my party has been advocating controls on levels of election expenses and reimbursement from the national wealth for election costs. What the government proposes is of most benefit to the well-heeled candidate; the poor candidate benefits least. A candidate is eligible for reimbursement if he receives 20 per cent of the valid votes cast. The committee recommended this, but I felt that 20 per cent of the valid votes cast was too harsh; I held out for 10 per cent and then for 121 per cent, and got to 15 per cent but was unable to persuade my colleagues on the committee. So 20 per cent of the valid votes cast was agreed upon.
Mr. Speaker, I contended then and I do now that any candidate who receives 10 per cent, 12 per cent or 15 per cent of the vote is not a nuisance candidate and should be entitled to some reimbursement. I regret that the government did not accept the committee's recommendation for the formula of reimbursement and I hope that it will when the bill gets to committee. The formula proposed by the government is intrinsically unfair, I think. The bill's formula proposes reimbursement in the aggregate of one-quarter of the candidate's election expenses and in the schedule III ridings, travel expenses plus $250. The committee recommended reimbursement for one first-class mailing per elector, which is eight cents per elector, three cents per elector for printing costs, five cents per elector for other campaign expenses for the first 25,000 electors, and three cents per elector for all over 25,000 electors.
Let us take my own constituency of Regina-Lake Centre as an example. As of June last year there were 63,036 electors 18 years of age and over. I might also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a terrific, wonderful riding, with wonderful people-it also has 373 more women than men. Candidates in my constituency will be limited to spending $29,500. Under the government's formula for reimbursement they will be eligible for $7,625 if they spend the maximum and if they receive 20 per cent of the valid votes cast.
Under the committee's formula, Mr. Speaker, the qualifying candidate who received 20 per cent or more of the vote would be eligible for reimbursement of $8,070, about $400 more, provided the reimbursement did not exceed the total amount that the candidate actually spent. Therefore, a candidate without financial resources who received 20 per cent of the vote and who was only able to spend $5,000 would be eligible for a $5,000 reimbursement and still might lose his deposit of $200.
Surely this is fair play, Mr. Speaker; it equalizes the fight between candidates who have little or no financial resources and those who have all the resources they need. I submit that this is also a cheaper way of doing it, for the voters will pay through the national treasury less than they will pay through the corporate contributions given to

the old parties in this country. It would help to provide more freedom and equality in our electoral processes.
The third item I wish to mention is disclosure. I said that my party has advocated this since its founding in 1933. On the basis of political contributions honestly given, there is nothing to hide. My party has always prided itself-maybe sometimes we have sounded somewhat obnoxious and pure about it, but we think it is justifiable pride-that since 1933 we have printed annually the financial statements of our national party, the provincial sections of the party and provincial constituency associations of the party right across Canada. We have not made public the names of individual contributors unless they do it themselves. I hope no one will think that makes us sound hypocritical because we have always advocated full disclosure. However, we have always felt that it would be unfair to disclose the names of our contributors when there is no requirement on the other parties to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, the committee recommended a modified disclosure. I personally accepted the recommendation of the committee, though again I may get heck from some of my colleagues for that. There is one other thing that should be in the modified disclosure. Where reports are sent to the Minister of National Revenue for those contributions which would be eligible as tax deductions, and to the Chief Electoral Officer where the two reports do not jibe and where there is an obvious and blatant evasion of the elections act, the names of the contributors to that particular candidate, that particular party and that particular constituency would have to be made public. That in itself would serve as a deterrent of sufficient degree to cause any party or any candidate to be extra careful and ensure that there is not any hanky-panky with income tax receipts. There would be no juggling of books as between what was reported to the Chief Electoral Officer and what was reported to the Minister of National Revenue.
The committee recommended that contributions from foreign corporations, unions and foreign citizens be prohibited. We made that recommendation because we felt it was consistent because the elections act provides now that no non-resident corporation or individual may participate in a federal election campaign. I hope the minister will agree to an amendment in the area of contributions from foreign corporations, unions and citizens so that they will not be permitted and not be eligible for tax deductions. These should not be allowed in any case.
I submit that where violations occur when the Minister of National Revenue and the Chief Electoral Officer are comparing the two sets of reports, under the law the Minister of National Revenue should be allowed to disclose the names of contributors. The glare of publicity and shame that would fall upon that candidate and his party would be sufficient for then and ever after to prevent violations of the law as it pertains to election expenses and living up to our election legislation.
We are generally pleased with the provisions for broadcasting. This is another way of limiting the costs of election. There is one area where the paste-pot missed. In this, I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough. While
May 18, 1972

there are limits for parties, there do not appear to be limits for candidates. Since there is no limit on the parties with regard to the funds they can raise, and there is no limit on the candidates as to how much television, radio and newspaper advertising they can buy, what is to prevent the party siphoning money into riding after riding for candidates to spend up to the limits which they are allowed on advertising? The bill is inconsistent in this respect.
Some provision has to be incorporated in the bill limiting the candidates as well as the parties in the broadcasting field. On the one hand we do not limit parties and limit the candidates when it comes to funds and on the other we limit the parties but do not limit the candidates when it comes to broadcasting. I hope the government House leader will agree that these inconsistencies need to be ironed out in committee.
With regard to shortening the election campaign, I submit that what the special committee really had in mind, if I may say this so to the hon. member for Hillsborough, was that 56 to 59 days campaign time is not too short. It is barely sufficient time for the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare and for party organizations to prepare for and conduct their campaigns. If you are really going to campaign among the people, call on them, and if our election is to be something more than radio, television and newspaper advertising, you require six to seven weeks. This is necessary if you are to meet thousands of electors.
The committee felt, and I feel, that the public is not demanding a shortening of campaigns, a shortening of the time between the writs being issued and the election date but a shortening of the time in which they are bombarded with television, radio and newspaper advertising ad nauseam until they are so fed up they pay no attention to the political issues. We urge that the length of time during which broadcasting may be carried out should be limited to the last four weeks of the campaign. This is why we said 29 days. If you knock off the day of prohibition, there are 28 days in which broadcasting and advertising can be permitted. A shortening of the campaign for broadcasting time is feasible and it is what the majority of the public want.
We were disregarded when we suggested offering tax credits for income tax payers. I find this strange, when Mr. Carter proposed tax credits instead of exemptions and when tax credits were advocated in this House for individual citizens instead of exemptions, that the government said it cannot be done. However, the government finds it is something different when it comes to tax credits for corporations in other areas. How we have tax credits for political contributions. All of a sudden, it can be done.
I suspect that whether you allow political contributions as deductions from net income for income tax purposes or whether you allow a tax credit, in terms of dollars to the national treasury and in terms of savings to taxpayers it is six of one and half a dozen of another. May I illustrate my point by saying the committee recommended that a citizen be allowed to deduct from net income up to $1,000 a year for a contribution to a party, and in an election year an additional $1,000 a year contribution to a candidate. In an election year he could deduct $2,000 from his net income. If your tax rate is 25 per cent, you save $500 on income
Election Expenses Bill
tax. The bill proposes allowing a $500 tax credit as a maximum. In dollars and cents, it does not make very much difference. However, it is encouraging in a sense that maybe this kind of move to tax credits will speed up the day when we have tax credits in our income tax law for the individual taxpayer, instead of exemptions.
I submit there are three areas that are most urgent and require scrutiny. First, the area of disclosure. If the government cannot and will not agree to full disclosure of all political contributors, I hope it will at least agree to a furthering of the modified disclosure provisions in the bill. Where there is a violation of the election law, the names of contributors to that candidate, that party in that constituency would be made public.
The second area is that of reimbursement. I hope the minister will agree to drop the government's formula and include in the bill the formula recommended by the committee. I submit it is much more fair. It does not discriminate against the candidate who has limited or no financial resources. It provides for a more equal and fair reimbursement for all candidates provided they qualify under provision concerning 20 per cent of the votes cast. I hope the minister will consider lowering that 20 per cent floor to at least 15 per cent. In fact, I hope he will agree that any candidate who gets 10, 12 or 15 per cent of the popular vote is not a nuisance candidate and should be entitled to reimbursement.
Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, I say to the government House leader it is a "must" that we incorporate an additional clause in the bill to provide for a limitation on parties the same as is provided for candidates. Unless we have a limitation on parties' expenditures, the whole intent, purpose and most of the principle of the legislation is nullified or set aside. We are asking for abuse. In future elections, politics and politicians will be brought into even more disrepute by the citizens of this country.
May I call it ten o'clock Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) if, in the new era of prime ministerial largesse, reconsideration was being given to the construction of the Northumberland causeway. This, of course, is a project on which the government repudiated its commitments. But it was in light of great promises of billion dollar corridors to the north that I asked if the much less costly Northumberland causeway, so long promised, would now be built, or completed since $20 million has already been spent on it.

May 18, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I was interested in the minister's reply. He almost let the cat out of the bag when he said:
-the people of that island province are appreciating and enjoying what has replaced that project, namely, considerable federal assistance under the department of my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
He was referring, of course, to the development plan which many islanders regard as the alternative to the promised causeway. The minister skilfully avoided confirming this view embodied in my supplementary question. Apart from the fact that under the development plan, Prince Edward Island has reached new highs both in unemployment and cost of living, the bartering of one for the other was not a good trade even in the beginning. The development plan requires that the province, the weaker, smaller, poorer partner, shall provide over two-thirds of the cost. That was not, in my view, particularly shrewd bargaining on the part of the province.
But it is not just because the Dominion government is obligated to provide 100 per cent of the cost of a causeway that I recall the potential value which it possesses. Along with many colleagues from Prince Edward Island and elsewhere, I have down through the years set out the advantages in economics and transportation which would flow from the construction of a permanent land link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. With the rapidly increasing number of tourists to Prince Edward Island there can be little doubt that existing ferry facilities at Borden and Tormentine are destined to become inadequate.
One of the ships on the run, the sturdy icebreaker Abequest, is at the quarter century mark. I was surprised to learn that no definite plans are under way for the addition of new ships to the service. I do not wish to see us fall behind in meeting transportation needs on this route. The only adequate answer, of course, is the provision of a permanent link. Modern technology can construct it, the needs of the day require it, and if the government has the requisite foresight it will repudiate its own repudiation and begin to get on with the job of providing it.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short answer for the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). A meeting was held in the first week of May at which a Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick delegation made representations concerning the Northumberland Strait crossing. Senior federal government officials met with the provincial delegates to listen to a proposal which was presented at that time. However, due to a number of points in the proposal which were not clear the delegation was asked to review its position with a view to having a further meeting in the near future.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-TRANSFER FROM REGINA TO WINNIPEG OF AUDIT SERVICES BUREAU-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

['Mr. Speaker, .the hon. member has quite correctly stated that according to the census the number of farmers has declined by 15 per cent. However, he neglected to mention that the land area devoted to agriculture has remained essentially constant. It should also be noted that the annual decline in the number of farms has been about the same for the past 30 years, so this is something that has not just developed.\nI am not sure that this general trend can be stopped, although as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) previously mentioned the significant increase in farm income will no doubt have some effect in this regard. The government anticipated this trend some time ago and recognized that as this adjustment and change was occurring there were some hardships being placed upon the people involved, the hard working rural people who have been the backbone of this country since its beginning.\nTo help overcome some of these problems, this government introduced its small farm development policy and has placed a great deal of emphasis on it. This is the policy which does some of the things the hon. member suggests we should be doing. It is a program designed to make it easier for these individuals who want to stay in agriculture and expand or adjust their operations by providing special credit facilities, and make it easier for those who decide to retire from agriculture or try their hand at another occupation by providing, among other things, grants in addition to the resale value of their property. Officials of the Department of Agriculture are working diligently with their provincial colleagues to arrive at the necessary federal-provincial agreement which will make it possible to put this program into effect.\nAs the hon. member may be aware, more emphasis is now being placed on the marketing aspect of agriculture which, it is anticipated, will improve the income position of farmers and thus encourage those contemplating leaving agriculture solely on the basis of income, to stay. The age of our farmers has a lot to do with the number of farms disposed of each year and the government is meeting this problem head-on by changes in the Farm Credit Act currently being considered in committee which would, among other things, make it possible for 18-year olds to obtain loans. Time does not permit me to go into the many other programs designed by the government to assist the family farm.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.', 'Friday, May 19, 1972']
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on May 10 I
asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) the following question:
In view of the minister's expressed interest in the dispersal of government facilities geographically, would he undertake to review the decision of his department to close the audit services bureau in Regina and transfer it to Winnipeg?
Unfortunately, the minister did not have the opportunity to reply to my question because Mr. Speaker ruled it could not be considered at that time. I am glad to see the minister in his seat and look forward to hearing welcome news affecting Regina when he speaks. As I understand the situation, Mr. Speaker, on June 4 the audit services Bureau of the Department of Supply and Services in Regina is to be closed and the employees are to be transferred to Winnipeg. From then on the services provided through that office are to be provided from the Winnipeg office.
Actually, many of the services now provided by the Regina office will be provided by the employees concerned who will travel from Winnipeg to Regina. They will incur expenses and there will be much dislocation. They will conduct their audit work and then proceed back to Winnipeg. I fail to see how the government can save money from such a move. In addition it is possible, I understand, for some employees now connected with that office who are not in professional categories to encounter certain problems as a result of the dislocation which will take place.
I want to take note of the minister's expressed interest in the dispersal of government facilities throughout Canada. I commend him for his interest and know he has taken a particular interest in seeing that some facilities are moved to Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Stratford Burton: Since the minister comes from Winnipeg, I cannot blame him for his action. I can even understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), both of whom are present, also take an interest in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Stratford Burton: I know the minister has succeeded in making sure that the expansion of the Canadian Mint will take place in Winnipeg. I commend him for his interest on behalf of his home community in that regard. Yet I ask the minister, is there any need to pick on Regina? Regina is a little smaller than Winnipeg. It is a better city than Winnipeg, although a little smaller. A small number of federal employees are to be found in the city. I think the minister might have some consideration for the needs of Regina and also consider the economics of the situation.

May 18, 1972

I hope that when the minister rises to speak we shall hear welcome news from him, that his department has reconsidered its decision in this regard and has decided, wisely, to leave the audit services bureau, as well as other facilities, in Regina.


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) that one thing I am certainly not doing is picking on Regina in any decision that is being made in the reorganization of our audit services. I can say to him that following the question he raised in the House a few days ago during the question period, I undertook a review of the changes in the structure of our audit services. As a result, I am now able to respond in some detail concerning the matter in which he is interested.
First of all, I can say there has been no decision taken to close our audit services bureau in Regina as was, I believe, indicated in the hon. member's question. It is the policy of the department to maintain professional audit representation in every provincial capital and that, of course, includes Regina. It is true that more than a year ago we made a decision to strengthen the audit services bureau in the regional offices, that is, in Edmonton and in Winnipeg. Regina has been an area office, not a regional one. This decision was taken on the recommendation of the director-general of the audit services bureau. The main purpose was, and is, to increase the professional quality and efficiency of our audit operations.
My review of this matter indicates that these changes have been undertaken with a minimum of disruption to the personnel involved. I am advised that one employee from Regina has moved to Edmonton, that two employees who wished to remain in Regina have been assisted in making suitable transfers to other federal government departments in Regina, and that one employee has been transferred to Winnipeg.
I can say, further, that this policy of strengthening the audit services bureau in the regional offices in the west is consistent with the policy we have followed in the Mari-times where our audit services bureau is now centred in Halifax. I think the hon. member will realize from the review which I have described that the personnel involved in this reorganization have been very few in number. I hope he will also recognize that these changes have been made in order to strengthen and improve our audit services in western Canada.



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question in many ways is similar to that of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). The hon. member claimed that the government was picking on Regina and I claim that the government is picking on the small farmer. On May 2 I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as follows:
In view of the startling revelation in the census that the number of farms in Canada dropped by 15 per cent between 1966 and 1971-a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
very serious situation-can the minister say whether he is now contemplating any new programs that will stop that trend or hopefully reverse it in certain areas?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the very significant upturn in incomes of farmers between 1970 and 1971 will, I think, have a profound effect on this.
I felt that that was an inadequate answer and this is why I want to pursue the matter for a few moments tonight. First of all, the real net increase of farmers in Canada has not gone up very much in the last year, contrary to what the minister claims. I believe the increase has been about 10 per cent in terms of real net income, still lower than it was five to six years ago, despite the fact that costs of production have gone up drastically.
I also point out that over the last ten years farmers have gone into debt. The year 1970 was one of the worst years on record, almost as bad as some of the years in the thirties, when it comes to the question of farm income. In the province of Saskatchewan, for example, the average net realized income of a grain farmer was about $1,000 a year, way below the poverty line. The Minister of Agriculture's statement that there has been an increase over 1970 is really not worth a crop of beans.
To prove my point, all we need do is look at farm debt. The Farm Credit Corporation bill was debated in this House a few days ago. We find that a very high percentage of loans made by the FCC are now in arrears. Farmers in my constituency have taken out cash advances and are experiencing difficulty paying them back. Many farmers in my riding are at the point of bankruptcy or in financial difficulty, and they see no way out.
The second thing I am concerned about is that while we watch this trend continuing so rapidly we are seeing a whole segment of Canadian society being destroyed before our eyes. Each and every year small farmers are being forced off the land and this in turn causes the population of villages, towns and small cities to dwindle. In the last five years in Saskatchewan only one town out of dozens had an increase in population, the town of Moosomin, but this is located along the Trans-Canada highway and benefits from the tourist trade. Other towns suffered a decline in population-indeed, some of the small cities as well-and this solely because of the severe recession in the agricultural industry.
Let me refer to a few statistics which I think illustrate the serious problem that is confronting rural Canada. Between 1966 and 1971 the number of farms in Canada declined by 15 per cent, from roughly 430,500 to 366,000. These are the census figures as at May 1 of this year. In the province of Saskatchewan the number of farms decreased from 85,686 to 76,970, a drop of 10.2 per cent. In Manitoba the number went down by 12 per cent, in Alberta by 9.7 per cent, in the province of Quebec by 23.7 per cent, in Nova Scotia by 37.6 per cent, in New Brunswick by 37 per cent.
I suggest the number of farmers being forced off the land gives cause for serious concern and is something to which we shall have to turn our attention if we are to save, preserve and stimulate the rural areas of Canada which I suggest are a very important and vital part of our way of life, socially, economically and culturally. Many things
2418

May 18, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
can be done to bring this about. First of all, we could put much more federal money into agriculture and support the prices of farm commodities. We could take a similar step to the measures taken by the Saskatchewan government and establish a land bank whereby the government would purchase land from older farmers who wished to sell, in turn leasing or selling the land to younger people who want to start farming or to small farmers who need another half section or quarter section in order to have a viable farm unit. This is something one province is trying to do by itself, and with co-operation from Ottawa it could go much further.
All farm organizations were very disappointed at the budget brought down in this House a few days ago, because it handed out concessions to the manufacturing companies but had nothing for the farmers. In my view the farmers are the prime producers in this country and are among the best consumers we have. If we put more money into agriculture it would stimulate the entire economy. This matter concerns me because in my constituency I have hundreds and hundreds of small farmers, many with their backs up against the wall, totally disillusioned with this government and its policies. It is these people who are demanding explanations, and it is the children of these people about whom I am concerned because they are being forced off the land and into circumstances of poverty.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, .the hon. member has quite correctly stated that according to the census the number of farmers has declined by 15 per cent. However, he neglected to mention that the land area devoted to agriculture has remained essentially constant. It should also be noted that the annual decline in the number of farms has been about the same for the past 30 years, so this is something that has not just developed.
I am not sure that this general trend can be stopped, although as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) previously mentioned the significant increase in farm income will no doubt have some effect in this regard. The government anticipated this trend some time ago and recognized that as this adjustment and change was occurring there were some hardships being placed upon the people involved, the hard working rural people who have been the backbone of this country since its beginning.
To help overcome some of these problems, this government introduced its small farm development policy and has placed a great deal of emphasis on it. This is the policy which does some of the things the hon. member suggests we should be doing. It is a program designed to make it easier for these individuals who want to stay in agriculture and expand or adjust their operations by providing special credit facilities, and make it easier for those who decide to retire from agriculture or try their hand at another occupation by providing, among other things, grants in addition to the resale value of their property. Officials of the Department of Agriculture are working diligently with their provincial colleagues to arrive at the necessary federal-provincial agreement which will make it possible to put this program into effect.
As the hon. member may be aware, more emphasis is now being placed on the marketing aspect of agriculture which, it is anticipated, will improve the income position of farmers and thus encourage those contemplating leaving agriculture solely on the basis of income, to stay. The age of our farmers has a lot to do with the number of farms disposed of each year and the government is meeting this problem head-on by changes in the Farm Credit Act currently being considered in committee which would, among other things, make it possible for 18-year olds to obtain loans. Time does not permit me to go into the many other programs designed by the government to assist the family farm.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, May 19, 1972